teknomom

As you know, the complementarian view requires an eternally subordinated Son. So from the start they are out to prove a prior assertion, instead of putting what scripture actually says first. If the Son is not eternally subordinated then they can’t claim that two beings can be equal while one of them is eternally in a lesser position. In other words, they must separate eternal subordination (“role”) from equality of being (“essence”) in order to say that women’s inferior “role” is not in violation of their being equal in “essence”.

This is essentially Rebecca Groothuis’ argument, that there cannot be equality of being with inequality of function unless the subordination is both temporary and voluntary. So the complementarian agenda is to make this logical fallacy into a scriptural teaching, or their whole platform collapses.