Frank

Cheryl, in the last paragraph of Comment 5, I incorrectly referred to authenteo as a “hapex legomena”; that needs to be corrected to “hapax legomenon.” I tried notifying you by regular e-mail of this needed correction, but for some reason it didn’t go through.

And as regards the exchange between you and Stickler about Grudem’s blind agenda vs. his corrupt deliberation, I will say this. The problem with Grudem’s viewpoint and arguments are the very same we encountered in dealing with Chris, alias “Neopatriarch,” in our earlier discussion with him on 1 Tim. 2:11-15. It was the problem of a viewpoint, based on false or invalid presuppositions, argued consistently to its logical conclusion, while at the same time refusing to honestly confront and deal with the objections raised to both the presuppositions and the arguments flowing from them. As you will recall, one of the things I made clear to Chris was that while his arguments or syllogisms were formally correct, because they were based on a false or invalid premise, they and the conclusion they led to were also false.

All arguments, viewpoints, worldviews, philosophies of life consist of four elements: 1) Presuppositions or axioms; 2) Logic or rational analysis; 3) Facts, or the data of experience; and 4) Conclusions–the results of rationally analyzing and interpreting the data of experience. Presuppositions control everything in the system; like rules in a game of chess, they determine what the possible moves are. And logic is limited completely by the presuppositions it works under; if the presuppositions are false, the more honest and consistent you are in arguing for your viewpoint, the farther and faster you will depart from God’s viewpoint in Scripture.

That is why I have been, and continue to be, so vehemently opposed to the Neo-Arianism propagated by Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware. For as Athanasius proved so long ago in opposing Arius, if you deny the Son of God possesses all that God the Father possesses as Deity, except his Fatherhood; and then make him a secondary God subservient to the Father, not only are you guilty of idolatry, but of necessity, you reduce the Son from being our only Lord and Savior to a Being who shows us how to merit acceptance with God.

And so we have to constantly challenge the presuppositions underlying Grudem’s six questions as to whether they are biblically warranted; constantly challenge how well his arguments actually conform to the data of Scripture and unites this data in a rationally consistent and coherent way; and how practically, harmoniously, and fruitfully his viewpoint enables us, men and women, to live together the Spirit-filled life we are to live as the Body of Christ; trusting that the Holy Spirit will take the truth of God’s Word like a hammer and break down and reduce to rubble all strongholds and fortresses people raise against the truth of the Gospel of Christ. This is in part what Jude meant by our contending “for the faith that the Lord has once for all entrusted to us, his people” (Jude 3, TNIV).

Sorry, I didn’t mean to preach a little sermon. But I think you know me well enough that I am deadly serious about contending for the Gospel Faith, whole and undefiled. I wish all Christians were.