Mark

Frank,
You make this claim:
2. The insistence that kephale in 1 Cor 11:3 must mean “authority over” and not “source” so as to weigh an argument in one’s favor against his opponent’s is not something new. For it was used by the Arians to argue that since the man was in “authority over” the woman, because he was superior in being and function; therefore, since the Father was in “authority over” the Son, he was superior and the Son was inferior. And of course, Athanasius, Gregory the Theologian, Cyril , and others argued against this heretical understanding of the Father-Son and man-woman relationships. A destable heresy, I might add, that Wayne Grudem promotes in order to have a theological ground for the permanent subordination of women, while gutting the heart of the Gospel in the process. And so Dave, I have a far lower opinion of Prof. Grudem than you do for this very reason.

A few points need to be mentioned as I fell you are equally guilty of half truths.
1. I am not arguing that man is superior in being or function. I am saying we are equal in being (essence) and have different functions. I am not saying a mans role is more superior than the womens. Obviously you haven’t read me properly.
2. The Athanasian- Arian debates were indeed over the subordination of the son in both function AND essence. This is not what Grudem is saying as far as I have seen, so you are wrong in linking the two. Grudem and Piper do use the term subordination but only in relation to function NOT ESSENCE which was what the Arian heresy was. Therefore you are being misleading by claiming that Grudem is a heretic holding to a condemned heresy. This clearly shows me your poor understanding of either topic.
3. I would also like to dispute that the Arain heresy stemed primarily from the roles of men and women- where do you see the evidence for this claim? It was clearly over the issue of the divine essence in the son(or lack of in their opinion). You are misrepresenting history to further your view and thus leading others on this blog to false conclusions.
4. What the great theologians of the past showed us as true orthodoxy was one God, in three distinct persons, all equally divine, although all uniquely their own ‘homoousios’- person/function. I think I translated that into English properly, forgive me if I didn’t.