TL

“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.”

It is my understanding that you are saying that men are superior in functions because they are men. This detracts from equal in essence although I do understand your thinking that as humans men and women are equal. But when you assign superior ‘roles and functions’ to one half of humanity by reason of their sex, then you erase some of the equality of being equally human.

The superiority of functions is clear in the functions you deny women. Leadership, positional authority, and teaching authority are denied women in your distribution of ‘functions’. Thus in your system of thought, men retain the privileges of ministering in the more important and life influencing aspects. It is because they are denied others, when others are just as capable, that tags them as reserved for those your system considers better equipped, and adds the elements of superior and inferior. The problem is that basic logic shows that one cannot be superior and preferred because of one’s sex (part of essence) and be considered equal to the one who is not only not preferred but not allowed because of their sex (essence). He is more than equal, he is the privileged and it is his sex, his essence that grants him this superior privilege. This is where Grudem’s and your claim to equal in essence breaks down.

”I have written a small paper to show where i get my opinions from i.e evidence. Not sure though if it is too big to post simply as a comment. I’m not totally up on this blog stuff.”

I would love to see it, but likely not as a comment here. Why not post it on your blog and give us the link.