BLOGSPOTTING – Wayne Grudem Edition

Well, Dr Grudem seems to have created quite a stir – most of it can be found in my comment section, but in appreciation for all those who have been linking, I figured I would rustle up a good old-fashioned blogspotting post. Just my way of saying “thank you,” and giving a shout out to some of these poeple . . . The interview returns soon – just thought I would give a bit more of a pause for people to finish digesting last week’s installments. (OK, truth be told, I want this to run most of the week as I don’t have much more to say myself before the Christmas break!)

Meanwhile in other blogspotting news . . .

  • Rick in more on spiritual gifts likes my choice of resources on the charismatic issue.
  • Whilst Peter Smythe does not like The Seven-fold Test of Tichonius,
  • Drew wishes himself a Happy 1st Birthday, and thanks those who have sent traffic his way,
  • And Eddie recommends my blog, but says that I deal with more “traditional church settings” and oddly (to me at least) includes newfrontiers in that category!


Suzanne has expressed disappointment that Wayne doesn’t intend to continue the debate here in the comments section of my blog. I thought that I would share a few reasons why I think it is a good idea for Dr. Grudem to move on to other matters.

1. He is a man who is incredibly busy, with lots of demands on his time.

2. Many people are interacting with the summary of his arguments, whereas, in fact, his entire 856-page book, Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, is online at There you can find, for example, much more detail about his view of Junia and 1 Corinthians 14 (the passage Gordon Fee claims should not be part of the Bible).

3. Even though these things are interesting, the doctrines of the role of women do not hinge around our view of Junia, nor our view of 1 Corinthians 14. Taking Junia, for example, even if we are not persuaded by Grudem (and I – at least at the moment – am persuaded) that Junia need not be male and that the construction should mean t
hat he/she is well known to the Apostles, there are a number of explanations that would allow consistencey with the rest of Scripture:

(a) The word here simply means messenger, as it has sometimes elsewhere.

(b) The word was loosely used of them as a husband and wife team like Priscilla and Aquila, and that Andronicus was the actual apostle with authority – if apostle means someone sent out as a messenger, it might have been not unreasonable to describe the two of them as apostles fully knowing only one had the authority as they traveled together.

(c) That they were well known as false apostles, and that Paul was not approving of their status as apostles, but rather reporting something that is an embarrassment to him given their relationship to him and asking the Romans to be kind to them anyway.

(d) That whatever else the word apostle meant here, it did NOT mean teaching or having authority over men.

Thus, in some ways this is a ridiculous argument as nothing stands or falls by this one verse. It is the height of folly to use obscure verses to attempt to neutralise other clear ones.

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!