Neopatriarch’s once again claims to refute the Greek grammar and Cheryl Schatz’s view of 1 Timothy 2:11-15
Complementarian Arguments – Has the Greek Grammar been refuted?
According to those who have been followed a trail left by our old friend Neopatriarch (who many of you may recall was the young complementarian who used to post challenges on this blog until he left in exasperation when his arguments didn’t make the grade), he has apparently been presently himself recently on several discussion boards as the one who has refuted my exegesis of 1 Timothy 2:11-15. How interesting that he has been refuted time and time again and is still claiming victory. Also how interesting that he has picked me as the one who has the exegesis that has to be refuted. Well, I am quite flattered by all of his attention, and even though he is undoubtedly a very intelligent young man, his attempts to refute my sound argument have only called attention to my argument. I guess I should say thanks.
Let’s have a look at Neopatriarch’s latest edition of his “refutation” of my exegesis. Neopatriarch’s latest revision says:
Since the presumptive evidence favors our initial conclusion that any man and any woman are meant in verse 12 and verses 13-14 function as reasons in Paul’s argument, the most natural reading takes Adam and Eve as representatives of any man and any woman.
Neopatriarch has made it “presumptive evidence” now, but in his previous edition he called it plain old “presumption”. Here is his wording from his fall 2009 edition:
Since presumption favors our initial conclusion that any man and any woman are meant in verse 12 and verses 13-14 function as reasons in Paul’s argument, the most natural reading takes Adam and Eve as representatives of any man and any woman.
So what used to be “presumption” has now taken on a new life and has been transformed into the “presumptive evidence” category yet he has nothing new to add. Sadly for Neopatriarch, he has no new evidence and his presumptions are still the same old presumptions. Also sadly for Neopatriarch, he has so far refused to address my answer to his “refutation” and so his imaginery presumptions have come no closer to refuting my exegesis then he attained during his first and second try during 2009. To see my refutation of Neopatriarch’s position and his second attempt to refute me see my post here.
5 thoughts on “Neopatriarch’s once again claims to refute the Greek grammar and Cheryl Schatz’s view of 1 Timothy 2:11-15”
“presumptive evidence” – sounds oxymoronic to me.
Hey Cheryl – when you get a chance, I would love for you to take a look at my 6 part series on 1 Timothy 2:11-15 which closes out my broader “Show Stoppers” series.
Cheryl,
Does Chris, er “NeoPatriarch,” mean literally “Evidence based on presumptions”? Or did he perhaps mean to say, “Evidence based on our presuppositions”? Either way, for someone who claims to be Reformed in his theology and apologetics, Chris reveals his ignorance of Cornelius Van Til, a Reformed apologist. Van Til once wrote that our presuppositions are like the settings on a skill-saw. If the settings are wrong, no matter how hard you try, you’ll never cut a straight piece of lumber. Likewise, if our underlying presuppositions are incorrect or false, we’ll never cut our way through a straight interpretation of Scripture, theology, whatever. We’ll always have a crooked and useless interpretation.
Frank,
Very sound thoughts! I just would like to know when presuppositions becomes “evidence”. It is a lack of using language in a proper manner. I would recommend to Neopatriarch if he is still reading my blog (which I am sure he is) that he rewrite his article again and remove the unfortunate wording. And then I hope he tries again. The more he looks at the inspired grammar and the inspired words, God is able to take the inspired text and correct a brother in Christ. At least he is trying. Many may remember that I gave him a good try award the last time he rewrote his article.
In 1981, I became a Christian, but I never found a church that accepted women as equals to men. With the help of God, I wrote my web-site; http://www.freewebs.com/johnaclark . I learned that God did not set women up as servants of man. Now, to-day, there is as many web-site that teach that women are not equal to men in the church as there is that teach that women are men equals in the church. Christ said; ‘Do for others as you would have others do for you.’ With this statement, how can a man call a women less than himself? Christ statement was in only thing I knew about equal-rights in the church and with it I wrote my web-site.
–John A. Clark