Updating the Grudem Interview and Discussion

Since I previously posted on the interview that Adrian Warnock is conducting with Wayne Grudem, I thought it would be a good idea to update. There are two more entries of interest:

• Part Four – Ethical Trajectories, Feminism, and Homosexuality
  I’m afraid the argument here that stands out is that feminism, and the arguments used by evangelical feminists to support it will lead to an acceptance of homosexuality. I guess that settles it!
• Wayne Grudem replies to Suzanne McCarthy
  This deals with some trivia in the issue of Junia in Romans 16:7. The reason I refer to these issues as trivia is that the broad evidence on Romans 16:7 is so strongly in favor of taking the name as feminine that a search of this type can only, in my view, be the result of an absolute determination to read the name as masculine. [Update: Hmm. That was not well said, but I’ll leave it as is and correct it since it was posted here for a couple of hours. Two points — 1) my comment implies that the arguments in question had to do with reading the name Junia as masculine, which is incorrect. These specific points have to do with whether Junia should be known as one of the apostles or whether the apostles (not including her) knew her. 2) Dan Wallace, as always summarizes his evidence well. I believe in this case he is grasping at straws, and is not following his own usual preference for more probable readings. His justification for taking an improbable reading is, in my view, inadequte.] Of course, you can tell that I accept Suzanne’s view on the passage in general.
• [Update 12/10/06-I don’t want to add another post on this topic right now.] On the Better Bibles Blog Suzanne has summarized her response, and I think her response and summary of her position is excellent. It also ties in well with my response to Grudem’s criticism of Gordon Fee. There seems to be an odd tendency here to make snide remarks about others, and then to be horrified at snide or snarky comments about one’s own work. Personally I prefer a fairly forceful style. In the view of the presence of certain comments on qualifications in this discussion, I’d note that my earlier comments on Fee’s expertise in textual issues are extremely relevant. I don’t expect one to accept Fee’s argument based on his expertise. In fact, I decry such behavior. But if one is going to have a battle of expertise, Fee has the edge here on textual matters.

I may link to further entries in this interview, but I must confess I find it hard to give much credit to the “slippery slope” form of argument.