Phil is having a good amount of trouble over a couple of negative statements made by egalitarians regarding subordination in the trinity.

He writes, “I’m baffled when I read egalitarians who think that functional hierarchy presupposes disunity or the prospect of it.”

He sees three possible explanations:

  1. These men genuinely cannot comprehend how functional hierarchy can exist without sin.
  2. These men have intentionally used fallacious argumentation to defeat their opponents.
  3. These men have unintentionally conflated unrelated ideas in their zeal to disprove what they consider erroneous.

I think I might have an explanation for the origins of this words. Its just a guess, but hey, I’m trying.

Its related to Genesis. Many (though I’m sure not all) egalitarians do not accept the arguments for hierarchy existing before the fall. Rather they consider hierarchy as being a result from the fall. If this is true of Gilbert Bilezikian & Kevin Giles, then the connect between the Fall and hierarchy might be the catalyst that threw them over the edge.

Again, just a guess.