Jesus and the Father

Jesus and the Father

Last August I wrote in this blog that one of the books I am reading is Jesus and the Father, by Kevin Giles. In that posting I said that Giles “hints” that those with the opposite position are heretics. Please allow me to amend that statement; Giles flatly says that theologians who hold to subordinationism are heretics of the Arian variety, specifically Grudem and Geisler. As I read the book I found that my opinion on Giles' topic, anti-subordinationism, was unformed. As I finished reading Giles' book, I found that my opinion was formed more by his bad arguments than by evidence in the text. As I did my own research on the topic, I became more and more firmly convinced of my opinion.

Without writing an entire review of the book right now, I will later, let me simply say that Giles has violated almost every rule for debate, from circular arguments and begging the question, to his bad exegesis of Scripture, and his use of anachronistic definitions while demanding his “debating opponents” stick with the historic definitions of the early creeds. Giles interprets the Scripture, not from Scripture, but from the Ant-Nicene Fathers and the Creeds, and the Filoque. In all of this he fails to differentiate between `omoousius and `omoiousius in dealing with the essence of the members of the Trinity. He also wants to denigrate the use of kefale, as meaning “head” in any meaningful way.

Giles appears to be arguing more against the recent phenomenal arguement about women’s place in the Christian home and church than for the doctrine of the Trinity. The two are at least seriously conflated in the book.

Just because recognizing and respecting (fearing?) Divinity is a pet peeve of mine, ... Giles often fails to capitalize words referencing persons of the Divine Trinity, but he deigns to designate the Trinity as “triad” more than once!
GRRR.