Religious Zeal (Rom 10:2) and Exegetical Fallacies: Part VII of VII in the Elohim Series

Logical Fallacies and Exegetical Interpretations

Since I began this series on the elohim of the Hebrew Bible interacting with Drew Grumbles, and since he clearly spent a lot of time developing his posts, I thought it might make a decent conclusion to interact with the totality of his blogs which have now draw to an end. In doing this, I want to make it clear that I respect Drew as a pastor, though I do not know him. I believe if he were to think about it, our beliefs align in more places than nearly all people on earth compared to us and perhaps that might have given him more pause to write as he did. Finally, I wish him nothing but the best in his ministry and life.

In his now concluded series “Even the Demons,” Dr. Drew Grumbles defends a strict view of biblical monotheism, arguing that elohim (and its Greek equivalent theos) refers solely to the uncreated God, Yahweh, with other uses being phenomenological, rhetorical, or analogical (e.g., human judges, idols, or mockery). He critiques my friend Jon Moffitt’s work, such as Reading with Spiritual Eyes, and the broader “Fringe” within evangelical scholarship, which by extension includes my own arguments in posts like Elohim Unveiled, for affirming that created elohim—angels and demons—exist in a divine council framework under Yahweh’s sovereignty.

Grumbles suggests this view risks polytheism, misunderstanding our explicitly monotheistic position. To engage Grumbles fairly, I begin by acknowledging his strengths before critiquing his exegetical missteps. Using D.A. Carson’s Exegetical Fallacies (Chapters 3 and 4) as a guide, supplemented by broader logical fallacies from sources like the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, I identify logical, presuppositional, and historical fallacies in each of Grumbles’ 12 posts. Each fallacy is listed only in its first occurrence, with parenthetical notes indicating recurrences and a brief phrase specifying their focus. For posts lacking new fallacies, a short paragraph summarizes repeated errors to show that every post contains interpretive flaws. While Grumbles’ intent to protect monotheism is commendable, his fundamental unargued presupposition—that elohim must always mean the uncreated God—leads to problematic exegesis and theological overreach, making his series a cautionary and even dangerous tale of how Christians should be much more careful of throwing theological stones at brothers in Christ.

Grumbles’ Affirmations: Where We Agree

Before critiquing Grumbles’ series, I commend several of his strengths. In posts like Part 1 and Part 3a, he affirms the reality of angels and demons as created, finite spiritual beings who operate under God’s providence, engaging in roles like spiritual warfare (Ephesians 6:12) and deception behind idolatry (1 Corinthians 10:20). He acknowledges the divine council as a biblical motif, citing texts like Job 1:6 and 1 Kings 22:19–23 to describe an assembly of angels before Yahweh. This in itself is going beyond many of his peers. His commitment to the Second London Baptist Confession (2.1) and its emphasis on one living and true God aligns with my own Reformed convictions. Grumbles’ pastoral concern to guard against polytheism or syncretism, evident in Part 7b, is also laudable, reflecting a desire to uphold Yahweh’s unique divinity. These shared commitments make his series a serious contribution, even if I find its conclusions deeply flawed and even dangerous.

Part 1: Even the Demons, Part 1

In Part 1, Grumbles cites James 2:19 (“Even the demons believe—and shudder!”) to argue that demons affirm strict monotheism, setting up his defense against the “other gods” view.

• False Disjunction (Carson, Ch. 3, #1): Grumbles suggests it’s either elohim as Yahweh alone or polytheism, ignoring the biblical view that created elohim exist under Yahweh’s rule, as seen in Psalm 82:1 and many other passages (this fallacy is repeated in Part 3b: human judges in Psalm 82; Part 6b: rhetorical “God of gods”; Part 7b: theological confusion risks; Part 8.1: concluding polemic against divine council).

• Reading Personal Theology into the Text (Carson, Ch. 4, #1): Grumbles assumes elohim in James 2:19 refers only to the uncreated God, without linguistic analysis, overlooking that demons’ belief in “one God” could affirm Yahweh’s supremacy amid other elohim (e.g., Deuteronomy 32:17), as I argue in Elohim Unveiled (fallacy repeated in Part 2: “no other gods” texts; Part 3a: human judges in Psalm 82; Part 3b: divine council dismissal; Part 4a: “so-called gods” in 1 Corinthians 8; Part 4b: rhetorical gods in 1 Corinthians 8; Part 5a: demons as “no gods”; Part 6a: superlative “God of gods”; Part 6b: ANE context dismissal; Part 7a: metaphorical “god of this world”; Part 7b: confessional monotheism; Part 8.1: concluding elohim exclusivity). Note: These two fallacies are at the heart of Grumbles’ argument and to the very end they never go unchallenged. He never once proves his definition of elohim, he simply assumes it while these two fallacies cloak the presuppositions.

• Appeal to Selective Evidence (Carson, Ch. 3, #3): He relies on James 2:19 and the Second London Baptist Confession (2.1) to establish monotheism (a theology that has never been denied), ignoring texts like Psalm 89:5–7 that suggest a broader elohim usage (fallacy repeated in Part 2: “no other gods” texts; Part 3a: Psalm 82 as human judges; Part 4a: 1 Corinthians 8:4–6; Part 4b: rhetorical gods in 1 Corinthians 8; Part 5a: Deuteronomy 32:17; Part 6a: “God of gods”; Part 8.1: recap of monotheistic texts).

• Failure to Recognize Distinctions (Carson, Ch. 3, #2): Grumbles assumes that because Theos (and hence elohim) refers to Yahweh in James 2:19, all uses must be identical, ignoring its semantic range (e.g., angels in Psalm 8:5, demons in Deuteronomy 32:17), as explained in Elohim Unveiled (fallacy repeated in Part 2: equating all “other gods” to idols; Part 3a: equating Psalm 82’s gods to human judges; Part 4a: equating 1 Corinthians 8’s gods to non-entities; Part 5a: equating demons to “no gods”; Part 7a: equating Satan’s “god” title to metaphor).

• Unwarranted Associative Jumps (Carson, Ch. 3, #11): The phrase “even the demons” leads Grumbles to associate all elohim references with Yahweh or false gods (by which he also infers and never proves “false” must mean “do not exist” as opposed to something like “treacherous” or “evil,” without textual support, ignoring the divine council context in Gods vs. God (fallacy repeated in Part 3a: associating Psalm 82’s gods with human judges; Part 4a: associating “so-called gods” with non-existence; Part 5a: associating demons with non-gods; Part 7a: associating “god of this world” with metaphor).

  
  

Part 2: Even the Demons, Part 2

In Part 2, Grumbles examines Old Testament texts (e.g., Deuteronomy 4:35, Isaiah 45:5) to argue that “no other gods” exist, claiming elohim acherim are non-existent idols or human constructs.

• Negative Inference (Carson, Ch. 3, #5): From “no god besides me” (Isaiah 45:5), Grumbles infers no other elohim exist in any sense. Carson’s well-known fallacy warns this does not follow, as the text stresses Yahweh’s uniqueness, not the non-existence of beings like angels (Psalm 8:5). Stoicheia vs. Elohim shows demons as elohim (Deuteronomy 32:17) don’t rival Yahweh (fallacy repeated in Part 4a: “so-called gods” in 1 Corinthians 8; Part 5a: demons as “no gods”; Part 7a: Satan as metaphorical “god”).

• Ignoring the Bible’s Storyline (Carson, Ch. 4, #2): By denying real elohim, Grumbles flattens the cosmic narrative of Yahweh’s triumph over spiritual powers (e.g., Exodus 12:12, judgment on Egypt’s gods), as emphasized in Moffitt’s The Return of the Unseen War (fallacy repeated in Part 3b: Psalm 82’s divine council; Part 4b: 1 Corinthians 8’s cosmic context; Part 5a: Deuteronomy 32:17’s warfare theme; Part 6b: “God of gods” narrative; Part 7a: 2 Corinthians 4:4’s spiritual conflict).

• Working Outside the Bible’s Givens (Carson, Ch. 4, #3): Grumbles imposes a modern rationalist view that monotheism excludes real elohim, contrary to the Bible’s supernatural framework (e.g., Psalm 97:7, “worship him, all you gods”), as noted in Gods vs. God (fallacy repeated in Part 3a: Psalm 82’s human judges; Part 3b: rejecting divine council; Part 4a: 1 Corinthians 8’s non-existent gods; Part 4b: rhetorical gods in 1 Corinthians 8; Part 5a: demons as non-gods; Part 7a: metaphorical “god of this world”).

  
  

Part 3a: Even the Demons, Part 3a

In Part 3a, Grumbles argues that the “gods” (elohim) in Psalm 82 are human judges, not divine beings, citing John 10:34–35 and Reformed interpretations. Besides being unaware that the Rabbis of the Second Century AD were responsible for literally changing the text and the universal known interpretation prior to them here, Grumbles commits a couple more fallacies.

• Unwarranted Generalization (Carson, Ch. 3, #10): Grumbles generalizes from John 10:34–35 that all elohim uses for non-Yahweh beings are human or analogical, despite Psalm 82:7 (“you shall die like men”) implying fallen spiritual beings who are not human. Gods vs. God shows elohim’s broader semantic range (fallacy repeated in Part 4b: 1 Corinthians 8’s rhetorical gods; Part 6a: superlative “God of gods”).

• Appeal to Selective Historical Authority (Carson, Ch. 3, #18): He cites Calvin’s human judges view but ignores Reformed figures like Thomas Goodwin, who saw angels as elohim (Moffitt’s Thomas Goodwin), selectively building a historical case (fallacy repeated in Part 4b: Calvin on 1 Corinthians 8; Part 6b: Bavinck on “God of gods”; Part 7b: Turretin on monotheism).

  
  

Part 3b: Even the Demons, Part 3b

In Part 3b, Grumbles reinforces the human judges interpretation of Psalm 82, dismissing divine council readings as speculative.

• Cavalier Dismissal (Carson, Ch. 3, #14): Even though apparently believing in a heavenly divine council, Grumbles nevertheless rejects a divine council interpretations as “speculative” without engaging their textual basis (e.g., Psalm 82:1, 89:5–7), this in spite of the ESV literally translating it as a “divine council.” Elohim Clarified provides exegetical grounds for spiritual beings (fallacy repeated in Part 4b: 1 Corinthians 8 as unbiblical; Part 6a: “God of gods” as speculative; Part 6b: ANE parallels dismissal; Part 7a: 2 Corinthians 4:4 as overliteral; Part 8.1: divine council as unbiblical).

• Uncontrolled Historical Reconstruction (Carson, Ch. 4, #1): Grumbles assumes Psalm 82 reflects a human judicial context, speculating without evidence that it can’t involve spiritual beings, despite ANE parallels in Gods vs. God (fallacy repeated in Part 6b: ANE context for “God of gods”).

• Straw Man Fallacy (Not in Carson; broader logical fallacy): Grumbles misunderstands divine council views as implying polytheistic equals to Yahweh, ignoring the emphasis on subordinate created elohim in Triunotheism (fallacy repeated in Part 4b: opponents’ “other gods” as full polytheism; Part 5a: demonic elohim as rival deities; Part 6a: “God of gods” as henotheism; Part 7b: “other gods” view as heretical drift; Part 8.1: concluding attack on divine council as polytheistic).

  
  

Part 4a: Even the Demons, Part 4a

In Part 4a, Grumbles examines 1 Corinthians 8:4–6, arguing that “so-called gods” (legomenoi theoi) are non-existent, reinforcing his monotheism.

• Fallacies of Question-Framing (Carson, Ch. 3, #7): Grumbles assumes “other gods” must be divine rivals, not created beings, misunderstanding the divine council position as polytheistic, as countered in Moffitt’s So-Called Gods.

• Equivocal Argumentation (Carson, Ch. 3, #15): Grumbles’ claim that “so-called gods” are non-existent fails to engage the possibility that legomenoi theoi refers to real but subordinate beings (1 Corinthians 10:20), leaving his argument ambiguous, as shown in Moffitt’s So-Called Gods (fallacy repeated in Part 4b: rhetorical gods in 1 Corinthians 8; Part 5a: demons as non-gods; Part 7a: metaphorical “god of this world”).

  
  

Part 4b: Even the Demons, Part 4b

In Part 4b, Grumbles extends his 1 Corinthians 8 analysis, arguing that “gods and lords” are rhetorical, not real entities, and cites Calvin.

• (Grumbles repeats earlier fallacies: Reading Personal Theology into the Text, assuming theos means only Yahweh in 1 Corinthians 8; Appeal to Selective Evidence, ignoring 1 Corinthians 10:20’s demonic theoi; Failure to Recognize Distinctions, equating all gods to non-entities; Unwarranted Associative Jumps, linking “gods” to non-existence; Working Outside the Bible’s Givens, imposing rationalist monotheism; Straw Man Fallacy, portraying opponents as polytheists; Unwarranted Generalization, generalizing 1 Corinthians 8 to all theoi uses; Appeal to Selective Historical Authority, citing Calvin; Ignoring the Bible’s Storyline, flattening cosmic conflict; Cavalier Dismissal, rejecting divine council readings; Equivocal Argumentation, ambiguously denying real gods.)

• Ad Hominem Fallacy (Not in Carson; broader logical fallacy): Grumbles implies the divine council view stems from “Enlightenment-flattened theology” bias, questioning opponents’ motives rather than their exegesis, as addressed in Elohim Clarified (fallacy repeated in Part 6b: ANE scholarship as speculative; Part 7b: “other gods” advocates as tradition-bound; Part 8.1: critics as risking idolatry).

  
  

Part 5a: Even the Demons, Part 5a

In Part 5a, Grumbles addresses Deuteronomy 32:17 and 1 Corinthians 10:20, arguing that demons are “no gods” and not truly elohim.

• Argument from Ignorance (Not in Carson; broader logical fallacy): Grumbles assumes demons aren’t elohim because Scripture doesn’t explicitly affirm them as such, despite Deuteronomy 32:17 equating them with “other gods,” as argued in Do the Gods Exist?

  
  

Part 6a: Even the Demons, Part 6a

In Part 6a, Grumbles explores “God of gods” (Deuteronomy 10:17, Psalm 136:2), arguing it’s a superlative phrase, not evidence of real gods.

• Circular Reasoning (Not in Carson; broader logical fallacy per Wikipedia and LogicalFallacies.org): Grumbles assumes “God of gods” is rhetorical because only Yahweh is God, using his conclusion to interpret the phrase, ignoring Psalm 95:3’s implication of real elohim, as noted in Gods vs. God. While I’ve made it perfectly clear that God (capitalized) refers only to the one uncreated being God, it is also equally clear that god (lower-case) refers to entities that are truly called by this title (name, Yahweh is God’s name).

  
  

Part 6b: Even the Demons, Part 6b

In Part 6b, Grumbles continues on “God of gods,” reinforcing its rhetorical nature and citing historical theologians like Bavinck.

• (Grumbles repeats earlier fallacies: Reading Personal Theology into the Text, assuming elohim in “God of gods” excludes created beings; Appeal to Selective Evidence, ignoring Psalm 97:7’s real gods; Failure to Recognize Distinctions, equating all “gods” to rhetoric; Unwarranted Associative Jumps, linking “God of gods” to non-ontology; Working Outside the Bible’s Givens, imposing rationalist monotheism; Straw Man Fallacy, portraying divine council as henotheism; Unwarranted Generalization, generalizing “God of gods” to all elohim uses; Appeal to Selective Historical Authority, citing Bavinck; Ignoring the Bible’s Storyline, flattening Yahweh’s triumph; Cavalier Dismissal, dismissing ANE parallels; Uncontrolled Historical Reconstruction, assuming human context; Ad Hominem Fallacy, attacking ANE scholarship.)

  
  

Part 7a: Even the Demons, Part 7a

In Part 7a, Grumbles examines 2 Corinthians 4:4 (Satan as “god of this world”), arguing it’s a metaphorical title, not a real theos.

• (Grumbles repeats earlier fallacies: Reading Personal Theology into the Text, assuming theos in 2 Corinthians 4:4 is metaphorical; Appeal to Selective Evidence, ignoring 1 Corinthians 10:20’s demonic theoi; Failure to Recognize Distinctions, equating Satan’s “god” title to metaphor; Unwarranted Associative Jumps, linking “god of this world” to non-ontology; Working Outside the Bible’s Givens, imposing rationalist monotheism; Negative Inference, inferring Satan isn’t a real theos; Ignoring the Bible’s Storyline, flattening spiritual conflict; Cavalier Dismissal, rejecting literal readings; Equivocal Argumentation, ambiguously denying Satan’s theos status.)

  
  

Part 7b: Even the Demons, Part 7b

In Part 7b, Grumbles warns that the “other gods” view risks theological confusion, citing the Confession and historical theology.

• Purely Emotive Appeals (Carson, Ch. 3, #9): Grumbles’ warnings about “theological confusion” rely on fear of heresy rather than refuting the Trinitarian framework in Triunotheism.

• Slippery Slope Fallacy (Not in Carson; broader logical fallacy): Grumbles claims affirming created elohim leads to polytheism and idolatry, without evidence, as countered in Triunotheism.

  
  

Part 8.1: Even the Demons, Part 8.1

In Part 8.1, Grumbles concludes, reiterating that only Yahweh is elohim, and other uses are rhetorical or human, urging fidelity to monotheism.

• Hasty Generalization (Not in Carson; broader logical fallacy): Grumbles broadly concludes all elohim references are non-ontological based on select texts, ignoring broader data like Psalm 82:1, as shown in Elohim Clarified.

  
  

Conclusion

I respect Dr. Grumbles’ earnest desire to defend monotheism and his engagement with Scripture, but his “Even the Demons” series falls and “can’t get up,” due to significant numbers of exegetical fallacies, as drawn from Carson’s framework and broader logical errors. His circular presupposition—that elohim must mean the uncreated God—drives false disjunctions, selective evidence, negative inferences, and eisegesis stemming from his theological lens, and I hope not deliberate bias. By misunderstanding Jon Moffitt’s work, such as Reading with Spiritual Eyes, and the broader Fringe, which includes my arguments in places like Triunotheism, as polytheistic, he misses our Trinitarian monotheism and the Bible’s rich cosmic narrative of Yahweh’s triumph over created spiritual powers (e.g., Psalm 97:7, Colossians 2:15). His selective historical appeals (e.g., Calvin, Turretin) and dismissal of counterevidence (e.g., Goodwin, Justin Martyr) weaken his case significantly. His tendency to overemphasize God’s oneness, neglecting Trinitarian texts like John 1:1, risks an imbalanced theology, missing the richness of the Trinity’s threeness, which I seek to uphold as equally ultimate to God’s oneness, rather than ontologically or logically subordinate to it. This series, while well-intentioned, represents a missed opportunity for constructive dialogue, underscoring the need for careful, text-driven interpretation that embraces Scripture’s full witness even while taking the totality of the church’s collective thoughts on these matters seriously (and yes, Christians throughout the ages have disagreed on this; this is no novelty being introduced here).

Quite honestly, it is time for Christians in general, and the Reformed in particular, to take seriously look in the mirror by internalizing again Jesus’ and the whole Scripture’s warning to love your neighbor as yourself and think of your neighbor (let alone your enemy) exactly as you would have him think of you. There is far too much division being created in the body of Christ over things that are only perceived due to lack of charity and clarity. The Bible gives us laws—not suggestions—for how to go about dealing with disagreements, including contacting people first, in private, before making accusations or insinuations in public. We can all be guilty of such things, myself included. But we need to be taking God’s law and moral code as seriously as we take the doctrine of God proper, so that we might not engage in not only unneeded, but positively scandalous and dangerous gossip, slander, and damaging of other’s reputations. So let my final entry in this short series be a clarion call to take such things seriously again in our day, especially when we have a true enemy out there that is not flesh and blood, but which does in fact seek to destroy our unity as Christians, even as it seeks to destroy our very souls and those of whom we are all trying to reach. Douglas Van Dorn

Sept 19, 2025