“1. You’re doing Reformed systematics a major disservice by such a vulgar generalization of our understanding of trinitarianism.”
>>>I need more than your opinion to be convinced that I have made a misrepresentation. I have spent many years making sure I don’t do that.
“There are many positions in Reformed theology on these doctrines; many subtle shades of nuance (for us Presuppositionalists, we immediately think of Gordon Clark’s hell-raising over Van Til’s trinitarianism – and that’s only a small example in a sea of squabbling).”
>>>I followed that Clark-Van Til debate closely and Clark’s complaints led me to a position that rejects both Van Til’s errors and Clark’s failure to escape those same errors.
“So, when you use language like *the* “doctrine of the Trinity”, it comes across as naive (at best). At worst, you’re critiquing a vile caricature.”
>>>I thought I made very clear just in the above comment:
“One of the points of my post was to show that there is no monolithic definition of “The Trinity”. There are different understandings of it of which the Triune version is the worst, being a cover job for Sabellianism.”
You are not even reading what is before you.
“2. Since a Reformed doctrine of the Trinity is fairly complex, how might a Reformed fella respond to your
accusations? Well, traditionally, Reformed dogmaticians draw a distinction between the “ontological” Trinity (God’s actual nature) and the “economic” trinity.”
>>>Oh if you only knew what a mistake that just was. I believe that distinction which is why, if we are allowed to continue this conversation at any length you will quickly abandon it. Filioque theology is at the heart of your position and it fundamentally denies that distinction. The whole basis of Filioque is that the sending of the Spirit from the Son in the economia is ontologically on the same level as the procession of the Spirit from the Father eternally. You run into the same problem with eternal generation that the Reformed Churches have been denying for a while now.
“And given a Reformed view of the “economic” trinity (where the Son is subservient to the Father, and the Spirit proceeded from both … wink, wink, nod, nod), I don’t see how this doctrine fundamentally supports egalitarianism at all.”
>>>Is the subordination of role something necessary or arbitrary? Is it ontologically grounded or is it a mere convention?
“3. I once attended a very small Scottish Covenanting Presbyterian church near D.C. They had a missionary over. This man had traveled the Bulgarian wilds for years and had many stories to tell. But, he highlighted the failure of the Eastern rite catholic churches to fend off the ideals of Marxism. An interesting observation given your brief statement of the trinity here.”
>>>Are you suggesting that my criticism may be correct?
“You’re worried about egalitarianism; you might better be worried about tyranny.”
>>> Doesn’t one flow out of the other? Isa 3:12.
“4. I’m no egalitarian, but I don’t see how we can fiddle with the doctrine of the Trinity and maintain a rationally coherent metaphysical scheme.”
>>>I am not suggesting that we deny that there are three divine persons, homoousios. I am suggesting that homoousios is not a numeric qualification
and that the phrase, “the one God” does not refer to divine nature but to the personal property of the Father that he is auto-theos. The only time the NT uses the word “Theos” and attaches a numeric value to it, it is referring to the Father; never to the son or spirit. And the fact remains, the One God is never said to be a divine nature. The Scripture does describe ******the Father****** as the one person who is, “tou monou Theos” (John 5:44 “How can you believe, when you receive [fn]glory from one another and you do not seek the [fn]glory that is from the one and only God?), “ton monon alethinon theon” (John 17:3 “This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.) and “eis theos” (1Cor 8:6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him; Eph 4:6 one God and Father of all ).
“If you disagree, as a good Van Tillian I would have to deconstruct your view via transcendental argumentation – the view of the Trinity you presented would lead to logical difficulties and perhaps, if true, would render this conversation impossible (as you’d be stuck in the ego-centric predicament).”
>>>You may bite off more than you could chew. Van Til gloried in the logical paradoxes of the Trinity.
“5. The Reformed doctrine of the Trinity (to speak generally) may be right or wrong, quite a part from Drake’s feelings towards egalitarianism. In other words: if it turns out that Scripture teaches an egalitarian God head, then we, as Christians, are obligated to accept, submit, and obey.”
>>>Then what you would be admitting to is nothing short of Communism because what you also get in an egalitarian Godhead is a communion of property.
“So, Drake, the case you’ve offered here is irrelevant.”
>>>Being an anti-egalitarian website, I can find no arguments with more relevance.
“Due to the authoritative nature of Scripture, your attempted “reductio” only works if you prove that what’s being taught is wrong.”
“And finally, 6 – do we really have to use such a sad occasion (the closing of S/W/B) to have a slug fest?”
>>>Might as well go out with a bang!