Michael Terran

I thought it was over but evil never dies fast enough anyway this guy Gerald e-mails me against after I kicked the dust off! This is what he send me.

Michael,

Your zeal is to be commended, but your lack of information on this issue is troubling, as well as the way in which you call into question the salvation of those who don’t agree with your particular brand of trinitarianism.

You quote Grudem as if his argument is self-evidently wrong. You then draw non sequitur conclusions from his statements that he himself would never draw. Not particularly convincing. Your failure to see a distinction between economy and ontology is your primary problem.

The other place where you need more work is in your understanding of the Christological/Trinitarian controversies of the early church. The Arian controversy was about ontological inequality/equality—was the Son con-substantial with the father? Was he homoousios (same substance) with the Father, or was he a created being and thus only homoiousios (similar substance) with the Father? The Nicene Creed was a rejection of ontological inequality between Father and Son. It was not a rejection of economic diversity within the Godhead. In fact, both the Western and Eastern sides of the Church affirmed the eternal generation of both the Son and the Spirit from the Father and referred to the Father as the “font” or “source” of divinity (Augustine, the Cappodocians, Athanasius, Origen, Tertullian, et al.). This demonstrates they viewed the Son and the Spirit as occupying some form of a subordinate position in relation to the Father. Yet they did not then draw the illogical conclusion (as do you) that therefore the Son and the Spirit must no longer be con-substantial with the Father.

And now I too would probably do best to keep my feet clean.

Blessings,

Gerald