This is a belated reply to a post by Ryan. For now I’m going to focus on two paragraphs:
But in the past few months, I’ve come to accept a position on the Trinity that appears to be highly controversial in Reformed circles. Insofar as I would be more inclined to agree that my position is more in line with the early church than with the classic Reformers, this isn’t so surprising. It’s the fact that the position to which I hold has been seemingly singled out by Reformed Protestants who are themselves in disagreement that is a little more surprising.In any case, by this point I have heard enough insinuations and accusations from Sean to be immunized against superficial comparisons with Jehovah’s Witnesses, Unitarians, and semi-Arians. I believe my position is within the bounds of Trinitarianism as established in the [pre]Nicene Fathers, an assertion I have so far defended here and here.
i) If Drake, Ryan, et al. were simply reaffirming the version of Nicene Triadology ensconced in the Westminster Standards, that would not be controversial, much less highly controversial.
ii) There’s also the question of whether their position really lines up with the ante-Nicene church fathers. How much of this is filtered through the jaundiced lens of Samuel Clarke?
iii) Then there’s the additional question of the extent to which Ryan’s position coincides with Drake’s. Only Ryan can say.
Drake Shelton has said the Father is the one true God–in contrast to the Son and the Spirit. Drake has said Jesus is less worshipful than the Father. For him, the Father is the ultimate and true object of worship.
Drake repudiates the terminology of the “Triune God.” He repudiates the proposition that the three persons are the one God.
Drake has resorted to a classic unitarian interpretation of Jn 10:30. Drake has also resorted to a classic unitarian interpretation of Jn 20:28. He disallows 1 Jn 5:20 as a prooftext for the deity of Christ. And, most recently, he’s attacking Jn 1:18 as a prooftext for the deity of Christ.
He repudiates Tit 2:13 and 2 Pet 1:1 as prooftexts for the deity of Christ.
He repudiates the identification of Christ with Yahweh.
He repudiates the identification of Christ as the Alpha and Omega.
He accepts Samuel Clarke’s interpretation of Rom 9:5, which reduces it to a delegation of divine authority.
He leans heavily on David Waltz, whose own commitment to the Trinity is dubious.
You’d have to have blinders on not to see a pattern here. These aren’t “superficial comparisons” with Jehovah’s Witnesses. Rather, Drake is systematically discounting standard prooftexts for the deity of Christ. And he repudiates basic Trinitarian formulations, e.g. the Triune God, the three persons are the one God.
Drake is backing into unitarianism.
Now, in Ryan’s post, he’s speaking for himself. I don’t know to what degree he agrees with Drake in the examples I’ve given.