Regarding this article:
1. I agree with Craig's critique of eternal generation.
2. I'm not going to comment on his general alternative (pp25-26). I don't care to get into the weeds of exegeting and assessing it.
I've articulated my own model of the Trinity on numerous occasions. I'll stick with that.
I've articulated my own model of the Trinity on numerous occasions. I'll stick with that.
3. However, a basic problem with Craig's position in this article is reducing the Father/Son distinction to the economic Trinity. That's mistaken because, on occasion, the NT clearly uses "Son of God" (or "Son" for short) as a divine title. His identity as the ontological Son of God figures in his deity. If he's the Son of God, then by implication he's divine. Reducing the Father/Son distinction to the economic Trinity can't explain that entailment in NT usage. And it's not a minor point.
I think you meant ontological, not oncological. 😂
ReplyDelete