It was fun while it lasted, and there should be a bit more, but probably not much more on the blogs, I reckon. Soon the big guns will rest, and I’ll miss it. Blogging has enriched my life several times now. I guess I can always hope that perhaps it will again.
I say it is over because Ware still refuses to concede. I honestly think that he thinks that if some theological consideration is not raised directly by a passage of Scripture then it is not too important a consideration. And what seems important to him is more interesting to him than what has seemed important to other theologians (such as the Cappadocians and Aquinas, I mean, not principally his present adversaries). To judge from the responses given, Ware is the brains of the operation, which is . . . I was going to say sad, but I should say Evangelicalism. It is ironic that he claims to cling to Sola Scriptura more than those with higher views of creeds when that was the slogan of men who elaborated on the creeds in confessions.
Does he understand that Goligher and Trueman have taken solemn vows before God to defend what the Westminster Confession teaches that Scripture teaches? There is a reason they are keen on the Nicene creed, among other related documents.
Also, a basic definition of a creed could be what all Christians everywhere and always have agreed that Scripture teaches. Does Ware realize this? It does not seem to weigh with him so much that his own insight cannot set some or part of that aside; not, he says later on, that he does. But I gather the point of his first paragraph is that he could, which I think is him unwittingly conceding the whole argument.
Anyway, it was a debate about theological method too, wasn’t it? I wonder if anybody will write a book on that as a result.
I am surprised the only substantial fundamentalist comment (that I’ve found) so far is so dismissive. As long as Ware affirms the Nicene creed while teaching what can be demonstrated to violate the Nicene distinction between persons and essence, it is not a big deal. It seems that even if he were to end up a monothelite who thought he could affirm Nicea, that would not be so big a deal. Can it be?
There is one side for whom creeds are negotiable, and another side for whom they are not–that’s how I see it. The question is, are there good reasons for thinking creeds are negotiable, 2000 years into it? Is the credal formulation unstable interpretation of Scripture we might at any time tinker with? Is the tribe of Ware and Grudem, and Moore and Mohler aware that we are 2000 years into it, or just as far into it as . . . let’s think here . . . since they turned that seminary in Louisville around, rescuing it from people who did not take doctrinal statements seriously?
I do not get it. I do enjoy it. What else can you do?