From a review of Trinity and Process, the author, Dr. Robert Morey, sets out his principles:
1. God has revealed in Scripture propositional truths concerning His nature and attributes.
2. Our views of God and Christ must arise from a careful exegesis of Scripture and not from a priori philosophic speculations.
3. Historical, classical, traditional, confessional, orthodox theology as expressed in the great creeds of the Church for nearly two thousand years is the Biblical position set forth in confessional form.
4. Any theology that denies the historical, classical, traditional, confessional, orthodox understanding of the nature and attributes of God and the two natures of Christ is heretical.
5. We are not deceived by heretics when they use orthodox terms such as God, omniscience, Trinity, etc., but give them an unorthodox meaning. For example, the Socinians pretended that they believed in the “omniscience” of God while denying that God knew the future!
Already this logic is hypocritical. They claim that they need to disavow philosophical speculation, and then claim adherence to creeds, which are written in philosophical speculative terms and are anti-antithetical to the primary concerns of the Bible. The author moves on:
Boyd states that the “traditional view of God” found in the confessions of the Church “needed to be attacked and rejected.”
Did you understand what he is saying? The Church’s traditional view of the nature and attributes of God as found in the creeds needs to be “attacked and rejected” according to Boyd because the Christian Church has been wrong all these years’ The historic orthodox view of God is actually pagan in origin and came from Plato and Aristotle!
Can you imagine that! All the creeds, all the Fathers and all the hymns were pagan in their view of God! For two thousand years, the Church has been worshiping a pagan god!
The traditional view of an “Almighty God” is reduced to a “god” that must die to set men free.
The author attacks Boyd for Boyd’s attempt to disassociate Christianity with philosophical speculation. But, not to worry, the author explains that although it sounds nice, that cults often claim to reject philosophy for the Bible:
This is what cultists such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses have always done as well as Liberal theologians. They all dismiss historical, classical, traditional, confessional, orthodox theology as being Platonic, or Aristotelian, etc. In its place, they substitute their own views of God as being more “biblical” than the orthodox creeds!
The entire article is a rambling, have-crazed, rant. It is unprofessional and the biases it shows are reason enough to dismiss the author as emotionally compromised.