Green Baggins is now addressing the section on the Trinity in our Joint FV statement. I agree with the caveats that Lane issues, acknowledging that the triune nature of God is something that He is, and not something that He builds out of three independent Persons. I think that Ralph Smith guards himself against that error better than Lane thinks he does, and I think that the view Lane advances really is vulnerable to the point made by Steven Wedgeworth in the comments. But in talking about Trinitarian theology, we have to be careful — all of us are in so far over our heads that as soon as we allow someone’s drift, trajectory, or emphasis to dictate whether they are a heretic, then no one is safe. I think it would be best for us to simply take one another’s adherence to Nicea and Chalcedon at face value, and try not to speculate too much.
The really interesting thing for me in Lane’s post was this:
“I wish to reaffirm the covenant of redemption as being the archetype of the covenant of works and the covenant of grace.”
Notice: the covenant of works and the covenant of grace share one single archetype here. Now if our FV confession that the pre-fall covenant and the post-fall covenant were both gracious in character is enough to get us labeled (by Lane) as monocovenantal, what are we to make of this intra-Trinitarian covenant being the single archetype for both? Two things that share an archetype . . . what does that make them? A lot alike?