Dolezal's
admission of mutabilist language being present in the text and his
resort to nonliteral, accommodationist, and anthropomorphic arguments
in order to fit the language of Scripture into his theological grid
has the potential if not the tendency to generate more problems than
it solves. Once again, one is driven to think of the patterns
exhibited in historical theology and the role such 'rationalist'
systems-driven thinking has played. The road from rationalist
scholasticism to theological liberalism is in fact a short one. The
dynamics of Scripture don't lend themselves to such rigid
constructions and there's a tendency (even a drive) to refine and
ultimately compress both Trinitarianism and the hypostatic union into
ever monistic and more coherent frameworks. It begins innocently
enough, pushing to the edge of orthodoxy. But in another generation
it's redefined and in another lost altogether.