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.
The contradictions pointed out by Frame once again indicate a fundamental problem in Scholastic theology. Such 'contradictions' (if contradictions they be) are not problematic for the Biblicist framework I advocate, but are fatal and self-defeating to the theological commitments of Dolezal.
I found this paragraph from Frame to be rather compelling:
"But Dolezal never seems to understand the consequences of this distinction. It implies that Jesus did not “literally” become man, suffer, and die for us. He was not literally born of a virgin. He did not work literal miracles. Of course Dolezal confesses that there is “something true” about these doctrines of the faith, but every heretic in the history of Christianity has been willing to say that much."
Frame is being generous but the implications are clear to those willing to read between the lines. Dolezal has set himself up as a modern Epiphanius - a heresy hunter. Frame reveals that it is in fact Dolezal who is in danger. He mistakenly thinks he's in good company with Aquinas - which is not in fact good company to keep. But even on this point Dolezal has failed to realize that he's also read Thomas through a reductionist lens and at best represents a modern post-Enlightenment permutation of his thought.
Frame doesn't raise the issue but I'm left wondering just where Dolezal is at in terms of his Calvinism. The hyper- school has a tendency to understand 'Covenant' in strict simplistic two-dimensional terms. It is read narrowly through the lens of election, and while covenant and election are related, both terms and concepts have a much wider and dynamic application in how they're used in Scripture. In other words, Hyper-Calvinism tends to exhibit a seriously defective view of covenant and I'm seeing the same thing with Dolezal as the Biblical language seems problematic and has to be repeatedly explained away. Hyper-Calvinists have lots of 'problem texts' and it would seem so does Dolezal within the realm of theology-proper.
Both Scholasticism and Hyper-Calvinism (it's close cousin) set reason over Scripture and this is at the heart of Dolezal's error.
Without using terms like dynamic or dialectic Frame nevertheless rightly states:
"In my Doctrine of God I attempted to develop a theology that does equal justice to the metaphysics of Scripture and to its mutabilist language. I wanted to say, with full confidence, that God is unchangeable, while also asserting, with equal confidence, that the Word became flesh."
In other words there are dynamics at work in the Incarnation (and certainly the Trinity) that defy the kind of prolegomenical criteria Dolezal wishes to impose. In fact I would argue that the Incarnation itself is the very key to prolegomena, the nature of theology and Christian Spirit-led reason - an argument worked out in the opening chapters of 1 Corinthians, the same chapters in which Paul (I would also argue) decries and denounces the kind of philosophy that Scholasticism relies on, the very foundation upon which Dolezal rests.
Mystery in theology is a complicated subject. I find many theologians (and perhaps this would include Frame) believe the task is to push the issues to the utmost until they begin to break within a philosophical-theological framework. If the Scriptures won't let them go there, they stop - but they still push to the very edge of the envelope as it were.
While I respect this restraint I'm not sure this method is truly faithful to the text where such dynamics (as seen in a passage like John 6.37-40) are simply left as they are - unresolved. The resolution remains mystery - the kind of mysteries that Paul and apostles are stewards of (1 Cor 4.1).
Dolezal may appeal to mystery but frankly this strikes me as a cop out. If he was writing a novel instead of theology a critic might accuse him of resorting to a deus ex machina-type device as a way of solving the problem - one I would argue his method has created. But according to the dictates of scholastic theology - this is bad theology or theology badly done. Ironically it is Frame at this point who is probably closer to Aquinas in his willingness to take things to the edge as it were.
This paragraph from Frame actually startled me:
"Dolezal, of course, wants to insist with the scholastic tradition that all of God’s attributes are identical with his essence and therefore identical with one another (42). Is “creator of the world” identical with divine changelessness or simplicity? I don’t understand how that can be, but perhaps the question can be relegated to mystery. In any case, the answer does not seem to be that we cannot speak of divine attributes based on his actions in the world."
Would not such a monistic understanding destroy the Trinity itself? Again, Scholasticism has often led to forms of Unitarianism. Is this not the gateway? Harking back to old philosophical debates about monism and the breakdown of relations - if all the Divine attributes collapse into one, would not all the relationship between the Persons do the same? Would they not be simply interchangeable? That is by definition a Modalist view of the Trinity. Frame doesn't quite go so far as to accuse Dolezal of this but strongly asserts that reducing the persons to what are functionally abstract relations falls short of both the Biblical teaching and even the historical understanding of the Trinity.
Dolezal follows Aquinas but according to Frame never offers a fundamental critique of him. Is this not problematic?
He accuses Dolezal of putting Historical Theology over Systematics but again, what historical theology? Does the development stop in the Middle Ages? Why? And what about the Ante-Nicene Church? Maybe their less developed Trinitarianism is in fact more in keeping with the nature of the theological mystery revealed in Scripture. On this point I cannot share Frame's concern that Dolezal has elevated Historical Theology over Systematic... I think this just muddies the waters. That just reduces the debate to a question of progressive theology and where it must stop - an arbitrary and unscriptural paradigm.
Shortly after the time of Aquinas (d.1274), the Hesychast Controversy within Eastern Orthodoxy produced the energies-essence distinction - one of the few episodes of theological development within the otherwise static theology of Orthodoxy subsequent to the 8th century. In fact aspects of this current debate echo the contest between Gregory Palamas (1296-1359) and Barlaam (d.1348). Interestingly Barlaam's position which rejected the energies-essence distinction has historically accused Palamite theology of denying Divine Simplicity and flirting with polytheism. The Barlaamites were accused of resurrecting Neo-Arian arguments from the 4th century and (as mentioned) a monistic paradigm flirting with pantheism. The Palamites won the day and the doctrine was incorporated into Orthodoxy - creating a further divide between Eastern and Western conceptions of the Trinity.
Some Orthodox thinkers have subsequently argued not just that the West is Modalist but the Thomistic understanding of Divine Simplicity in failing to distinguish the acts of God (such as creation) from his essence results in monism or what is functionally pantheism. God is the creation (His work) and the creation is God. Obviously Dolezal wouldn't argue for this and I'm not suggesting he does but rather it demonstrates that the kind of absolutizing and even pompous posture he's taking toward simplicity creates more problems than it solves. One need not get entangled with the mysticism and errors of the hesychasts to derive some benefit and reflection from these debates.
Another issue is related to to a larger debate within philosophy sometimes identified as the Analytical-Continental split which has played out in Reformed circles in the tension between Classical Apologetics and Van Tillian Presuppositionalism. It's another case of the School of Athens (Plato vs. Aristotle) at work.
While the focus is usually on apologetics, the real issue is epistemology and theological method and that ties in with these questions. Additionally those who have come to be suspicious of Continental approaches which rely more on transcendental arguments and holistic categories, are uncomfortable with how this school tends to shy away from Natural Law and the ability for fallen man to find doctrinal truth and certainty by means of empirical study. Wishing to retain the Classical Proofs for the existence of God and (in many cases due to the culture war) a robust conception of Natural Law, they find the Continentally-influenced epistemology of Van Til's disciples to be problematic - which is in part buttressed by its strict and absolute Creator-creature distinction in the realm of epistemology. To me, this is the elephant in the room and it informs another set of questions related to what is meant by analogical knowledge and how it relates to revelation. Likewise the tensions between Paul's statements regarding innate knowledge in Romans 1 and his deconstruction of philosophy in the opening of 1 Corinthians must be reckoned with and reconciled - if indeed there is a conflict.
While worldview-ism and other Continentally influenced ideas have become commonplace, the perceived cultural crisis has driven many to look back to a time and methodology they deem more Christian and perhaps more solid and even culturally successful. These are debates that need to be had and so far (apart from Frame) I haven't encountered too many who have grasped the big picture - or at least they remain unwilling to elaborate on it. I could be mistaken as I have not read all the material that's out there but that's my sense of things. I would be happy to be given evidence to the contrary.