This is an interesting conversation which Scott McKnight is developing. He writes:
Most of Western evangelicals are functionally heretical. Most have a rhetoric for theology that has little room for the Trinity. Christ is God — and this gives them grounds for a satisfaction theory of atonement. But a genuine Trinitarian framing of theology is mostly gone.
“many evangelical and conservative believers tend toward biblicism in their approach to doctrine, and thus they feel uncomfortable with the metaphysical language of the traditional creeds” (104).
“everything God does is from the Father, through the Son, and in the Spirit. And every Christian response to God occurs in the Spirit, through the Son, and in the Spirit” (105).
“Western theology from the Middle Ages onward gives the impression that the doctrine of the Trinity, though true and important, could be left out without major revisions in the rest of the doctrine of God” (106).
The author, and Scott agrees, believes that the root of the problem lies in the Western focus on the ‘oneness and essence of God.’ The East, in my opinion, has always, since the days of Origen and Eusebius, focused on the separate of the Essence, while the West since Athanasius, the various Bishops of Rome, and Marcellus, focused on the unity of the Godhead. Is this a ‘loss’ or a different viewpoint? And why is biblicism a bad thing? I know that the Creeds have their place, but is a return to ‘biblicism’ a bad thing? Or should all creeds and councils be accepted – which they are not, even among various branches of Christendom.