Just a brief comment Andrew…. you stated:
So if I do not agree with him that one text or another does not teach that Jesus is God, then it would appear that I am an Arian and so a serious threat to the integrity of the faith.
The issue is twofold.
1. To work within the Evangelical world and use the Evangelical label (even in the website name!!) means that a small number of key beliefs are central . One of these is the deity of Christ of course. To deny this would mean ‘non evangelical theology for age to come’. This is important.
2. If you believe that Jesus did not pre exist as ‘the word’ or ‘son of God’ then you probably ARE an Arian Andrew!!
Jesus is God is important for a number of reasons one being the issue of worship…do we worship him or not? The ‘Trinity’ though has always been to my mind an ‘explanation’ of the totallity of the varied information in each thread of the scriptures about God. This is not contradictory to your narrative approach and shouldn’t be made to do so. My appeal to Nicea is just to the accepted ‘definition’ of orthodoxy, my real ‘appeal’ is to the scriptures of course not Nicea.
The kurios/Lord title I have commented on elswhere in this thread but of course it is important he is YHWH.
To describe someone as NOT creator when it says ‘by him were all things created’ and ‘ALL things were created through him’ puzzles me. Is he THIS (created) side of the line or is he the OTHER (creator) side of the line Andrew?