“However my ‘take’ and my starting place here is biblical orthodoxy and its summary as seen in Nicea.”
What you describe above are contradictory terms. “Biblical orthodoxy” and “Nicean summary” are mutually exclusive terms. You don’t seem to be interested in finding out what the first-century Christian (and therefore monotheistic, non-trinitarian) understanding of these “prooftexts” were. What came to be regarded as “Orthodox” is not necessarily original or truly orthodox. Countless scholars – German, British, Dutch, etc. – have pointed this out and many churchgoers are discovering these facts too.
“I love the ante Nicene fathers and am content that your ‘monotheism’ would have been rejected by them and the biblical writers. My interest on this board though is on Andrews credentials as an Evangelical author and writer and my view is that people living in that world (which is very orthodoxx) have a responsibility not to be public in seeking to overturn mainstream teaching. Within the ‘academy’ perhaps yes robust discussion.”
There’s currently some discussion on the trinitarian/unitarian convictions of ante-Nicene fathers on Professor Dale Tuggy’s blog (www.trinities.org/blog).
“You are just one of a small number of ‘monotheists’ (I would not for one minute forsake that description of me ..I AM A MONOTHEIST too as are all orthodox Christians. It is my concern that you deny the creeds of the Church you are part of and seek to overturn its teaching, I would have some ethical concerns about that.”
You seem to build your confidence in your doctrinal fabrications on the most elementary kinds of fallacies. If it’s not ad hominem dismissals of a scholars (e.g. Dunn and McGrath), it’s ad populum confidence in the conviction of the masses. You would probably not have been a supporter of Luther and his small number of “apostates” or, to take it to the very extreme, even a follower of Jesus of Nazareth and his small group of contradictors, would you? If it’s all about the masses, regardless of truth, then I’m afraid that’s how it stands… And I am only extrapolating and applying your line of reasoning consistently, which has not counted in your favor at all – call it insulting if you want, but that’s just the truth.
The definition of monotheism is not for you to decide. Fabricating ontologically nonsensical dichotomies such as between BEING and PERSON won’t do it either. In reality regarding more than one as God Almighty in Himself renders the one doing that a polytheist, whether you like it or not. The only ethical concern you should have is professing “Sola Scriptura” while utterly contradicting it as soon as that very Scripture contradicts Church fabrications.
We obviously have different sets of what is ethical and what not. And I am not in the least interested to “join” any religious movement. If sectarianism is the design of your religious scheme, then you’re welcome to have it. If it were all about the Establishment, there would not have been a suffering Messiah, or an apostle Paul, or a Martin Luther, or even a Nelson Mandela. Your estimation of truth is Establishment-centred which should be THE CENTRAL concern you SHOULD have…
Pick off uneducated simple folk??? You’re hardly on the map and you dare call theologians like Goulder, Hick, Raymond E. Brown, Dunn, Schillebeeckx, etc., etc., uneducated?
You don’t seem to be the kind one can have a decent dialogue with.