One of the unfortunate features of the current Trinity debate is the moaning over “tone.” Such a complaint fails in at least two ways. First it fails in not affording proper weight to the content of the debate. In generations past men were willing to be exiled and physically mangled for defending Trinitarian orthodoxy. Second the complaint fails by way of chronological arrogance. What I mean is that the history of the church owes much to those who regarded vital theological debates as matters worth fighting for. Martin Luther would be thoroughly excoriated by today’s tone police as would Calvin and Athanasius before them. And Machen? Well, he would have been shamed out of all influence in the church.
Todd Pruitt,“Tone And The Trinity Debate“
R. Scott Clark
R.Scott Clark is the President of the Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several books and the author of many articles. He has taught church history and historical theology since 1997 at Westminster Seminary California. He has also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University. He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007.
More by R. Scott Clark ›
Counterpoint: Plenty of people prefer to dish the dirt than take it.
I try to speak only that which contributes to human flourishing.
Hopefully no one gets called a brood of vipers or a whitewashed sepulcher. That might bring on a fainting spell heard round the coalition.
It’s the triumph of tone over substance that gets me most. Bring the heat with light to consume the dross and bring the truth to light.