St. Gregory of Nazianzus provides an ancient perspective of the theological explanation for the relationship of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit to the Oneness of God as taught in the Old Testament. Modern writers like Gordon Fee in his book Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God suggests that the Apostle Paul was less interested in theology than he was the practical implications of God as Trinity.
Do you think one of these perspectives is more truthful or accurate than the other? If so, why or why not?
(If you are not familiar with St. Gregory's or Fee's work, how about the ancient vs. the modern view of the Oneness of God)
St. Gregory of Nazianzus
i) a Great Cappadocian theologian who opposed Arianism. He was a firm supporter of the Trinity. He reaffirmed the doctrine of Nicea regarding the the divinity of the Son, and added that the same ought to be said about the Holy Spirit. His theology reflected other Great Cappodocian theologians like Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa.
ii) he enjoyed composing hymns and valued meditation.
iii) A patriarch of Constantinople in the late 380AD.
iv) his view on Christ, the H.S. and the oneness of God specifically focusing on Christology debate as seen in the Council of Chalcedon:
"if any believe in Jesus Christ as a human being without human reason, they are ...
A discussion of the writings of Paul from Fee's perspective of the Holy Spirit and Gregory of Nazianzus' position on the Nicene creed and the Council of Chalcedon.