Quick Response Concerning Quotations of Christopher Stead in My Thesis

I have been accused of mishandling the words of scholar Christopher Stead from his book, Divine Substance. This accusation caused me to look at my Th.M. work to see if this charge is true: IMO, it is not. I found six occurrences of Stead's name, checked them all, and I find no merit for the accusations. At no time did I say or imply that Stead agreed with my worldview or theology. Those interested can see for themselves: https://theses.gla.ac.uk/71906/1/10395258.pdf

For example, here is one citation/quote from my thesis (page 23):

"Adv Prax 8. George C. Stead, in his magisterial study concerning the notion of divine substance,
points out that Tertullian has no problem applying substantia to God. He notes that Tertullian uses
substantia in Adv Prax 9 to refer to uncreated spiritus, which is differentiated from created finite
spiritus by its inherent 'purity, subtlety and power, which was at first concentrated in the Father, then
distributed to the Son and Spirit,' see Divine Substance (Oxford; Clarendon Press, 1977), 161."

Please tell me how this cite gets Stead wrong.

Here is another example (page 70 of my thesis):

"Stead further discerns that Tertullian depicts God as a Mind (nous) containing Word in the sense of 'plan' or 'thought' within it. Moreover, he further states: 'This latter is sufficiently distinct to be addressed as a 'partner in dialogue .' Yet this Sermo does not become Son until God utters the words, 'Let there be light' (fiat lux) as recorded in Gen 1:3. Stead writes that it is only at this point that one can speak of Discourse (Sermo) as Son in the fullest sense. It might, therefore, be inaccurate
to argue that Tertullian thinks the Son is a timeless res et persona internal beside God."

Again, one has to be careful to distinguish my words and beliefs from those of Stead: I did not conflate the two. I likewise discuss Stead on page 74 of my thesis.

For the record, my training is in ecclesiastical history, so I am technically a church historian, which the YT video gets wrong.

What about the claim that Tertullian is a Trinitarian? Did I get Tertullian wrong? I've actually been over this point many times on this blog, but I can cite numerous scholars who fault Tertullian's doctrine for not being fully Trinitarian. Here are some examples:

Church historian Gerald Bray writes:

"In his counterblast to Praxeas, Tertullian came as near as he could to trinitarianism, without abandoning his fundamentally monotheistic and, to our minds, unitarian position. The Father always remained God in a way which did not apply to the other two persons, however much he might share his power and authority with them."

See Bray's The Doctrine of God, pages 130-131_ for the full details.

Concerning Tertullian's fuller statement of God's existence prior to the generation of His Son, A. Harnack perspicuously notes that although the ratio et sermo dei existed within God since "he thought and spoke inwardly," God the Father was still "the only person" subsisting prior to the temporal generation of the Son (Harnack, History of Dogma, 2:259). Edmund Fortman also concludes that the preeminent Son of God: "was generated, not from eternity but before and for creation, and then became
a second person." Antecedent to his generation, however, the Logos was not "clearly and fully
personalized" (Fortman 111). It therefore seems erroneous to think that the Son was eternally a res et
persona internal beside God. Tertullian makes this point clearer in Adv Prax 5.

See https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2007/06/lonergan-on-tertullian.html

By the way, the video criticizes me for citing/quoting Harnack. Guess they've never read much church history where such "old guys" are quoted.

Here is what Mark Smith actually wrote about my thesis, which became a book: See https://books.google.com/books?id=yvWlC0kUlkYC&pg=PA297&dq=edgar+foster+angelomorphic&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Cs7FUu_KDobqkQfYtIHQAw&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=edgar%20foster%20angelomorphic&f=false

He does not put it down there.

Overall, the video doesn't "get" my thesis.