Thank you for your suggestion.
However, I am bothered when one Christian attacks another who attempts to explain difficult doctrine. It is one thing to say that the author is wrong in his concepts or that he expresses things badly. It is quite another to accuse him of trying to "get away" with something, or to question whether he personally knows God.
My comment of "get away with" was clearly talking about a challenge to give the feedback and to hold him accountable. For you to put that under the banner of an "attack" vs. a clear critique shows how ill-sensitive you are to feedback...which I'm not sure why it's any skin off your back, given that you aren't even RC.
...or to question whether he personally knows God.
OK, let me state this quite clearly: If you were talking about your wife or a relative, and sometimes you referenced them as a "her" and sometimes as an "it" -- that's a really basic matter. I'd really question what kind of a relationship you have with them, when you couldn't even be consistent in discussing them as ones who have a personal relationship with you...when you can't even consistently describe them as beings who at their core are Personal!
(I think I'd begin to wonder if you "married" your robot concubine or something)
If the way you describe your family or friends can call into question your witness testimony that you really know them, then the same carries over to God, Himself.
Now that doesn't mean we determine IF they actually DO know them. Maybe this generic "you" is a horrible communicator (as you have indicated this author is an awkward communicator at best). Maybe he does know them, and just is terrible at communicating that.
But that's my point. You don't go on the initiative and publish a world-wide love letter or description re: your spouse if you continually reference him or her as an "it." By all means, don't offend your spouse in such a way. And don't embarrass your spouse and yourself by doing so. Because by doing so, you call into question whether you know that person or not. (Raising Q is NOT the same as being the "determiner"; you can raise a Q without outright judging that they don't know a person)
The Trinity...attempts to explain difficult doctrine. [Logophile]
...quick-draw nitpicking... [AnAmericanMother]
So now knowing what a kindergartener knows -- that you can personally pray to a personal God -- becomes hooked to your trailer of understanding the Trinity? Really?
So, now, AnAmericanMother, something as basic as consistently comprehending God as "Personal" is being merely "nitpicky?"
I suppose if somebody objects to a Jehovah's Witness understanding of the Holy Ghost as being a personal being (vs. an impersonal force), they, too, are just being "nitpicky?"
Or if a New Ager or Hindu presents God as a Divine Ocean we merge into or as a Divine Flame we merge into, we're being "nitpicky" in objecting to impersonal pantheism?
(No wonder people slide down a religious Bahai-like pathway where they run everything together about God and begin to conclude a fundamentalist Mormon-is-a-Mormon-is-a-Christian-is-a-Jonestownite-is-a-Branch-Davidian-is-a-Heavens-Gate-ian-is-a-Urantia believer-is a Church Universal & Triumphant-is-a-Wicca-Witch-is-Voodoo practioner-is-a-New-Ager-is-a-whirling dervish-is-a-Hindu-is-a-Sikh-is-a-Muslim!)
I meant to say: I suppose if somebody objects to a Jehovah's Witness understanding of the Holy Ghost as being an IMpersonal being (as they DO believe the Holy Ghost IS an impersonal force like the wind), they, too, are just being "nitpicky?"
I am not a Protestant either, but I will stick up for Protestants when they are unfairly treated. I will do the same for Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, Bahais, or atheists. Won't you?