tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post3480822970488200672..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Self-demotionRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-24163601751653380272016-06-28T12:33:26.997-04:002016-06-28T12:33:26.997-04:00I believe the Nicene/post-Nicene Fathers taught th...I believe the Nicene/post-Nicene Fathers taught the eternal generation of the Son and eternal procession of the Spirit. I believe Grudem rejects that. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-56362453590283372432016-06-28T01:13:55.033-04:002016-06-28T01:13:55.033-04:00"I think Grudem et al. should probably conced..."I think Grudem et al. should probably concede..."<br /><br />Do you mean Trueman's camp rather than Grudem's? I would think Grudem would agree with the patristic position.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07883500968749756873noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-74221531209810948752016-06-24T13:56:59.079-04:002016-06-24T13:56:59.079-04:00To my knowledge, the Greek Fathers take monogenes ...To my knowledge, the Greek Fathers take monogenes to mean only-begotten. <br /><br />Mind you, even if we think that's what the word means, it's still a theological metaphor. So the question would remain, what's the intended scope of the metaphor? stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-70491950929803620402016-06-22T13:30:19.868-04:002016-06-22T13:30:19.868-04:00Have not had time to read the whole Ref21 article,...Have not had time to read the whole Ref21 article, but some of it; and the quote from J. I. Packer was excellent, and, along with the many other quotes that I scanned, for the time being, settled the issue for me (there is something to be said for understanding "the Father" as Father, and "the Son" as Son, in eternity past, but also affirming the full Deity and equality in essence of the Son and the Holy Spirit); but the pages I have for it are on page 62, not 54-55. Maybe Grudem was working from a different printing/edition. <br /><br />Did the Greek Fathers understand mongenes as "only unique one" or "one of a kind" rather than "only-begotten" or "only - generated" ?Kenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17824685809003307918noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-48970694657389915202016-06-21T14:32:10.673-04:002016-06-21T14:32:10.673-04:00Gregory *of* NGregory *of* NReformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-29229337711218200632016-06-21T14:09:04.467-04:002016-06-21T14:09:04.467-04:00I believe many would be in line with Gregory Nazia...I believe many would be in line with Gregory Nazianzus who believed the second person, not the one essence, is generated or communicated. Grudem would be fine with that interpretation. From the Gregory premise Calvin's autotheos would not be a departure but an amplification / clarification of the Creed. But many believe the creed intends the deity is communicated to the Son. Yes, some generation is conveyed. That's hard to dispute. Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.com