Good morning! I have just read Wayne Grudem’s reply to @lukestamps’ and my critique of ERAS in his newly published Systematic Theology, 2nd Ed., with @ZonderAcademic.

I have thoughts:

1) it appears most fundamentally that nothing, really, has changed since 2016. I do not see evidence that Prof. Grudem has changed his position in any way, other than to affirm “monogenēs” translated as “only begotten” and to affirm the eternal relations of origin explicitly.

These two bald affirmations of terms do nothing, however, to change the way in which Prof. Grudem builds his doctrine of the Trinity from Scripture, or the structure of that doctrine, as it remains in many ways centered on ERAS.

2) this means that what lay at the heart of the 2016 debate, namely theological method as it pertains both to a canon-conscious hermeneutic and to dogmatic reasoning, have not been addressed.

Prof. Grudem’s critiques of my and Luke’s position, as well as of @glennbutner, mistakenly assume a kind of a-textual dependence on individual historical theologians rather than on exegesis.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of our position and one which belies these differences in method.

3) This fundamental difference in method explains what I consider to be Prof. Grudem’s continued misreading of early church theologians, whom he mistakes as supporting ERAS when in reality they are performing partitive exegesis and/or making reference to Trinitarian taxis.

Fin.