Read on Twitter
@brandon_d_smith just sent me screen shots of the two pages where Grudem engages my anti-EFS arguments in his new ST. It's all pretty absurd, but let me reply with a few points.
1) For a theologian who is allegedly concerned to root his doctrine in the Bible, I find it striking that he does not engage any of my specific exegesis in my book or my two articles. I've raised substantive Biblical arguments against EFS, and it seems he just ignores them.
2) Grudem does critique my appeal to Maximus and Agatho by saying that they are interesting but not infallible. I never claim that they are infallible. It's a straw man. However, Grudem and others claim tradition is on their side; Maximus/Agatho are clear evidence he's wrong.
3) re: tradition, Grudem objects that I emphasize Maximus over Constantinople III, but he finds no ally there - Const. III regularly links will with nature, speaking of "natural wills," "natural willings," "natural operations," and "Each nature wills & works what is proper to it"
How does each person of the Trinity have its own will if will is proper to nature? Grudem never explains the metaphysics here, and he's not addressed any of my exegetical arguments against his position. He's a theologian without answers.
4) But why do I address Maximus? To understand the logic behind the doctrine. Read any historical treatment of the Trinity by a legit scholar (I just finished Barnes, for example), and you'll see power/operation linked with nature. Anatolios, Ayres, Hanson, even Hugon in French.
5) This is where Grudem's dogmatic response is absurd: my "reasoning is fatally flawed" because I apply the reasoning about Christology to the Trinity. But does the nature of Christ in Christology stop being the nature of Christ in the Trinity? That's just silly.
It's like Grudem thinks 1 doctrine has no connection to any other. When we think of Christology, will is proper to nature, but when we think of the Trinity, it's not. He then hides behind a quote from Ovey, ignoring how I show Ovey has 0 primary sources & huge misinterpretations
To summarize - 0 treatment of my exegesis, misrepresentation of my position, 0 treatment of the systematic issues at stake, still violates Constantinople III, 0 explanation for how will can be a property of nature & of person. He even messed up the footnotes, citing me as Berkhof
In short, this is not sound scholarship or argumentation. This should not be a standard systematic theology in evangelical seminaries.
