The Son - position within the Godhead

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

I would like some clarification as I understand that -

• The persons of the Trinity are equal in substance, eternity, honor, power, glory
• The Son is “eternally begotten” of the Father
• The Spirit is “eternally proceeding” Either from the Father or both
• the Father is called the “monarch” of the Trinity by many Nicene fathers

If the Father is the source of the Son and Spirit (and I know eternally so - I’m not even considering a created Son or Spirit), how is this different from the idea of ESS/EFS? How is ESS semi-Arian while th e above is perfectly Biblical and Nicene? I believe both but want to wrap my head around this at least a little more.

 

[RamistThomist]

I would like some clarification as I understand that -

• The persons of the Trinity are equal in substance, eternity, honor, power, glory
• The Son is “eternally begotten” of the Father
• The Spirit is “eternally proceeding” Either from the Father or both
• the Father is called the “monarch” of the Trinity by many Nicene fathers

If the Father is the source of the Son and Spirit (and I know eternally so - I’m not even considering a created Son or Spirit), how is this different from the idea of ESS/EFS? How is ESS semi-Arian while th e above is perfectly Biblical and Nicene? I believe both but want to wrap my head around this at least a little more.

ESS would reject the first one, since they hold that they aren't equal in power and glory. I think Ware says as much.
ESS used to reject #2; Grudem changed his mind. I don't think Grudem fully understands eternal generation. It is how we distinguish the persons of the Trinity. If it is true, then we don't need something where Jesus is second place in order to distinguish him.

Monarchia is tricky. In the post-Nicene writers it can mean either the Father as the source or it can mean the Godhead as the source. Gregory of Nazianzus seems to use it in both senses.