A number of Reformed folk (including Calvin himself) are quite adamant in their doctrinal stance concerning what is meant by the concept of the Son of God being begotten from God the Father; specifically, that the Son is begotten from the Father's person ONLY, emphatically denying that it is also from the Father's essence/substance (οὐσία).
Persons following this blog are well aware that the original Nicene Creed explicitly contradicted the above denial; yet once again, from the opening of the Nicene Creed of 325 we read:
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible ; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father... (NPNF - 2nd series, Vol. 14, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, p. 3 - bold emphasis mine.)
The Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers of the 4th and 5th centuries who wrote on this subject were almost unanimous in their assent of the above. I have recently provided selections from some of those Church Fathers (e.g. Athanasius, Basil), and at this time would like to add Cyril of Alexander's assessment (which was officially adopted at the 3rd Ecumenical Council of Ephesus in 431). After quoting the entire Nicene Creed of 325, Cyril continued with:
Following in all points the confessions of the Holy Fathers which they made (the Holy Ghost speaking in them), and following the scope of their opinions, and going, as it were, in the royal way, we confess that the Only begotten Word of God, begotten of the same substance of the Father... (Ibid.. p. 202 - bold emphasis mine.)
Now, what I find interesting is the fact that most confessional Reformed folk claim they accept the creeds and definitions of the 1st four Ecumenical councils; and yet, a number of those same folk deny that the Son of God was begotten from the essence/substance of the Father. How can this be anything but a blatant contradiction?
Grace and peace,