The summer of 2016 was a strange season for the evangelical internet. For a few heated months, the blogosphere—usually preoccupied with cultural hot takes or political infighting—became an impromptu lecture hall for Patristic theology. The debate concerned the Trinity, specifically the doctrine of Eternal Functional Subordination (EFS), later rebranded as Eternal Relations of Authority and Submission (ERAS). At stake was a simple yet explosive question: Does the Son eternally submit to the authority of the Father, not merely in his economic mission, but in his eternal hypostatic existence?
The controversy eventually quieted, as these things tend to do, leading many to believe that the proponents of ERAS had retreated to reconsider their semantic and substantial footing. However, the recent appearance of Owen Strachan on the Room for Nuance podcast suggests otherwise. Strachan, a primary defender of the ERAS position, reaffirmed his commitment to the view, dismissing critics as “whippersnappers with their encyclopedia of theology” who are “tribalizing” over what he considers a “third-level issue.”
But most striking was his claim to historical pedigree. Strachan asserted that he is merely one figure among a “murderer’s row” of theologians, specifically citing names like D. A. Carson, J. I. Packer, John Stott, Carl Henry, James Boice, and the monumental Louis Berkhof as proponents of this view. This mirrors his 2021 defense, where he produced a litany of citations to prove that his position is standard orthodoxy.[1]
We must be careful here. As men who love the truth, we cannot allow names that anchor our confessional heritage to be co-opted for novel doctrines without testing the spirits.
The attempt to recruit Augustine, Louis Berkhof, Geerhardus Vos, and Charles Hodge as proponents of Eternal Relations of Authority and Submission (ERAS) represents a fundamental failure of historical-theological method, relies on demonstrable plagiarism of secondary sources, and ultimately distorts the very tradition it claims to uphold.
The Methodology of Illusion
Loved ones, we must understand why this matters. History is not merely a collection of dusty books to be mined for proof-texts; it is the record of the Church’s fight to speak rightly about God. When modern theologians attempt to validate controversial positions by proof-texting dead giants, they do violence to the context of those authors and mislead the flock regarding the catholicity of the faith.
It appears that Strachan’s defense relies heavily on a methodology that equates the classical concept of order (taxis) with the modern sociological concept of authority structures. By mining the tradition for the word “subordination” (a term used technically in Latin dogmatics as subordinatio) and reading it through the lens of modern gender debates or corporate hierarchies, one can make Berkhof or Augustine sound like complementarian culture warriors. But to do so is to strip them of their dogmatic context.
The Problem of “Research by Ctrl+F”
As I have noted in other contexts, there is a pervasive tendency in modern polemics to construct theological arguments by assembling bouquets of decontextualized quotes. This method—collecting “flowers” (citations) without their roots (context)—creates an illusion of consensus where none exists.
It has been noted by careful observers that the list of citations Strachan utilizes in his 2021 defense—and alluded to in his recent interview—bears a striking, almost verbatim resemblance to the lists provided in Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology.[2] We must speak plainly here: this goes beyond mere reliance on secondary sources. It appears to be a case of plagiarism.
Grudem’s original work, while problematic in its truncation of sources to fit a narrative, at least represented his own (however flawed) engagement with the texts. Strachan, however, lifts these specific truncations wholesale. It is not merely that he quotes the same passages; he reproduces the exact same internal cuts, placing ellipses in the precise locations where Grudem excised text. He presents the fruit of another man’s editorial labor—including its specific concealments—as his own primary research.
This is not just a failure of rigor; it is a failure of academic integrity. It is not that he unknowingly reproduced another man’s distortions; rather, he intentionally reproduced the distortions and presented them as though they were his own work. When a teacher of the church presents a truncated quote that reverses the meaning of the original author (as we shall see with Berkhof in Part 5), and does so by copying the truncation from another source without attribution, the error is compounded by deception.
The Stakes of the Debate
Why does this historical revisionism matter? Is this just an academic squabble? Far from it. The doctrine of the Trinity is the ground of our salvation. If we introduce authority and submission into the eternal life of God, we risk dividing the divine will. If the Son has a distinct will that must “submit” to the Father’s will in eternity, we have moved dangerously close to tritheism (three gods) or Arianism (a created son).
The orthodox tradition affirms taxis (order)—that the Son is from the Father. It denies hierarchy—that the Son is under the authority of the Father. Strachan’s “murderer’s row” of witnesses actually supports the former and denies the latter.
The Road Ahead
In this series, we will not simply assert that Strachan is wrong; we will prove it forensically. We will examine the specific citations he provides for four key figures: Augustine, Charles Hodge, Geerhardus Vos, and Louis Berkhof. We will analyze his truncated quotes alongside the original primary sources.
- Part 2 will examine Augustine and the misuse of conditional arguments.
- Part 3 will look at Charles Hodge and the definition of taxis.
- Part 4 will explore Geerhardus Vos and the Covenant of Redemption.
- Part 5 will expose the “smoking gun” regarding Louis Berkhof.
- Part 6 will address the theological cost of Strachan’s position.
We do this not to tear down a brother, but to defend the faith once for all delivered to the saints. We owe it to our fathers in the faith to let them speak for themselves.
Conclusion
The claim of a historical consensus for ERAS is an illusion built on poor scholarship and borrowed research. It crumbles the moment one opens the primary sources. As we proceed through this series, let us pray for clarity, for charity, and for the courage to stand with the true consensus of the Church—that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God, the same in substance, equal in power and glory.
Key Terms
- Florilegia: A compilation of excerpts; in this context, the practice of gathering isolated quotes (“flowers”) to support a point without regard for their original context (“roots”).
- Taxis: The Greek term for “order.” In Trinitarian theology, it refers to the order of relations (Father begets Son), not a hierarchy of rank or authority.
- Subordinatio: A Latin technical term used in dogmatics to describe the taxis or order of subsistence; often mistranslated or misinterpreted by moderns as “subordination of authority.”
- ERAS: Eternal Relations of Authority and Submission; the view that the Son is eternally subordinate to the Father in authority.
[1] Owen Strachan, “The Danger of Equating Eternal Authority & Submission with Arian Heresy,” Reenchant with Owen Strachan, 9 November 2021, https://owenstrachan.substack.com/p/the-danger-of-equating-eternal-authority.
[2] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994; repr., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2020), 300-305.