In Part 1, we established the high stakes of historical revisionism and the problematic methodology employed by Owen Strachan and others in the ERAS camp.[1] Now, we turn to the first of Strachan’s alleged witnesses: Augustine of Hippo.
Strachan’s citation of Augustine is particularly significant because it appeals to the “Later Augustine.” By citing Answer to Maximinus the Arian—a work from the end of Augustine’s life—Strachan attempts to pit Augustine against himself, implying that the mature bishop moved away from the strict equality found in On the Trinity and toward a view that accommodates eternal submission.
However, a close reading of the text reveals the exact opposite. Strachan has not found a supporter; he has found an opponent who is refuting the very logic Strachan employs.
The attempt to utilize Augustine as a proponent of eternal authority and submission fails because it quotes Augustine’s response to an Arian argument as if it were Augustine’s own positive doctrine, ignores the distinction between the two generations of Christ, and relies on the omission of crucial connecting words.
The Context: An Antiphonal Debate
To understand the deception inherent in Strachan’s citation, we must understand the nature of the document. Answer to Maximinus is a debate. It is antiphonal. Augustine quotes his Arian opponent, Maximinus, and then responds to him.
Strachan provides a quote that begins, “If true reasoning admits…” But he fails to disclose what Augustine is responding to. When we look at the immediate context, we find that the ERAS position—the idea that the Son’s obedience in the incarnation implies an eternal obedience—is indeed present in the text. But it is not presented by Augustine. It is presented by Maximinus the Arian.
The Arian Argument: Economic Implies Eternal
In the section immediately preceding Strachan’s quote, Augustine quotes Maximinus making this argument:
You say [Maximinus]: ‘If he regarded himself as indebted to his Father on account of the body in which he emptied himself, it is much more necessary that he always offer reverence and service to him who has begotten one so great and so good.’[2]
Do not miss this. Maximinus is arguing that if Christ obeyed in his body (the economy), it is “much more necessary” that he always (eternally) offer service. This is the precise logic of ERAS: The economic submission reveals an eternal relation of submission.
Augustine’s Rejection: “Carnal Thoughts”
How does Augustine respond to this ERAS-style argument? Does he accept it? Does he say, “Yes, Maximinus, you are right, the Son eternally submits”? No. He rejects the premise entirely.
Whatever your carnal thoughts might be concerning the reverence and service of the Son to his Father, his Father is his God only insofar as he is born from the womb of his mother.[3]
Augustine labels the idea of eternal submission a “carnal thought.” He explicitly restricts the relationship of “God and Worshiper” or “Father and Servant” to the temporal generation—the birth from the womb.
The Forensic Evidence: The “Sleight of Hand”
It is only after rejecting the Arian premise that Augustine offers the sentence Strachan cites. By isolating this sentence from the Arian prompt and the Augustinian rebuke, Strachan creates a “sleight of hand” that reverses the meaning of the text.
The Missing “Hence”
Strachan presents the quote starting with the conditional: “If true reasoning admits that the equal Son obeys his equal Father, we do not deny the obedience…”
However, the original text begins with the word “Hence” (or Therefore): “Hence, if true reasoning admits that the equal Son obeys his equal Father, we do not deny the obedience…”
Why does this matter? Because the word “Hence” signals that what follows is a conclusion based on the preceding argument. And what was the preceding argument? Augustine had just argued that the Father is not greater than the Son in nature, and that the Son’s obedience belongs to the “form of a servant” (the Incarnation).
Therefore, when Augustine says, “we do not deny the obedience,” he is referring to the obedience he has just defined—the obedience of the Incarnate Christ. He is effectively saying: “Therefore, if you admit that the Son who obeys (in his humanity) is still equal (in his nature), we agree.”
Strachan treats this as a concession of eternal obedience. But in context, it is a defense of the Son’s equality despite his temporal obedience.
The Double Generation Defense
Augustine’s entire argument rests on the distinction between the Two Generations of Christ:
- Eternal Generation: Born from the Father, apart from time.
- Temporal Generation: Born from the womb of his mother, in the fullness of time.
Augustine argues that the “reverence and service” Maximinus demands applies only to the second generation. To apply it to the first is to destroy the unity of the divine nature. He writes:
In no way would God the Father, in order to have the obedience of the only Son, want to deprive him of his nature.[4]
For Augustine, to require obedience in the eternal generation is to deprive the Son of his divine nature.
A Clash of Presuppositions: 1 Corinthians 15:28
The radical difference between Strachan’s theology and Augustine’s theology is further confirmed by their handling of 1 Corinthians 15:28 (“then the Son himself will also be subjected”).
In his 2021 article, Strachan argues that this subjection refers, at least in part, to the divine person of the Son in eternity. But in the very same treatise (Answer to Maximinus), Augustine explicitly rejects this interpretation:
This was said of him insofar as he became man, not insofar as he is God.[5]
If Augustine’s presuppositions (obedience = human nature) and his exegesis (1 Cor 15:28 = human nature) are diametrically opposed to Strachan’s, on what basis can Strachan claim him as a witness?
Conclusion
Strachan has not merely quoted Augustine out of context; he has quoted Augustine’s rebuttal to the ERAS logic as if it were an endorsement of it.
- Maximinus (The Arian) argued that economic obedience implies eternal obedience.
- Strachan (The Proponent) argues that economic obedience implies eternal obedience.
- Augustine (The Church Father) calls this a “carnal thought” and restricts obedience to the Incarnation.
The conclusion of the section Strachan quotes serves as a fitting summary of this entire investigation. Augustine tells the Arian:
You wanted to prove by that testimony that he was inferior to his Father, not as man, but as God. But you have not proved it, as those with understanding see.[6]
Augustine stands against Maximinus. And therefore, he stands against the logic of ERAS.
Key Terms
- Antiphonal: A structure of writing that alternates between two voices; in this case, Augustine quoting Maximinus and then responding.
- Double Generation: The doctrine that Christ is begotten twice: once eternally from the Father (divine nature), and once temporally from Mary (human nature).
- Confessio ad hominem: A rhetorical strategy where one grants an opponent’s premise for the sake of argument to show that their conclusion still does not follow.
- Later Augustine: The period of Augustine’s life including his anti-Arian writings; often appealed to by revisionists to suggest a departure from his earlier classical Trinitarianism.
[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] Augustine of Hippo, “Answer to Maximinus the Arian,” in Arianism and Other Heresies, ed. John Rotelle, trans. Roalnd Teske (Hyde Park: New City Press, 1995), II.18.3.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid., II.18.6