Louis Berkhof and the Silver Bullet

We arrive now at the climax of our historical investigation. Of all the theologians cited by Owen Strachan in his 2021 defense of ERAS—and alluded to in his recent podcast appearance—none has been more directly influential in the American Reformed seminary context than Louis Berkhof.

While it is perhaps an exaggeration to call Berkhof the “gold standard” of all Reformed thought (given his heavy reliance on Bavinck and the Dutch tradition), his Systematic Theology served as the primary textbook for generations of English-speaking Reformed students. He is a bridge by which the richness of the Dutch tradition crossed the Atlantic, shaping the theology of the very pastors who now fill many of our pulpits.

If Berkhof supports ERAS, Strachan has a significant ally in the American seminary tradition. But if Strachan has cited Berkhof in a way that conceals his rejection of the doctrine, then we have a scandal.

The citation of Louis Berkhof by proponents of ERAS contains a specific editorial truncation—an ellipsis—that removes Berkhof’s explicit explanation of what “subordination” means, thereby distorting the meaning of the text.

The Forensic Evidence: The Smoking Gun

Strachan cites Berkhof to support the idea that “subordination” is a standard orthodox category. Here is the comparison:

“Strachan’s” Citation:

The only subordination of which we can speak, is a subordination in respect to order and relationship…. Generation and procession take place within the Divine Being, and imply a certain subordination as to the manner of personal subsistence, but not subordination as far as the possession of the divine essence is concerned. This ontological Trinity and its inherent order is the metaphysical basis of the economical Trinity.^[1]

The Original Text:

The only subordination of which we can speak, is a subordination in respect to order and relationship. It is especially when we reflect on the relation of the three persons to the divine essence that all analogies fail us and we become deeply conscious of the fact that the Trinity is a mystery far beyond our comprehension. It is the incomprehensible glory of the Godhead. Just as human nature is too rich and too full to be embodied in a single individual, and comes to its adequate expression only in humanity as a whole so the divine Being unfolds itself in its fulness only in its three fold subsistence of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

d. The subsistence and operation of the three persons in the divine Being is marked by a certain definite order. There is a certain order in the ontological Trinity. In personal subsistence the Father is first, the Son second, and the Holy Spirit third. It need hardly be said that this order does not pertain to any priority of time or of essential dignity, but only to the logical order of derivation. The Father is neither begotten by, nor proceeds from any other person; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son from all eternity. Generation and procession take place within the Divine Being, and imply a certain subordination as to the manner of personal subsistence, but no subordination as far as the possession of the divine essence is concerned. This ontological Trinity and its inherent order is the metaphysical basis of the economical Trinity.^[2]

The Verdict

Loved ones, look closely at the ellipsis (….) in Strachan’s citation. It hides nearly an entire paragraph of theological qualification. What did he omit?

• The Mystery of Essence: Berkhof warns that analogies fail us precisely when we consider the relation of persons to essence. He emphasizes the “incomprehensible glory” of the Godhead unfolding in threefold subsistence. This context of mystery warns against the very kind of rationalistic mapping (human father/son = divine Father/Son) that ERAS employs.
• The Definition of Order: Most critically, the omitted text contains Berkhof’s explicit definition of the “order” he is discussing. He writes: “It need hardly be said that this order does not pertain to any priority of time or of essential dignity, but only to the logical order of derivation.”

By cutting straight from “order and relationship” to “Generation and procession,” Strachan skips the vital sentence where Berkhof restricts “order” to logical derivation (origin). This allows the reader to import a foreign concept of “authority” into the word “order.” But Berkhof has already defined the order: it is about who comes from whom (derivation), not who commands whom (authority).

This is not a summary. It is not a paraphrase. It is a distortion. By removing the guardrails Berkhof placed around the concept of “order,” the quote is weaponized to support a hierarchy that Berkhof specifically excludes by limiting the order to “logical derivation.”

The Plagiarism Factor

This here is also where the previous allusions to plagiarism are most acute. The truncated version of the Berkhof quote is identical to the version present in Wayne Grudem’s Systematic Theology.^[3] Are we to believe that Strachan simply chose to omit the exact same 203 words (more than 75% of the original quote) in the exact same place as Grudem did, without having any dependence on Grudem originally?

The silver bullet on this accusation is found in the structure of the ellipsis itself. Elsewhere in his article (such as the second quotation of Hilary of Poitiers), Strachan uses the standard three-dot ellipsis (…), which is a single typographical character. However, in the Berkhof quote, what is reproduced is a strange four-dot ellipsis (….), which is not a standard character but four separate periods.

While this may seem like a nitpick, it is forensic evidence. It indicates that Strachan was likely not typing the quotation himself from a physical book, nor copying it from a properly formatted digital edition. Instead, the non-standard formatting suggests a direct copy-paste from Grudem’s text, preserving even the peculiar punctuation.

It doesn’t matter that this was published as a newsletter; you do not take another man’s work and present it as your own. That is both a violation of the eighth commandment against stealing and the ninth commandment against lying.

This is the danger of “Research by Ctrl+F.” When you rely on the work of others without checking the context, you become complicit in their errors. In this case, the error is an editorial manipulation that turns a witness for the defense into a witness for the prosecution.

The Broader Context: A Fortress Against Hierarchy

The deception becomes even more apparent when we examine the surrounding paragraphs of Berkhof’s Systematic Theology. Strachan’s argument relies on the idea that “order” implies “authority.” Berkhof systematically dismantles this assumption.

• Numerical Unity of Essence: Berkhof insists that the Persons possess a “numerical unity of essence,” meaning the divine nature is indivisible. He writes: “There can be no subordination as to essential being of the one person of the Godhead to the other, and therefore no difference in personal dignity.” (p. 88)
• Logical Order of Derivation: When Berkhof speaks of the Father being first, he clarifies: “It need hardly be said that this order does not pertain to any priority of time or of essential dignity, but only to the logical order of derivation.” (p. 89)
• Against Subordinationism: Berkhof explicitly positions his view “over against the subordinationism of Origen… and the Arminians, and of Clarke and other Anglican theologians.” By citing Berkhof as a supporter, Strachan recruits a man who spent his career fighting against the very “subordinationism” Strachan is promoting.

Conclusion

The illusion is broken. Louis Berkhof, the conduit of Dutch Reformed orthodoxy to the American church, explicitly denies the doctrine of Eternal Functional Subordination. He categorizes “subordination of authority” as a heterodox position held by Socinians.

Strachan’s claim to have a “murderer’s row” of witnesses collapses under the weight of the primary sources.

• Augustine granted a conditional “if” to refute an Arian.
• Hodge limited subordination to taxis and equality.
• Vos limited submission to the voluntary covenant.
• Berkhof explicitly denied subordination of authority.

In our final installment, we will move from history to theology. We will examine the theological cost of ERAS, addressing Strachan’s argument about the Incarnation and his troubling definition of the Trinity in The Grand Design.

Key Terms

• Socinians: A 16th/17th-century anti-Trinitarian sect that denied the divinity of Christ and held to a form of subordinationism; Berkhof associates “subordination of authority” with this group.
• Remonstrants: The followers of Jacobus Arminius; Berkhof notes their tendency toward subordinationist views of the Trinity.
• Ellipsis: The punctuation mark (…) used to indicate omitted text; in this case, used to omit a crucial theological qualification.
• Numerical Unity: The doctrine that the divine essence is one in number, not merely one in kind (specific unity); this prevents any division of authority or will.

---

^[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] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1938), 88-89.

^[3] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2020), 315.