In the previous five articles, we have engaged in a forensic examination of the historical claims made by Owen Strachan. We have seen how citations from Augustine, Hodge, Vos, and Berkhof were mishandled, truncated, and stripped of their dogmatic context to support a view they explicitly rejected.
But historical revisionism—as egregious as it is—is often a symptom of a deeper malady. Why are proponents of ERAS so eager to find “authority” and “submission” in the eternal life of God? The answer lies in the theology itself.
The fact that Strachan misquotes scholars is bad historical theology, but the real tragedy is the theological damage that ERAS does to one’s soul. It distorts the understanding of God such that He becomes barely recognizable as the God of the Bible. In this final essay, we must turn our attention from what Strachan claims others said to what Strachan himself says. When we examine the internal logic of his position, we find a doctrine that unsettles the very foundations of who God is and how He saves us.
The theological cost of ERAS is nothing less than the confusion of the Creator/creature distinction, the collapse of the divine processions into economic missions, and the gutting of the biblical logic of the atonement.
The Incarnational Fallacy: “The Son Always Was Who He Is”
In his defense of ERAS, Strachan frequently employs a simple, intuitive argument: “The Son always was who he is.”
The logic goes like this: If Jesus submitted to the Father in the Gospels, and if Jesus is the eternal Son, then the Son must eternally submit to the Father. To say otherwise, the argument suggests, is to posit a change in God or to suggest that the Jesus we see in history is not the true Jesus of eternity.
This sounds pious, but it rests on a fundamental confusion between the Person of the Son and the natures of the Son.
It is true that the Person of the Son is immutable (unchanging). However, in the Incarnation, the Son assumed a human nature. He took on properties that he did not possess in eternity past: a human body, a human soul, and a human will.
If we apply Strachan’s logic consistently—that what we see in the Incarnation must be read back into the eternal life of God because “the Son always was who he is”—we arrive at absurd and heretical conclusions.
- Jesus suffered in the Incarnation. Did he suffer in eternity past?
- Jesus grew in wisdom and stature (Luke 2:52). Did he grow in eternity past?
- Jesus died. Was the Son capable of death in eternity past?
Strachan wants to isolate submission as the one attribute of the Incarnate Christ that is projected back into eternity, while rightfully denying that suffering or death are eternal. But on what basis? If the Son’s submission in Gethsemane (“Not my will, but yours be done”) reveals an eternal structure of authority, why does his suffering on Golgotha not reveal an eternal structure of pain?
The orthodox answer is that submission belongs to the form of a servant (Phil 2:7)—the human nature assumed for the work of redemption. To make submission a property of his eternal Person is to confuse the Creator with the creature.
The Meaning of “Cannot”: An Exegetical Defense of Equality
One of the persistent critiques leveled by proponents of ERAS against their detractors is that the rebuttal is purely historical or dogmatic, lacking biblical exegesis. “Show us the verses,” they say. “Don’t just quote the Fathers; quote the Apostles.”
This is a fair challenge. As Reformed Christians, our final authority is not Augustine or Berkhof, but the Word of God. While we have spent the last five articles demonstrating that ERAS fails the test of historical catholicity, we must now demonstrate that it fails the test of biblical fidelity.
In this article, we will examine one of the central texts in the debate: John 5:19. Proponents of ERAS often cite this verse as proof that the Son is eternally submissive. However, a careful exegesis reveals that this text is actually one of the strongest proofs for the full ontological equality and inseparable operations of the Father and the Son.
The Text: John 5:19
“So Jesus said to them, ‘Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.'” (ESV)
ERAS proponents read this “cannot” as a restriction of authority. The Son cannot act on his own because he is under orders. He is the obedient subordinate who must wait for the Father’s command.
But is this what Jesus is saying?
The Context: A Charge of Equality
To understand verse 19, we must look at verse 18. Why is Jesus speaking? He is responding to a charge of blasphemy.
“This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.” (John 5:18)
The Jewish leaders understood Jesus’ claim to be the “Son” not as a claim to subordination, but as a claim to equality. If Jesus were merely saying, “I am God’s subordinate deputy,” the charge of making himself “equal with God” would be baseless.
In verse 19, Jesus does not retract this claim. He does not say, “No, you misunderstood; I am actually under the Father’s authority.” Instead, he doubles down on the claim of equality by explaining the nature of his relationship with the Father.
It is worth noting here that the treatment of John 5:19 by ERAS proponents mirrors the very methodology they employ with historical sources. Just as they extract the word “subordination” from dogmatic contexts that define it as taxis, they extract the phrase “can do nothing” from a biblical context that defines it as equality. They do not read the text to discover its meaning in context; they mutilate it to suit the purposes they already had in mind when they came to it.
The Arian Parallel
It is instructive to note that this specific exegetical dispute is not new. John Calvin, in his commentary on John’s Gospel, observes that this text was a primary battleground in the ancient church. He writes: “Arius inferred from it that the Son is inferior to the Father, because he can do nothing of himself.”[1]
The argument that the Son’s inability to act independently implies a relationship of subordination is not a recovery of Nicene orthodoxy; it is a retrieval of the Arian hermeneutic. While Arius argued for ontological inferiority and ERAS argues for functional subordination, the logic is identical: they both read the “cannot” of John 5:19 as a statement of restriction imposed by a superior, rather than a statement of union possessed by an equal.
Calvin himself locates the “inability” not in an eternal authority structure, but in the Son’s manifestation in the flesh, arguing that “the discourse does not relate to the simple Divinity of Christ, and those statements which we shall immediately see do not simply and of themselves relate to the eternal Word of God, but apply only to the Son of God, so far as he is manifested in the flesh.”[2]
Even in the 16th century, the Reformed tradition recognized that reading eternal subordination into this text was the error of the heretics, not the confession of the orthodox.
The Modern Revival
This ancient error was given new life in our generation through the influential work of D. A. Carson. It is no secret that the 2016 controversy was sparked, in part, by critiques of Carson’s work on the Gospel of John. In his commentary, Carson argues:
The truth is that the Son can do nothing by himself… yet is he always submissive to the Father… In this sense the relationship between the Father and the Son is not reciprocal… The Father initiates, sends, commands, commissions, grants; the Son responds, obeys, performs his Father’s will, receives authority.[3]
Notice the shift. The “cannot” of nature (he cannot act separately because he is one with the Father) has become the “cannot” of authority (he cannot act because he must obey commands). Carson explicitly denies reciprocity (“not reciprocal”), introducing a unilateral structure of command and obedience into the life of God. This is the exegetical bedrock upon which Strachan builds his theology. It is a departure from the classical reading which sees the “cannot” as an affirmation of the Son’s shared nature and inseparable power.
The Meaning of “Cannot”: Nature, Not Authority
When Jesus says, “The Son can do nothing of his own accord,” he uses the Greek word dynamai (to be able). This is a statement about ability, or power.
Why is the Son unable to act independently of the Father? Is it because he is forbidden? No. It is because he is one with the Father.
If I say, “God cannot lie” (Titus 1:2), I am not saying God is forbidden from lying by a higher authority. I am saying that lying is contrary to his nature. He cannot lie because he is Truth.
Similarly, the Son cannot act independently of the Father because he shares the same nature and the same will as the Father. To act independently would be to act against his own essence.
- ERAS Interpretation: The Son has a distinct will, but he submits it to the Father. He could act differently, but he chooses not to (or is commanded not to).
- Classical Interpretation: The Son shares the Father’s will. He cannot act differently because there is only one divine power at work.
“For Whatever the Father Does…”
The second half of verse 19 seals the argument: “For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.”
This is a claim of omnipotence. No creature—no matter how exalted—can do “whatever” God does. Can a creature create ex nihilo? Can a creature give life to the dead (v. 21)? Can a creature judge the world (v. 22)?
Jesus is claiming that his power is co-extensive with the Father’s power.
- The Father does X.
- The Son does X.
- They do it “likewise” (homoiōs)—in the same manner.
This is the doctrine of Inseparable Operations. The Father and Son do not perform separate actions (the Father commanding, the Son obeying). They perform the same action. As Augustine says, “The Father does not do some things, the Son other things; but the same things that the Father does, the Son does in like manner.”
Supporting Witnesses
This reading of John 5:19 is supported by the broader Johannine witness.
- John 10:30: “I and the Father are one.” Not one in purpose only, but one in essence (which is why the Jews picked up stones again). If they are one in essence, they are one in will. A single will cannot have authority over itself.
- John 16:15: “All that the Father has is mine.” This includes authority, glory, and power. If the Son possesses “all” that the Father has, he cannot lack the authority to initiate.
- John 5:26: “For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself.” The Son possesses aseity (life in himself). A being with life-in-himself is not dependent on another for direction.
Gutting the Atonement: The Argument of Hebrews 5
The most critical unforced error of Strachan’s theology is that it destroys the argument of Hebrews 5. The author of Hebrews explicitly grounds Christ’s qualification as High Priest in his learned obedience.
7 In the days of his flesh, Jesus offered up prayers and supplications, with loud cries and tears, to him who was able to save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverence. 8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered. 9 And being made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation to all who obey him, 10 being designated by God a high priest after the order of Melchizedek. (Hebrews 5:7–10, ESV)
Let’s contrast the logic of Scripture with the logic of ERAS:
- “In the days of his flesh”: The text explicitly locates this obedience in a specific epoch—the days of his incarnation. If the Son is eternally submissive to the Father’s authority, why does the Holy Spirit specify “the days of his flesh”? The implication is that this obedience is unique to his incarnate state.
- “Although he was a son, he learned obedience”: Strachan argues that because he is the Son, he is necessarily obedient. The author of Hebrews argues the exact opposite: “Although” (even though) he was a Son, he still had to learn obedience. The force of the argument is that obedience is not intrinsic to Sonship; it is something the Son had to acquire through experience.
- “Through what he suffered”: The text links the learning of obedience directly to suffering. Since the Son cannot suffer in eternity past, he cannot “learn obedience” in eternity past. If obedience is an eternal attribute, how can it be learned?
- “He became the source of eternal salvation”: Christ’s ability to save is grounded in this acquired obedience (“being made perfect”). If Strachan is right—that the Son was always obedient by nature—then the “making perfect” of Hebrews 5 is redundant. But if Hebrews is right, then our salvation depends on Christ doing something in time that he did not do in eternity.
- “Being designated”: One cannot be designated (appointed) to a role that is intrinsic to one’s being. If the Son is eternally the subordinate executor of the Father’s will, he does not need to be designated High Priest; he simply is one.
By insisting that the Son “always was” submissive, Strachan flattens the redemptive history of the Son’s humiliation and exaltation. If the Son is eternally subordinate, his obedience is not a meritorious act of voluntary humiliation; it is just the natural state of affairs.
Defining God by His Works: The Error of The Grand Design
The theological cost of ERAS becomes even steeper when we look at how it defines the Persons of the Trinity. In his book The Grand Design, co-authored with Gavin Peacock, Strachan writes:
The Father is the Father because He sends the Son. The Son is the Son because He submits to the Father’s will. The Spirit is the Spirit because the Father and the Son send Him. There is no Holy Trinity without the order of authority and submission.[4]
Read that carefully. Strachan is grounding the very identity (“The Father is the Father because…”) of the Divine Persons in their economic activities (sending and submitting).
In classical Trinitarian theology, we distinguish between Processions (internal to God) and Missions (external actions).
- Processions (Ad Intra): The Father begets the Son. The Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son. These are eternal and necessary. They define who God is in Himself.
- Missions (Ad Extra): The Father sends the Son into the world. The Father and Son send the Spirit to the church. These are voluntary and relate to creation.
Strachan’s quote collapses this distinction. He defines the Father not by begetting, but by sending.
The problem is fatal: You cannot send someone unless there is a “where” to send them. Sending implies a destination. It implies creation.
If the Father is the Father because He sends the Son, then the Father’s identity depends upon the existence of the world.
If the Son is the Son because He submits to a mission, then the Son’s identity depends upon there being a creation to redeem.
This view makes God dependent on the world. It implies that without creation, God would not be Father, Son, and Spirit in the way Strachan defines them. This destroys the aseity of God (his self-sufficiency). It suggests a God who needs the world to be who He is.
The Duck Test
Strachan vehemently objects to the label of “Semi-Arian” or “Quasi-Arian.” He affirms the Nicene Creed and denies that the Son is a creature. We acknowledge his formal profession.
However, we must also acknowledge the functional reality of his arguments.
- The Methodology: He uses the same proof-texts (John 5:19, 14:28) that the Arians used.
- The Logic: He employs the same logic (inability to act implies subordination; sending implies authority) that the Arians employed.
- The Conclusion: He arrives at the same functional conclusion (the Son is eternally under the authority of the Father) that the Arians championed, differing only on whether this subordination is of essence or person.
When you misuse the same passages, to make the same arguments, and come to basically the same conclusion as the ancient heresy, what other label is appropriate?
If it quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck.
A Word to Owen
Owen, we are not your enemies. We are your brothers. We do not critique your work because we wish you harm, but because we love the truth and we care for your soul.
You have built a theological house on the sand of truncated quotes and novel categories. You have claimed the support of men like Augustine, Hodge, Vos, and Berkhof, while teaching the very things they labored to refute. You have confused the Incarnation with the Eternal Generation, and in doing so, you have obscured the glory of the Son who voluntarily humbled himself for us.
There is safety in the great tradition of the Church. There is rest in the Nicene faith. You do not need to invent new categories to defend biblical manhood. You do not need to project hierarchy into the Godhead to save the family.
We urge you to repent. Repent of the mishandling of these sources. Repent of the charge that those who hold to the classic faith are “whippersnappers” or “tribalists.” Return to the doctrine of the Trinity as it was given by the Apostles, affirmed by the Councils, and confessed by the faithful through the ages. Come home to the God who is One in Will, One in Power, and One in Glory.
Conclusion: A Trinity Without the World
The Reformed tradition calls us to worship a God who is fully God apart from us. Before the mountains were brought forth, before there was a world to save or a mission to accomplish, the Father loved the Son in the unity of the Holy Spirit.
There was no command. There was no submission. There was no authority structure. There was only the perfect, indivisible, blessed life of the three Persons in one Essence, willing one Will, loving with one Love.
ERAS offers us a different God—a God whose life is defined by hierarchy, whose identity is wrapped up in roles of command and obedience, and whose definition seems dangerously tethered to the creation he made.
We reject ERAS not because we are “whippersnappers” with encyclopedias, and not merely because Strachan misquoted Louis Berkhof (though he did). We reject it because we love the God of Athanasius, Augustine, and Calvin. We love the God who is autotheos—God in Himself, sufficient, blessed, and free.
This concludes our series. Let us hold fast to the faith once for all delivered.
Key Terms
- Aseity: From the Latin a se (“from himself”); the doctrine that God is entirely self-sufficient and independent of creation.
- Inseparable Operations: The doctrine that in every external work of the Trinity (creation, redemption, etc.), the three persons act as a single agent.
- Processions: The eternal, internal relations of origin (Begetting and Spiration) that define the Persons of the Trinity apart from creation.
- Missions: The temporal, external actions of sending the Son and Spirit into the world for the work of redemption.
- Creator/Creature Distinction: The fundamental theological principle that God is qualitatively different from his creation; attributes proper to creatures (like change, suffering, or submission to authority) cannot be attributed to the divine nature.
[1] John Calvin, Commentary on the Gospel According to John, trans. William Pringle, vol. 1 (Logos Bible Software, 2010), 198.
[2] Ibid.
[3] DA Carson, The Gospel According to John (Intervarsity Press, 1991), 250-251
[4] Owen Strachan and Gavin Peacock, The Grand Design (Christian Focus, 2016), 87.