A Reading Guide through the EFS Debate

For various reasons, the debate over the eternal, functional subordination (EFS) of God the Son has been revived in some circles online. But if you missed the debate the first time around (Summer 2016), you may feel like you’ve stumbled across two men fighting in an alley: you don’t know who started the fight or what they’re fighting about, but blood has been drawn.

For this reason, I’ve compiled a guided reading list for getting caught up with the debate. Adam Parker carefully put together this chronological list and Alastair Roberts did something similar here. But I’m not interested in giving an exhaustive list here. My goal is to list some of the back-and-forth that I believe was most helpful.

I should admit upfront: I am adamantly against EFS. I believe it is unbiblical, heterodox, and degrading to the Son because it does not honor Him even as the Father (John 5:23). I agree with Fesko that EFS is “eerily similar to semi-Arian claims.”[1] He explains further,

“Unlike historical semi-Arians, modern proponents of ESS affirm that the Son is of the same essence (homoousios) as the Father. However, by positing different levels of authority and submission in the Godhead, they undermine their affirmation. That is because divine authority is a property of the divine essence, which means that different levels of authority ultimately suggest that the Son has a different—and lesser—divine essence than the Father.”

However, it is necessary to understand and evaluate the claims of pro-EFS writers. For this reason, I have included posts written by pro-EFS authors that explain their views well.

Setting the Stage

1. Mike Riccardi: “Making Sense of the Trinity (EFS) Debate” (https://thecripplegate.com/making-sense-of-the-trinity-efs-debate/)

If you feel completely lost when people start spouting acronyms (EFS, ERAS, ESS), this introductory post by Mike Riccardi is the best place to start. He outlines the terms, issues, and key passages of the debate.

2. Wyatt Graham: “How Wayne Grudem and Bruce Ware Argue for Eternal Relations of Submission and Authority in Their Own Words” (https://wyattgraham.com/how-wayne-grudem-and-bruce-ware-argue-for-eternal-relations-of-submission-and-authority-in-their-own-words/)

This post is also a helpful introduction to the positions held by Ware and Grudem. I would quibble with a few things, but Graham has done us all a service by outlining their positions.[2]

3. Todd Pruitt: “Let’s All Be Nicene” (https://www.reformation21.org/mos/1517/lets-all-be-nicene)

Pruitt collected some of the more bodacious quotes from Bruce Ware’s book Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance to show how extreme Ware’s positions is. These quotes help frame the severity of the debate.
This book was written before the 2016 debates and is, in some ways, foundational to the debate.

The Blogs Heard Around the World

Liam Goligher’s two posts that lit the blogosphere on fire were published on June 3 and June 6, 2016.

1. Liam Goligher: “Is it Okay to Teach Complementarianism Based on Eternal Subordination?” (https://www.reformation21.org/mos/housewife-theologian/is-it-okay-to-teach-a-complementarianism-based-on-eternal-subordination)

Goligher comes out swinging in this first post as he highlights the error, introduces the historical position, and argues for the severity of the error.
He writes, “To speculate, suggest, or say, as some do, that there are three minds, three wills, and three powers with the Godhead is to move beyond orthodoxy (into neo-tritheism) and to verge on idolatry (since it posits a different God). It should certainly exclude such people from holding office in the church of God.”

2. Liam Goligher: “Reinventing God” (https://www.reformation21.org/mos/housewife-theologian/reinventing-god#.V13bbvkrLIX)

Goligher continues what he started in the first post, this time focusing on a few more passages of Scripture.
On 1 Corinthians 11:3, Goligher writes, “Only in His voluntary state as a servant do we read that ‘the head of Christ is God’ (1 Cor. 11:3). Only in the economy of redemption, in His state of humiliation, is this true. As the second and last Adam, acting for and in place of His people.”
This is an extremely important passage for the EFS debate. Pro-EFS readers take it to mean that the Father is head of the Son according to His divinity. The traditional understanding of this passage is that it refers to the Son in the economy of redemption according to His humanity. That is why Paul speaks of “Christ” and not “Son” more generally.
Goligher again uses strong language: “To speculate, suggest, or say that there is a real primacy of the Father or subordination of the Son within the eternal Trinity is to have moved out of Christian orthodoxy and to have moved or be moving towards idolatry. Idolatry is to believe or say of God something which is not true of Him. Scripture is our authority in the matter; and the church’s confessed faith is a safety check on our understanding of it.”

3. Carl Trueman: “Fahrenheit 381” (https://www.reformation21.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/fahrenheit-381#.V13bbvkrLIX)

One day after Goligher’s second post, Carl Trueman chimed in to show support.
He offers the same explanation Goligher drew from 1 Corinthians 11:3, “when it comes to submission in scripture, the explicit New Testament model for such in marriage is the relationship of the incarnate, crucified Christ and the church, not that of the Father and Son in eternity.”
Trueman also predicts here that EFS will function as a “staging post to Arianism” in the years ahead.

EFS Response

1. Bruce Ware: “God the Son—At Once Eternally God with His Father, and Eternally Son of the Father” (https://www.reformation21.org/blogs/god-the-sonat-once-eternally-g.php)

Three days after Goligher’s second post, Ware found it necessary to jump into the action. He makes a point in this post that becomes important for the rest of the debate: Pro-EFS writers explicitly affirm orthodox language. So, the real charge against them is that they functionally deny it. As Mr. Inigo Montoya famously said, “You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.”
Throughout this article, it is hard to miss the fact that Ware functionally denies inseparable operations by conflating divine operations, appropriations, and order of procession in the Trinity. It is difficult to come away from this post not seeing three distinct wills/minds in Ware’s Trinity (i.e. neo-tritheism).

2. Carl Trueman: “A Surrejoinder to Bruce Ware” (https://www.reformation21.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/a-surrejoinder-to-bruce-ware)

Trueman picks up on the fact that Ware affirms orthodoxy in word but denies it in function.
He also points out that Ware’s explicit rejection of eternal generation clearly puts him outside of Nicene orthodoxy: “I never denied that Professor Ware claims the homoousion, nor asserted that he is an Arian. The point at issue is that of the nature of the relations. In his writings, Professor Ware explicitly rejects the Nicene notion of eternal generation while asserting that of eternal functional submission.”
He also offers this useful summary: “Nicene Trinitarianism involves a host of commitments – to divine simplicity as classically articulated by Gregory Nazianzus, to the unity of the divine will, to inseparable operations and, of course, to eternal generation. Repudiation or revision of any one or more of these involves a revision of the whole and thus ceases to be Nicene Trinitarianism.”
Note: Ware did eventually affirm eternal generation. While this is a step in the right direction, it is hard to celebrate such an elementary affirmation.

Another Perspective

1. Mark Jones: “Why Did the Son Become Incarnate? Because He Submitted?” (https://www.reformation21.org/mos/1517/why-did-the-son-become-incarnate-because-he-submitted#.V1roHfkrIuU)

This post by Jones takes a different approach to the debate. Instead of arguing directly against EFS, he shows that there are better biblical and historical explanations for why the Son became incarnate than EFS.
He writes, “There are better ways of understanding why, for example, the Son became Mediator. Those ways do not require us to use the language of submission when it comes to the eternal relations between the Father and the Son.”

Historical Theology Has Entered the Chat

1. Glenn Butner: “Eternal Submission and the Story of the Seven Ecumenical Councils” (https://www.reformation21.org/blogs/eternal-submission-and-the-sto.php)

Butner offers a brief survey of historical decisions and terms as well as how they are being used and abused in the EFS debate.
He also makes a helpful exegetical point on 1 Corinthians 15:28, “Given the context of 15:21 calling Christ the man who brought resurrection, and 1 Cor. 15's use of the Second Adam motif, I believe that Christ's humanity is in view here.”
This is a much better explanation than that offered by the EFS crowd on this key verse.

2. Mark Jones: “God’s Will and Eternal Submission” (https://www.newcitytimes.com/faith/gods-will-and-eternal-submission-part-one)

Jones explains the historical use of “will” and how severely the idea of multiple wills in God has typically been treated.
Especially interesting is his quotation of the 2nd Helvetic Confession, “We also condemn all heresies and heretics who teach that the Son and Holy Spirit are God in name only, and also that there is something created and subservient, or subordinate to another in the Trinity, and that there is something unequal in it, a greater or a less, something corporeal or corporeally conceived, something different with respect to character or will, something mixed or solitary, as if the Son and Holy Spirit were the affections and properties of one God the Father.”

3. Mark Jones: “Eternal Subordination of Wills? Nein!” (https://www.newcitytimes.com/faith/eternal-subordination-of-wills-nein)

More on the issue of wills.
Some helpful Gethsemane exegesis.

4. Owen Strachan: “The Glorious Godhead and Proto-Arian Bulls” (https://www.patheos.com/blogs/thoughtlife/2016/06/the-glorious-godhead-and-proto-arian-bulls/)

In an oddly giddy fashion, Strachan goes to bat for the EFS position.
He first offers an unfortunate interpretation of 1 Corinthians 11:3. “We notice this statement attaches no temporal limit to this relationship. It is entirely natural to read 1 Corinthians 11:3 and come away assuming that it maps the Father-Son relationship in all stages (while recognizing that the full display of this dynamic came when the Son took on flesh).”
One wonders if Strachan got a chance to read the other interpretations of this verse presented in previous posts. Unfortunately, he does not interact with them.
Finally, Strachan makes some comments about post-Reformation theology that can only be described as uninformed (see Jones’ rejoinder below). Strachan writes, “It increasingly seems to me like we find ourselves in a moment similar to the post-Reformation period, the time after a great gospel awakening, when a certain scholasticizing tendency cropped up in German circles (to cite one locale). Then, speaking broadly, theology moved away from a rigorously, richly textual mooring and began to be more of a philosophical enterprise.” Sadly, Strachan offers no sources for this claim.

5. Mark Jones: “Biblicism, Socinianism, and ‘Arid’ Scholasticism” (https://www.newcitytimes.com/faith/biblicism-socinianism-and-arid-scholasticism/)

This post was written in response to Strachan’s previous post.
First, Jones points out similarities between EFS reasoning and Socinian reasoning. “What was the real shortcoming of Socinianism? It was not, in fact, the conclusions they arrived at by using the Bible. It was more fundamental than that: it was the method and presuppositions that led them to their conclusions. The Socinian tendency to anti-metaphysical Biblicism was rejected and refuted by Reformed theologians who were not impressed with such a naïve approach to theology. Socinianism took a decidedly different approach regarding the relationship between Scripture, doctrine, and reason; they also had a different view of Scripture and its divine authorship.”
Second, he pushes back on Strachan’s evaluation of post-Reformation theology. Jones writes, “This is just mere guesswork by Strachan that flies in the face of the evidence. Not during, but especially after the time of the Reformation do we find a massive emphasis on exegesis, with a plethora of Bible commentaries being written and disseminated into the hands of laypeople. Has he read the Minutes of the Westminster Assembly and the highly sophisticated exegesis that was done on the floor when key passages were debated? I’m fairly confident that many children in Puritan England knew their Bibles better than many ministers do today, largely because of the way in which the word was applied in pulpits and homes.”
This should serve as a reminder for all who write and speak publicly: Don’t make confident assertions about things you don’t really understand (Prov. 18:13).
Third, Jones gives a swift critique of Strachan’s explanation of 1 Corinthians 11:3. “If his reading is “entirely natural”, then why has it been so entirely unnatural for theologians over the centuries to see this? Since Strachan thought the Reformation was a time of a “great gospel awakening,” why is it that Calvin’s exegesis of 1 Corinthians 11:3 flatly contradicts what Strachan says?”
The final four paragraphs of this article are helpful for setting the tone and context of the debate.

6. Wayne Grudem: “Another Thirteen Evangelical Theologians Who Affirm the Eternal Submission of the Son to the Father” (https://www.reformation21.org/blogs/another-thirteen-evangelical-t.php)

First, Grudem quotes 13 or so verses without any real explanation. Sadly, the little explanation he does offer gives a clear impression of distinct wills/minds in the Trinity. His explanations also seem to reject inseparable operations outright.
Second, the main point of Grudem’s article is to show 13(ish) theologians using words like “submission” in relation to the Son.

7. Mark Jones: “Wayne Grudem’s Historical Theology” (https://www.newcitytimes.com/faith/wayne-grudems-historical-theology/)

This is Jones’ response to the previous article by Grudem.
Jones, while showing respect for Grudem, takes issue with Grudem’s haphazard method of “historical theology.”
“[Grudem’s] piece is a-historical and he advances quotes that do little to bolster his case, with even one or two quotes actually contradicting his view.”
“Throwing down a whole host of quotes that span a few centuries, but without any analysis of the quotes in their historical context is a dangerous way to do historical theology.”
Jones demonstrates that Grudem has misused or misunderstood his sources on several accounts.
Bonus: Jones offers to debate Owen Strachan. “As for Owen Strachan’s commentary on Grudem’s post, I found it a little immature. Given his confidence, I’d happily debate him face-to-face on this issue if he’d agree.”
Strachan’s commentary on Grudem’s previous post: (https://www.patheos.com/blogs/thoughtlife/2016/06/wayne-grudem-critiques-liam-golighers-historical-theology/) In a curious move, Strachan recently decided to post a blog using the same haphazard historical method as Grudem: “The Danger of Equating Eternal Authority and Submission with Arian heresy” (https://owenstrachan.substack.com/p/the-danger-of-equating-eternal-authority). He quotes the exact same passages that Grudem quoted from Vos, Carl F.H. Henry, Ovey, Frame, and Packer as well as a mildly expanded quote from Schaff. However, he still makes the same mistakes Grudem made. He offers no historical explanation of the quotes which span several centuries and languages. We are left to wonder if he has understood the criticisms leveled against Grudem’s original post.
My own critique of the type of “historical” theology presented by Grudem and Strachan: “Historical Theologians as Hired Guns” (https://www.expositoryparenting.org/blog/2022/5/31)

8. Bruce Ware: “Knowing the Self-Revealed God Who Is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit” (https://secundumscripturas.com/2016/07/04/knowing-the-self-revealed-god-who-is-father-son-and-holy-spirit/)

Ware attempts to clarify some of the previous debate and invokes new historical sources.

9. Carl Trueman & Mark Jones: “Fulfilled Prophecy and Another Guest Post from Mark Jones” (https://www.reformation21.org/mos/postcards-from-palookaville/a-fulfilled-prophecy-and-another-guest-post-from-mark-jones#.V3xvZbgrIuU)

Mark Jones offers a response to the previous post by Ware.

Any Resolution?

1. Mike Riccardi: “EFS Redux: Aiming for Closure on the Trinity Debate” (https://thecripplegate.com/efs-redux-aiming-for-closure-on-the-trinity-debate/)

If your head is spinning at this point, this summary article by Riccardi should clear things up for you.
Riccardi carefully summarizes the key issues and why he ultimately decided against the EFS position.