The Roof Was Not Strong Enough

My basic point remains: if you argue for EFS and/or reject (or even regard as negotiable) eternal generation, then you stand outside the bounds of the historic Nicene Christian faith as set forth at Constantinople in 381 and held thereafter by the church catholic. I understand that many hold these views sincerely, without realizing the historical/theological/creedal implications…”.

Carl Trueman

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


    • Eternal Functional Subordination. It’s not traditional terminology. It’s language invented by proponents of the analogy between their view of ontological subordination of the Son and male/female relations (in defense of complementarianism).

    • Russell,

      The problem is that those making this case have blurred and sometimes ignored the distinction between economic or the voluntary submission of the Son and ontological subordination, thus placing at risk Nicene-Constantinopolitan orthodoxy.

      It is one thing to speak of the primacy of the Father in order, another to make that primacy a matter if essence or being.

      To complicate things further, some of those who are making these arguments, are also denying the simplicity of God and his immutability. Thus, we are faced with a sort of wholesale, biblicistic, quasi-Socinian revision of the doctrine of God.

  1. If the E in EFS were to stand for Everlasting, then EFS would be scriptural, 1 Cor 15:28. He will forever be subject to the Father, because He is Man. But before He became Man, whilst Begotten from eternity (Eternal Generation – Nobody contradicted Nebuchadnezzar when he identified Him as the Son of God in the fiery furnace), He was not subordinate from eternity (past, *z*l in the semitic sources I’m familiar with), but He will be subject for eternity (future, *b*d in said sources).

Comments are closed.