A précis for a potential critique of EFS/ERAS/ESS:

The ideology of Eternal Relations of Authority and Submission suffers from biblical, historical, philosophical, theological, methodical, anthropological, Christological, political, and ethical deficiencies.

(Thread)

(1) Biblically, it depends on the imposition of an extrabiblical hierarchy in 1 Cor 11:3 and a reductive reading of 1 Cor 15:28.

(2) Historically, it ignored the theological formulation that undergirds the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, thus once rejecting eternal generation.

(3) Philosophically, ERAS divides divine ontology from divine economy in eternity itself, sadly & effectively denying the perfection of God as pure act.

(4) Theologically, it undermines divine simplicity, innovating ideas about three supposed wills (or willings) in the one God.

(5) Methodically, it prioritizes a counter-cultural concern to engage in anti-feminism before the concern to know God. Anthropology thus drives theology, validating Feuerbach’s complaint.

(6) Anthropologically, it imposes upon humanity a reductive understanding of the Imago Dei.

(7) Christologically, it fails to distinguish his two natures.

(8) Politically (if we may sanctify the term), it imposes the perversity of human power struggles upon the very nature of God himself, even pitting the Father against the authority of the Son, reducing Christ.

(9) Ethically, it invites those who imbibe its theology to undermine Deus et Imago Dei. Undermining worship, it downgrades Christ. Undermining morality, it denigrates those made in his image. Human dignity is thereby brought into disrepute within the churches, diminishing it.

Perhaps this can help summarize the arguments in the debate. Note that we did not utilize the terminology of Arianism or Semi-Arianism, nor did we accuse any of Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism,

At least not yet.