Submission Requires Possibility of Disagreement

Join us for a conversation on EFS with Kyle Claunch, Associate Professor of Christian Theology at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.

Detailed Analytical Outline: "Everything You Need to Know About EFS and The Trinity | Kyle Claunch | #100"

This outline structures the podcast episode chronologically by timestamp, providing a summary of content, key theological arguments, analytical insights (e.g., strengths of positions, biblical/theological connections, and implications for Trinitarian doctrine), and notable quotes. The discussion centers on Eternal Functional Submission (EFS, also termed Eternal Submission of the Son [ESS] or Eternal Relations of Authority and Submission [ERAS]), its biblical basis, critiques, and broader Trinitarian implications. Host Sean Demars interviews Kyle Claunch, a theologian offering a non-EFS perspective rooted in classical Trinitarianism (e.g., Augustine, Athanasius). The tone is conversational, humble, and worship-oriented, emphasizing the doctrine's gravity (per Augustine: "Nowhere else is a mistake more dangerous").

Introduction and Setup (00:10–01:48)

• Content Summary: Episode opens with music and host introduction. Sean Demars welcomes first-time guest Kyle Claunch (noting a prior unreleased recording). Light banter references mutual acquaintance Jim Hamilton (a repeat guest) and a breakfast discussion on Song of Solomon. Transition to topic: the Trinity, with humorous acknowledgment of its complexity.
• Key Points:

• • Shoutout to Hamilton as the "three-timer" on the show; playful goal of featuring Kenwood elders repeatedly.
  • Tease of future episodes on Song of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, Psalms.
• Analytical Insights: Establishes relational warmth and insider Reformed/Baptist context (e.g., Kenwood Baptist Church ties). Frames Trinity discussion as high-stakes yet accessible, aligning with podcast's "Room for Nuance" ethos—nuanced, non-polemical engagement. Implications: Builds trust for dense theology, reminding listeners of communal discipleship.
• Notable Quote: "Nothing better to talk about... Nowhere else is a mistake more dangerous, Augustine says about the doctrine of the trinity." (01:33)

Opening Prayer (01:48–02:29)

• Content Summary: Claunch prays for accurate representation of God, protection from error, and edification of listeners (believers to worship, unbelievers to Christ).
• Key Points: Gratitude for knowing God as Father through Son by Spirit; plea for words and meditations to be acceptable (Psalm 19:14 echo).
• Analytical Insights: Models Trinitarian piety—prayer invokes all persons, underscoring episode's theme of relational unity over hierarchical submission. Strengthens devotional framing, countering potential abstraction in doctrine.
• Notable Quote: "May the saints who hear this be drawn to worship. May those that don't know you be drawn to want to know you through your son Jesus." (02:07–02:29)

Interview Origin and Personal Context (02:29–04:18)

• Content Summary: Demars recounts how Hamilton recommended Claunch as a counterpoint to Owen Strawn's EFS views (from a prior episode on theological retrieval). Demars shares his wavering stance on EFS (initial acceptance, rejection, ambivalence—like amillennialism) and seeks Claunch's help to "land" biblically.
• Key Points:

• • EFS as a debated topic in evangelical circles; Claunch's approach ties to retrieval.
  • Demars' vulnerability: Desire for settled conviction on God's self-revelation.
• Analytical Insights: Highlights EFS debate's live-wire status in Reformed theology (post-2016 surge via Ware, Grudem). Demars' "help me land" plea humanizes the host, inviting listeners into personal theological pilgrimage. Implication: Doctrine as transformative, not merely academic—echoes Augustine's "discovery more advantageous" (later referenced).
• Notable Quote: "Part of this is really just being like dear brother Kyle help me like land where I need to land on this." (03:53)

Defining EFS/ESS/ERAS (04:18–07:01)

• Content Summary: Claunch defines terms: EFS (eternal functional submission of Son/Spirit to Father per divine nature); ESS (eternal submission of Son); ERAS (eternal relations of authority/submission, per Ware). Contrasts with incarnational obedience (uncontroversial for creatures).
• Key Points:

• • Eternal (contra-temporal, constitutive of God's life); not limited to human nature.

• • Biblical focus on Son, but extends to Spirit; relations as "godness of God" (Father-Son-Spirit distinctions).
• • Analytical Insights: Clarifies nomenclature's evolution (avoiding "subordinationism" heresy). Strength: Steel-mans EFS as biblically motivated, not cultural. Weakness: Risks blurring persons' equality if submission is essential. Connects to classical taxonomy (one essence, three persons via relations).
• Notable Quote: "This relation of authority and submission then is internal to the very life of God and as such is constitutive of what it means for God to be God." (06:36)

Biblical Texts for EFS: Steel-Manning Arguments (07:01–14:34)

• Content Summary: Claunch lists key texts EFS advocates use, steel-manning sympathetically.
• John 6:38 (07:35): Son came "not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me"—roots in pre-incarnate motive.

• • Sending Language (09:04): Father sends Son (never reverse); implies authority-obedience.

• • Father-Son Names (09:43): Eternal sonship entails biblical patriarchal authority.

• • 1 Cor 11:3 (10:04): "God [Father] is the head of Christ"—parallels man-woman headship (authority symbol).

• • 1 Cor 15:24–28 (13:13): Future subjection of Son to Father ("eternity future" implies past).
• Key Points: EFS holders (e.g., Ware, Grudem—Claunch's friends/mentor) prioritize Scripture; not anti-Trinitarian.
• Analytical Insights: Effective charity—affirms motives (biblicism) while previewing critiques. Texts highlight economic Trinity (missions reveal immanent relations). Implication: If valid, EFS grounds complementarity in creation (e.g., gender roles via 1 Cor 11). But risks Arianism echoes if submission essentializes inequality.
• Notable Quote: "They believe this because they are convinced that this is what the Bible teaches... It's a genuine desire to believe what the Bible says." (14:15)

Critiquing EFS Texts: Governing Principles (14:52–19:02)

• Content Summary: Claunch introduces "form of God/form of servant" rule (Augustine, Phil 2:6–8) and unity of God (one essence, attributes, acts). Applies to texts, emphasizing incarnation.

• • John 6:38 (15:11): Incarnational (Son assumes human will to obey as Last Adam); "not my own will" implies distinct (human-divine) wills, not eternal submission.

• • Compares to Gethsemane (Lk 22:42), Phil 2 (obedience as "became," not eternal), Heb 5:8 (learns obedience via suffering).
• Key Points: Obedience creaturely (Adam failed, Christ succeeds); EFS demands discrete divine wills, contradicting one will/power (inseparable operations).
• Analytical Insights: Augustinian rule shines—resolves tensions without modalism/Arianism. Strength: Harmonizes canon (analogy of Scripture). Implication: Protects active obedience's soteriological role (imputed righteousness). Weakness in EFS: Overlooks hypostatic union's permanence.
• Notable Quote: "Obedience is something he became, not something he was." (35:15)

Inseparable Operations and Unity (19:02–28:18)

• Content Summary: One God = one almighty/omniscient/will (Athanasian Creed); external acts (ad extra) undivided (e.g., creation, resurrection appropriated to persons but shared). EFS's "distinct enactment" incoherent—submission requires discrete wills, implying polytheism.

• • Submission entails disagreement possibility, undermining unity.
• Key Points: Appropriation (e.g., Father elects, but all persons do); one will upstream from texts.
• Analytical Insights: Core classical rebuttal—echoes Cappadocians vs. Arius (one ousia, three hypostases). Strength: Biblical (e.g., Jn 1 creation triad). Implication: Safeguards monotheism; critiques social Trinitarianism/EFS as quasi-polytheistic. Ties to procession (relations without hierarchy).
• Notable Quote: "If God's knowledge and mind understanding will is all one then the very idea... that you could have one divine person... have authority and the other... not have the same authority... Seems to be a category mistake." (24:41–25:14)

Further Critiques: Sending, Headship, Future Submission (28:18–50:07)

• Content Summary:

• • Sending (42:30): Not command (Aquinas/Augustine); missions reveal processions (eternal generation), not authority (analogical, e.g., adult "sending" without hierarchy).

• • 1 Cor 11:3 (46:34): Incarnational (Christ as mediator); underdetermined text, informed by whole Scripture.

• • 1 Cor 15 (48:10): Post-resurrection = ongoing hypostatic union (God-man forever submits as creature).

• • Spirit's "Obedience" (49:26): No biblical texts; EFS extension illogical (Spirit unincarnate). Jn 16:13 ("not... on his own authority") mistranslates—Greek "from himself" denotes procession, not submission (parallels Jn 5:19–26 on Son's generation).
• Key Points: Obedience emphasis on Son's humanity for redemption; Spirit's mission unified (takes Father's/Son's).
• Analytical Insights: Devastating on Spirit—exposes EFS asymmetry. Strength: Exegetical precision (Greek apo heautou). Implication: EFS risks divinizing hierarchy over equality; retrieval favors Nicene grammar.
• Notable Quote: "There's not one single biblical text that uses the language of authority, submission, obedience in relation to the spirit." (50:07)

Processions, Personhood, and Retrieval Tease (50:07–1:10:04)

• Content Summary: Persons = rational subsistences (Boethius); distinction via relations/processions (Father unbegotten, Son generated, Spirit spirated—not three wills/agents). Demars probes: Processions define persons (Son from Father, Spirit from both?). Claunch: Analogical, not creaturely autonomy. Teases retrieval discussion for future episode.
• Key Points: Creator-creature distinction; via eminentia/negativa for terms like "person." God unlike us—worship response to mystery.
• Analytical Insights: Clarifies hypostases vs. prosopa; counters social Trinitarianism. Strength: Humility amid density ("take your sandals off"). Implication: EFS confuses economic/immanent Trinity; retrieval recovers Nicene subtlety vs. modern individualism.
• Notable Quote: "The distinction is in the relation only... The ground of personhood is the divine nature." (1:03:07–1:03:32)

Eschatological Reflection and Heaven (1:10:04–1:13:39)

• Content Summary: Demars: Perpetual learning in heaven? Claunch: Infinite expansion (Edwards' analogy—expanding vessel in God's love); Augustine: Laborious but advantageous pursuit.
• Key Points: Glorified knowledge joyful, finite yet ever-growing; press on (Hos 4:6).
• Analytical Insights: Pastoral pivot—doctrine doxological, not despairing. Ties to episode's awe: Trinity as eternal discovery.
• Notable Quote: "Nowhere else is a mistake more dangerous or the task more laborious or the discovery more advantageous." (1:13:11)

Rapid-Fire Q&A (1:13:55–1:20:14)

• Content Summary: Fun segment: Favorites (24, Spurgeon/Piper sermons, Tolkien, It's a Wonderful Life, mountains, wine, licorice hate, fly, morning person, etc.). Ends with straw holes trick (one).
• Key Points: Reveals Claunch's tastes (e.g., Owen's works as "systematic theology," "Immortal, Invisible" hymn for funeral—mortality vs. God's eternity).
• Analytical Insights: Humanizes expert; hymn choice reinforces theme (Psalm 90 echo). Lightens load post-depth.

Closing Prayer (1:20:14–1:21:04)

• Content Summary: Demars thanks God for Claunch's clarity; prays for his influence in church/academy.
• Key Points: Blessing for edification, glory.
• Analytical Insights: Bookends with prayer—Trinitarian focus implicit.

Overall Analytical Themes: Claunch's non-EFS view upholds Nicene equality via processions/operations, critiquing EFS as well-intentioned but incoherent (risks subordinationism). Episode excels in balance: exegetical rigor, historical retrieval (Augustine/Aquinas/Owen), pastoral warmth. Implications: Bolsters complementarianism without Trinitarian cost; urges humility in mystery. Ideal for theology students/pastors navigating debates.