But if God has more than one will, how can he be one God and how can he be simple? Two wills imply two beings. And two wills in a simple being would just be one will—or how can two faculties of desire exist within a simple nature in which will is God’s essence?
Besides, in Scripture God works according to his will—not to a multiplicity of wills. So while EFS does not directly teach multiple wills in God, its position does not fit easily into the doctrine of simplicity. And the doctrine of simplicity needs to be in place for Trinitarian theology to work.
So EFS disrupts a system of theology—and not just any system but the base system from which all other theology comes (i.e., the doctrine of God). It does not integrate well into traditional systems of theology.
Third, no Scriptural passage requires EFS. Even the most challenging biblical passages like Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane, “Not my will but yours be done,” makes sense according to the evangel story of Christ’s incarnation.
Christ, the Logos, assumed a human nature. And that human nature has the property of a human will. So in Christ, both a divine and a human will exist. At the garden, as Maximos the Confessor so famously articulated, Christ handed over his human will to the Father on our behalf, as our substitute.
Fourth, Christians have found the language of submission or its related cousin, subordination, entirely unsatisfactory when speaking of God.Language like this tends to soften the resolve of trinitarian affirmations.
And no traditional form of Christian theology has affirmed eternal submission in God. It cuts against the grain of trinitarian theology since this theology aims to show how the Father, Son, and Spirit are one God.
Traditionally, Christians have used language like subordination to indicate (wrongly) that the Son was somehow less than the Father. While no EFS advocate would make this claim, the language of eternal submission feels worrisome.
When the next generation no longer has the background and sensibility that traditional trinitarian theology has embedded into Christianity (but the new EFS version of these things), then how easy will it be to fall into theological ditches?
Fifth, some versions of EFS start with a husband-wife relationship and work up to Trinitarian theology. The key text here is 1 Corinthians 11:3. But theology begins with God, and we work down to humanity. This argument reverses the order of theology by making the human analogue to God to the defining feature of God’s relationship in himself.
Certainly, we can begin with observations in creation. But we have to move back up to God via analogical relationships. We have a mind and are created in God’s image. So we can understand that God too has a mind. But we must then affirm that God is infinite and eternal. So his mind must differ by degree despite relating similarly to us.
Trinity Debate: Is EFS still Popular?
While many Christian leaders have left EFS behind, its theology remains. Wayne Grudem whose influential Systematic Theology has sold hundreds of thousands of copies teaches EFS. For this reason, every student and teacher who uses Grudem’s textbook may still teach EFS.
It should be noted that both Grudem and Ware recently affirmed eternal generation. So their personal views may continue to change. But their published views by definition cannot.
This reality means that many young students and Christian workers will believe in EFS. It will be up to Christian leaders to show why EFS does not hit the mark.
And for those like me who reject EFS, we need to show kindness and patience with those who disagree with us. Everyone lives within a social context. And not everyone has had the opportunity or time to think through these issues.
Besides, EFS proponents affirm God’s unity even though their position threatens this doctrine. Meaning, their position may be wrong; but they affirm the right things. So we need to conclude that this debate is an internal one among friends.
This article about the Trinity debate originally appeared here.
