I had the chance to read Keith E. Johnson’s recent Themelios article “Trinitarian Agency and the Eternal Subordination of the Son: An Augustian Perspective.” I came away agreeing with Johnson’s conclusion, which I’ll quote in full:
So where does Augustine stand on the EFS debate? We have seen that Augustine is misread by proponents and opponents of EFS alike. Moreover, important differences exist between Augustine’s trinitarian theology and the theology of some representatives on both sides in the debate. There is no evidence that Augustine believed that the hypostatic distinction between the Father and the Son is constituted by eternal “authority” (on the part of the Father) and eternal “submission” (on the part of the Son). To the contrary, this element of EFS is incompatible with his account of trinitarian agency. At the same time, Augustine does not explore the speculative question of whether any analogy might exist between the Son’s filial mode of being eternally “from the Father” and his obedience to the Father in his state of humiliation.
“Are you for us or for our adversaries?” asked Joshua when he encountered an imposing stranger bearing a sword outside the city of Jericho. “Neither,” said the stranger, “I am the commander of the Lord’s army.” Perhaps we can learn a lesson from Joshua’s encounter. In our quest to answer a speculative theological question, we can become so preoccupied with the question of whose side Augustine is on that we no longer let one of the church’s leading theologians speak on his own terms. At the beginning of De trinitate, Augustine reminds his readers, “[N]owhere else is a mistake more dangerous, or the search more laborious, or discovery more advantageous” than in the study of the Trinity (De trin. I.5, 68). As we seek to understand scriptural teaching about the Trinity, the church fathers represent an invaluable resource. However, if we engage the fathers simply to determine whose “side” they are on—like pawns in a chess match—not only will we misinterpret them, but we may also fail to hear the ways in which they rightly challenge and correct our thinking about the Trinity. (pp. 24-25)
I’ll note that the particular aspect of EFS that Johnson mentions above (i.e., the hypostatic distinction in the Trinity being constituted by authority/submission structures) is not universal, or, from my reading even representative of EFS on the whole. This appears to be a unique (and strange) position held by Bruce Ware and it’s problematic on numerous levels.
I’ve noted this before, although Johnson says it better (I love the appeal to Joshua 5:13-14 to illustrate the point!), but the problem with turning to sources that precede the debates in question is that they wouldn’t have addressed the issues being debated. Augustine wasn’t involved in bitter disputes over the Son’s eternal functional subordination to the Father, especially as it relates to gender roles in the church and home, so to press his theology into the service of such an agenda is to ultimately do all the parties involved a disservice. Johnson’s concluding sentence is especially poignant and serves as a reminder to let sources speak for themselves.
B”H
Rightly Dividing the Word of Truth 
Nick: Indeed Joshua 5:13-15 is simply awesome Scripture revelation! And yes Augustine’s De Trinitate is grand, he begins in Book I with the absolute equality of the Divine Persons!
Nick, any suggested sources to read and think through the view that the Logos was “part” of the Father and then was issued forth (begotten) at some point (before creation)? I don’t subscribe to this and either see the concept of begotten as (1) a unfortunate translation, and “unique” is more appropriate or (2) perhaps the Greek fathers had it best as “eternally generated” and thus gave due respect to what seems to be the Father’s role as being “primary” and yet God’s (and the Son’s) immutability. Your thoughts, as always, are appreciated.
Roy: Nothing comes immediately to mind with regard to the Logos being “part” of the Father. My instincts tell me that the Ante-Nicene Apologists are where you’ll want to look but I’d have to check. I personally don’t have any problems with “begotten” language since the Church has always affirmed it (e.g., the N-C Creed says that Jesus was τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γεννηθέντα πρὸ πάντων τῶν αἰώνων/begotten of the Father before all ages). And we’ve discussed the μονογενης thing before. I think ‘unique’ and ‘only begotten’ are both defensible and make perfect sense in the contexts in which they appear. It’s even possible that the world could carry both meanings in certain places in Scripture. You’ll find that the Latin Fathers also believed in eternal generation and the monarchy of the Father. There’s not much distinction between East and West on these points.
The arguments I’ve heard re: the Logos being “in” the Father are often made from the pre-nicene Fathers where indeed they sometimes say things that imply a strong subordinationism. But if we ultimately believe the Son is God in his own right (and immutable) and he is a distinct Person within the Godhead, then I believe we must conclude that he has ALWAYS been a distinct Person. Perhaps I’m oversimplifying what I know is a complex topic.
Roy: If we’re talking about the Logos being “in” the Father then that’s a different story. The Bible talks about the Son being “in” the Father (e.g., John 14:11). It’s also implied in the N-C Creed when we read φῶς ἐκ φωτός, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ/Light out of Light, true God out of true God. The Son wouldn’t come “out of” the Father unless he were “in” him. But the Logos being “part” of God is something different. Such an understanding would have to assume that God was composed of parts and it would deny divine simplicity.
When you say that the Son is God “in his own right” could you explain what you mean?
I agree he is not “part” of God in the sense that he is 1/3 of God. The Godhead is simple. What I’m responding to is the argument that somehow the Logos was “in” the Father in such a way as to deny the eternal personhood of the Son. Clearly there is a mystery here in that the Son is “secondary” but I don’t believe we have warrant to believe that the Logos was “in” the Father (in a non-Personsal way) and then, arbitrarily, he “became” a Person of the Godhead when he was “begotten”. Rather, the Son is co-eternal and co-equal with the Father.
I haven’t looked into it yet but does N-C speak to the Son being God of God meaning (1) he is of the substance of the Father, versus (2) being of the substance of the Godhead, in the same way that the Father is of the substance of the Godhead. All 3 persons share equally/fully of the Godhead as best as I understand it.
Roy: I can’t say that I’ve encountered that idea specifically; where did you come across it? It sounds somewhat adoptionistic and somewhat Arian but different.
In the N-C Creed the monarchy of the Father is affirmed; he’s the fount of deity. The divine ousia is grounded in the Father’s hypostasis. There’s no Godhead apart from the Father’s person and the Son and Spirit are of the Father.
I’ve encountered the idea on other discussion boards. It sounds “almost” okay in the sense that it highlights the Father’s “primary” role, which is clearly the sense you get as Jesus describes the role of Son and Father. But it smacks of Arianism as you say and/or defies the immutability of God. I think that’s maybe why “eternal generation” may not be a bad compromise after all! I’ll have to look more into N-C — thanks for the input!
P.S. I see I have another avatar — maybe because I’m using another PC? I’ll have to create a profile I suppose someday!
Roy: Let me know what you come up with as you continue to study this.
And yeah, I think the gravatars are generated for each unique IP address, so hurry up and create that profile.