Doug Wilson on the Trinity

[DanSSwing]

I figured that, if Doug Wilson is as bad some people here think he is, then I'd catch him in some clear heresy in this one hour discussion of the Trinity. But he appears not only solid, but even helpful. Most important is that he is basing his argumentation on Scripture rather than on Aristotelian metaphysical categories.

 

[RamistThomist]

Except that DW defined the Son as obedience and the Father as authority.

Jeff Moss, a former minister under Wilson and now EO (and his journey to EO shows just how much of a trainwreck the ministerial accountability in the CREC is), has the best analysis of Wilson.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1744768170333008132

DW originally said Fatherhood is ad intra. That is Arianism, since the Son, not being a Father, is now excluded from the being of God.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1752311082432229812

Wilson contradicts himself

https://twitter.com/x/status/1751028470958964903

 

[DanSSwing]

Except that DW defined the Son as obedience and the Father as authority.

Wilson addresses this in the video. He explains that we should not use our human ideas of obedience and authority to describe them. By obedience, we think of one person shouting at another person across the room what he must do. But Wilson's idea here is not that the Father is shouting across the room at the Son. It is more like the Son is the very Word that the Father shouts. It is in perfect harmony. There are no contrasting wills.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

The Son's subordination is as the mediator of the covenant of grace; he is not eternally subordinate as the second person of the Trinity. To affirm that he is comes dangerously close to semi-Arianism. The irony here is that Doug Wilson is making the same error as the complementarians. In both cases, there is probably a defective view of natural law regarding gender, which leads them to attempt to salvage a doctrine of female subordination at the expense of Trinitarian orthodoxy.

 

[DanSSwing]

The Son's subordination is as the mediator of the covenant of grace; he is not eternally subordinate as the second person of the Trinity. To affirm that he is comes dangerously close to semi-Arianism. The irony here is that Doug Wilson is making the same error as the complementarians. In both cases, there is probably a defective view of natural law regarding gender, which leads them to attempt to salvage a doctrine of female subordination at the expense of Trinitarian orthodoxy.

Wilson rejects EFS by name.

 

[RamistThomist]

Wilson addresses this in the video. He explains that we should not use our human ideas of obedience and authority to describe them. By obedience, we think of one person shouting at another person across the room what he must do. But Wilson's idea here is not that the Father is shouting across the room at the Son. It is more like the Son is the very Word that the Father shouts. It is in perfect harmony. There are no contrasting wills.

That breaks down and contradicts his earlier writings. He knows he has to affirm one will in the essence on pain of heresy. He also knows he can't do that and affirm subordination. He does it, anyway. If the Son is the Father's shout, which concept isn't wrong, then it makes no sense to shout the shout to the shout, which is what DW's position reduces to.

 

[RamistThomist]

Wilson rejects EFS by name.

It's the same when he rejected FV by name but then affirmed the very teachings. He believes Fatherhood (and by exclusion sonship) is part of the ad intra. Not even Grudem and Ware went that far.

 

[DanSSwing]

If what Wilson is saying now is more theologically orthodox, is that not a good thing?

 

[RamistThomist]

If what Wilson is saying now is more theologically orthodox, is that not a good thing?

Only if he formally renounces his earlier writings. The problem is he says yes and no at the same time. That's why he's always misunderstood, so he claims.

 

[RamistThomist]

Only if he formally renounces his earlier writings. The problem is he says yes and no at the same time. That's why he's always misunderstood, so he claims.

Another thing that would help Wilson is if he submitted to a theological examination from the caliber of men like Beeke, Fesko, and the like. I'm not really reassured when a bunch of yesboys from his group declare him okay.

 

[DanSSwing]

Only if he formally renounces his earlier writings. The problem is he says yes and no at the same time. That's why he's always misunderstood, so he claims.

It's impossible to discuss the Trinity without saying yes and no at the same time. Just about everything we say accurately about the Trinity is going to be true only to a certain extent and false if you follow it to an extreme.

 

[RamistThomist]

It's impossible to discuss the Trinity without saying yes and no at the same time. Just about everything we say accurately about the Trinity is going to be true only to a certain extent and false if you follow it to an extreme.

He follows it to an extreme, defining the Son as obedience and then linking it with his views on marriage.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

It is just another example of Doug Wilson's paradox theology at work. He will say one thing, then say something completely contradictory when he gets a bit of heat, and then seek refuge in an irreconcilable paradox.

 

[DanSSwing]

He follows it to an extreme, defining the Son as obedience and then linking it with his views on marriage.

Case in point of what I said earlier. Wilson does not make marriage a complete analogy with the Trinity. He only uses marriage to illustrate how one person can obey another, and yet they remain equal. Nothing more.

 

[RamistThomist]

Case in point of what I said earlier. Wilson does not make marriage a complete analogy with a Trinity. He only uses marriage to illustrate how one person can obey another, and yet they remain equal. Nothing more.

He shouldn’t make any marital analogy about the Trinity. That’s why he is a subordinationist, despite his protests.

 

[John The Baptist]

It's the same when he rejected FV by name but then affirmed the very teachings. He believes Fatherhood (and by exclusion sonship) is part of the ad intra. Not even Grudem and Ware went that far.

By Fatherhood, does he mean the authority/submission paradigm? Not merely that the Father would be the Father even if we didn’t exist (by nature of his mode of subsistence)?

 

[jwright82]

I figured that, if Doug Wilson is as bad some people here think he is, then I'd catch him in some clear heresy in this one hour discussion of the Trinity. But he appears not only solid, but even helpful. Most important is that he is basing his argumentation on Scripture rather than on Aristotelian metaphysical categories.

What is your biggest problem with Aristotelian metaphysics? I've voiced concerns about it being the Orthodox metaphysics we must all use but was always told no on that. Do you have issues with the creeds and confessions use of it? I don't and would never want to change it. Despite my love of Dooyeweerd who did it seems, he's wrong there.
Do you think no metaphysics should be used? I'm just curious where you stand on this. The creeds and confessions used that metaphysics because there was nothing better to use. But I would never fault the church for it's use in the creeds and confessions nor would I want to change them. That's where I stand on it. I'm curious where you stand.
Just asking not accusing.

 

[John The Baptist]

@DanSSwing Have you read Barrett’s Simply Trinity?

 

[jwright82]

It's the same when he rejected FV by name but then affirmed the very teachings. He believes Fatherhood (and by exclusion sonship) is part of the ad intra. Not even Grudem and Ware went that far.

Yeah to reject the name only because it isn't helpful anymore is ludicrous. Are we all supposed to say "well can't call him FV anymore despite what he teaches", that's not how scholarly debates go.

 

[Northern Crofter]

He shouldn’t make any marital analogy about the Trinity. That’s why he is a subordinationist, despite his protests.

Marriage should only ever be used as an analogy to give a picture of God's love for His people. It has no place in the discussion of trinitarian doctrine, inviting only confusion and worse.

 

[John The Baptist]

Just gave a listen to a portion of the video…

Perichoresis is yet again abused to allow for this command-obedience within the one will of God.

Let me say it again for the people in the back:

The doctrine of Perichoresis is born out of a proper understanding of the eternal relations of origin of the Son (eternal generation) and Spirit (eternal procession). It IS NOT to be used as a crutch to validate any form of tritheism/social trinitarianism a particular fool wishes to substantiate.

In other words…

We affirm perichoresis because we affirm the eternal relations of origin; perichoresis is the fruit of the hard labor of arriving at a biblical understanding of the ad intra relationships. We affirm the mutual indwelling of the persons because we affirm that the one divine essence is communicated from Father to Son and From Father and Son the the Holy Spirit.

These social trinitarians and others who are confused on this get this all turned around.

 

[SolaScriptura]

You guys… oy vey. Ham-fistedly deriding everything as “Arianism” when you speak of what you don’t know.

Eastern Orthodxy speaks of the Father as the unbegotten Fountainhead of deity and the Father begets the Son and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.

If some of you turned your attention to the EOs the way you turn your attention to every perceived trinitarian error here, you’d find a way to make it sound like the Son and the Spirit derive their essence and being from the Father… and you’d cal that Arianism.

Doug Wilson is within the bounds of orthodoxy on this. That doesn’t mean he’s a source you should be referring people to. But his trinitarian views are within the bound of orthodoxy.

 

[RamistThomist]

You guys… oy vey. Ham-fistedly deriding everything as “Arianism” when you speak of what you don’t know.

Eastern Orthodxy speaks of the Father as the unbegotten Fountainhead of deity and the Father begets the Son and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father.

If some of you turned your attention to the EOs the way you turn your attention to every perceived trinitarian error here, you’d find a way to make it sound like the Son and the Spirit derive their essence and being from the Father… and you’d cal that Arianism.

Doug Wilson is within the bounds of orthodoxy on this. That doesn’t mean he’s a source you should be referring people to. But his trinitarian views are within the bound of orthodoxy.

I've read more about EO than anyone on this board. For one, Fountainhead of deity is far removed from denying the Son anything ad intra. Wilson literally defined the Son as obedience and Fatherhood belonging to the Godhead ad intra. It's actually worse than Arianism.

 

[SolaScriptura]

I've read more about EO than anyone on this board. For one, Fountainhead of deity is far removed from denying the Son anything ad intra. Wilson literally defined the Son as obedience and Fatherhood belonging to the Godhead ad intra. It's actually worse than Arianism.

Actually it’s not. Yes it’s a stupid metaphor, and one that I find distracting and unhelpful, but not any more so than that silly and stupid idea of Augustine’s that the Holy Spirit is the love that flows between the father and the son.

Denying the preexistent eternal nature of the Son is a different animal all together.

But even EO trinitarianiam advocates for a monarchical professionalism that sees the Father on top. That there are clear differences between Western and Eastern trinitarian formulations proves that there are multiple ways to understand the Trinity and yet remain within creedal orthodoxy, a point some don’t seem to appreciate.

Anyway, you can consider yourself the resident approver of all things Trinitarian. I’ll let others chime in as the feel led. Peace!

 

[RamistThomist]

Actually it’s not. Yes it’s a stupid metaphor, and one that I find distracting and unhelpful, but not any more so than that silly and stupid idea of Augustine’s that the Holy Spirit is the love that flows between the father and the son.

Yes, Augustine was wrong on that point, but in DW's case the metaphor drives his whole theology. It's not simply a metaphor. Authority ad intra. And if authority is the Father and not the Son, and ad intra relates to the being of the Godhead, well you can draw the obvious conclusion.

But even EO trinitarianiam advocates for a monarchical professionalism that sees the Father on top. That there are clear differences between Western and Eastern trinitarian formulations proves that there are multiple ways to understand the Trinity and yet remain within creedal orthodoxy, a point some don’t seem to appreciate.

The East is wrong for that, but even then they aren't reading patriarchal understandings of marriage into the one essence of the Trinity.

 

[DanSSwing]

Yes, Augustine was wrong on that point, but in DW's case the metaphor drives his whole theology. It's not simply a metaphor. Authority ad intra. And if authority is the Father and not the Son, and ad intra relates to the being of the Godhead, well you can draw the obvious conclusion.

I just want to know why we should be giving priority to Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas re: the doctrine of God rather than consulting what the Bible says about how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit work together. Oddly enough, Wilson's description of the Son as what the Father speaks sounds remarkably similar to that small part of Greek philosophy specifically appropriated by John to call Jesus logos or the "organizing principle."

 

[RamistThomist]

I just want to know why we should be giving priority to Plato, Aristotle, and Aquinas re: the doctrine of God rather than consulting what the Bible says about how the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit work together.

Who said anything about those guys? We are explaining why DW's trinitarianism breaks down. And the Bible does not describe the Father, Son, and HS as functioning like a marriage. There are several good reasons for that.

But Wilson isn't entirely unaware of the tradition. He knows that if says there is more than one will in the Trinity, he is a polytheist (since there would be more than one God). There he is using metaphysical categories. I only bring that up because metaphysics is unavoidable. And it is confessional. If we reject metaphysical language, we will have big problems with our confessions.

 

[DanSSwing]

But Wilson isn't entirely unaware of the tradition. He knows that if says there is more than one will in the Trinity, he is a polytheist (since there would be more than one God).

Are you suggesting that Wilson really believes there is more than one will in the Trinity but he's just afraid to say it? He doesn't strike me as someone who is afraid to speak controversially.

 

[RamistThomist]

Are you suggesting that Wilson really believes there is more than one will in the Trinity but he's just afraid to say it? He doesn't strike me as someone who is afraid to speak controversially.

Read his blog post Triune botherations. He knows the problem. You can't have the Son obey the Father the way the woman obeys the man, yet also affirm one will in the Trinity. He knows that, yet says that's how we have to say it anyway because Scripture says it (even though Scripture nowhere likens the three persons in the Trinity to a marriage, which would be really weird).

 

[John The Baptist]

Are you suggesting that Wilson really believes there is more than one will in the Trinity but he's just afraid to say it? He doesn't strike me as someone who is afraid to speak controversially.

No, he confesses one will, and I would say thinks he actually believes it.

The problem is the authority subordination scheme contradicts that.

Post automatically merged: Feb 4, 2024

Also, if Wilson stopped with the ‘shout’ analogy, no problem. That is basically the traditional interpretation of the scriptural data, as far as I understand it. The Son is the Word of the Father.

But, saying the Son is the Shout vs. the Son is obedience are not the same thing.