Doug Wilson on the Trinity

[Phil D.]

Reformed Arsenal posted a short response to the video in the OP.

Doug Wilson - Trinitarianism in Trouble

 

[DanSSwing]

Reformed Arsenal posted a short response to the video in the OP.

Doug Wilson - Trinitarianism in Trouble

How did the Trinity decide who was going to perform the respective roles of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit after creation unless they had some form of relation before creation? Did they just flip a coin? I don't mean this to be flippant, but if you're going to insist there is absolutely no difference among them in eternity, you need to be able to explain this. Until then, I'd rather err on the side of what the Bible tells us to believe about them than on the side of what Thomas says to believe about them.

 

[RamistThomist]

but if you're going to insist there is absolutely no difference among them in eternity

I'll have to reread Tony's article, but I don't think he is saying that. Certainly no one on the board is. Historic Christianity has identified the differences as these: paternity, filiation, spiration. That's it. Going beyond that risks defining divine categories by human limitations. That's mythology.

I will admit there is some tension between one will in the Trinity--which is a non-negotiable--and how to understand the Pactum Salutis. The solution is somewhere along the lines of each action terminating on a specific person.

Until then, I'd rather err on the side of what the Bible tells us to believe about them than on the side of what Thomas says to believe about them.

Do you have a fixation on Thomas Aquinas? No one is using Thomist arguments here.

But if we want to go by just what the Bible says, here are two fatal arguments to Wilson's position.

1. In the New Testament, divine sonship is always understood to be a relation of equality, not authority. The Pharisees specifically understood Jesus as claiming to be God when he claimed to be God's Son.

2. The Son had to become incarnate to learn obedience. If he had to do that, then he could not have been obedient in eternity.

 

[DanSSwing]

Yeah, "obedience" is definitely a bad label for what Wilson is trying to predicate of the Son. I'm on the fence about "authority." I also see where Wilson's intuition is going about marriage, but I don't think there's anything there since marriage specifically points to the relation between Christ and the church, not anything inside the Trinity.

 

[John The Baptist]

I'd rather err on the side of what the Bible tells us to believe about them than on the side of what Thomas says to believe about them.

The problem is that the categories Wilson is blurring are just short of a millennium before Thomas

 

[jwright82]

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."

So are you invoking the ghost of Von Harnack here? I believe his whole Greek metaphysics corrupting the church has been readily dismantled. But if you want to defend that thesis go ahead. But you must be able to show where and how the corruption started, even if slowly creeping in. Did it happen at Nicea or earlier perhaps?
Anyone can make a blanket claim like that but showing where the church chose Plato and Aristotle over scripture is much harder to prove. I think that puts the burden of proof on you.

 

[Eyedoc84]

I will admit there is some tension between one will in the Trinity--which is a non-negotiable--and how to understand the Pactum Salutis.

I struggled with that until I realized that I can “make a covenant” with myself too. That, and scripture teaches it.

Post automatically merged: Feb 4, 2024

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

I think the East actually departed from orthodoxy on this point. My take on the history is that the West clarified orthodoxy and the East diverged and solidified around an unorthodox understanding sparked by political frustrations.