Doug Wilson on the Eternal Obedience of the Son and Authority of the Father

•

Douglas Wilson believes that the Son's eternal obedience to the Father is his existence, while the Father's existence is authority. He writes, the Son's "existence is obedience — eternal obedience, obedience that could not be otherwise. The Father’s existence is authority." 🧵

Source: dougwils.com/the-church/s16-theology/triune-botherations.html

Recently, he seems to have made a similar argument in his conversation with James White, as noted here: twitter.com/TomHicks2LCF/status/1730394331079750005?s=20

In a recent publication on his blog of an old theological statement that Doug Wilson authored or at least approved of, nothing seems to contradict the claims made above: dougwils.com/the-church/s16-theology/on-authority-order-and-equality-within-the-godhead.html All of these statements are worth reading and pondering.

Recently, Jeff Moss claimed these statements mean Doug Wilson has "false teaching," which may or may not signify that he believes DW is a false teacher. If it does, that's a strong statement, given what the Bible says about false teachers.

DW responded to Jeff Moss's accusations by more or less ignoring them:

Okay, so that background is out of the way. And I am not really on team 1 or 2 here. My main concern is Trinitarian theology, and I think it's worth revisiting the stakes here briefly since not everyone read the articles and books that came out of the 2016 debates.

But that was 7 years ago, and people who were 16 are now 23, and they may want to think through this issue more carefully, especially if they respect Doug Wilson and others. So...

In short, DW uses authority and submission to distinguish the Father from the Son, since God is one and yet three. So how is God three? DW points to authority (Father) and Son (Submission). But that's not how Orthodoxy, Nicene, & Biblical Christians have usually said it.

Augustine, notes that the Bible (& us) say some things about God by nature: he is invisible, immortal, holy, just, sovereign, etc; and some things we say about God relationally: He is Son of the Father, and Father of the Son, and the Spirit is the Spirit of Father & Son.

Speaking of God biblically as Father, Son, and Spirit define how the three relate to one another, while words like power, love, holiness refer to God as the one God of Israel essentially.

Here is where IMO DW gets it wrong. He sees passages where Jesus submits to the Father, and goes: "Ah, this describes how God as God relates to himself: authority and submission." But wait a second. The Son of God is both God by nature and man by nature.

So when Jesus submits to the Father, he does so as the Incarnate one, who is both divine and human. And when the Son submits as the Incarnate one, he does so with a will able to submit God (the human will).

Importantly, the language of the God sending the Son does not indicate an eternal submission in the Son to the Father. Rather, the visible mission (sending) of the Son refers to the Incarnation, this work happens inseparably (inseparable operations). One will, one God.

Augustine points to Galatians 4 (and many other places) where this is clear: "God sent forth his Son, born of woman, born under the law." The two "born" statements clarify what sending means. Sending means the Incarnation. It's the visible sending of the Son.

The Incarnation and thus the sending is an inseparable work of the Holy Trinity. It does not signify eternal submission of the Son but the one God's work of redemption by the Son assuming humanity by the Spirit.

Hence, the sending or Incarnation does explain how the will of God is one. Further, it also explains how and why Jesus submits to the Father in his role as the Redeemer. He does so according to his humanity. Okay, that's about all I wanted to say.