Contra Barrett (Part 7): Multiple wills

But if one considers how EFS has introduced a new, novel category of functional relations of authority-submission into the immanent Trintiy, suddenly this language is very alarming. Especially talk of an authority exclusive to the Father and a subordination exclusive to the Son. It screams, "Multiple wills!" Here is EFS's social trinitarianism—distinct centers of consciousness— coming through thick and heavy. Point is, EFS segregates the persons of the Trinity from one another, even sets them over against one another. (Matthew Barrett, Simply Trinity, 228)

"Talk of a paternity exclusive to the Father and a spiration exclusive to the Spirit," "segregates the persons of the Trinity from one another, even sets them over against one another"! Of course that is nonsense, but this is what happens when one is more interested to find fault than to actually note the difference. The fact of the matter is that personal properties are always exclusive to the persons, or they would not be called personal properties at all. Noting that a personal property is exclusive to a person is like noticing that water is wet; nothing to make a big fuss about.

More significantly, Barrett asserts that such talk of functional relations of authority-submission screams of multiple wills. Barrett does not indicate why that is the case. A possible case might be made saying that stative words exclusive to the persons are fine, so there is nothing wrong with paternity or spirtaion, but action words are not, since actions are dynamic and refer to wills. However, that is not true even in classical theism. Only the Son is incarnated, so the property of "being incarnated" is exclusive to the Son only. Only the Son atones for sin, so the property of "atoning for sins" is likewise exclusive to the Son. Therefore, whether a property is stative or active should be irrelevant to the issue at hand.

What other reason is there for the charge of multiple wills? Perhaps it can be argued that authority requires a separate will from submission, but since we think of God analogously not univocally, why can we not speak of a single will that consists of an authority exclusive to the Father and submission exclusive to the Son?The fact of the matter is that I have not seen anyone positing three separate wills of the Trinity, only three distinct wills. If Barrett cannot connceive of a single will subsisting in the authority of the Father and the subission of the Son, that is a failure of his imagination and a failure to think analogously.

The charge of multipe wills is therefore flawed. Barrett has asserted over and over that EFS holds to multiple wills, by which he means multiple separate wills. However, he has failed to substantiate the claim. EFS does not believe in three separate wills of the Trinity, but three distinct wills or willings of the Trinity. Distinct, not separate. One and three at the same time.