Three Persons Not Three Wills: A Coherent and Comprehensible Trinitarianism and Christology.

I addressed the point of this post in my book, Fully Coequal Trinity in the Comma Johanneum: An Exegetical Review and Defense of 1 John 5:7-8

Regarding the Trinity or Tripersonality of God, some affirm (1) three wills or centers of consciousness in the Godhead, (2) the subordination of the Son to the Father in eternity, or (3) the Father exercising authority over the Son before the incarnation. Rejecting all three of these subordinationist or Semi-Arian views is necessary for the following three reasons.

First, a will, by definition, is a function of nature. Thus, holding to three wills in the Godhead is no different than positing three [g]ods because One Divine Nature implies One Divine will. When teachers protest this definition, affirming three wills in God and referring to a will as a property or function of a person, there is no way to escape two notable Trinitarian and Christological heresies: Tritheism and Monothelitism.

Second, the Son submitted to the Father during the incarnation, not in eternity. Because a will is a function of essence [nature] and Christ assumed a human nature (sarx egeneto, John 1:14), it is clear why the Son was able to say, "...O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt (Matt. 26:38, bold emphasis added). Hence, Christ established the Biblical doctrine of Dyothelitism [two wills of the incarnate Christ]. However, to say the Son's will in eternity had submitted to the Father's will is no different from saying the Son's nature [essence] submitted to the Father's nature [essence] which could make no sense if they share the same divine nature. It is, thus, a sure sign that one has conflated incarnational texts with pre-incarnational passages. This is a confusion and conflation of the immanent Trinity with the Economic Trinity. Instead, the Son submitted to the Father during the incarnation, highlighting the Triune God's salvific mission in the economy of redemption.

Third, sovereign authority, regardless of what subordinationists think, is a property of the One Divine Ousia [nature or essence]. Rejecting this definition inevitably leads to a denial of Divine Simplicity. And, to assert that the Father exercised authority over the Son in eternity would unquestionably mean that the Father's being is greater than the Son's being. This view makes no sense because both share the same divine essence.

In conclusion, God's Word affirms a Fully Coequal Trinity and opposes all of the Tritheistic and/or hierarchical falsehoods from subordinationists operating under the guise of scholarship.