AN ANALYSIS OF TRINITARIAN THOUGHT IN JOHN OWEN AND JONATHAN EDWARDS

___________________

A Paper Presented to Dr. J. Scott Horrell Dallas Theological Seminary

___________________

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Course TS 901 Trinitarianism in Owen and Edwards

___________________

by Nathaniel Mark Claiborne December 2009 Box #373

TRINITARIANISM IN JONATHAN EDWARDS AND JOHN OWEN In the history of Christian thought, there have been many thinkers who have shaped and influenced the minds of those to come. For many in the Evangelical tradition, especially the Reformed veins of it, Jonathan Edwards and John Owen are two such men. The author of this paper particularly was introduced to both mens thought through the sermons and writings of John Piper, who had been greatly influenced chiefly by Edwards, but much by Owen as well. What was initially fascinating to this author particularly about Edwards was his attempts to expound on the traditional doctrine of the Trinity, as was highlighted by Piper in a footnote of his work Pleasures of God. The ideas Piper presented of Edwards was the seed that has now eventually led to further study of just what Jonathan Edwards thought about the Trinity. As for John Owen, it was not so much Piper as a good friend who recommended reading an abridged version of The Glory of Christ.1 The clarity and the depth of Owens thoughts on God were astounding, and it immediately became a reading project to work through Owens other works on the members of the Trinity, as well as his writings dealing with indwelling sin, mortification, and temptation. While examining both within this paper will be a daunting task, it is merely meant to compare and contrast two similar yet differing approaches to the Trinitys place within both mens thought. As one will see, both men made it central to their thinking, yet they did so in rather different ways. A further connection may be explored in that Owen is one of the very few individuals that Edwards cites in his perhaps most famous work, The Religious Affections.2 Before unpacking each mans particular works on the Trinity, either as

Starting with the R.J.K. Law adbridged addition. The friend of course was Yuce Kabacki.

Found in Volume 2 of his works. Kapic notes that no one has particularly explored this connection, and it seems that maybe it should a prime consideration for doctoral work on this researchers part. Kelly M. Kapic, Worshiping the Triune God: The Shape of John Owen's Trinitarian Spirituality, in Communion with the Triune God, ed. Kelly M. Kapic and Justin Taylor (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2007). 46n.106.

a whole or on the persons themselves, it may be helpful to see briefly how both men approach the subject. John Owen John Owen (b. 1616-d.1683) preceded Edwards by almost a century, and was an English theologian.3 For John Owen, the doctrine of the Trinity can be considered in two ways: (1) By dealing with the revelation of it directly in Scripture to direct us to obedience and worship; (2) By exploring it as it is farther declared and explained by expressions and propositions not within Scripture, but that are meant to safeguard the believers thinking about the doctrine.4 In regards to the first, Owen sees that two things are required, (1) To understand the terms used; (2) and to believe the things that are taught and revealed in them.5 It seems in large part, that to Owen, the aim of the believer in large part consisted of this essentially, as the distinct apprehension of some of the explanations of the revelation were not necessary for faith as it relates to worship and obedience.6 Owen saw what seemed like a division between apprehending the clear revelation of Scripture and believing and obeying it, and on the other hand, being able to explain it in what we might refer to as a theological dialogue of some of the implications of the doctrine. He definitely does not slight the latter, but he saw the former as being primary.

There is actually not much information on the life of John Owen. For a concise overview, consider pg 15-34 of Kelly M. Kapic, Communion with God: The Divine and the Human in the Theology of John Owen, (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007). For fuller treatment, see Peter Toon, God's Statesman: The Life and Work of John Owen; Pastor, Educator, Theologian, (Exeter: Paternoster, 1971). Works, 2:377 in John Owen, The Works of John Owen, vol. 1-16, ed. William H. Goold (London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1965).
5 4

Ibid. Works 2:408

3 Explaining the Doctrine of God Owen presents a roughly 50 page defense titled, The Doctrine of the Holy Trinity Explained and Vindicated, in which he outlines the Biblical revelation and the spends a good bit of space expounding on what that does not mean or imply; a polemic particularly aimed against the Socinians7 as well as the Arminians.8 For Owen, extra-biblical language is a necessity in talking about God. Owen goes so far as to say that to deny the use of extra-biblical language in talking about God it to deny the interpretation of Scripture altogether: And herein, as in the application of all other divine truths and mysteries whatever, yea, of all more commanded duties, use is to be made of such words and expressions as, it may be, are not literally and formally contained in the Scripture; but only are, unto our conceptions and apprehensions, expository of what is so contained. And to deny the liberty, yea, the necessity hereof, is to deny all interpretation of the Scripture Wherefore, in the declaration of the doctrine of the Trinity, we may lawfully, nay, we must necessarily, make use of other words, phrases, and expressions, than what are literally and syllabically contained in the Scripture, but teach no other things.9 He then goes on to explain that whatever follows from what is directly revealed is no less true than the original revelation.10 His application of this is to point out the because Scripture asserts plainly that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God it necessarily follows that they are one in essence (making sense of how three can also be one) but yet also three in their distinct

There is not an appropriate space to deal with the Socinians in depth, but due to the possibility of their obscurity, it may be helpful to note that Socinus, who originated the ideas was a contemporary of Calvin. Socinus was in short a theological liberal, and his system laid the foundation for deism, Unitarianism and a host of similar variations, ranging from process theology and open theism to the pure skepticism of the so-called Jesus Seminar. See Phillip R. Johnson, The Writer for the People of God, in John Calvin: A Heart for Devotion, Doctrine, & Doxology, ed. Burk Parsons (Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust, 2008).106 (I ran across this in my devotional reading before writing this section of the paper, hence what seems like an unusual connection detailing some of the background of the Socinians.) Works, 2:371-413. For Owen, both groups denied basic tenets of the faith and were viewed by him as deadly heretics. See pg. 19-29 in Carl R. Trueman, The Claims of Truth: John Owen's Trinitarian Theology, (Carlisle, Cumbria, UK: Paternoster, 1998).
9 8

Works, 2:378-79, italics are original, underlining mine.

Ibid. It would not be correct to construe Owen as arguing that whatever follows is on par (as in on the same level as) with special revelation, but rather he seems to make a claim about truth value.

10

subsistencies (making sense of their threeness).11 For Owen, then the basic doctrine of the Trinity, what he considers the sum of the revelation on this matter is that, God is one; - that this one God is Father, son and Holy Ghost; - that the Father is the Father of the Son; and the Son, the Son of the Father; and the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of the Father and the Son; and that, in respect of this their mutual relation, they are distinct from each other.12 Obviously, this was not the last word one could have on the doctrine of God as Trinity, but was the basis on the starting point of any further exposition. Here and elsewhere, Owens thoughts on the doctrine of God can be split into three basic groups: (1) those dealing with Gods attributes, (2) those dealing with the relationship of God to creation and providence, and (3) those dealing with predestination and the economy of salvation.13 While our focus here will move through just some of Owens works, the previous listed categories from Carl Truemans study will prove useful as a way of organizing Owens thoughts for easier digestion.14 The focus will be narrowed further to not just Owens thoughts on the doctrine of God in general, but when the emphasis is more Trinitarian. Also, the latter category will be truncated just a bit, for it starts to cross over into what would be considered more soteriological material, and involves works outside the scope of this study. Since Owens works themselves fill 24 hefty volumes15, and even isolating the works dealing explicitly with the doctrine of God, one is still left with well over 1500 pages of hard
11

Ibid. Works, 2:377, italics original.

12

Trueman, The Claims of Truth: John Owen's Trinitarian Theology, 102. Trueman notes though that these categories have fluid boundaries and have implications for one another.
14 Truemans study is very helpful, however it is a bit more technical in nature and has the downside as Kapic notes that is barely deals at all with Owens Communion With the Triune God. See Kapic, Communion with God: The Divine and the Human in the Theology of John Owen, insight from pg 149, section on Owen in this regard is pg 147-205. 15

13

Only 16 are listed in the bibliography and only Vol 1-4 and 10 were actually utilized in this study.

reading, some reduction become necessary in the scope of this study. The primary works considered then will be the aforementioned Doctrine of the Holy Trinity Explained and Vindicated (henceforth DTEV), Communion with the Triune God,16 The Glory of Christ,17 and The Holy Spirit: His Works and Power.18 The latter three were chosen because they are the most readily available works by Owen at the popular level and still cover a breadth of area in Owens thought that can be examined for its Trinitarian structure.19 It should be fairly obvious why DTEV was chosen from volume 2 of Owens Works. Attributes of God Prior to really discussing how John Owen conceived of the attributes of God, it may helpful to look into his overall conception of the divine nature and its place within both theology and the Christian life. In short, for Owen the nature of God is the foundation for Christian life: The nature and being of God, is the foundation of all true religion and religious worship in the world. The great end for which we were made, is to worship and glorify God; and that which renders this worship our indispensable duty is, the nature and being of God himself.20

John Owen, Communion with the Triune God, ed. Kelly M. Kapic and Justin Taylor (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2007). Pagination will follow this edition, however, this work is also found in Works, 2:1274 John Owen, The Glory of Christ: His Office and Grace, (Scotland, UK: Christian Focus Publications, 2004). This is also in Works, 1:273-461. Volume 1 of Owens Works contains Christologia (1:1-272) which will be accessed as well, but was not part of the primary reading for this independent study. John Owen, The Holy Spirit: His Gifts and Power, (Scotland, UK: Christian Focus Publications, 2004). This is also in Works, 3. Like Christologia above, Pneumatologia is much more massive than this particular work and in fact covers volumes 3 and 4 in Owens Works. A paper of thesis length could easily be written just examining Owens thought on the Holy Spirit, so necessarily this paper cannot actually dig too deep in that area without not only hitting water, but starting to drown in it.
19 18 17

16

Those three works alone come close to right at 1000pgs. Owen, The Holy Spirit: His Gifts and Power, 62.

20

As one can see, Owen places the nature and being of God at the base of the Christian life, that which upon all else is built. Further, for Owen, God has revealed Himself as Trinity and is to be worshiped and glorified as such. In fact, he bases his entire work on the Holy Spirit on that initial assumption: God has revealed himself to us, as Three in One, that is, as three distinct persons, subsisting in the same undivided essence; and, therefore, as such, he is to be worshipped and glorified. This principle might be here enlarged upon and confirmed (but that I have done it elsewhere) for the whole ensuing discourse supposes and depends on it.21 Owen maintains a generally explicit Trinitarianism throughout his writings (at least to this authors knowledge) rather than a unified work specifically on the nature of God as Trinity.22 While he assigns priority somewhat to the Father, Owens works, particularly his Communion With the Triune God, is intentionally and consistently Trinitarian in structure and Christocentric in emphasis.23 The relations of the persons to themselves will be explored in a later section, with this introduction to the priority of Gods being as Trinity, it can now be helpful to explore the attributes. There is not a single place where Owen deals with the attributes in a systematic fashion,24 what will follow then is some of the highlights from the works studied. Interestingly though when dealing with the attributes, Owen makes the fundamental distinction not between Gods communicable and incommunicable attributes. The reason for this primarily is to demonstrate a satisfactory answer to the question, Does Gods revelation, general and special, of his decretive will, bear only an arbitrary (from a human perspective) relationship to his
21

Ibid., 62, italics mine.

Other than the short vindication, otherwise, the Trinitarian nature of God is an assumption and starting point for Owen.
23

22

Kapic, Worshiping the Triune God: The Shape of John Owen's Trinitarian Spirituality. 20.

Trueman, The Claims of Truth: John Owen's Trinitarian Theology, 103. Trueman states that Owen never provides an exhaustive list, which I am making synonymous with treating them in a systematic fashion.

24

essence, or does it have some positive relationship to Gods inner being?25 Owen resolves the question by making a distinction between Gods absolute and relative attributes, although, he at other times, employs the incommunicable/communicable distinction.26 Absolute attributes are those that God possesses simply by his own act of self-existence, while the relative attributes are those that are spoken of in terms of Gods dealings with creatures.27 For Owen, the most fundamental of these attributes appears to be aseity: God alone wants nothing, stands in need of nothing; nothing can be added to him, seeing he gives to all life, and breath, and all things (Acts 17:25). The whole creation, in all its excellency, cannot contribute one mite to the satisfaction or blessedness of God. He has it all in infinite perfection from himself and in his own nature.28 While Owen does not explicitly talk of divine aseity, what is outlined above does constitute a rough definition of aseity and helps to emphasis the self-existence of God, and His completeness within His own being. Other terms for this could be independent, self contained, self existent, or absolute. While it does not appear that Owen uses any of the preceding, a term that Owen does use is the equivalent idea of self-subsistence:

Ibid., 104 As we will see later, Edwards was also interested in answering this question in a satisfactory way. Ibid., 103. Trueman notes that this type of distinction was more Lutheran than Reformed, however, it is not as theologically significant as one would expect on first glance. Ibid. This roughly translates into the distinction between the ontological Trinity and the economic Trinity: The ontological Trinity must be distinguished from the economical Trinity. By the latter is meant the distinction of persons within the Godhead in so far as this distinction has bearing on the works of God with respect to the created universe. The Father is centrally active in the creation and sustaining of the universe. The Son is centrally active in the subjective work of salvation. The Spirit is centrally active in the subjective work of salvation. In all this the triune God is active with respect to the universe. But when God is contemplated as active within himself, we speak of the ontological Trinity. Cornelius Van Til, Christian Apologetics, 2nd ed., ed. William Edgar (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2003). 29. Owen, The Glory of Christ: His Office and Grace, 96, italics mine. Owen to my knowledge does not use the word aseity but appears to be describing an attribute that other Reformed theologians will call aseity. Cf to this definition of aseity: God is in no sense correlative to, or dependent upon anything besides his own being. Cornelius Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, 4th ed., ed. K. Scott Oliphint (Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2008). 9.
28 27 26

25

8 God alone has all being in him. Hence he gives himself that name, I AM (Ex 3:14) He was eternally All; when all things else that ever were, or now are, or shall be, were nothing. And when they are, they are no otherwise but as they are of him, and through him, and to him. (Rom 11:36). Moreover, his being and goodness are the same. The goodness of God is the meekness of the divine being to be communicative of itself in its effects. Hence this is the first notion of the divine nature, infinite being and goodness, in a nature intelligent and self-subsistent.29 This connection between Gods being in goodness seems fairly crucial for Owen, especially in regards to what one might term the ontological Trinity: This gives us the true notion of the divine nature antecedent to the manifestations of it made by any outward effects: infinite being and goodness, eternally blessed in the knowledge and enjoyment of itself by inconceivable, ineffable, internal actings, answering the manner of its subsistence, which is in the three distinct persons.30 It seems that for Owen, being and goodness are correlates of another in respect to the ontological Trinity and while later Reformed scholars will assign aseity the primary position in speaking of Gods attributes, Owen couples it with goodness, both of which were entirely necessary to exist in God prior to any creative activity whatsoever: Being and goodness must be the first outward effects of the divine nature, which, being wrought by infinite power and wisdom, do represent to us the glory of God in the creation of all things. Infinite being in self-subsistence, which is necessary in the first cause and spring of all things, infinite goodness to communicate the effects of this being to that which was not, and infinite wisdom and power in that communication, are gloriously manifested in that.31 Here one sees Owen highlighting aseity again as an absolute attribute of God as the necessary cause of everything, but he also couples it with absolute goodness as the spring of the desire to communicate Himself to that which was not Himself. Owen adds here too the idea of

29

Owen, The Glory of Christ: His Office and Grace, 160. Ibid., Ibid., 161.

30

31

absolute wisdom and absolute power. It seems that while absolute goodness is what leads the ontological Trinity to communicate itself, wisdom is what guides that communication: "Infinite wisdom is one of the most glorious properties of the divine nature; it is that which is directive of all the external works of God, in which the glory of all the other excellencies of God is manifested: therefore the manifestations of the whole glory of God proceeds originally from infinite wisdom.32 At this point though one can see the thought is shifting toward relative attributes, or those that God has in relation to His creatures. This may be as good a time as any to highlight that Owen does not seem to typically make hard and fast distinctions and has a very holistic approach to God as Trinity. Wisdom was grounded as an absolute attribute, but here it is seen as directive of all external acts, or in other words, the economic Trinity is marked by infinite wisdom in all things: The wisdom of God is absolutely, always, and in all things infinite. God does not, God cannot, act with more wisdom in one thing than in another; as in the creation of man, than in that of any inanimate creatures.33 As our discussion shifts to God in relation to creation and providence, it is worth noting that these are not really static categories either. It would be fairly impossible to isolate Owen on the attributes without some overflow into how those attributes relate to the created order, and likewise, Owen cannot discuss long God in relation to the created order without discussing redemption and predestination. Hopefully though a flow from one category can be establish to emphasis the unity and the distinction, which in all honesty is very in keeping with Owens approach to God as Trinity anyway.

32

Ibid., 61. Ibid., 167.

33

10 God in relation to Creation Another way to conceive of this category is as one that has more to do with what would now be termed the economic Trinity.34 The last category did not apply exclusively to the ontological Trinity, but as was seen, the distinction between absolute and relative attributes is more or less such a distinction.35 Shifting to creation in general though, the wisdom and goodness discussed in the last section underlie much of what Owen thinks of Gods creative acts: This being and goodness of God, by his own will and pleasure acting themselves in infinite wisdom and power, produced the creation of all things. In this he communicated a finite, limited dependent being and goodness to other things without himself.36 Owen then is distinguishing between a God that is absolute and independent and a creation that is relative and dependent, yet has still be communicated something of the nature of God. For Owen, this initial or first creation was essentially a communication of being and goodness by almighty power, directed by infinite wisdom, to all things that were created for the manifestation of that glory.37 In it God made known His glory and power as stated in Romans 1:19-21. However, Owen does not bypass that there is a great distance between God conceived as such, and mere creatures. In ruminating on Isaiah 57:15, Owen concludes that,

Throughout this paper, I will use economic and ontological, the former referring to Gods actions in relation to creatures, the latter simply referring to God in Himself apart from relation to creatures. I realize of course this is a sticky category to predicate anything meaningfully about. Better definitions could probably be used, however, I am simply using the conventional language at this point.
34

It should be noted in passing, when one makes the primary differentiation between ontological Trinity and economic Trinity, this does not exactly equal the differentiation between incommunicable and communicable attributes. Some of the attributes, such as goodness and wisdom which Owen seems to attribute as absolute (so definitive of God in Himself) are actually communicable. Likewise, an attribute like omnipresence tends to be more applicable as a relative attribute (when it is defined as causally active at every point in the contingent universe) as there needs to be some kind of external reality for God to be omnipresent in relation to.
36

35

Owen, The Glory of Christ: His Office and Grace, 161. Ibid., 148.

37

11 Therefore, the infinite, essential greatness of the nature of God, with his infinite distance from the nature of all creatures thereby, causes all his dealings with them to be in the way of condescension or humbling himself.38 Or in other words, God is beyond comprehension and accessibility as He is in Himself, and so must come down to our level in order to communicate Himself to us. Again, to illustrate fluidity between categories, this idea will be pick back up in the next section with reference to the incarnation, but it also tends to fit here in discussing any communication whatsoever between an absolute being and His relative creatures. It is here though in terms of relating to God that Owen devotes a whole treatise to unpack. Essentially, Owens Communion With the Triune God is based on a series of sermons he delivered on how to relate to God as Trinity.39 He is especially Christocentric in this regard, and states rather plainly that this whole book is taken up in the description of the communion that is between the Lord Christ and his saints40 Owen it seems very much takes seriously the idea that there is one Mediator between God and man, the man Jesus Christ, and so sees Him as the member of the Trinity to which we direct most of our focus: We have nothing to do with the Father immediately. By the Son alone we have access to him; and by the Son alone he gives out his grace to usThe Holy Spirit, therefore bestows them on us, as they are the fruits of the mediation of Christ, and not merely as the effects of the divine bounty of the Father.41 This idea of course is even more explicit in The Glory of Christ. In speaking of Christ as the Head of the new creation, in this present world, post Incarnation and Resurrection, there is no communication of God apart from Christ:

38

Ibid., 96. Kapic, Worshiping the Triune God: The Shape of John Owen's Trinitarian Spirituality. 19. Owen, Communion with the Triune God, 142. Italics original. Owen, The Holy Spirit: His Gifts and Power, 138.

39

40

41

12 This new head, in which God has gathered up all things in heaven and earth into one, one body, one family, on whom is all their dependence, in whom they all now consist, is Jesus Christ the Son of God incarnate. (See 1 Cor 11:3, Eph. 1:22-23). This glory was reserved for him; none other could be qualified for it or worthy of it (Col 1:1719)There is no communication from God, no act of rule towards this family, no supply of virtue, power, grace, or goodness to angels or men, but what is immediately from this new head into which they are gathered.42 Further Owen highlights the how the Father communicates to us through the Son and by the Spirit: The person of the Father is the origin of all grace and glory; but it is not immediately from him that they are communicated to us. It is the Son whom he loves, and has given all things into his hand. He has made a way for their communication to us. And he does it immediately by the Spirit. As the descending of God towards us in love and grace, issues in the work of the Spirit on us; so all our ascending towards him beings therein.43 Interestingly, while Owen sees Christ as the sole communicator of God to us, one can also see that he does not neglect the other persons, as can be the tendency of some more Christocentric theologians.44 While his Communion With the Triune God is mostly focused on communion with Christ, the Holy Spirit and the Father are not absent, and as far as treatment in his Works, Owen devotes more time to writing about the Holy Spirit. This is probably because as Kapic notes, John Owen self-consciously viewed himself as a theologian of the Spirit, and as such he poured more time and energy into exploring questions related to the third person of the Trinity than anyone else in his day, and possibly even before him.45 Owen places the Spirit prominently in his external dealings of the Trinity, as he recognizes that The Holy Ghost is the immediate efficient cause of all external divine

42

Owen, The Glory of Christ: His Office and Grace, 164. Italics mine. Owen, The Holy Spirit: His Gifts and Power, 139.

43

I have no one specific in mind at this point, and am not compelled to dig up examples. I am just aware that this can be an issue, and Owen as well as Edwards both avoid it. Kapic, Worshiping the Triune God: The Shape of John Owen's Trinitarian Spirituality. 39. As noted before, Owens writings on the Spirit occupy two complete volumes in his Works.
45

44

13

operations; for God works by his Spirit, or applies the power of divine excellencies to their operation.46 Further Owen sees the entire creation overseen by an act of the Spirit: The works of God thus finished, are not deserted by the Holy Ghost. For as the preservation of the universe depends on the powerful influence of divine providence, so there are particular operations of the Spirit in all things, natural and animal, rational and moral.47 This forms an interesting juxtaposition between the persons of the Trinity taking primacy in different contexts. Elsewhere Owen states that, The beginning of divine operations is assigned to the Father; for of him, and through him, and to him, are all things (Rom. 11:36). The subsisting, establishing, and upholding of all things, is ascribed to the Son; for he is before all things, and by him all things consist (Col 1:17, Hebrews 1:3); and the finishing of all these works, is ascribed to the Holy Ghost; as we shall find in our progress.48 In this sense it seems Owen is viewing the Father as the ultimate source of all divine operations, but the Holy Spirit is prominent when it relates to the created order. This all makes sense when Owen states more fully his understanding of all the acts of the persons as being acts of the whole Trinity: All divine operations, whether in nature or in grace, are usually ascribed to God absolutely because the several persons are undivided in their operations; acting by the same will, the same wisdom, the same power. Each person, therefore, is the author of every work of God, because each person is God; and the divine nature is the same undivided principle of all divine operations. The divine persons are one in essence; but in their manner of subsistence, there is distinction, relation, and order among them. Hence every divine work is distinctly assigned to each person, and eminently to one; as the work of creation is distinctly ascribed to the Father (Acts 4:24); to the Son (John 1:3); and to the Spirit (Job 33:4); but by way of eminence to the Father, and absolutely to God, who is Father, Son, and Spirit.49

46

Owen, The Holy Spirit: His Gifts and Power, 116. Ibid., 81. Ibid., 78. Ibid., 77. Italics original.

47

48

49

14

Owen does not feel that listing out the distinct acts each person has in respect to creatures is necessary, as it seems to him rather self evident. These divine persons are so distinct in their peculiar subsistence that distinct actings and operations are ascribed to themThere are also special and distinct actings of each of the divine persons towards the creatures. This is so evident from the whole Scripture, that particular instances are needless.50 But to demonstrate the unity of the persons in action was an emphasis that Owen values and so articulates carefully in his work dealing with the Holy Spirit. This is perhaps stated most plainly in his articulation of it in his DTEV: Hereby each person having the understanding, the will, and power of God, becomes a distinct principle of operation; and yet all their actings ad extra being the actings of God, they are undivided, and are all the works of one, of the self-same God. And these things do not only necessarily follow, but are directly included, in the revelation made concerning God and his subsistence in the Scriptures.51 One can see here that Owen is again going back to his distinction between what is expressly revealed in Scripture and what can be adduced from it by way of explaining the original. Owen sees the Trinity acting as a unit as something that is directly within the text of Scripture. However, he also sees that individual person are highlighted, specifically in the context of redemption (something Edwards also sees both goes in a different direction). For sure, Owen (and Edwards) is simply trying to be faithful both to Scripture and to the idea that God is one God. Additionally, Owen sees a progress in Gods revelation of Himself to his creatures. Going back to his ideas of creation, Owen makes a distinction of how God revealed Himself in the first creation and how it has progressed in the new creation:

50

Ibid., 63. Works, 2:407

51

15 In the first creation, God seemed chiefly to intend to glorify the essential properties of his nature, his power, goodness, wisdom, leaving on his works only some obscure impressions of the distinction of persons, subsisting in the unity of that being whose properties he so displayed. But in the new creation, God intends the special revelation of each person distinctly, in his peculiar distinct operations; a full discovery of the economy of the Holy Trinity, with superior light to what was afforded under the Old Testament. 52 Before starting the next section and developing this idea further in the context of redemption, it is helpful to see that Owen understands there to be a specific purpose in Gods revelation of Himself to His creatures. For Owen, mere knowledge even of God is not the pinnacle of the Christian life, but that knowledge and understanding should give rise to certain key results. While we understand that, God has herein revealed himself as Three in One, this glorious mystery of the Holy Trinity is made known to us not by so many words, but by a declaration of the mutual acts of the divine persons towards each other, and of their distinct external actings towards us, for us, and in us. And as Owen concludes, this is not to fill our minds with notions of God, but to teach us how to place our trust in him, how to obey and live to him, how to obtain and exercise communion with him, till we come to the enjoyment of him.53 This should serve well as reminder that ones goal in studying the Trinity is never academic learning, but rather to know the persons of the Trinity and respond to them accordingly, which for Owen consists of worship and communion. God in Relation to the Economy of Salvation While in the categories set forward by Trueman, the relation of God to salvation is focused more on predestination and other soteriological concerns, the bulk of that material is drawn from outside the scope of works stated at the onset. Rather than dealing with Owens formulations of predestination, which were more or less similar to other Reformed theologians in

52

Owen, The Holy Spirit: His Gifts and Power, 134. Ibid., 113.

53

16

his time,54 this paper will instead focus on the Incarnation and Owens understanding of that aspect of God in relation to the economy of salvation.55 In returning to Owens idea of God demonstrating a progress in his self-revelation, everything after the fall in Owens mind pointed toward the Incarnation: And indeed, after the fall there is nothing spoken of God in the Old Testament, nothing of his institutions, nothing of the way and manner of dealing with the church, but what has respect to the future incarnation of Christ. And it had been absurd to bring in God under perpetual anthropopathies, as grieving, repenting, being angry, well-pleased, and the like, were it not but that the divine person intended was to take on him the nature in which such affections do dwell.56 This seems to be a rather original way of dealing with the anthropomorphic nature of much of the language about God in the Old Testament. While it can be argued in a certain sense that nothing can be said of God without using anthropomorphisms, 57 for Owen, the idea of speaking of God in human terms pointed to a time when God himself would take on human flesh. Overall with respect to the Incarnation, Owen sets forward a fairly orthodox understanding of it: There are in him in his one single individual person, two distinct natures; the one eternal, infinite, immense, almighty, the form and essence of God; the other having a beginning in time, finite, limited, confined to a certain place, which is our nature, which he took on him when he was made flesh and dwelt among us. (John 1:14).58

54

Trueman, The Claims of Truth: John Owen's Trinitarian Theology, 133.

It should be noted though that Owens understanding of soteriology and predestination is explicitly Trinitarian and his understanding of the Incarnation and redemption is subordinate to his understanding of God as advanced above. See specifically his Death of Death in the Death of Christ in Works, 10:140-481.
55 56

Owen, The Glory of Christ: His Office and Grace, 132.

We must speak of God anthropomorphically. The Scripture speaks of God in that way. In fact there is no other way for us to speak of God. On the other hand, we must be alert to the danger that we should forget that God is the original and that we are the derivatives. Cornelius Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology: Prolegomena and the Doctrines of Revelation, Scripture, and God, ed. William Edgar (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2007). 326. Cf. Calvins use of accommodation in the Institutes, Book 1 chapter 13.
57 58

Owen, The Glory of Christ: His Office and Grace, 75.

17

To further illuminate, an interesting correlation is drawn by Owen to the burning bush incident, he speaks of The eternal fire of the divine nature that dwells in the bush of our frail nature, yet is it not consumed thereby. God thus dwells in this bush, with all his good-will towards sinners.59 For Owen, Christ did, by an ineffable act of his divine power and love, assume our nature into an individual subsistence in or with himself; that is, to be his own, even as the divine nature is his.60 Clearly Owen will reject Kenosis then, and does so in so many words when ruminating on Philippians 2: This is his condescension. It is not said that he ceased to be in the form of God; but continuing so to be, he took upon him the form of a servant in our nature: he became what he was not, but he cased not to be what he was.61 But in light of rejecting Kenosis, Owen then spends considerable time attempting to understand the issues around Christs human nature. He confesses at one point that I do not understand absolutely the glorification of the human nature of Christ, that very soul and body in which he lived and died, suffered and rose again, though that also be included in this.62 Even this though was not enough to prohibit Owen from seeking further understanding and insights into the mystery of the Incarnation. Owen sees the human nature of Christ as filled with all the divine graces and perfections of which a limited, created nature is capable,63 and in respect to the Holy Spirit sees that there is no other relation between the person of the Holy Ghost and the human nature of Christ, but that of a creator and a creature.64 In relation to the Father, Owen sees

59

Ibid., 78. Ibid., 101-102. Ibid., 98. Ibid.,123. One sees here Owens stance on whether or not Christ had a human soul. Ibid., 124.

60

61

62

63

Owen, The Holy Spirit: His Gifts and Power, 118. As will be seen below, Edwards has a similar understanding and applies it to the formation of Christ in the believer.

64

18

that The eternal disposing cause of the whole work in which the Lord Christ was engaged by the susception of this office, for the redemption and salvation of the church, is the love of the Father.65 For Owen then, again, he cannot see the Incarnation except in relation to other persons of the Trinity, and again reinforces the idea that any act ad extra of the persons of the Trinity is an act of the whole Trinity. As far as practical application, something Owen always sought to elucidate, the Incarnation provided a window into the attributes of God that could otherwise not be known: There are other properties of God which, though also otherwise discovered, yet are so clearly, eminently, and savingly only in Jesus Christ: (1) his vindictive justice in punishing sin; (2) his patience, forbearance, and longsuffering toward sinners; (3) his wisdom, in managing things for his own glory; (4) his all-sufficiency, in himself and unto others.66 Owens epistemology relies on one properly understanding the nature of God primarily and then ones self in relation to God. Owen himself outlines true wisdom and knowledge in three heads: (1) The knowledge of God, his nature and his properties. (2) The knowledge of ourselves in reference to the will of God concerning us. (3) Skill to walk in communion with God67And for Owen, this can only be known through proper perception of Christ: This is the foundation of our religion, the Rock on which the church is built, the ground of all our hopes of salvation, of life and immortality: all is resolved into this, namely, the representation that is made of the nature and will of God in the person and office of Christ.68

65

Owen, The Glory of Christ: His Office and Grace, 107. Owen, Communion with the Triune God, 188. Ibid., 184. Owen, The Glory of Christ: His Office and Grace, 54.

66

67

68

19

From this and elsewhere in Owen, one can gain an understanding of what separates believers from unbelievers, specifically, He who discerns not the glory of divine wisdom, power, goodness, love, and grace, in the person and office of Christ, with the way of the salvation of sinners by him, is an unbeliever.69 Without a proper perception of Christ as the express image of God, one cannot grow in knowledge and wisdom, and worse yet, is to be counted among unbelievers. Finally for Owen in this regard, one can see that the Incarnation was only part of the puzzle,70 and that once believers come to see Christ in the correct fashion through the regeneration that is effected by the Holy Spirit, Christ then communicates himself to us, by the formation of a new nature, his own nature, in us; so as that the very same spiritual nature is in him and in the church. So that then the same divine nature it is that is in him and us; for, through the precious promises of the gospel, we are made partakers of his divine nature. Owen then wisely concludes that, It is not enough for us that he has taken our nature to be his, unless he gives us also his nature to be ours; that is, implants in our souls all those gracious qualifications, as to the essence and substance of them, with which he himself in his human nature is endued.71 This is the basis of communion with the Triune God in Owens understanding, and that, along with other avenues of further study, will be covered in the next section. Implications for Contemporary Trinitarian Studies An issue that has surfaced in recent discussion in Trinitarian studies regards subordination. Different than the Arian controversy of yesteryear, instead the point of contention,

69

Ibid., 55. This is just a colloquialism without deeper theological significance. Owen, The Glory of Christ: His Office and Grace, 155.

70

71

20

the issue at stake here concerns subordination within the ontological Trinity laying at back of the already agreed upon economical subordination.72 Owen does not deal with issue in quite the same manner as it is being addressed today, but he is not silent on the topic. He starts by clarifying that economic subordination can in no way translate into ontological subordination: Distinction and inequality in respect of office in Christ, does not in the least take away his equality and sameness with the Father in respect of nature and essence, Phil 2:78. A son, of the same nature with his father, and therein equal to him, may in office be his inferior, - his subject.73 In reference then to the Holy Spirit, Owen also sees ontological equality, stating that He is placed in the same rank and order, without any note of difference or distinction as to as distinct interest in the divine nature (that is, as we shall see, personality) with the other divine persons.74 Again, as will be seen below in Edwards on this topic, Owen does see an absolute equality of the persons, but at the same time does see distinctions. Concisely, Owen states that, It remains only to intimate, in a word, wherein this distinction lies and what is the ground thereof. Now, this is that the Father does it by the way of original authority; the Son by the way of communicating from a purchased treasury; the Holy Spirit by the way of immediate efficacy.75 Elsewhere, Owen elaborates on this distinction:
A helpful, synopsis of the current state of affairs is Millard J. Erickson, Who's Tampering with the Trinity: An Assessment of the Subordination Debate, (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2009). Although Erickson is not as careful in unpacking the position of everyone he mentions, and at times can have hard edges. He also does not resolve the debate, but rather highlights the issues at stake, and the place that each side tends to fall concerning Biblical, historical, theological, and philosophical considerations. In regards to this paper, a considerable shortcoming of Ericksons work is that it lacks mention of either Edwards or Owen as the survey of historical considerations ends with Calvin, even though Calvin had relatively little to say on the topic. At best this should be seen as inadequate and is owing either to negligence on Ericksons part, or negligence on the part of some of the key players in the discussion to not adequately wrestle with what these two great minds thought and wrote about the Trinity.
73 72

Works, 2:388 Italics original. Works, 2:401-02, he goes on to cite Matt 28:19, 1 John 5:7, 1 Cor. 12:3-6. Owen, Communion with the Triune God, 104

74

75

21 The distinction which the Scripture reveals between the Father, Son, and Spirit, is that whereby they are three hypostases or persons, distinctly subsisting in the same divine essence or being. Now, a divine person is nothing but the divine essence, upon the account of an especial property, subsisting in an especial manner. As in the person of the Father there is the divine essence and being, with its property of begetting the Son, subsisting in an especial manner as the Father, and because this person has the whole divine nature, all the essential properties of that nature in that person.76 It is helpful here that Owen clarifies his understanding of divine personhood, for elsewhere in reference to the Holy Spirit Owen will defend his personhood by saying that: I say, it is impossible to prove the Father to be a person, or the Son to be a person, any other way than we may prove the Holy Ghost to be so. For he to whom all personal properties, attributes, adjuncts, and operations are ascribed and to whom nothing is ascribed but what properly belongs to a person, he is a person; and so are we taught to believe in him to be.77 Again, all of this to underscore Owens view of absolute equality of the persons ontologically, yet some understanding of a distinction economically, although, one should bear in mind as seen above that Owen was keen to emphasize that divine actions were actions of the Trinity as one. It is helpful too, returning to the above quote on the distinctions, that Owen holds that ontologically, the Father has the property of begetting the Son. This has certain philosophical implications, for if this property were essential to the Father, it becomes difficult to maintain there is no ontological inequality. Owen does not completely clarify whether this property is absolute or relative, but one would assume it is the latter rather than the former. Owen does however, provide somewhat of a summary statement on his position, which may help to clarify the above issue, as he sees the distinction in their internal relations as preceding their external actings: Now, as the nature of this distinction lies in their mutual relation one to another, so it is the foundation of those distinct actings [Sic] and operations whereby the distinction itself is clearly manifested and confirmedOur conclusion from the whole is, - that there
76

Works, 2:407 Emphasis original. Owen, The Holy Spirit: His Gifts and Power, 65.

77

22 is nothing more fully expressed in the Scripture than this sacred truth, that there is one God, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost; which are divine, distinct, intelligent, voluntary, omnipotent principles of operation and working: which whosoever thinks himself obliged to believe the Scripture must believe; and concerning others, in this discourse, we are not solicitous.78 Edwards will pick up on this line of thinking, perhaps from reading Owen, and will develop it further as will be born out below. Edwards will develop a rationale for the ontological distinctions, as will be seen in his development of the doctrine of the Trinity. In conclusion to Owen though, he does have much to say on the doctrine of God, and provides many avenues of further study, most of which unfortunately were unable to be covered at any length here. Owen seems just as relevant now as he was in his own day, and considering his arguments against the Socianians and their link to open theism and process theology, it may be helpful for those seeking to defend an orthodox conception of the Trinity to pick up some of the accessible works of John Owen for further study. Jonathan Edwards Very properly termed Americas theologian,79 Jonathan Edwards was possibly not just the greatest Christian mind to live in the Colonies, but is quite possibly the greatest thinker that America has produced. Jonathan Edwards (b.1703-d.1758) was a pastor, theologian, missionary to Native Americans, and briefly a president of Princeton. He played a key role in the First Great Awakening, and is perhaps best known outside of evangelical Christianity for the sermon Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, which is considered a classic in early American literature. While Edwards produced copious amounts of theological and philosophical literature, unlike John Owen, his direct discourse on the Trinity and persons of the Godhead more
78

Works, 2:406

Although in a certain sense a misnomer since Edwards died almost 20 years before the Declaration of Independence. He was really therefore British and would have sounded very British to us, could we hear him speak now. But he did live and die on what would become American soil, so the name sticks.

79

23

scattered, but judging from his Miscellanies, it certainly was a subject he spent much time thinking over and developing. Indeed, it underlies much of what Edwards has to say elsewhere. The scope then of this exploration of Edwards is more or less limited to his Discourse on the Trinity and some of Edwards various Miscellanies, that either directly or indirectly have to do with the subject at hand.80 Like Owen, it is impossible to cover adequately the topic at hand at any depth, and much more so with Edwards, who because of the scattered nature of his writings, requires more digging to find nuggets. Also, there is a broader range of secondary literature on Edwards, although at times, the secondary sources can be more obscuring rather than illuminating. Explaining the Doctrine of God Much like John Owen, what is striking about Jonathan Edwards writings on the Trinity is his seamless connection of doctrine and practice.81 Edwards contribution to Trinitarian studies can be seen in his attempts to remain within the bounds of Nicea and Constantinople (as did Owen), yet helping to articulate a practical Trinitarianism as Amy Plantinga Pauw puts it in her doctoral dissertation.82 What is still difficult though, in exploring Edwards, is his originality of language, which is probably in part due to his attempts to formulate an orthodox

Discourse on the Trinity is in vol 21 of Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 123 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957-2004). Pgs. 113-144. Miscellanies are in volumes 13, 18 & 20. All were accessed on-line though http://edwards.yale.edu. Sang Hyun Lee, Editor's Introduction, in Writings on the Trinity, Grace, and Faith, ed. Sang Hyun Lee, vol. 21 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003). 3
81

80

Amy Plantinga Pauw, The Supreme Harmony of All: The Trinitarian Theology of Jonathan Edwards, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002). 193. I read Pauws book, but preferred Lees Introduction and Danahers work, the latter of which was written after Pauws and so interacts both with Edwards on the Trinity and with Pauws interpretation of him. Danaher departs at some points from Pauw, and I tended to follow his assessment of Edwards when they conflicted.

82

24

doctrine of the Trinity while not ignoring the philosophical issues of the Enlightenment.83 The outcome of this, in short, is a conception of the essential nature of things not in terms of selfcontained substances but rather in terms of dispositions, activities, and relations.84 To articulate this in summary form may do slight injustice to his thoughts on the matter, but unlike Owen, Edwards goes to great length to philosophize on the nature of being, and understanding his vantage point here is necessary to enter into his other thoughts on Gods existence. Like Owen though, Edwards agrees that much more can and should be said about the Trinity than what Scripture says, and is not even afraid to use reason to deduce what is latent in the text itself.85 One can see that while Edwards ultimately used Scripture as the norm and source of his theology, he is still keen to utilize philosophical discourse and ideas in his formulations. Based on Edwards prior metaphysic, when he approaches the doctrine of God, he sees God as inherently Trinitarian. The reason for this stems from Edwards understanding of being as something inherently disposed to more activities and relationships, which when focused on the latter implies that God must enjoy relationship in Himself prior to creative activity.86 Edwards later uses this conception of Gods being as a disposition87 that abides by communicating his fully self-actualized being within Himself (Gods triune relations in se) and to the created order
Lee, Editor's Introduction. 5-6. Lee highlights that Edwards attempts to formulate an alternate conception of reality to the one presented by John Locke in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Locke had effectively locked everyone up in their own perceptions, an idea that was unacceptable from a Christian standpoint, not to mention the fact that it destroys the possibility of certainty with respect to an outside reality.
83

Ibid. Self-contained is used by others like Van Til in relation to asiety, it is not likely Edwards was denying that God possessed this attribute, but rather using it in the sense of a more social conception of being.
85

84

See first entry on the Trinity in his Miscellanies, no. 94, Works, 13:256-57.

Lee, Editor's Introduction. 7-8. This is crucial to God being God. If God was inherently relational, yet not enjoying that within His own being, then God becomes dependent on the world itself to actualize Himself. Most pagan conceptions of God formulate God in just such a way, as someone correlative to the universe itself, or one could say interdependent with reality.
86

This term was employed along with habit, propensity, law, inclination, tendency, and temper. Ibid. 6.
87

25

(relations ad extra), thus providing a bridge to connect the ontological and economic Trinity.88 It is also through Edwards understanding of being that the psychological model and social model can merge into one extended model of Gods existence as Trinity.89 One other note to keep in mind before moving forward is Edwards use of beauty. For Edwards, beauty and disposition are two ways of looking at the same reality. 90 Disposition refers to the dynamic quality, while beauty refers to the manner or direction of disposition. The nature of things, in other words, is disposed to be actively related in a beautiful way.91 God for Edwards is true beauty and to so be, God must be a plurality since beauty is a relation of consent, or one of proportion and harmony.92 Hopefully this can be clarified further when looking through Edwards writings on the Trinity. The initial aim of this paper was to explore Edwards on the Trinity; papers much longer than these have been needed to explain his metaphysics apart from considerations of his doctrine of God.93 So unfortunately the discussion so far will have probably proved inadequate, yet something needed to be said before anything else could be meaningfully discussed about the Trinity. Such is the dilemma in writing a paper on what the greatest philosophical theologian of recent time thought about the Trinity.

88

Ibid.8-9. Ibid. 11. Ibid. 7. Ibid. Ibid. 8.

89

90

91

92

Probably the best treatment would be Sang Hyun Lee, The Philosophical Theology of Jonathan Edwards, (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988). But also consider Sang Hyun Lee, Jonathan Edwards's Dispositional Conception of the Trinity: A Resource for Contemporary Reformed Theology, in Towards the Future of Reformed Theology: Taks, Topics, Traditions, ed. David Willis and Michael Welker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999). For counterpoint though, see Stephen R. Holmes, Does Jonathan Edwards Use a Dispositional Ontology? A Response to Sang Hyun Lee, in Jonathan Edwards: Philosophical Theologian, ed. Paul Helm and Oliver D. Crisp (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003).

93

26 Formulating the Trinity Unlike the unpacking of John Owens thoughts on the Trinity, which can be grouped into categories and then demonstrated by quotations, Edwards thought structure requires a more expositional approach. It is interesting though that at times, he comes to similar conclusions as Owen, which will be pointed out when appropriate. Owen seems content not to pry into how exactly God can exist as three in one, while Edwards seeks to understand how this is possible, especially in light of the philosophical dialogue of his day. Edwards begins his Discourse on the Trinity with this statement about the Father: When we speak of God's happiness, the account that we are wont to give of it is that God is infinitely happy in the enjoyment of himself, in perfectly beholding and infinitely loving, and rejoicing in, his own essence and perfections. And accordingly it must be supposed that God perpetually and eternally has a most perfect idea of himself, as it were an exact image and representation of himself ever before him and in actual view. And from hence arises a most pure and perfect energy in the Godhead, which is the divine love, complacence and joy.94 He then moves on to unpack what he means by this idea. For Edwards, this idea that the Father has of himself is absolutely perfect, and therefore is an express and perfect image of him, exactly like him in every respect.95 Edwards also supposes the Deity to be truly and properly repeated by God's thus having an idea of himself; and that this idea of God is a substantial idea and has the very essence of God, is truly God, to all intents and purposes, and that by this means the Godhead is really generated and repeated.96 He then illustrates this from our human vantage point: If a man could have an absolutely perfect idea of all that passed in his mind, all the series of ideas and exercises in every respect perfect as to order, degree, circumstances,

Jonathan Edwards, Writings on the Trinity, Grace, and Faith, vol. 21, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, ed. Sang Hyun Lee (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003).113.
95

94

Works, 21:114 Ibid.

96

27 etc. for any particular space of time past suppose the last hour he would really, to all intents and purposes, be over again what he was that last hour. And if it were possible for a man by reflection perfectly to contemplate all that is in his own mind in an hour, as it is and at the same time that it is there, in its first and direct existence; if a man had a perfect reflex or contemplative idea of every thought at the same moment or moments that that thought was, and of every exercise at and during the same time that that exercise was, and so through a whole hour: a man would really be two. He would be indeed double; he would be twice at once: the idea he has of himself would be himself again.97 From this Edwards draws the conclusion that this person is the second person of the Trinity, Jesus Christ the Son of God. Interestingly, this gives a quite different understanding of how Christ relates to the Father as a Son. Quite honestly, this construal seems at best to hedge off many of the misunderstandings that stemmed from the language of sonship when applied to Christ. On this view, as long as the Father has existed as a perceiving mind, so has the Son existed. As will be born out below, this same pre-existent eternality would apply to the Spirit as well.98 Much like Owen then, Edwards comes to see Christ as the most immediate representation of the Godhead.99 This idea that the Father has of Himself is how He can be known to us, and is as very much God as the Father: Therefore as God with perfect clearness, fullness and strength understands himself, views his own essence (in which there is no distinction of substance and act, but it is wholly substance and wholly act), that idea which God hath of himself is absolutely himself. This representation of the divine nature and essence is the divine nature and essence again. So that by God's thinking of the Deity, [the Deity] must certainly be generated. Hereby there is another person begotten; there is another infinite, eternal, almighty, and most holy and the same God, the very same divine nature.100
97

Ibid., 116 quoted at length, because it makes it easier to follow his thinking. This is the material in the footnote of John Pipers Pleasures of God that got me started on Edwards in the first place. This is not to say this particular view is problem free, just that it wards off some issues, while opening up others, something will be shown that Edwards was painfully aware of.
99 98

Ibid., 117.

Ibid., 116. This is also Edwards understanding of what the apostle Paul means in such passages as 2 Corinthians 4:4, Colossians 1:15, Philippians 2:6, and the writer of Hebrews in 1:3.
100

28

Although Edwards has taken a much different path, he has come to similar Christocentric conclusions in respect to our ability to understand and know God. The Son in Edwards view is the direct communication God the Father has of Himself. Edwards then references John 12:45, 14:7-9, 15:22-24, pointing out that these texts seem to reflect that seeing the perfect idea (or image) of a thing is to all intents and purposes the same as seeing the thing.101 Edwards cites three main reasons to support this idea of Christ as the idea of God the Father, (1) Christ is called the wisdom of God, (2) Christ is the logos of God, (3) Christ is the amen of God. He directly quotes references in Scripture for the first two points,102 and concludes with a rhetorical flair, that that which is the form, face, and express and perfect image of God, in beholding which God has eternal delight, and is also the wisdom, knowledge, logos and truth of God, is God's idea of himself. What other knowledge of God is there that is the form, appearance, and perfect image and representation of God, but God's idea of himself?103 From here Edwards then moves on to explain how the Holy Spirit fits into this conception of the Trinity. Again, it is helpful to quote his compact argument before proceeding to unpack it: The Godhead being thus begotten by God's having an idea of himself and standing forth in a distinct subsistence or person in that idea, there proceeds a most pure act, and an infinitely holy and sweet energy arises between the Father and Son: for their love and joy is mutual, in mutually loving and delighting in each other. Proverbs 8:30, "I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before [him]." This is the eternal and most perfect and essential act of the divine nature, wherein the Godhead acts to an infinite degree and in the most perfect manner possible. The Deity becomes all act; the divine essence itself

Ibid., 117-18. Edwards points out that really there is no other seeing of something than to have an idea of it. To see the direct idea God the Father has of Himself is really to see Him, albeit indirectly. This seems really to be just a more philosophically sophisticated way of speaking of Christ as the only Mediator between God and man.
101

(1) in 1 Corinthians 1:24; Luke 11:49, compared with Matthew 23:34, and (2) in John 1, although this is not directly referred to by Edwards, but it is the typical passage adduced for this particular point.
103

102

Ibid., 120.

29 flows out and is as it were breathed forth in love and joy. So that the Godhead therein stands forth in yet another manner of subsistence, and there proceeds the third person in the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, viz. the Deity in act: for there is no other act but the act of the will.104 In unpacking the Biblical data for the above understanding of the Trinity, Edwards relies heavily on exposition of 1 John 4,105 from which we can see that the Godhead or divine nature does subsist in love.106 Specifically in reference to 1 John 4:16, he who dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God, and God in Him, Edwards points out that this not only confirms that the divine nature subsists in love, but that this love is specifically the Spirit because it is by the Spirit that God dwells in men.107 Further, he points out that, The name of the third person in the Trinity, viz. the Holy Spirit, confirms it. It naturally expresses the divine nature as subsisting in pure act and perfect energy, and as flowing out and breathing forth in infinitely sweet and vigorous affection. It is confirmed both by his being called the Spirit, and by his being denominated Holy.108 From there, Edwards ruminates on the nature of spirit, and also on the nature of holiness. Recalling Edwards understanding of disposition and beauty being two sides of the same coin in reference to being, he states that it is in the temper or disposition of a mind and its exercise that holiness is immediately seated. A mind is said to be holy from the holiness of its temper and disposition, and that 'tis in God's infinite love to himself that his holiness consists. As all creature holiness is to be resolved into love, as the Scripture teaches us, so doth the holiness of God himself consist in infinite love to himself. God's holiness is the infinite beauty and excellency of his nature.109 One can see that at least so far, this love is primarily a self-love
104

Ibid., 121. Which incidentally is what underlies his rather well known Religious Affections. Ibid. Ibid. 121. Ibid. 122. Ibid. 123.

105

106

107

108

109

30

that God has in knowing Himself. At a later point when dealing with Edwards social model, this will come back into focus. Edwards then unpacks, in a very Biblically based fashion, the work of the Spirit, which he collects under three heads: (1) Quickening and beautifying all things, (2) sanctifying created Spirits by divine love, and (3) comforting and delighting those spirits as well.110 One may be tempted to think that Edwards thought is driven by his philosophical commitments, but given the depth and breadth of Scripture he mounts after his initial observations, it seems more likely that he has worked in the other direction. That is, Edwards seems to have started with the Biblical data, and then after ruminating on it in light of his understanding of reality via contemporary philosophy, sought to bring the two ends together in dialogue. It is not too surprising then that most of Edwards ideas on the ministry and person of the Holy Spirit are not peculiar to him, however, one aspect of his understanding of the Holy Spirit is worth noting before dealing with some of the objections that have been brought up to Edwards ideas. Toward the end of his discussion on the Holy Spirit, Edwards tries to make sense of the apostle Pauls greetings in his epistles that exclude the Holy Spirit. Thinking on this at length and reconciling it with the above conception of the Holy Spirit as the actual love of God, he comes to this conclusion: I can think of no other good account that can be given of the apostle Paul's wishing grace and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ in the beginning of his epistles, without ever mentioning the Holy Ghost as we find it thirteen times in his salutations in the beginnings of his epistles but that the Holy Ghost is himself the love and grace of God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. And in his blessing at the end of his Second Epistle to the Corinthians, where all three persons are mentioned, he wishes grace and love from the Son and the Father, but the communion, or the partaking, of the Holy Ghost. The blessing from the Father and the Son is the Holy Ghost; but the blessing from the Holy Ghost is himself, the communication of himself. Christ promises that he and the Father will love believers, but no mention of the Holy Ghost (John 14:21, 23);
110

Ibid. 123-26. This is similar to Owen, see pgs in Owen, The Holy Spirit: His Gifts and Power

31 and the love of Christ and the love of the Father are often distinctly mentioned, but never any mention of the Holy Ghost's love.111 Edwards goes a bit further thinking through why there is no mention of either the Father or the Son loving the Holy Spirit. He rightly points out that the Holy Spirit is never spoken of as loving either the Father or the Son, or the saints for that matter. Edwards has a slightly different conception of communion than Owen had, but both men are concerned with unpacking the Trinity in practical terms and both understand communion to be rather central in that regard. It is interesting though to note that Edwards was aware of some of the implications of how he had unpacked the Trinity, and at least sought to counter some of them. Before getting there though, here is a concise summary of how he understands the Trinity: And this I suppose to be that blessed Trinity that we read of in the holy Scriptures. The Father is the Deity subsisting in the prime, unoriginated and most absolute manner, or the Deity in its direct existence. The Son is the Deity generated by God's understanding, or having an idea of himself, and subsisting in that idea. The Holy Ghost is the Deity subsisting in act or the divine essence flowing out and breathed forth, in God's infinite love to and delight in himself. And I believe the whole divine essence does truly and distinctly subsist both in the divine idea and divine love, and that therefore each of them are properly distinct persons.112 Dealing With Objections This conception of the Trinity, using a psychological analogy, is not unique to Edwards. It is quite different though from Augustines, as will be demonstrated below.113 One objection that is usually brought against certain types of psychological analogies is that the Holy

111

Ibid. 130. Ibid. 131.

112

Space does not allow a formal comparison between Augustines model and Edwards. It is somewhat being assumed that the reader is familiar with Augustines model and so will spot the differences as they are brought out. For a more thorough comparison, see pgs 26-35, 63-66 in William J. Danaher Jr., The Trinitarian Ethics of Jonathan Edwards, Columbia Series in Reformed Theology (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004).
113

32

Spirit somehow gets diminished within the Trinity and his personhood is not as strongly considered. Edwards himself anticipates some of this: One of the principle objections that I can think of against what has been supposed is concerning the personality of the Holy Ghost, that this scheme of things don't seem well to consist with that, [that] a person is that which hath understanding and will. If the three in the Godhead are persons, they doubtless each of 'em have understanding: but this makes the understanding one distinct person, and love another. How therefore can this love be said to have understanding?114 Edwards answer will be rather surprising and it seems bypasses much of the concern that is laid at Augustines feet. Surprisingly, Edwards employs the idea of perichoresis to resolve some of the difficulty. After quoting John 10:14, Edwards goes on to say that, so may it be said concerning all the persons of the Trinity: the Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Father; the Holy Ghost is in the Father, and the Father in the Holy Ghost; the Holy Ghost is in the Son, and the Son in the Holy Ghost. And the Father understands because the Son, who is the divine understanding, is in him. The Father loves because the Holy Ghost is in him. So the Son loves because the Holy Spirit is in him and proceeds from him. So the Holy Ghost, or the divine essence subsisting in divine love, understands because the Son, the divine idea, is in him.115 Further, Edwards goes on to say that All the three are persons, for they all have understanding and will. Then Edwards explains that There is understanding and will in the Father, as the Son and the Holy Ghost are in him and proceed from [him]. There is understanding and will in the Son, as he is understanding and as the Holy Ghost is in him and proceeds from him. There is understanding and will in the Holy Ghost, as he is the divine will and as the Son is in him.116 While Edwards and Augustine may be conceptually similar in their models, they seem to be actually quite different. In fact, Edwards makes a rather clear departure from the Western tradition with this rather original conception of the Holy Spirits role within the Trinity:
114

Ibid. 132-33 Ibid. 133 Ibid, 134

115

116

33 In one respect the Father has the superiority: he is the fountain of Deity, and he begets the beloved Son. In another respect the Son has the superiority, as he is the great and first object of divine love. The beloved has as it were the superiority over the lover, and reigns over him. In another respect the Holy Ghost, that is, divine love, has the superiority, as that is the principle that as it were reigns over the Godhead and governs his heart, and wholly influences both the Father and the Son in all they do.117 This topic of the equality of persons will be returned to in a later section, but what Edwards has stated here is rather remarkable in its ability to see superiority and subordination as somehow equally ultimate within the ontological Trinity.118 Edwards actually wrote much on the topic, however he seems to be rather neglected in current discussions of subordination in the Trinity.119 At least on this account, any objection against a subsidiary role of the Holy Spirit or lack of personhood attributed to Him, is probably owing to either a lack in the depth of material read, or in a misunderstanding of Edwards conceptions of ontology.120 This is not to say that Edwards model is without difficulty, but rather that an almost side-kick role assigned to the Holy Spirit that undermines either His divinity or personhood, does not seem to be one of them. Somewhat related to the last point is the charge that Paul Helm levels against Edwards psychological analogy as collapsing into tri-Theism. Helm is afraid that Edwards has proved too much in his conception of God the Father having a perfect idea of himself; proving not the second person of the Trinity but a second God. He sees the argumentation as implicitly tri-theistic. 121 Edwards though, actually was aware and responded to this criticism, and believes
117

Ibid, 147.

As will be shown below, he does hold to an order in the ontological Trinity that features the Father as Head (as did Owen), however he seems to avoid some extremes of those that hold this particular position today.
119

118

See note 73 above.

Which is really not that hard to do actually, I am not sure I completely understand Edwards ontology or his conception of personhood. He does though seem rather keen to demonstrate the personhood of the Spirit and not just have Him collapse into a divine principle of action. I may not have adequately demonstrated the point, but Edwards devotes some space to it in the Miscellanies as well as Discourse on the Trinity.
120

Paul Helm, Introduction, in Treatise on Grace and Other Posthumous Writings, ed. Paul Helm (Cambridge: James Clarke, 1971). 21.
121

34

that such an objection arises from a confusion of thought and a misunderstanding of what we say.122 Edwards offers a reply in one of the miscellanies, we never suppose the Father generated the Son by understanding the Son, but that God generated the Son by understanding his own essence, and that the Son is that idea itself, or understanding of the essence. The Father understands the Son no otherwise than as he understands that essence, that is, the essence of the Son. The Father understands the idea he has merely in his having that idea, without any other act; thus a man understands his own perfect idea merely by his having that idea in his mind. So the Son understands the Father in that the essence of the Son understands the essence of the Father, as in himself being the understanding of that essence; and so of the Holy Ghost.123 Here as elsewhere, Edwards follows up with the explanation that But I would not be understood to pretend to give a full explication of the Trinity, for I think it still remains an incomprehensible mystery, the greatest and the most glorious of all mysteries.124 Elsewhere though Edwards had countered this objection, and specifically that one could find an infinite number of persons in the Trinity on this account.125 In an earlier entry in the miscellanies, Edwards explains: I answer, that the Son himself is the Father's idea, himself; and if he has an idea of this Idea, 'tis yet the same Idea: a perfect idea of an idea is the same idea still, to all intents and purposes. Thus, when I have a perfect idea of my idea of all an equilateral triangle, it is an idea of the same equilateral triangle, to all intents and purposes.126 Edwards then drive his point home, So if you say, that God the Father or Son may have an idea of their own delight in each other; but I say, a perfect idea or perception of one's own perfect delight cannot be different, at least in God, from the delight itself. You'll say, the Son has an idea of the
Danaher Jr., The Trinitarian Ethics of Jonathan Edwards, 266.n33, also Pauw, The Supreme Harmony of All: The Trinitarian Theology of Jonathan Edwards, 53.
123 122

Works, 13:392-93. Ibid. also found in Works, 21:139-40 Making an Inf-inity? Works, 13:261

124

125

126

35 Father; I answer, the Son himself is the idea of the Father And if you say, he has an idea of the Father; his idea is still an idea of the Father, and therefore the same with the Son. And if you say, the Holy Spirit has an idea of the Father; I answer, the Holy Ghost is himself the delight and joyfulness of the Father in that idea, and of the idea in the Father: 'tis still the idea of the Father. So that, if we turn it all the ways in the world, we shall never be able to make more than these three: God, the idea of God, and delight in God.127 This may not satisfy all objections, but it seems very much that on Edwards terms at least, his analogy does not yield three gods, but rather given his underlying metaphysics, it all hangs together rather nicely, even though it still at times is hard for this author at least to fully understand; and admittedly still, his views are not completely problem free. Analysis of Psychological Model Edwards psychological model, while on the surface similar in vocabulary to Augustines is really based on John Lockes understanding of the human self as the mind, the minds reflexive perception of the minds own internal contents, and the minds willing.128 It is more or less a view of the ontological Trinity in terms of Gods consciousness of Himself and the fullness of his own being. As Edwards will then put it later, this translates in to God (the Father), the idea God has of Himself (the Son) and the love of God (the Holy Spirit). While some may level the charge of intellectualism or individualism against Edwards use of the psychological model, these charges are more at home against Augustines model than Edwards.129 Both of their conceptions carry the idea of being a psychological model of the Trinity, but the correspondence between what Augustine and Edwards are saying is not that tight. Because of Augustines adherence to substance metaphysics, his approach might be considered overly intellectual and individualistic, and he does conceive of the Trinity as a single mind in

127

Ibid., 261-262 Lee, Editor's Introduction. 11. Danaher Jr., The Trinitarian Ethics of Jonathan Edwards, 64-65.

128

129

36

some ways.130 However, Edwards, through his idealism, generates a conception of personhood that views plurality and relationality as equally fundamental as unity, making the relational nature of personhood the fundamental category of being.131 As Danaher notes, the psychological analogy is essential to Edwards theological ethics, not only because it provides Edwards with his central vision of the moral life as a life of theosis, but also because it is integral to his theological anthropology and social ethics.132 One can see this in how Edwards articulates first, the possibility of spiritual knowledge in light of the Trinity, and second, the new nature that comes via regeneration. Much like John Owen, Edwards conception of the Trinity underlies any further possibility of developing a coherent epistemology, something later apologists like Van Til have developed rather fully. 133 Also like Owen, Edwards understanding of the Trinity has implications for how the believer then relates to and has fellowship/communion with God. Regarding spiritual knowledge then, Edwards, like Calvin sees all knowledge of ourselves ultimately as being derived from the knowledge of God.134 So then for Edwards, all spiritual knowledge is nothing other than the communication of the knowledge of Gods self.135 In order to know anything then, one must know God, specifically, in Christ. Closely related then to the concept of spiritual knowledge the concept of conversion for Edwards, as he clarifies here:

130

Ibid. Ibid. Ibid., 18.

131

132

See Van Til, The Defense of the Faith, and Van Til, An Introduction to Systematic Theology: Prolegomena and the Doctrines of Revelation, Scripture, and God See Danaher Jr., The Trinitarian Ethics of Jonathan Edwards, 37. Although they came to this conclusion for different reasons. See Calvins Institutes, Book 1, chapter 1 for Calvins angle.
135 134

133

Ibid., Which remember in Edwards conception is the Son.

37 for what is done in conversion is nothing but conferring the Spirit of God, which dwells in the soul and becomes there a principle of life and action. 'Tis this is the new nature and the divine nature; and the nature of the soul being thus changed, it admits divine light. Divine things now appear excellent, beautiful, glorious, which did not when the soul was of another spirit.136 Once a person then is converted, Edwards sees the possibility for further renewal in knowledge. Everyone has knowledge, but it is only in coming into right relationship with God that one starts to fully understand: Indeed the first act of the Spirit of God, or the first that this divine temper exerts itself in, is in spiritual understanding, or in the sense of the mind, its perception of glory and excellency, etc. in the ideas it has of divine things; and this is before any proper acts of the will. Indeed, the inclination of the soul is as immediately exercised in that sense of the mind which is called spiritual understanding, as the intellect. For it is not only the mere presence of ideas in the mind, but it is the mind's sense of their excellency, glory and delightfulness. By this sense or taste of the mind, especially if it be lively, the mind in many things distinguishes truth from falsehood.137 In a very fascinating analogy in the Religious Affections, Edwards compares this communication of the Spirit of God to the conception of Christ in the womb of Mary, stating that this conception, by the power of the Holy Ghost, seems to be a designed resemblance of the conception of Christ in the soul of a believer, by the power of the Holy Ghost.138 Edwards then, takes rather literally 2 Peter 1:4 and sees the new nature wrought by God in conversion to be the divine nature and true saving grace is no other than that the very love of God that is God, in one of the persons of the Trinity, uniting Himself to the soul of the creature as a vital principle, dwelling there and exerting himself by the faculties of the soul of man, in his own proper nature, after the manner of a principle of nature.139 This Edwards has concluded based on this rational on why the Holy Spirit is termed a spirit;
136

Works, 13:462-63 Ibid. 463. Works, 2:347 Works, 13:194

137

138

139

38 Here the Apostle does fully explain himself what he means when he so often calls that holy principle that is in the hearts of the saints by the name "Spirit." This he means, the Spirit of God itself dwelling and acting in them. In the Romans 8:9 he calls it the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of Christ in the Romans 8:10. He calls it Christ "in them" in the eleventh verse. He calls it the "Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead" dwelling in them; and in the Romans 8:14 he calls it the Spirit of God. In the Romans 8:16 he calls it the "Spirit itself." So it is called the Spirit of God in 1 Corinthians 2:11 12. So that that holy, divine principle, which we have observed does radically and essentially consist in divine love, is no other than a communication and participation of that same infinite divine love, which is God, and in which the Godhead is eternally breathed forth and subsists in the third person in the blessed Trinity.140 As one can see, Edwards conception of the Trinity in terms of a psychological analogy is not simply theoretical speculation. Edwards connects it to both conversion in his Treatise on Grace, and in terms of his general understanding of apprehension, it factors into how we know ourselves and the world around us. Interestingly, Edwards, rather than seeing the soul as an analogy for the relations in the Trinity, believes he sees the exact opposite; that the relations in the Trinity provide an analogy for the faculties of the soul.141 Remembering that for Edwards, the Trinity is God (the Father), Gods idea of Himself (the Son), and Gods love or delight (the Spirit), Edwards concludes that, There is in resemblance to this threefold distinction in God a threefold distinction in a created spirit, namely, the spirit itself, and its understanding, and its will or inclination or love; and this indeed is all the real distinction there is in created spirits.142 Elsewhere, Edwards writes that Though the divine nature be vastly different from that of created spirits, yet our souls are made in the image of God: we have understanding and will, idea and love, as God hath, and the difference is only in the perfection of degree and manner.143As Danaher concludes from this, for Edwards, personhood is a concept that one

140

Works, 21:194 Danaher Jr., The Trinitarian Ethics of Jonathan Edwards, 65. Works, 13:367 Works, 21:113

141

142

143

39

develops from above rather than from below, and the nature and goal of Christian ethics then is to recreate in humanity personhood as it exists in the Trinity.144 Indeed, for Edwards, rather than the psychological analogy being used to stress the divine unity rather than the threeness, in his hands it comes into a perspective that clearly emphasizes the threeness of the persons in the Trinity and this in turn, ends up reinforcing the social analogy, to which this paper will now turn.145 Analysis of the Social Model While the psychological model lends itself to making sense of God in relation to Himself, or the ontological Trinity; the social model is more apt to explain the economic Trinity, or God in relation to creation. Where the psychological model conceives of God in terms of selfconsciousness, the social model conceives of God in terms or interpersonal participation.146 Edwards develops his argument for the social model in two streams. The first has to do with the nature of goodness, and the second is concerning excellence. When speaking of goodness Edwards sees that, To be perfectly good is to incline to and delight in making another happy in the same proportion as it is happy itself, that is, to delight as much in communicating happiness to another as in enjoying of it himself, and an inclination to communicate all his happiness; it appears that this is perfect goodness, because goodness is delight in communicating happiness.147 If this is so reasons Edwards, then God must communicate this happiness to an infinite being as

144

Danaher Jr., The Trinitarian Ethics of Jonathan Edwards, 66. Insight from Lee, Editor's Introduction. 19. Danaher Jr., The Trinitarian Ethics of Jonathan Edwards, 68. Works, 13:263

145

146

147

40 to no finite being can God either incline to communicate goodness so much as he inclines to be happy himself, for he cannot love a creature so much as he loves himself; neither can he communicate all his goodness to a finite being. But no absolutely perfect being can be without absolutely perfect goodness, and no being can be perfectly happy which has not the exercise of that which he perfectly inclines to exercise; wherefore, God must have a perfect exercise of his goodness, and therefore must have the fellowship of a person equal with himself. No reasonable creature can be happy, we find, without society and communion, not only because he finds something in others that is not in himself, but because he delights to communicate himself to another. This cannot be because of our imperfection, but because we are made in the image of God; for the more perfect any creature is, the more strong this inclination. So that we may conclude, that Jehovah's happiness consists in communion, as well as the creature's.148 As one can see, there are clear implications for the imago dei, springing from this conception of the Trinity. Whereas in the psychological model locates the imago dei in selfconsciousness, the social model locates it in our interpersonal relations.149 Aside from that implication, here one sees a picture of Gods goodness as necessarily diffusive and social. Rather than this making creation due to a metaphysical necessity in God, which would destroy aseity, a point Edwards holds150; it instead still preserves Gods self-complete existence as His goodness is perfectly communicated to the Son. As Danaher notes, the genius of Edwards position is that it holds together the thesis that Gods creation of the world is an exercise of the will and the social analogys thesis that creation is an expression of the inherent goodness of Gods nature.151 Much more could be discussed regarding the implications of this conception of the social model, but space does not permit further reflection on this one aspect. In addition to his thoughts on goodness helping to develop his social model, Edwards also uses his ideas on excellence. Most of his thoughts on excellence are developed in his

148 Ibid. 13:264, notice as well the similarity to Owens conception of goodness being fundamental to the being of God. 149

Danaher Jr., The Trinitarian Ethics of Jonathan Edwards, 109. God stands in no need of creatures, and is not profited by them. Works, 18:238, Miscellany #679. Danaher Jr., The Trinitarian Ethics of Jonathan Edwards, 106.

150

151

41

notebook The Mind, which although outside of the stated scope of this study, will be mentioned here in brief for a few quotations.152 There in Edwards notebook, he writes that the highest excellency is the consent of spirits one to another, in their mutual love one to another.153 His conclusion though after ruminating on this basic idea is illuminating: One alone, without any reference to any more, cannot be excellent; for in such case there can be no manner of relation no way, and therefore, no such thing as consent. Indeed, what we call "one" may be excellent, because of a consent of parts, or some consent of those in that being that are distinguished into a plurality some way or other. But in a being that is absolutely without any plurality there cannot be excellency, for there can be no such thing as consent or agreement.154 Recalling from earlier Edwards ideas about beauty and consent, it is not surprising that in this conception, the Trinity then must be the ultimate source of beauty and excellence in the created universe.155 As he has said, Again, we have shown that one alone cannot be excellent, inasmuch as, in such case, there can be no consent. Therefore, if God is excellent, there must be a plurality in God; otherwise, there can be no consent in him.156 For Edwards, there must be a plurality in God in order for God to be excellent. One alone cannot be excellent, mainly because there cannot be the consent that Edwards sees underlying love: Then there must have been an object from all eternity which God infinitely loves. But we have showed that all love arises from the perception, either of consent to being in general, or consent to that being that perceives. Infinite loveliness, to God, therefore, must consist either in infinite consent to entity in general, or infinite consent to God. But we have shown that consent to entity and consent to God are the same, because God is
152

This was pointed out by Ibid., 69. Works, 6:332, 337

153

Ibid. For more on this idea, specifically drawn from this quotation, consider Amy Plantinga Pauw, 'One Alone Cannot Be Excellent': Edwards on Divine Simplicity, in Jonathan Edwards: Philosophical Theologian, ed. Paul Helm and Oliver D. Crisp (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003); Edwards, amazingly, wrote this quotation in his notebook when he was only 20 years old.
155

154

Danaher Jr., The Trinitarian Ethics of Jonathan Edwards, 70. Works, 13:285.

156

42 the general and only proper entity of all things. So that 'tis necessary that that object which God infinitely loves must be infinitely and perfectly consenting and agreeable to him; but that which infinitely and perfectly agrees is the very same essence, for if it be different it don't infinitely consent.157 While the psychological analogy was developed in terms of a single minds reflection and then moving to relation and plurality, this analogy is clearly starting with plurality, sociality, and relation.158 In sum, Edwards develops his social model in by presupposing that goodness requires another towards whom one can be good and also a similar aesthetic presupposition that excellence describes a state of relations that exists as a result of mutual love and consent between a plurality of persons.159 From there, it is understandable that Edwards would view God as necessarily Trinitarian, although again, this view itself may not be without difficulties, but when coupled with the previous psychological model, it does seem to comport rather nicely. In Edwards, just as the psychological model hedges off tri-theism due to its underlying metaphysic, so the social model avoids this charge as well, even though it is more explicitly plural in its conception of the Trinity. Edwards does not presuppose that individuality is identical to rationality and personhood, so unlike Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, rationality is not connected to a persons substantive nature and the distinguishing mark of personhood.160 Rather as seen above, Edwards main conception of personhood is relational and defines personhood in such a way that there must be some sort of dialogical relation within consciousness in order for identity to be possible.161

157

Ibid., 283. Danaher Jr., The Trinitarian Ethics of Jonathan Edwards, 71. Ibid., Ibid., 108. Ibid.

158

159

160

161

43

In addition, it is important to understand that Edwards viewed the models as complementary, rather than alternative accounts of the Trinity. When one puts them together and sees them as complementary ways of conceiving of the Trinity, ontologically and economically, one can have a fuller understanding of God; yet one that is still not comprehensive, and still mysterious as Edwards would affirm. Towards the end of his Discourse on the Trinity, Edwards recognizes that the Trinity is indeed still a mystery in two senses. Mystery can both refer to that which is not fully revealed or obscured from view, or it can refer to the unfolding knowledge of something that is never fully comprehended, something true in nature but even more true in relation to God: Tis so not only in divine things but natural things: he that looks on a plant, or the parts of the bodies of animals, or any other works of nature, at a great distance, where he has but an obscure sight of it, may see something in it wonderful and beyond his comprehension; but he that is near to it and views them narrowly, indeed understands more about them, has a clearer and distinct sight of them; and yet the number of things that are wonderful and mysteries in them that appear to him, are much more than before. And if he views them with a microscope, the number of the wonders that he sees will be much increased still. But yet the microscope gives him more of a true knowledge concerning them.162 Edwards then realizes that he is far from asserting this as any explication of this mystery that unfolds and removes the mysteriousness and incomprehensibleness of it for as he says, he is sensible that however, by what has been said, some difficulties are lessened, others that are new appear; and the number of those things that appear mysterious, wonderful and incomprehensible are increased by it. He confides that he is offering it only as a further manifestation of what of divine truth the Word of God exhibits to the view of our minds concerning this great mystery.163 There is a sense of humility here, and as much as Edwards has

162

Works, 21:140 Ibid. 139.

163

44

done to explain God as Trinity, even he realizes that every explanation is by the very nature of things, always to come up short. Selah. Implications for Contemporary Trinitarian Studies Again, as with John Owen, the focus here with lean more towards the current subordination debate. Edwards however was a little more to the point, and actually wrote an entry in the Miscellanies on the subject entitled, Economy of the Trinity and the Covenant of Redemption.164 There, Edwards write specifically against those who held that that the sonship of the second person in the Trinity consists only in the relation he bears to the Father in his mediatorial character, clarifying further that they also hold that his generation or proceeding from the Father as a Son consists only in his being appointed, constituted and authorized of the Father to the office of a mediator, and that there is no other priority of the Father to the Son but that is voluntarily established in the covenant of redemption.165 This comes at the conclusion of the aforementioned writings, after Edwards had listed all of his observations. To see how Edwards came to this conclusion, it is worth noting his argument at length, which rather than taking his typical apologetic form of attacking the logical underpinnings of a particular position, he instead offers a rival account that he feels is more in line with orthodoxy.166 He begins by granting there is a subordination of the persons of the Trinity, in their actings with respect to the creature; that one acts from another, and under another, and with a dependence on another, in their actings, and particularly in what they act in
Works, 20, entry #1062. Also published later as an independent work, Jonathan Edwards, Observations Concerning the Scripture Oeconomy of the Trinity and Covenant of Redemption, (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1880). Includes an introduction and appendix by Egbert C. Smyth.
165 164

Ibid. 443. Danaher Jr., The Trinitarian Ethics of Jonathan Edwards, 74.

166

45

the affair of man's redemption. So that the Father in that affair acts as Head of the Trinity, and Son under him, and the Holy Spirit under them both.167 But then Edwards notes that this cannot extend to any inferiority in glory or excellence of nature. Even though the Son in some sense may be thought of as dependent on the Father for his existence (as it seems in Edwards psychological model), this rather demonstrates what is more properly called priority than superiority, as we ordinarily use such terms. There is dependence without inferiority of Deity, because in the Son the Deity, the whole Deity and glory of the Father, is as it [were] repeated or duplicated: everything in the Father is repeated or expressed again, and that fully, so that there is properly no inferiority.168 So as Edwards frames it, there is subordination in the Trinity, but the question is what kind and to what extent. Edwards grants, as was seen, that there is a certain subordination in the economic Trinity in the context of redemption, but also that he does not see this extending into the ontological Trinity. In order to clarify further, Edwards explains, Though a subordination of the persons of the Trinity in their actings be not from any proper natural subjection one to another, and so must be conceived of as in some respect established by mutual free agreement, whereby the persons of the Trinity of their own will have as it were formed themselves into a society for carrying on the great design of glorifying the Deity and communicating its fullness, in which is established a certain economy and order of acting; yet this agreement establishing this economy is not to be looked upon as merely arbitrary, founded on nothing but the mere pleasure of the members of this society, nor merely a determination and constitution of wisdom come into from a view to certain ends, which it is very convenient for the obtaining. But there is a natural decency or fitness in that order and economy that is established.169 It is interesting then, that Edwards sees the order or hierarchy as prior to the covenant of redemption, but not in an arbitrary fashion, stating that, This order [or] economy of the

167

Works, 20:430 Ibid. Ibid. 431.

168

169

46

persons of the Trinity with respect to their actions ad extra is to be conceived of as prior to the covenant of redemption, as we must conceive of God's determination to glorify and communicate himself as prior to the method that his wisdom pitches upon as tending best to effect this.170 Edwards it seems advocates subordination in the sense of their being a hierarchy within the Trinity, both economically and ontologically, but it seems he holds to it owing much more to mutual free choice, rather than something that was ontologically necessary. He consistently refers to the Father as the Head of the Trinity throughout this work, yet he seems rather egalitarian when he says above that again, the positions were established by mutual free agreement, whereby the persons of the Trinity of their own will have as it were formed themselves into a society for carrying on the great design of glorifying the Deity and communicating its fullness, which then leads to this certain economy and order of acting. So for Edwards at least, there is an order in the persons of the Trinity that underlies the order in the covenant of redemption, but it is not an arbitrary distinction. All of this adds to a tension in Edwards writing between his egalitarian moments and his complete insistent on equality of the persons of the Trinity, yet also holding that there are hierarchical aspects of their order that come prior to any relation to creatures. It would yield for much more fruitful study to explore Edwards on this idea further and to wrestle with the issues as he has, and maybe find solutions within his many thoughts on the subject. One additional avenue for further study is in reconciling the models of the Trinity that Edwards uses. A particular work that came to this authors attention to late to be integrated into this study is a work by Steven M. Studebaker, Jonathan Edwards Social Augustinian

170

Ibid., 431-32.

47

Trinitarianism in Historical and Contemporary Perspective.171 In the book, Studebaker develops an argument that Edwards only consistently used one model of the Trinity, the Augustinian mutual love model. Studebaker is aware of Danahers work, but does not interact with it at all, although he does interact with Pauws work at length.172 Danaher makes a good case that Edwards departs from Augustine on several points, but having not read Studebakers work personally, this author cannot comment further on whether or not Danahers or Studebakers analysis can stand the test of logic and both scholars are undoubtedly approaching Edwards with different conceptual lens.173 At any rate, this is another avenue of further study in Edwards Trinitarianism, many more could be added, but at this point, it is time to land this paper safely and call it a day. Conclusion Very easily, this conclusion could embody another paper entirely. Indeed, there is still much fruitful study possible in comparing and contrasting the thought of John Owen and Jonathan Edwards in general, and especially in reference to their understanding of the doctrine of God as Trinity. Just to tie everything together, a few points of comparison are in order. First, both men were essentially Christocentric in the understanding of the Trinity, yet interestingly, both were intently interested in studying the Holy Spirit. Some of this may result from the fact that both men were interested in judging the validity of spiritual experiences, and both dealt with a correlate to the modern day Charismatic movement.174 They both then sought to maintain the
171 Steven M. Studebaker, Jonathan Edwards' Social Augustinian Trinitarianism in Historical and Contemporary Perspectives, Gorgias Studies in Philosophy and Theology, vol. 2 (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2008). 172

Pauw, The Supreme Harmony of All: The Trinitarian Theology of Jonathan Edwards

And in fact, that is the main point of Studebakers work; that interpreters have been using the wrong conceptual lens (a systematic-theological methodology rather than a historical-theological one).
173 174

Kapic, Worshiping the Triune God: The Shape of John Owen's Trinitarian Spirituality. 42.

48

importance of experiencing God, specifically as Triune, while grounded the experience within a Biblical framework. Second, both men, as seen by the amount of time they devoted to the topic, felt that expounding on the Biblical data about the Trinity was not only necessary, but was vital to the life and practice of the church. Owens Communion with the Triune God stands a magnificent testimony to this facet, and as Danaher unpacks in his book, Edwards understanding of the Trinity was the foundation of his view of ethics. Consequently, both men place on emphasis on communion with God that is personal as opposed to abstract. Owen specifically excels in this regard, and is a must read for those who wish to make their understanding of the Trinity an integral part of the devotional life and walk with Christ. Lastly, both men had much to say about the nature of God. Both saw goodness as fundamental to the divine nature, although in different ways. For both though, this goodness was necessarily communicated, both within the Trinity in se, and ad extra. They both saw the Father as Head of Trinity in an ontological sense, but both men seemed intent to illustrate that this was not an arbitrary distinction within the Trinity. Specifically in Edwards, it comes out that this taxis was chosen by mutual free agreement and thus underlies the taxis we see in the economic Trinity, specifically in the context of redemption. Much, much more could be said on either Jonathan Edwards or John Owen individually, and hardly any work at all has been done by way of comparing and contrasting their thought. It should be remembered though, as both men would want, that understanding God is not an academic exercise, or just something to be perceived as an intellectual challenge. Ultimately, understanding God is something that is the highest pursuit one could have on earth, but is not an end in itself. The end is to see the glory of Christ more clearly and to worship and commune with God through Christ. While it is a quote from Owen, Edwards would hardily agree with the conclusion of a study on the doctrine of God that, There is no saving knowledge of any

49

property of God, nor such as brings consolation, but what alone is to be had in Christ Jesus, being laid up in him, and manifested by him.175 Likewise, we do well to remember that no sooner do we acknowledge Christ as Lord and bow in worship that we find that it is impossible to worship any one person, and not worship the whole Trinity.176 As Gregory of Nazianus said long before Owen or Edwards, but is clearly echoed in their writings, No sooner do I conceive of the One than I am illumined by the Splendor of the Three; no sooner do I distinguish Them than I am carried back to the One.177

175

Owen, Communion with the Triune God, 196-97. Ibid., 419. Emphasis original. Found in Ibid., 95.n2. From Oration 40: The Oration on Holy Baptism, NPNF 7:375

176

177

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Danaher Jr., William J. The Trinitarian Ethics of Jonathan Edwards. Columbia Series in Reformed Theology. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004. Edwards, Jonathan. Observations Concerning the Scripture Oeconomy of the Trinity and Covenant of Redemption. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1880. ________. The Works of Jonathan Edwards. Vol. 1-23. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957-2004. ________. Writings on the Trinity, Grace, and Faith. Vol. 21. The Works of Jonathan Edwards, ed. Sang Hyun Lee. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003. Erickson, Millard J. Who's Tampering with the Trinity: An Assessment of the Subordination Debate. Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2009. Helm, Paul. Introduction. In Treatise on Grace and Other Posthumous Writings, ed. Paul Helm. Cambridge: James Clarke, 1971. Holmes, Stephen R. Does Jonathan Edwards Use a Dispositional Ontology? A Response to Sang Hyun Lee. In Jonathan Edwards: Philosophical Theologian, ed. Paul Helm and Oliver D. Crisp, 99-114. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003. Johnson, Phillip R. The Writer for the People of God. In John Calvin: A Heart for Devotion, Doctrine, & Doxology, ed. Burk Parsons. Lake Mary, FL: Reformation Trust, 2008. Kapic, Kelly M. Communion with God: The Divine and the Human in the Theology of John Owen. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.

2 ________. Worshiping the Triune God: The Shape of John Owen's Trinitarian Spirituality. In Communion with the Triune God, ed. Kelly M. Kapic and Justin Taylor. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2007. Lee, Sang Hyun. The Philosophical Theology of Jonathan Edwards. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988. ________. Jonathan Edwards's Dispositional Conception of the Trinity: A Resource for Contemporary Reformed Theology. In Towards the Future of Reformed Theology: Taks, Topics, Traditions, ed. David Willis and Michael Welker. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1999. ________. Editor's Introduction. In Writings on the Trinity, Grace, and Faith, ed. Sang Hyun Lee, vol. 21. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003. Owen, John. The Works of John Owen. Vol. 1-16, ed. William H. Goold. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1965. ________. The Glory of Christ: His Office and Grace. Scotland, UK: Christian Focus Publications, 2004. ________. The Holy Spirit: His Gifts and Power. Scotland, UK: Christian Focus Publications, 2004. ________. Communion with the Triune God, ed. Kelly M. Kapic and Justin Taylor. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway Books, 2007. Pauw, Amy Plantinga. The Supreme Harmony of All: The Trinitarian Theology of Jonathan Edwards. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002. ________. 'One Alone Cannot Be Excellent': Edwards on Divine Simplicity. In Jonathan Edwards: Philosophical Theologian, ed. Paul Helm and Oliver D. Crisp, 115-25. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003. Studebaker, Steven M. Jonathan Edwards' Social Augustinian Trinitarianism in Historical and Contemporary Perspectives. Gorgias Studies in Philosophy and Theology, vol. 2. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2008.

Toon, Peter. God's Statesman: The Life and Work of John Owen; Pastor, Educator, Theologian. Exeter: Paternoster, 1971. Trueman, Carl R. The Claims of Truth: John Owen's Trinitarian Theology. Carlisle, Cumbria, UK: Paternoster, 1998. Van Til, Cornelius. Christian Apologetics. 2nd ed., ed. William Edgar. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2003. ________. An Introduction to Systematic Theology: Prolegomena and the Doctrines of Revelation, Scripture, and God, ed. William Edgar. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2007. ________. The Defense of the Faith. 4th ed., ed. K. Scott Oliphint. Phillipsburg, NJ: P & R Publishing, 2008.