I don’t claim to be an expert on Jonathan Edwards’ doctrine of the Trinity any more than I claim to be an expert on the doctrine itself. Edwards’ writing on the doctrine reveals both his orthodoxy and his philosophical creativity. While on the one hand he affirms the Biblical doctrine and all that the Reformed tradition has long taught about the Triune nature of God, Edwards is not satisfied to stay there. He is not afraid to dive head first into speculation on the doctrine. Some of his writing on the subject can be difficult to understand, some of it difficult to accept. While some level of speculation and imagination can be healthy for doing theology, Edwards development of the doctrine of the Trinity is simply too bold.
Edwards’ idealism influenced even his articulation of the doctrine of the Trinity. It was his conviction that “an absolutely perfect idea of a thing is the very thing.” So, in his articulation of the three persons of the one Godhead he saw God’s perfect “idea” of himself as the very person of the Son. And the perfect love that existed between the Father and the Son as the very person of the Holy Spirit. In other words God’s idea of himself generates the Son and the love between these two persons is so perfect that it manifests as the person of the Spirit. In Edwards’ own words:
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 understand, 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 … The divine idea and divine love … each of them are properly distinct persons. (Quoted in McClymond and McDermott, The Theology of Jonathan Edwards, 194)
This presentation of the doctrine is quite original to Edwards. While the substance of the doctrine is orthodox and in-line with the Reformed Tradition from which Edwards comes, his presentation of the doctrine is something all together new. It is the distinct nature of his presentation that raises suspicion in my mind.
There has been a great deal of debate over Edwards’ presentation of the doctrine, and its implications. For many years following Edwards’ death his works on the Trinity remained unpublished, and there arose a great deal of suspicion about Edwards’ view. Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing in the 1860s argued that Edwards had clearly departed from Reformed Orthodoxy and was closer akin to his own view, Unitarian. Horace Bushnell too, prior to Holmes, had great concern over Edwards’ presentation. In modern scholarship many recognize the unique and even questionable nature of Edwards presentation of the doctrine. So Paul Helm is particularly bothered by Edwards discussion of the generation of the Son. In fact Helm is concerned this Edwards’ expression tends more towards Tri-theism than he realized. Speaking specifically of the Father’s idea of himself as the generation of the Son, Helm writes:
The idea that God has of himself (“God over all again”, as Professor Sang Lee nicely expresses it) cannot result in numerically the same God, and if it is another instance of the same kind of God, the result is ditheism. (Edwards on the Trinity)
God’s idea of himself can’t result in the second person of the Trinity, rather it expresses another god of the same kind. That’s a serious departure from the Reformed Tradition. But Helm, like many other scholars, sees this merely as a deficiency in communication not an abandonment in orthodoxy (see Helm’s introduction to Treatise on Grace and Other Posthumously Published Writings). So, in much scholarship on Edwards’ doctrine of the Trinity there is a conviction that while he was wrong in his presentation, the substance of the doctrine is nonetheless orthodox.
A divergent view may be found in John Piper, who has often repeated a version of Edwards doctrinal articulation. He affirms this very presentation of the doctrine. In a recent volume Piper explains Edwards view of the Trinity as a foundation for his understanding of the importance and role of thinking and feeling. So in Think Piper writes:
One of the gifts Edwards gave to me, which I had not found anywhere else, was a foundation for human thinking and feeling in the Trinitarian nature of God. I don’t mean that others haven’t seen human nature rooted in God’s nature. I simply mean that the way Edwards saw it was extraordinary. He showed me that human thinking and feeling do not exist arbitrarily; they exist because we are in the image of God, and God’s “thinking” and “feeling” are more deeply part of his Trinitarian being than I had realized. (34)
Piper is one of the exceptions among modern scholarship. He positively affirms what Edwards outlines in his presentation of the Trinity. I remain unconvinced by it.
The primary reasons I am hesitant to embrace Edwards’ articulation of the Trinity, is that it has an air of impersonalism. Edwards’ presentation of the Trinity seems to carry with it an air of impersonalism. To identify the Son as the manifestation of God’s idea of himself, and the Spirit as the manifestation of God’s love of Himself Edwards communicates something of impersonal concepts. Ideas are not personal, and while love is applied to persons it is not itself personal. But the Son is not an idea, he is a person. Of course Edwards does not disagree with this but the mechanics of his generation are suggestive of impersonalism. This is bothersome at best. It does not carry with it the richness of the Son’s and the Spirit’s personhood, which is part and parcel of Christian Trinitarianism.
I love that Edwards is a bold and imaginative theologian. But to be so is risky. Edwards’ speculation can often lead him into danger, and though he read widely and diversely apart from Scripture Edwards can sound more like a Lockean than an Orthodox theologian. I don’t claim to be an expert on Edwards’ thought. His writings on the Trinity are scattered throughout a plethora of works and formulating a comprehensive systematization of this doctrine in his work is not a simple task. But his views on the relationship of the persons of the Godhead is unsettling to me. Perhaps, some speculation is simply too bold.
Sparrow & Heart Soul Care 