# Unpublished Essay on the Trinity - Edwards



## TaylorOtwell (Nov 11, 2009)

I have been discussing this portion of Jonathan Edwards'_ Unpublished Essay on the Trinity_ with my pastor. I noticed that John Gill also expands on and accepts this view in his _Body of Doctrinal Divinity_.

I am wondering if this is the generally accepted orthodox view of how the Son is begotten of the Father? Have many other historical theologians or church fathers articulated this view? 



> 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, circumstance and for any particular space of time past, suppose the last hour, he would really to all intents and purpose 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, that is, 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 during that time, he would be indeed double, he would be twice at once. The idea he has of himself would be himself again.
> 
> 
> Note, by having a reflex or contemplative idea of what passes in our own minds I don't mean consciousness only. There is a great difference between a man's having a view of himself, reflex or contemplative idea of himself so as to delight in his own beauty or excellency, and a mere direct consciousness. Or if we mean by consciousness of what is in our own minds anything besides the mere simple existence in our minds of what is there, it is nothing but a power by reflection to view or contemplate what passes.
> ...


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Nov 12, 2009)

See this thread:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f18/nicene-christology-21767/

AMR


----------



## TaylorOtwell (Nov 12, 2009)

Thank you for the suggestion, but my question is primarily about Edwards' discussion of how the Son is begotten of the Father. Namely, the idea God has of Himself being absolutely Himself, as Edwards puts it.

Is this the historical, orthodox view of how the Son is begotten?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Nov 12, 2009)

Taylor,

I am not certain there is a definitive historical view of the mechanisms of "how" the the Son is begotten, other than the Confessions affirmation of eternal generation.

You may find Helm's treatment of Edwards on the Trinity worthwhile: here

AMR


----------



## TaylorOtwell (Nov 12, 2009)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Taylor,
> 
> I am not certain there is a definitive historical view of the mechanisms of "how" the the Son is begotten, other than the Confessions affirmation of eternal generation.
> 
> ...



OK, Thanks for the link!


----------



## regener8ed (Nov 13, 2009)

Maybe I'm missing something here, but if God's understanding of Himself is God Himself, then wouldn't His understanding of His understanding of Himself be God Himself as well; ad infinitum?


----------



## Archlute (Nov 13, 2009)

This is one of the reasons I never read Edwards anymore, and wish that his popularity would wane. His philosophical leanings often did not mix well with his theological writings. To say that the Son is God's "personal idea" is wrong. He is not a personal idea, he is a person.

Having read a fair amount of Edwards, I am not certain why he is liked by so many. I suspect that they have heard some words about him from Piper, Farrar, and others, *maybe* read or heard of his sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", and *maybe* (if they have been through seminary) read his _Religious Affection_, which is quite good, but I have not been edified by too much of his other stuff.


----------



## TaylorOtwell (Nov 13, 2009)

Archlute,

At first I thought it was just Edwards philosophizing, but when I saw it in Gill's work I was surprised, which made me wonder if this view is more widespread than I realized.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 13, 2009)

Archlute said:


> This is one of the reasons I never read Edwards anymore, and wish that his popularity would wane. His philosophical leanings often did not mix well with his theological writings. To say that the Son is God's "personal idea" is wrong. He is not a personal idea, he is a person.
> 
> Having read a fair amount of Edwards, I am not certain why he is liked by so many. I suspect that they have heard some words about him from Piper, Farrar, and others, *maybe* read or heard of his sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God", and *maybe* (if they have been through seminary) read his _Religious Affection_, which is quite good, but I have not been edified by too much of his other stuff.



I thought _A Divine and Supernatural Light_ was better than _Sinners_. But I've given up consulting him without a special reason.

Aquinas taught that the Word proceeds by way of an intelligible operation whereas the Spirit's is called a procession of love. Thomas is able to make this sound quite convincing, but at least some of the Protestant Scholastics didn't buy it. So Rijssen (quoted in Heppe's _Reformed Dogmatics_:



> What the difference is between generation of the Son and the procession of the H. Spirit cannot be explained and it is safer not to know than to enquire into it. The Scholastics would look for the difference in the operation of _intellectus_ and _voluntas_, so that the generation of the Son is brought about by means of _intellectus_, whence he is called the wisdom of God; but procession by means of _voluntas_, whence it is called love and charity. But as this is said without Scripture, it involves rather than explains matters. Those talk more sanely, who babbling in such a difficult matter find the distinction in three things. (1) In principle: because the Son emanates from the Father alone, but the H. Spirit from Father and Son at once. (2) In mode: because the Son emanates _per vim generationis_, which culminates not only in personality but also in likeness, on account of which the Son is called the image of the Father and according to which the Son receives the property of communicating the same essence to another person. But the Spirit does so by _spiratio_, which ends only in personality, and through which the person who proceeds does not receive the property of communicating that essence to another. (3) In order: because as the Son is the second person, but the H. Spirit the third, generation by our way of thinking, precedes _spiratio_, although really they are co-eternal.



Although Aquinas expresses it differently, I think he would agree with Rijssen that one of the things that distinguishes generation from spiration is that the begotten Person spirates, but the spirated Person does not beget.


----------

