Thomas_Goodwin
Puritan Board Freshman
I read a gospel coalition breakdown of it, and I feel I can reject the view partially. Does anyone a full perspective on the issue?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Link?I read a gospel coalition breakdown of it, and I feel I can reject the view partially. Does anyone a full perspective on the issue?
Solution? Don't read TGC.I read a gospel coalition breakdown of it, and I feel I can reject the view partially. Does anyone a full perspective on the issue?
Solution? Don't read TGC.
You really need to clarify what you don't agree with. Give people something of substance to interact with. Provide links.
For Edwards, God the Father is “the Deity subsisting in the prime, unoriginated and most absolute manner.”13 He is the “fountain of the Godhead,” and thus Scripture rightly refers to God as “without any addition or distinction.”14 But since the Father is infinitely happy in himself, it follows that he “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.15 This perfect idea is exactly like him in every respect and therefore “is God to all intents and purposes.”16 Indeed “by God’s thinking of the Deity, [the Deity] must certainly be generated.”17 A second person of the Godhead is begotten, and that person is the Son.18 Edwards was convinced that this view was in agreement with Scripture, and he cited 2 Cor 4:4, Phil 2:6, Col 1:15, and Heb 1:3 in support. As Paul Helm has observed, Edwards developed “an ingenious and bold” ontological argument for the generation of the Son, arguing that where a person has an idea of a non-material object, that object comes into existence. Since God is a perfect spirit, his idea of himself is himself.19 There are problems with this line of reasoning (to which we will return), but it formed the basis for Edwards’s argument from reason for the existence of the Son. He claimed, “If God has an idea of himself, there is really a duplicity; because [if] there is no duplicity, it will follow that Jehovah thinks of himself no more than a stone.”20 In sum, the Son is “God’s perfect idea of God.” He is the Word of God and the wisdom of God since knowledge, reason, and wisdom are the same as God’s perfect idea of himself.21
Edwards identified the Holy Spirit as the divine act of love between the Father and the Son.22 Relying on 1 John 4:8, Edwards argued that the Godhead subsists in love. If we have love dwelling in us, we have God dwelling in us (1 John 4:12), and “that love is God’s Spirit” (1 John 4:13).23 Edwards believed that 1 John 3:23–24 reinforces this view: love is the sure sign of the Spirit’s presence in the believer. And 1 John 4:16 “confirms not only that the divine nature subsists in love, but also that this love is the Spirit: for it is the Spirit of God by which God dwells in his saints.”24
I am assuming it is one of these articles:
The Trinitarian Theology of Jonathan Edwards: Text, Context, and Application - The Gospel Coalition
Advancing Trinitarian theology is on the rise in the early part of the twenty-first century. One example of this theological trend in the area of constructive or systematic theology is the first annual Los Angeles Theology Conference (2014), wherein the conference’s inaugural theme focused upon...www.thegospelcoalition.org
A Critical Examination of Jonathan Edwards’s Doctrine of the Trinity - The Gospel Coalition
In Jonathan Edwards’s first extant manuscript dealing with the doctrine of the Trinity, he declared that he was “not afraid to say twenty things about the Trinity which the Scripture never said.”1 He made the comment against the backdrop of early eighteenth-century attempts to deny the doctrine...www.thegospelcoalition.org
THE SUPREME HARMONY OF ALL. THE TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY OF JONATHAN EDWARDS - The Gospel Coalition
This is a fine piece of work, and deserves a wide readership. Professor Pauw has put together a readable, yet scholarly, monograph which covers some of the most difficult areas of Jonathan Edwards’ work on the Trinity. It is not just of use to Edwardseans, it should also serve as a resource for...www.thegospelcoalition.org
I posted this above>Gospel Coalition
There's your problem, sir.
Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
This is vague. Can you provide some details and maybe a little of your own personal analysis?
Link?
You still didn't provide a link or citation. Did you read that resource I shared with you on citing sources last week? Please start giving the sources whenever possible.For Edwards, God the Father is “the Deity subsisting in the prime, unoriginated and most absolute manner.”13 He is the “fountain of the Godhead,” and thus Scripture rightly refers to God as “without any addition or distinction.”14 But since the Father is infinitely happy in himself, it follows that he “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.15 This perfect idea is exactly like him in every respect and therefore “is God to all intents and purposes.”16 Indeed “by God’s thinking of the Deity, [the Deity] must certainly be generated.”17 A second person of the Godhead is begotten, and that person is the Son.18 Edwards was convinced that this view was in agreement with Scripture, and he cited 2 Cor 4:4, Phil 2:6, Col 1:15, and Heb 1:3 in support. As Paul Helm has observed, Edwards developed “an ingenious and bold” ontological argument for the generation of the Son, arguing that where a person has an idea of a non-material object, that object comes into existence. Since God is a perfect spirit, his idea of himself is himself.19 There are problems with this line of reasoning (to which we will return), but it formed the basis for Edwards’s argument from reason for the existence of the Son. He claimed, “If God has an idea of himself, there is really a duplicity; because [if] there is no duplicity, it will follow that Jehovah thinks of himself no more than a stone.”20 In sum, the Son is “God’s perfect idea of God.” He is the Word of God and the wisdom of God since knowledge, reason, and wisdom are the same as God’s perfect idea of himself.21
Edwards identified the Holy Spirit as the divine act of love between the Father and the Son.22 Relying on 1 John 4:8, Edwards argued that the Godhead subsists in love. If we have love dwelling in us, we have God dwelling in us (1 John 4:12), and “that love is God’s Spirit” (1 John 4:13).23 Edwards believed that 1 John 3:23–24 reinforces this view: love is the sure sign of the Spirit’s presence in the believer. And 1 John 4:16 “confirms not only that the divine nature subsists in love, but also that this love is the Spirit: for it is the Spirit of God by which God dwells in his saints.”24
Yes, let’s stick with the original thread. Closing this one.
Merged them.
my bad, I thought people would have known edwards position but I realize it wasnt clear. Thank you or the mercy.Brother, why start a second thread covering the same ground within minutes of posting the other thread?
This sounds an awful lot like Augustine of Hippo's doctrine of the Trinity.For Edwards, God the Father is “the Deity subsisting in the prime, unoriginated and most absolute manner.”13 He is the “fountain of the Godhead,” and thus Scripture rightly refers to God as “without any addition or distinction.”14 But since the Father is infinitely happy in himself, it follows that he “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.15 This perfect idea is exactly like him in every respect and therefore “is God to all intents and purposes.”16 Indeed “by God’s thinking of the Deity, [the Deity] must certainly be generated.”17 A second person of the Godhead is begotten, and that person is the Son.18 Edwards was convinced that this view was in agreement with Scripture, and he cited 2 Cor 4:4, Phil 2:6, Col 1:15, and Heb 1:3 in support. As Paul Helm has observed, Edwards developed “an ingenious and bold” ontological argument for the generation of the Son, arguing that where a person has an idea of a non-material object, that object comes into existence. Since God is a perfect spirit, his idea of himself is himself.19 There are problems with this line of reasoning (to which we will return), but it formed the basis for Edwards’s argument from reason for the existence of the Son. He claimed, “If God has an idea of himself, there is really a duplicity; because [if] there is no duplicity, it will follow that Jehovah thinks of himself no more than a stone.”20 In sum, the Son is “God’s perfect idea of God.” He is the Word of God and the wisdom of God since knowledge, reason, and wisdom are the same as God’s perfect idea of himself.21
Edwards identified the Holy Spirit as the divine act of love between the Father and the Son.22 Relying on 1 John 4:8, Edwards argued that the Godhead subsists in love. If we have love dwelling in us, we have God dwelling in us (1 John 4:12), and “that love is God’s Spirit” (1 John 4:13).23 Edwards believed that 1 John 3:23–24 reinforces this view: love is the sure sign of the Spirit’s presence in the believer. And 1 John 4:16 “confirms not only that the divine nature subsists in love, but also that this love is the Spirit: for it is the Spirit of God by which God dwells in his saints.”24
Some speculate he was influenced by it.This sounds an awful lot like Augustine of Hippo's doctrine of the Trinity.
Is Augustine's doctrine of the Trinity considered problematic?This sounds an awful lot like Augustine of Hippo's doctrine of the Trinity.
I'd say so. I'd be a really strange coincidence for Edwards to arrive at many of the same formulas that were in use from Augustine to the reformation by complete accident.Some speculate he was influenced by it.
Yes, some of the reformers adopted Augustine's psychological analogy of the Trinity, but most did not, and it received some direct criticism. For example, the Leiden Synopsis criticizes both the idea that the Son is generated by the Father's self-conception, and the appropriation of the love of God to the Spirit.Is Augustine's doctrine of the Trinity considered problematic?
Was Augustine's Trinitarian theology criticized prior to the Reformation?Yes, some of the reformers adopted Augustine's psychological analogy of the Trinity, but most did not, and it received some direct criticism. For example, the Leiden Synopsis criticizes both the idea that the Son is generated by the Father's self-conception, and the appropriation of the love of God to the Spirit.
I'm not aware of explicit criticism, perhaps some exists, but many of his ideas were not adopted in the east.Was Augustine's Trinitarian theology criticized prior to the Reformation?
His view of the fall and total depravity was ignored in the East, though my understanding is that this is partly due to the growing cultural and linguistic divide already taking shape. @BayouHuguenot please weigh in if I'm wrong.I'm not aware of explicit criticism, perhaps some exists, but many of his ideas were not adopted in the east.
His view of the fall and total depravity was ignored in the East, though my understanding is that this is partly due to the growing cultural and linguistic divide already taking shape. @BayouHuguenot please weigh in if I'm wrong.
Has Augustine's Trinitarian theology traditionally been viewed as flawed/problematic in the Western church? (Specifically pre-1500.)More or less. Given that the East had Gregory of Nazianzus and Basil the Great, and the fact that Augustine didn't write in Greek (leaving aside the debate on how much he knew), the East wouldn't have found the need to read Augustine that extensively. Moreover, when the Councils enshrined a Trinitarian grammar of sorts, it was more along the lines of Gregory than Augustine. And none of the ecumenical councils dealt with anthropology.
Not directly. People only got in trouble when they made certain inferences from his thought, like when Abelard accused Lombard over seeing the divine essence as an extra person.Has Augustine's Trinitarian theology traditionally been viewed as flawed/problematic in the Western church? (Specifically pre-1500.)