trinity in owen and edwards

7/31/2019 Trinity in Owen and Edwards

1/53

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


2/53

1

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

workPleasures 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 ofThe Glory of Christ.1The 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.2Before unpacking each mans particular works on the Trinity, either as

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

2 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.


3/53

2

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.

3 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).

4Works, 2:377 in John Owen, The Works of John Owen, vol. 1-16, ed. William H. Goold (London:

Banner of Truth Trust, 1965).

5 Ibid.

6 Works 2:408


4/53

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, ofall 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 theliberty, 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

7 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, inJohn 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.)

8

Works, 2:371-413. For Owen, both groups denied basic tenets of the faith and were viewed by him asdeadly heretics. See pg. 19-29 in Carl R. Trueman, The Claims of Truth: John Owen's Trinitarian Theology,

(Carlisle, Cumbria, UK: Paternoster, 1998).

9Works, 2:378-79, italics are original, underlining mine.

10 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.


5/53

4

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 isthe 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 ofOwens 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.

12Works, 2:377, italics original.

13 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.14Truemans 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 Only 16 are listed in the bibliography and only Vol 1-4 and 10 were actually utilized in this study.


6/53

5

reading, some reduction become necessary in the scope of this study. The primary works

considered then will be the aforementionedDoctrine of the Holy Trinity Explained and

Vindicated (henceforthDTEV), Communion with the Triune God,16The 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 whyDTEV

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 beingof God himself.20

16 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, 2:1-

274

17 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.

18 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 particularwork and in fact covers volumes 3 and 4 in Owens Works. A paper of thesis length could easily be written justexamining Owens thought on the Holy Spirit, so necessarily this papercannot actually dig too deep in that area

without not only hitting water, but starting to drown in it.

19 Those three works alone come close to right at 1000pgs.

20 Owen, The Holy Spirit: His Gifts and Power, 62.


7/53

6

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 havedone 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.

22 Other than the short vindication, otherwise, the Trinitarian nature of God is an assumption and

starting point for Owen.

23Kapic, Worshiping the Triune God: The Shape of John Owen's Trinitarian Spirituality. 20.

24 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.


8/53

7

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, inall its excellency, cannot contribute one mite to the satisfaction or blessedness of God. He

has it all in infinite perfectionfrom 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:

25 Ibid., 104 As we will see later, Edwards was also interested in answering this question in asatisfactory way.

26 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.

27Ibid. This roughly translates into the distinction between the ontological Trinity and the economicTrinity: 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.

28 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. C f 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.


9/53

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 itseffects. Hence this is the first notion of the divine nature, infinite being and goodness, ina 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 beingto 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.

30 Ibid.,

31 Ibid., 161.


10/53

9

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.

33 Ibid., 167.


11/53

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,

34 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.

35 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 asabsolute (so definitive of God in Himself) are actually communicable. Likewise, an attribute like omnipresencetends 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.


37 Ibid., 148.


12/53

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 Godis 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 ofthe 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.

39Kapic, Worshiping the Triune God: The Shape of John Owen's Trinitarian Spirituality. 19.

40 Owen, Communion with the Triune God, 142. Italics original.



13/53

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 wasreserved for him; none other could be qualified for it or worthy of it (Col 1:17-

19)There is no communication from God, no act of rule towards this family, no supplyof 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 immediatelyfrom 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 itimmediately 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 Godis 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.


44 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.

45Kapic, 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.


14/53

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 andmoral.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, andthrough 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 allthings 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 Godabsolutely because the several persons are undivided in their operations; acting by thesame 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 . Henceevery 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


47 Ibid., 81.

48 Ibid., 78.

49 Ibid., 77. Italics original.


15/53

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 hisDTEV:

Hereby each person having the understanding, the will, and power of God, becomesa 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 madeconcerning 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.

51Works, 2:407


16/53

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 whoseproperties 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 economyof 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


53 Ibid., 113.


17/53

16

his time,54this 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 inGod 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 abeginning 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.

55It 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 hisDeath of Death in the Death of Christin Works, 10:140-481.


57We 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.



18/53

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.59For 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 thedivine 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.

60 Ibid., 101-102.

61

Ibid., 98.

62 Ibid.,123. One sees here Owens stance on whether or not Christ had a human soul.

63 Ibid., 124.

64 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.


19/53

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 otherproperties 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) hiswisdom, 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 God67

And 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


66 Owen, Communion with the Triune God, 188.

67 Ibid., 184.



20/53

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 alsohis 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 isendued.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.

70 This is just a colloquialism without deeper theological significance.



21/53

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 ofoffice in Christ, does not in the least take

away his equality and sameness with the Father in respect of nature and essence, Phil 2:7-

8. A son, of the same nature with his father, and therein equal to him, may in office be hisinferior, - 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 oforiginal authority; the Son by the way

of communicating from apurchased treasury; the Holy Spirit by the way ofimmediate

efficacy.75 Elsewhere, Owen elaborates on this distinction:

72 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.

73Works, 2:388 Italics original.

74Works, 2:401-02, he goes on to cite Matt 28:19, 1 John 5:7, 1 Cor. 12:3-6.

75 Owen, Communion with the Triune God, 104


22/53

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 wholedivine 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 isascribed 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

76Works, 2:407 Emphasis original.



23/53

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 obligedto 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

78Works, 2:406

79 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.


24/53

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 ofEdwards 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

80Discourse on the Trinity is in vol 21 of Jonathan Edwards, The Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol. 1-

23 (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.

81

Sang Hyun Lee, Editor's Introduction, in Writings on the Trinity, Grace, and Faith, ed. Sang HyunLee, vol. 21 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003). 3

82 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.


25/53

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 self-

contained 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

83Lee, Editor's Introduction. 5-6. Lee highlights that Edwards attempts to formulate an alternate

conception of reality to the one presented by John Locke inAn 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.

84 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.

85See first entry on the Trinity in his Miscellanies, no. 94, Works, 13:256-57.

86Lee, 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.

87This term was employed along with habit, propensity, law, inclination, tendency, and

temper. Ibid. 6.


26/53

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. 90Disposition

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.

89 Ibid. 11.

90 Ibid. 7.

91 Ibid.

92 Ibid. 8.

93 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, inJonathan Edwards: Philosophical Theologian, ed. Paul Helm and Oliver D. Crisp

(Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003).


27/53

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 infinitelyloving, 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 werean 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.95Edwards 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,

94JonathanEdwards, 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.

95Works, 21:114

96 Ibid.


28/53

27

etc. for any particular space of time pastsuppose the last hourhe 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 isand 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 thatthought was, and of every exercise at and during the same time that that exercise was, andso 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 absolutelyhimself. 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 Godthat got me started on Edwards in the first place.

98 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 Ibid., 117.

100Ibid., 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.


29/53

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 beholdingwhich 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 standingforth 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 andessential 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

101 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 seemsreally to be just a more philosophically sophisticated way of speaking of Christ as the only Mediator between God

and man.

102 (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 Ibid., 120.


30/53

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.106Specifically 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. Itnaturally 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.

105 Which incidentally is what underlies his rather well knownReligious Affections.

106 Ibid.

107 Ibid. 121.

108 Ibid. 122.

109 Ibid. 123.


31/53

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 hisepistles, without ever mentioning the Holy Ghostas we find it thirteen times in his

salutations in the beginnings of his epistlesbut 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 ofhis 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 blessingfrom 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


32/53

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 doestruly 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. 130.112 Ibid. 131.

113Space 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).


33/53

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 threein 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 andproceeds 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 thatThere 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 ofthe Holy Spirits role within the Trinity:

114 Ibid. 132-33

115 Ibid. 133

116 Ibid, 134


34/53

33

In one respect the Father has the superiority: he is the fountain of Deity, and hebegets 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 governshis 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.

118 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 See note 73 above.

120Which 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 asDiscourse on the Trinity.

121Paul Helm, Introduction, in Treatise on Grace and Other Posthumous Writings, ed. Paul Helm

(Cambridge: James Clarke, 1971). 21.


35/53

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 thanas 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 equilateraltriangle, 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

122 Danaher Jr., The Trinitarian Ethics of Jonathan Edwards, 266.n33, also Pauw, The Supreme

Harmony of All: The Trinitarian Theology of Jonathan Edwards, 53.

123Works, 13:392-93.

124 Ibid. also found in Works, 21:139-40

125 Making an Inf-inity?

126Works, 13:261


36/53

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 ishimself 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 shallnever 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.129Both 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

128Lee, Editor's Introduction. 11.

129 Danaher Jr., The Trinitarian Ethics of Jonathan Edwards, 64-65.


37/53

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

trinity in owen and edwards

Documents