Jonathan Edwards\u2019 Social Augustinian Trinitarianism<\/a>.<\/p>\nStudebaker argues that social Trinitarianism depends on a threeness-oneness paradigm according to which Western Trinitarian theology started with the one substance of God and had trouble accommodating the three Persons, while Eastern theology started from the opposite point of view. Drawing on the recent work of Michel Rene Barnes and others, he argues that this paradigm, while useful for \u201cbroad generalizations\u201d and \u201cpedagogical\u201d purposes (3), ultimately \u201coversimplifies the trinitarian traditions\u201d and cannot be used as a setting for Edwards\u2019s theology in particular. Since social Trinitarianism rests on a threeness-oneness account of the history of Trinitarian theology, if the latter collapses so does the former.<\/p>\n
He admits that Edwards uses social analogies, including the language of a divine \u201csociety,\u201d to describe the Persons of the Trinity. But these metaphors translate into a social \u201cmodel\u201d only if one assumes the threeness-oneness paradigm (104).\u00a0Positively, Studebaker suggests that Edwards remains close to the Augustinian mutual love tradition. Though it stresses the communion in love between Father and Son, the Augustinian tradition is not a form of social Trinitarianism. Studebaker cleverly argues that turning the mutual love paradigm into a nascent social Trinitarianism invalidates the threeness-oneness paradigm because it shows that Augustine already was operating with a \u201csocial\u201d model. But the threeness-oneness model is the basis of social Trinitarianism, and so saying that Augustine has a social-Trinitarian trajectory undermines the historical genealogy of social Trinitarianism. As I say, it\u2019s clever.<\/p>\n
Theologically, Studebaker argues that a key difference between social Trinitarianism and the mutual-love model is the role of the Spirit. According to the latter, the Spirit is the \u201cbond of love between the Father and the Son,\u201d and also the bond of the saints to the Father and Son (102). Augustine does not say that the Spirit is either a lover of Father and Son, or beloved by them, as social Trinitarianism requires. He writes, in Augustine and Edwards, the \u201cSpirit is neither a recipient nor a giver of love, but is the love that binds the Father and the Son in eternal fellowship. The society of Edwards\u2019 Trinity is two divine persons united in loving communion by the third person who is identical with that mutual love between the Father and the Son. Edwards trinitarian society is clearly Augustinian and not the three-subject trinitarian society of social trinitarianism,\u201d in which \u201ceach divine subject gives and receives love\u201d (196-7).<\/p>\n
That reference to triple subjectivity introduces some tension into Studebaker\u2019s argument. He argues, rightly, that Barth and Rahner are both single-subject Trinitarians (70-1), and marks that as one of the differences between Augustinian and social Trinitarian theologies. Yet, he suggests that for Edwards \u201cCommunication requires at least two giving and receiving subjects. In the Godhead, the subjects must be two infinite subjects giving and receiving love\u201d (216). \u201cSubject\u201d here is not Edwards\u2019s term, and perhaps Studebaker doesn\u2019t mean it to be taken in a strict sense. But the problem arises elsewhere too, as when he explains that Edwards\u2019s notion of the \u201ccovenant of redemption\u201d involves the Son\u2019s free acceptance of His role in redemption, a role that is not \u201cunilaterally\u201d imposed by the Father (204). How does the Son consent without being in some sense a distinct subject?<\/p>\n
Studebaker\u2019s book contributes significantly to our understanding of Edwards and his historical setting, something that I\u2019ll take up in another post.<\/p>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
A few recent scholars have attempted to enlist Jonathan Edwards on the side of social Trinitarianism, most prominently Amy Plantinga Pauw in her\u00a0Supreme Harmony of All. Steven Studebaker isn\u2019t buying it, and explains why in his\u00a0Jonathan Edwards\u2019 Social Augustinian Trinitarianism. Studebaker argues that social Trinitarianism depends on a threeness-oneness paradigm according to which Western Trinitarian […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3021,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[747,139],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-16005","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-jonathan-edwards","category-trinity"],"yoast_head":"\n
Edwards’s Social Trinity?<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"A few recent scholars have attempted to enlist Jonathan Edwards on the side of social Trinitarianism, most prominently Amy Plantinga Pauw in\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2014\/05\/edwardss-social-trinity\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Edwards’s Social Trinity?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"A few recent scholars have attempted to enlist Jonathan Edwards on the side of social Trinitarianism, most prominently Amy Plantinga Pauw in\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2014\/05\/edwardss-social-trinity\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Leithart\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Leithart\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2014-05-12T00:00:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Peter Leithart\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@PLeithart\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Peter Leithart\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2014\/05\/edwardss-social-trinity\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2014\/05\/edwardss-social-trinity\/\",\"name\":\"Edwards’s Social Trinity?\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2014-05-12T00:00:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-05-12T00:00:00+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/#\/schema\/person\/6bb7113e4dd45fe26045622aa56f891d\"},\"description\":\"A few recent scholars have attempted to enlist Jonathan Edwards on the side of social Trinitarianism, most prominently Amy Plantinga Pauw in\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2014\/05\/edwardss-social-trinity\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2014\/05\/edwardss-social-trinity\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2014\/05\/edwardss-social-trinity\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Edwards’s Social Trinity?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/\",\"name\":\"Leithart\",\"description\":\"My blog is a public notebook, featuring essays, notes, and explorations on Scripture, theology, literature, politics, culture.\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/#\/schema\/person\/6bb7113e4dd45fe26045622aa56f891d\",\"name\":\"Peter Leithart\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f1033df9cd7263d2e0408cf9ee92ee4d?s=96&d=identicon&r=pg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f1033df9cd7263d2e0408cf9ee92ee4d?s=96&d=identicon&r=pg\",\"caption\":\"Peter Leithart\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Leithart\/\",\"https:\/\/twitter.com\/PLeithart\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/author\/pleithart\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Edwards’s Social Trinity?","description":"A few recent scholars have attempted to enlist Jonathan Edwards on the side of social Trinitarianism, most prominently Amy Plantinga Pauw in","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2014\/05\/edwardss-social-trinity\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Edwards’s Social Trinity?","og_description":"A few recent scholars have attempted to enlist Jonathan Edwards on the side of social Trinitarianism, most prominently Amy Plantinga Pauw in","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2014\/05\/edwardss-social-trinity\/","og_site_name":"Leithart","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Leithart\/","article_published_time":"2014-05-12T00:00:00+00:00","author":"Peter Leithart","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@PLeithart","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Peter Leithart","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2014\/05\/edwardss-social-trinity\/","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2014\/05\/edwardss-social-trinity\/","name":"Edwards’s Social Trinity?","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/#website"},"datePublished":"2014-05-12T00:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-05-12T00:00:00+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/#\/schema\/person\/6bb7113e4dd45fe26045622aa56f891d"},"description":"A few recent scholars have attempted to enlist Jonathan Edwards on the side of social Trinitarianism, most prominently Amy Plantinga Pauw in","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2014\/05\/edwardss-social-trinity\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2014\/05\/edwardss-social-trinity\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/2014\/05\/edwardss-social-trinity\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Edwards’s Social Trinity?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/","name":"Leithart","description":"My blog is a public notebook, featuring essays, notes, and explorations on Scripture, theology, literature, politics, culture.","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/#\/schema\/person\/6bb7113e4dd45fe26045622aa56f891d","name":"Peter Leithart","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f1033df9cd7263d2e0408cf9ee92ee4d?s=96&d=identicon&r=pg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f1033df9cd7263d2e0408cf9ee92ee4d?s=96&d=identicon&r=pg","caption":"Peter Leithart"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/Leithart\/","https:\/\/twitter.com\/PLeithart"],"url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/author\/pleithart\/"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16005","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3021"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=16005"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/16005\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=16005"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=16005"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/leithart\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=16005"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}