Jonathan Edwards on the Attributes of God
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Diverse Excellencies: Jonathan Edwards on the Attributes of God Item Type Thesis or dissertation Authors Rigney, Joseph, J. Citation Rigney, J. J. (2019). Diverse Excellencies: Jonathan Edwards on the Attributes of God (Doctoral dissertation). University of Chester, UK. Publisher University of Chester Rights Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International Download date 01/10/2021 05:22:12 Item License http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10034/622860 Diverse Excellencies: Jonathan Edwards on the Attributes of God Thesis submitted in accordance with the requirements of the University of Chester for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by Joseph James Rigney February 2019 Abstract This thesis explores Jonathan Edwards’s view of God’s attributes in light of his Trinitarian theology. In particular, I argue that, contrary to the claims of some Edwards scholars, Edwards clearly affirms the doctrine of divine simplicity throughout his writings as it was held among the Reformed scholastics. Through an exposition of his Discourse on the Trinity in light of its historical and polemical context, I demonstrate both Edwards’s orthodoxy and his distinct innovations in expressing the orthodox view of the Trinity. Notably, I show that Edwards distinguishes the persons of the Godhead by means of a strong psychological account of the Trinity positing that the only real distinctions in God are those of being, understanding, and will, which correspond to the three persons of the Godhead. Additionally, Edwards maintains the unity of the Godhead by appeal to divine simplicity, whereby “everything (real) in God is God.” Finally, Edwards upholds the personhood of each person through the biblical doctrine of perichoresis. This exposition enables me to respond to a variety of criticism of Edwards’s trinitarianism. The second part of my thesis unfolds Edwards’s attribute classification system as it proceeds from his trinitarianism and his account of the God-world relation. Edwards distributes attributes in two primary ways. First, he distributes attributes into real attributes, which simply are the persons of the Godhead, and modal or relative attributes, which are real attributes in relation to creation. Second, he distributes attributes into natural attributes and moral attributes, based on whether they are reducible to God’s being and understanding on the one hand, or reducible to God’s will on the other. Within relative attributes, I demonstrate further distinctions such as capacity attributes, which are sufficiencies in God to certain effects and which are relatively dormant until God wills to create, and negative attributes, which Edwards surprisingly includes within relative attributes on the basis of the fact that they deny some creaturely quality to God and thereby depend upon creation’s existence for their intelligibility. I conclude by bringing Edwards’s taxonomy of attributes to bear on the question of divine freedom and creation’s necessity, showing that while Edwards does differ in some ways from his Reformed forebears, he does not hold, as some scholars claim, that God is essentially creative and that creation is necessary. Rather, Edwards employs the category of “fitness” to describe God’s acts of communicating his glory and the employment of creation as a means to that end. Candidate’s Declaration I, Joseph James Rigney, hereby certify that the material being presented for examination is my own work and has not been submitted for an award of this or another HEI except in minor particulars which are explicitly noted in the body of the thesis. Where research pertaining to the thesis was undertaken collaboratively, the nature and extent of my individual contribution has been made explicit. _________________________________ ____________________ Signature Date TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction.…………………………………………………………………………1 PART 1 DIVINE SIMPLICITY AND THE TRINITY Chapter 1 Divine Simplicity Among the Medieval and Reformed Scholastics……. 27 Chapter 2 Jonathan Edwards on Divine Simplicity.……………………………….. 62 Chapter 3 Background to Edwards’s Trinitarianism.……………………………….75 Chapter 4 Exposition of Discourse on the Trinity.………………………………….105 PART 2 ATTRIBUTE CLASSIFICATION AND THE GOD-WORLD RELATION Chapter 5 Attribute Classification Among the Reformed Scholastics.…………….. 142 Chapter 6 Attribute Classification in Jonathan Edwards.………………………….. 163 Chapter 7 A Survey of Select Attributes in Jonathan Edwards.…………………… 186 Chapter 8 Divine Attributes, Divine Freedom, and the Necessity of Creation…….. 209 Chapter 9 Revisiting Divine Freedom and Creation’s Necessity…………………...244 Chapter 10 Conclusion.…………………………….………………………………. 263 Bibliography.…………………………….………………………………………… 272 INTRODUCTION Jonathan Edwards’s doctrine of God and creation is contested. He has been called an Augustinian, a Neoplatonic emanationist, a Holy Spirit emanationist, an idealist, an immaterial anti-realist, an immaterial realist, a continual creationist, an occasionalist, a global theological determinist, a panentheist (of various varieties), and even a (borderline) pantheist. He is said to combine elements of both traditional theism and process theism, and he is said to be a fairly standard classical theist. He is said to have a psychological model of the Trinity, and he is said to offer a psychological model and a social model. He is said to deny divine simplicity, modify divine simplicity, find divine simplicity unintelligible, and clearly and unremarkably affirm divine simplicity. He is said to defend divine aseity, and he is said to effectively deny divine aseity. He is said to believe that God is essentially creative and that creation is necessary, and he is said to believe no such thing. Jonathan Edwards’s doctrine of God and creation is indeed contested. Recent attempts to classify the debates about Edwards’s doctrine of God and creation divide scholars roughly into two streams.1 The first is associated with the work of Princeton theologian Sang Hyun Lee and orients Edwards’s theology by his innovative reconstruction of Reformed theology around a dispositional ontology. Scholars associated with the Lee school include Amy Plantinga Pauw, Michael McClymond, Gerald McDermott, and Anri Morimoto. Each of these scholars accept, to one degree or another, the centrality of dispositional ontology for Edwards’s thought. The second school of thought (sometimes referred to as “the British 1 See Oliver Crisp and Kyle Strobel, Jonathan Edwards: An Introduction to His Thought (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2018), 3–6; Michael J. McClymond, “Hearing the Symphony: A Critique of Some Critics of Sang Lee’s and Amy Pauw’s Accounts of Jonathan Edwards,” in Jonathan Edwards as Contemporary: Essays in Honor of Sang Hyun Lee, ed. Don Schweitzer (New York: Lang, 2010), 68–70; Kyle C. Strobel, Jonathan Edwards’s Theology: A Reinterpretation (London: T&T Clark, 2013), 18–20, 228–33. 1 school” since many of its practitioners were educated in British universities) has largely formed in response to the work of Lee and others. This loose collection of scholars, including Oliver Crisp, Kyle Strobel, Steven Studebaker, Paul Helm, and Stephen Holmes, regards Edwards as much more traditional than the former. Edwards’s innovations, while real, are not nearly as pronounced as the Lee school suggests. In one sense, the divide is characterized by how radical and modern Edwards’s innovations were. Does Edwards offer a “bold attempt at reconfiguring classical theological themes in an early modern key,” rejecting or significantly revising such fundamental doctrines as divine simplicity, substance metaphysics, and the Western trinitarian tradition?2 Or does he offer a milder recalibration of classical theology in light of early Enlightenment thought, a recalibration that leads to some unusual metaphysical conclusions but does not substantively alter the Reformed orthodox tradition of which Edwards was a part? Overview of Scholarship on Edwards’s Doctrines of God, Creation, and Attributes In order to set the stage for an examination of Edwards’s doctrine of God and his attributes, it will be helpful to briefly survey some of the work of these scholars, with a particular focus on their account of Edwards’s theology proper, his view of the God-world relation, and his approach to divine attributes. Sang Hyun Lee Sang Hyun Lee’s The Philosophical Theology of Jonathan Edwards is universally acknowledged as a seminal work in Edwards scholarship.3 For Lee, Edwards’s theology is 2 See Crisp and Strobel, Jonathan Edwards, 5; Sang Hyun Lee, The Philosophical Theology of Jonathan Edwards (Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 2000), 170. 3 Bombaro identifies Lee’s work as the origin of a “new perspective” on Edwards that “proposes a thoroughly modern foundation for his metaphysics.” See John J. Bombaro, Jonathan Edwards’s Vision of Reality: The Relationship of God to the World, Redemption History, and the Reprobate, Princeton Theological Monograph Series 172 (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2012), 8. 2 “radically creative…a thoroughgoing metaphysical reconstruction, a reconception of the nature of reality itself.”4 According to Lee, Edwards departed from the classical understanding of substance metaphysics and replaced it with a more “dynamic” understanding which Lee dubs dispositional ontology, a novel conception which mediates “between being and becoming, permanence and process.”5 Lee contends that Edwards applied dispositional ontology to the divine being itself, offering a more dynamic