Jonathan Edwards\u27 social Augustinian trinitarianism: A criticism of and an alternative to recent interpretations

Contemporary Edwards\u27 scholars frequently use the threeness-oneness paradigm to interpret his trinitarianism. The threeness-oneness paradigm maintains that the trinitarian traditions and particular theologians within the traditions reduce to an emphasis on either divine unity/substance or plurality/persons. Eastern Cappadocian trinitarianism and Western theologian Richard of St. Victor use the social analogy and represent the threeness trajectory. The Western Augustinian tradition uses the psychological analogy and represents the oneness trajectory. Amy Plantinga Pauw\u27s writings are the most thorough interpretations of Edwards\u27 trinitarianism in terms of the threeness-oneness paradigm. She concludes that Edwards\u27 employed both the psychological and social models of the Trinity. She argues that Edwards\u27 genius lies in his ability to draw on both the psychological and social models of the Trinity. In contrast, this dissertation maintain that the threeness-oneness paradigm is an over-generalized understanding of the trinitarian traditions and, as such, unsuitable as a template to interpret Edwards\u27 trinitarianism. Moreover, Edwards did not employ two models of the Trinity, but one--the Augustinian mutual love model. Edwards\u27 use of the Augustinian mutual love model reflects his continuity with the dominant Western Augustinian trinitarian tradition and early-Enlightenment apologetics for the traditional doctrine of the Trinity