Edwards' doctrine of Trinity is corrupt?

[polemic_turtle]

Edwards\' doctrine of Trinity is corrupt?

http://www.americanpresbyterianchurch.org/unitarianism1.htm

Looking for resources on the Trinity and this popped up. Any thoughts?

edit: perhaps I just over-reacted; could it be that what he was doing, successfully or no, was expressing what was standard Trinitarianism, but with his own particular "rational" bent to it? I wish he had finished it and not left us hanging like that. I'm going to check my "Rational Biblical Theology" by Gerstner.

[Edited on 9-12-2006 by polemic_turtle]

 

[polemic_turtle]

After reading Gerstner on this issue, I'm much comforted and relieved. Still somewhat confused, but relieved. :-D I feel like I literally stepped off the edge of a diving board into the sea when I read the excerpts from Edwards on the essential Trinity. WOW.

 

[MW]

Trinitarian formulations lean either to realism on one side or nominalism on the other. Realist versions can sound Tritheist, and nominalist versions can sound modalist. Edwards is providing a nominalist explanation, and therefore sounds modalist. But because he affirms three distinct "persons" he should be received as teaching orthodox Trinitarianism.

I think what Edwards is doing in the quoted portion of his essay is simply showing the philosophical acceptability of tri-personality rather than providing a specific explanation of the doctrine of the Trinity. He had inherited the debate of the late 17th century, when Trinitarians felt compelled to explain what they meant by "person" against Unitarians. William Cunningham rightly points out that it is not necessary to provide such an explanation in order to prove the idea is taught in Scripture.