Trinity and Atonement

In his analysis of The doctrine of the atonement in Jonathan Edwards and his successors , DP Rudisill says that Edwards sets the Father’s justice in opposition to the Son’s love. This cannot be, of course: “If Christ be the perfect revelation of God, the attributes which He manifested cannot stand in opposition to the attributes of His Father. If the doctrine of the Trinity be held, it must be insisted upon that love must be as prominent an attribute of the Father as of the Son, and justice must be as prominent an attribute of the Son as of the Father” (27).

Not just Edwards, but also his successors: “With the possible exception of Bellamy, all our theologians cast suspicions upon their conception of the Trinity. It is especially incumbent upon one who holds the doctrine of the Trinity to beware of setting the attributes of the Father in opposition to those of the Son” (129).

Whether this is fair to Edwards and the Edwardeans, I venture no opinion. But Rudisill’s theological point, however simple and obvious, cannot be stated too often.