# Jonathan Edwards and the OPC?



## jwright82 (Sep 5, 2010)

I have read a few times that if Jonathen Edwards were up for ordination in the OPC he might not get it. What aspects of his thought were so contriversial to deserve this statement? I ask because they did not elaborate and I though someone prabably knows something I don't.


----------



## jwithnell (Sep 5, 2010)

The only thing that comes to my mind is his interest in the developing philosophies of the enlightenment. In hindsight, it might be possible to misconstrue some of his interests, but that's part of the trouble with hypotheticals.


----------



## jogri17 (Sep 5, 2010)

hmm how about the fact HE WAS NOT PRESBYTERIAN, but rather a CONGREGATIONALIST perhaps? The issue of where the final authority in a local Church would seem to be a rather big issue (congregation v. elders v. general assembly).


----------



## Wayne (Sep 5, 2010)

As to Edwards and Presbyterianism: Sean Michael Lucas: Jonathan Edwards: Presbyterian?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Sep 5, 2010)

I read once that Edwards' view on the Trinity was a little odd. I do not remember the specifics except that supposedly a second paper on the Trinity was written by Edwards, but Princeton refuses to let it out in public because of what it contains. 

It is all speculation in my opinion.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Sep 5, 2010)

jogri17 said:


> hmm how about the fact HE WAS NOT PRESBYTERIAN, but rather a CONGREGATIONALIST perhaps? The issue of where the final authority in a local Church would seem to be a rather big issue (congregation v. elders v. general assembly).


 
Jonathan Edwards served a Presbyterian congregation in New York as a young man and was also willing to confess the WCF with no exceptions late in life when offered an opportunity to go to Scotland and Pastor there. 

As far as the original post Dr. Darryl Hart has made the comment in more than one audio interview/lecture that Jonathan Edwards would not pass an Ordination exam in the OPC. Dr. Hart believes Edwards views on Justification are outside the confessional boundaries. He also has claimed that Edwards Pietism (as well as others involved with the 1GA) led to Charles Finney, et al.


----------



## Scottish Lass (Sep 5, 2010)

Chaplainintraining said:


> but Princeton refuses to let it out in public because of what it contains



You'd think Princeton wouldn't care at this point...


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Sep 5, 2010)

Scottish Lass said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > but Princeton refuses to let it out in public because of what it contains
> ...


 
That is what I think.


----------



## Ivan (Sep 5, 2010)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> He also has claimed that Edwards Pietism (as well as others involved with the 1GA) led to Charles Finney, et al.


 
I'd like to see evidence of this. Highly doubtful.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Sep 5, 2010)

Ivan said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > He also has claimed that Edwards Pietism (as well as others involved with the 1GA) led to Charles Finney, et al.
> ...


 
The New School absolutized Edward's terminology to the point where they would only speak of human unwillingness to believe rather than inability, following Edward's thesis in The Freedom of the Will. They divorced Edwards from prior Reformed theology and considered themselves a part of a new school of thought using Edward's new and improved terminology.


----------



## mvdm (Sep 6, 2010)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> > hmm how about the fact HE WAS NOT PRESBYTERIAN, but rather a CONGREGATIONALIST perhaps? The issue of where the final authority in a local Church would seem to be a rather big issue (congregation v. elders v. general assembly).
> ...



Hart's fellow R2kt-er R. S. Clark has made same similar unwarranted claims against Edwards.


----------



## jwright82 (Sep 6, 2010)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> jogri17 said:
> 
> 
> > hmm how about the fact HE WAS NOT PRESBYTERIAN, but rather a CONGREGATIONALIST perhaps? The issue of where the final authority in a local Church would seem to be a rather big issue (congregation v. elders v. general assembly).
> ...


 
I have a couple sermons of his about justification I will read and see.


----------



## Philip (Sep 6, 2010)

jwithnell said:


> The only thing that comes to my mind is his interest in the developing philosophies of the enlightenment. In hindsight, it might be possible to misconstrue some of his interests, but that's part of the trouble with hypotheticals.


 
Edwards had some weird ideas in metaphysics: like Berkeley, he apparently didn't believe in the existence of matter. He also tended toward a Leibnizian approach at times, which makes him weird in metaphysics, as these concepts bear little actual relationship to reality.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Sep 6, 2010)

I think the statement under consideration is only useful in a rhetorical context, that is, to "make a point."

In reality, all these "what-ifs" are specious hypotheticals, and speculative anachronisms.

I could just as easily say that, if Edwards (or Machen, or some other luminary) were alive today, he'd agree with _my_ position on x. y. or z, because he'd be the product of my era, and not the one he actually lived in!

The _ceteris paribus_ argument is very precarious when introduced in an historical argument.


----------



## lynnie (Sep 6, 2010)

_Hart's fellow R2kt-er R. S. Clark has made same similar unwarranted claims against Edwards._ 

Yup. Here is a quote from a review: Clark titles the second half of the crisis, and his third chapter, the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Experience (QIRE). He now turns his critique to the spirit of revivalism as displayed in the Great Awakening and especially as personified by Jonathan Edwards and his modern celebrators.3 To Clark, revival in any form is incompatible with reformation. Revival seeks the immediate and extraordinary movement of God in the hearts of men, often divorced from the church and her ordinances, and as such is hopelessly infected with pietism. Reformation, conversely, makes due use of ordinary means as prescribed in Scripture and administered weekly in the church, and in these things finds satisfaction and rest.

To Clark, a high view of revival (and the direct, relational communion with God it entails) necessitates a low view of the church (especially of her confession, and of God’s appointed means of grace). This dichotomy runs throughout the book, and is evident in comments like the one found on page 330: “perhaps attendance to the second [worship] service is actually a better indicator of spiritual maturity than are the calluses on our knees and the wear on our Bibles.”4 Some of Clark’s views will be interacted with critically below, but a word must be said at this point. Clark’s dichotomy between reformation and revival (and thus between the means of grace and private piety) is indicative of the major flaw in his analysis. Why must attendance to the second worship service be set against private prayer and Bible reading? Why must a high view of the means of grace necessitate a low view of private piety? God’s Word, which has the final say in such matters, has a high view of both.5

The Quest for Illegitimate Religious Traditionalism (QIRT): A Review of R. Scott Clark’s Recovering the Reformed Confession by Nicolas Alford | RBS Tabletalk


that was discussed on the PB here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/que...ditionalism-critical-review-clarks-rrc-55803/

Not sure if it was in that discussion or not, but RS CLark is even more negative about LLoyd-Jones, Iain Murray, and other men who seem to value revival in any form. Can't say for sure how much Hart and Clark line up together, but one gets the impression they have very similar views. To say this led to Finney is disgusting frankly. Having read Murray's "Revival and Revivalism", which traces the history of Edwards and the Great Awakening as well as Finney, and contrasts the complete difference in both doctrine and approach between the two, I find the charge that Edwards pietism led to Finney to be dark, even demonic, accusation. Do you have any idea how Pelagian to the point of non Christian Finney was? He wasn't just a typical Arminian like Moody, he was off the rails. To correlate that with Edwards is sheer deception in my opinion. I am starting to think WSC is literally dangerous in what they are allowing to go unchallenged.


----------



## jwithnell (Sep 6, 2010)

To equate Mr. Edwards with modern, or even Finney-esque, revivalism is just plain odd -- he always reacted to what appeared to be God's hand in bringing many to faith. He wasn't trying to whip up something. His reflections in Religious Affections carefully analyzed the believers' reaction to such events, and their possible continuance through shear emotionalism. The Puritans in general were more likely than perhaps we are, to see God's hand directly tied to specific events, but that hardly justifies the kind of negativism expressed here. Some that came after Mr. Edwards likely led to New School, but one can hardly be equated with the conclusions drawn by a successor.


----------



## Ivan (Sep 6, 2010)

I've learned a bit about some professors and Reformed writers. If they are going to disparages Edwards I have no use for them or what they write. Good to know. 

Frankly, they can't hold Edward's candle for him.


----------



## mvdm (Sep 6, 2010)

Relevant to this discussion, I had posted my own review previously at the PB:

http://www.puritanboard.com/attachm...fession-thoughts-review-clark-edwards.doc.att


----------



## lynnie (Sep 6, 2010)

Nice essay Mark. Printing it out now to show hub and keep in the files. Thanks.


----------



## beej6 (Sep 7, 2010)

I frankly don't like the argument that "Mr. X [dead theologian from the past] wouldn't pass an ordination exam in [insert denomination here]." I might expect, partially because of Mr. X if he was any good at all, that because of greater light and standing on the shoulders of giants we *should* know more than they!


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Sep 7, 2010)

lynnie said:


> _Hart's fellow R2kt-er R. S. Clark has made same similar unwarranted claims against Edwards._
> 
> Yup. Here is a quote from a review: Clark titles the second half of the crisis, and his third chapter, the Quest for Illegitimate Religious Experience (QIRE). He now turns his critique to the spirit of revivalism as displayed in the Great Awakening and especially as personified by Jonathan Edwards and his modern celebrators.3 To Clark, revival in any form is incompatible with reformation. Revival seeks the immediate and extraordinary movement of God in the hearts of men, often divorced from the church and her ordinances, and as such is hopelessly infected with pietism. Reformation, conversely, makes due use of ordinary means as prescribed in Scripture and administered weekly in the church, and in these things finds satisfaction and rest.
> 
> ...


 

Lynnie, you make some very good points. I believe that Finney did great damage to the church. I would just like to point out that there is a theological line of descent from Finney and the New Scoolers back to Edwards, especially his Freedom of the Will. Finney was privately Calvinistic. But he thought, with others like him, that evangelistic preaching should only address the volition and not inability. People were unable to believe simply because they were unwilling. He and his ilk saw themselves a following in the footsteps of Edwards by making use of new, effective terminology from Edwards in contrast to the older Reformed terminology of inability. You can see the seeds of this methodology in Hopkins, Edward's pupil. It was an overreaction against New England hypercalvinistic preparationism, which denied the role of the human will in conversion, encouraging people to just wait on God instead of embracing Christ immediately.


----------



## MarieP (Sep 7, 2010)

jwright82 said:


> I have read a few times that if Jonathen Edwards were up for ordination in the OPC he might not get it. What aspects of his thought were so contriversial to deserve this statement? I ask because they did not elaborate and I though someone prabably knows something I don't.


 
Besides the above posts, I would hope the OPC wouldn't ordain a dead guy!


----------



## lynnie (Sep 7, 2010)

Riley, Finney was not a private Calvinist. I do not believe he was even a Christian, or if he was, he was at best severely deceived. You can google him for more.....this is a quick link on my part, I don't have time to look more now, but some of his quotes are unbelievable, this doesn't even scratch the surface. 

Whatever the subtle differences between true gospel and hypercalvinism, and whatever your understanding of moral responsibility and election, and how to evangelize, and whatever terminology Finney used, his understanding of volition and inability was not Edward's understanding, even if terminolgies appear to be similar. Finney did not even believe in original sin or total depravity or imputed righteousness. There just is no cause and effect blame to Edwards for the later practices of Finney. 



Finney Systematic Theology quotes

Quotes from his heretical Systematic Theology.

ORIGINAL SIN

"We deny that the human constitution is morally depraved, because it is impossible that sin should be a quality of the substance of the soul or body. It is, and must be, a quality of choice or intention, and not of substance. To represent the constitution as sinful, is to represent God, Who is the author of the constitution, as the author of sin. What ground is there for the assertion that Adam's nature became in itself sinful by the fall? This is groundless, not to say ridiculous, assumption, and an absurdity."

JUSTIFICATION BASED UPON SANCTIFICATION

"We see that, if a righteous man forsake his righteousness, and die in his sin, he must sink to hell. Whenever a Christian sins he comes under condemnation, and must repent and do his first works, or be lost."

REGENERATION

"Regeneration implies an entire present change of moral character, that is, a change from entire sinfulness to entire holiness."

OBEDIENCE

"That which the precept demands must be possible to the subject. That which demands a natural impossibility is not, and cannot be, moral law. To talk of inability to obey moral law is to talk nonsense."

ENTIRE SANCTIFICATION

"It is self-evident, that entire obedience to God's law is possible on the ground of natural ability. To deny this, is to deny that a man is able to do as well as he can. The very language of the law is such as to level its claims to the capacity of the subject, however great or small that capacity may be. 'Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all they soul, with all they mind, and with all they strength,' Here then it is plain, that all the law demands, is the exercise of whatever strength we have, in the service of God. Now, as entire sanctification consists in perfect obedience to the law of God, and as the law requires nothing more than the right use of whatever strength we have, it is, of course, forever settled, that a state of entire sanctification is attainable in this life, on the ground of natural ability."


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Sep 7, 2010)

lynnie said:


> Riley, Finney was not a private Calvinist. I do not believe he was even a Christian, or if he was, he was at best severely deceived. You can google him for more.....this is a quick link on my part, I don't have time to look more now, but some of his quotes are unbelievable, this doesn't even scratch the surface.
> 
> Whatever the subtle differences between true gospel and hypercalvinism, and whatever your understanding of moral responsibility and election, and how to evangelize, and whatever terminology Finney used, his understanding of volition and inability was not Edward's understanding, even if terminolgies appear to be similar. Finney did not even believe in original sin or total depravity or imputed righteousness. There just is no cause and effect blame to Edwards for the later practices of Finney.
> 
> ...


 
Lynnie, we are talking past each other. I am not saying that Edwards would have agreed with the trajectory, but there is no mistaking that the New Schoolers and Finney used Edwards, loved him, and considered themselves his heirs. The difference is that Edwards spoke of the freedom and ability of the will in a certain philosophical sense in The Freedom of the Will, without utterly rejecting the previous language of inability. The New School which followed absolutized Edward's new language of the freedom of the will to the point where they claimed it was nonsensical and wrong-headed to speak of the human will as unable to believe. Your quotes illustrate this. 

Finney believed that the human will is capable of believing. He thought that the will is not some thing or substance which may be able or unable to do something; it is just a sum of all the choices that someone is making. In this context, in Finney's mind, it would not be contradictory to say on the one hand that God's sovereignty determines who is saved and who is not, and on the other hand that all humans have the ability to choose him. Finney would simply say that those who are elect will be choosing to embrace Christ, while those who are not are making the opposite choice. In his mind the Holy Spirit worked purely through the instrumentality of the human will, and any talk of prior actions of the Holy Spirit on the will was jibberish, for the will itself was just the sum of a person's choices. As with most things, it takes some understanding of the development of New School thought from Edwards to Finney to understand how he arrived at his statements and conclusions. 

Please note that I am in no way defending Finney, the prime destroyer of American Evangelicalism.


----------



## lynnie (Sep 7, 2010)

Riley, I thank you for clarifying, but saying Finney was privately Calvinistic didn't help my perception of your view, you might be more careful how you describe CF in the future. 

History is full of people taking words and terms and redefining them to suit their new understanding. History is full of people who have a balanced mentor holding to two apparently contradictory biblical truths ( inability and will is only one example) and running off with one side only. I still maintain that the errors of Finney are to be blamed on Finney and not Edwards. Calvin is not at fault for distorted Calvinism. The Confession is not to be blamed for Federal Vision errors claiming to truly represent the confession. 

Lets go back to the original point I was trying to make. Some guys at WSC seem bent on convincing the Reformed community that their understanding of being Reformed means we are critical of revival talk and personal pietism talk to the point that Edwards, Lloyd-Jones, and Iain Murray, among others, are on some lower level of understanding true Christianity than they are. And if Hart claims Edwards led to Finney, well, I have to be careful as this is a public board, but certain negative adjectives come to mind. If you are being sucked into the mindset that Edwards is bad guy and the good guys are certain ones at WSC trying to get you back to true Reformed Christianity, well it is your volition, and your free choice. I think you should read further before allowing yourself to choose Clark and Hart above Edwards. Just my opinion.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Sep 7, 2010)

lynnie said:


> Riley, I thank you for clarifying, but saying Finney was privately Calvinistic didn't help my perception of your view, you might be more careful how you describe CF in the future.



And you, brother, might be more careful about making conclusions about me based on one narrowly-framed statement about the theology of a historical figure. The fact of the matter is that Finney considered himself to be Calvinistic, and that he privately affirmed unconditional election. The New Schoolers and Finney muddied the waters and blurred the lines of distinction between Calvinist and Arminian by using Arminian techniques even while affirming many aspects of Calvinistic theology. In many of these cases it is necessary to read their doctoral theses to find out if they beleived in the sovereignty of God or not!, and that's because they were so different from us on their anthropology and on their conception of the role of the means of grace in conversion.

And as far as Edwards, I was not blaming him for Finney. I hold Edwards in high regard. We would be well to take the emotions out of this discussion.


----------



## he beholds (Sep 7, 2010)

lynnie said:


> Riley, I thank you for clarifying, but saying Finney was privately Calvinistic didn't help my perception of your view, you might be more careful how you describe CF in the future.
> 
> History is full of people taking words and terms and redefining them to suit their new understanding. History is full of people who have a balanced mentor holding to two apparently contradictory biblical truths ( inability and will is only one example) and running off with one side only. I still maintain that the errors of Finney are to be blamed on Finney and not Edwards. Calvin is not at fault for distorted Calvinism. The Confession is not to be blamed for Federal Vision errors claiming to truly represent the confession.
> 
> Lets go back to the original point I was trying to make. Some guys at WSC seem bent on convincing the Reformed community that their understanding of being Reformed means we are critical of revival talk and personal pietism talk to the point that Edwards, Lloyd-Jones, and Iain Murray, among others, are on some lower level of understanding true Christianity than they are. And if Hart claims Edwards led to Finney, well, I have to be careful as this is a public board, but certain negative adjectives come to mind. If you are being sucked into the mindset that Edwards is bad guy and the good guys are certain ones at WSC trying to get you back to true Reformed Christianity, well it is your volition, and your free choice. I think you should read further before allowing yourself to choose Clark and Hart above Edwards. Just my opinion.



Yikes, yikes yikes. I get that you have some issue with the seminary, from this & other threads, but this seems very bitter.


----------



## lynnie (Sep 7, 2010)

Riley, I am a sister 

I don't think we will agree on Finney's private Calvinism, whatever it was he called himself. Remove original sin and the whole structure collapses. 

A subject more to the point of the thread opening question would be this 

_ Dr. Hart believes Edwards views on Justification are outside the confessional boundaries. _

I am curious to see quotes from JE on that. Anybody have info about Edwards on Justification as compared to the Bible, Calvin, or the Confession?


----------



## Philip (Sep 7, 2010)

Part of the confusion stems from the fact that around 1700, the definition of "freedom" changed radically (John Locke and Thomas Hobbes are the key figures) both in politics and in philosophy. Before 1700, freedom meant "moral ability to do good." This is why, for example, Luther speaks of the "bondage of the will" and why Anselm's "Freedom of the Will" says that a person unable to sin would be freer than one who is able to choose to sin or not to sin. Around 1700, the definition changed to mean "natural ability to act according to one's desires."

Edwards, I think, is working with this latter definition to show how it is compatible with a Calvinistic system. This is why, since Edwards, Reformed theology has been identified as philosophical compatibilism rather than hard determinism. What Edwards does is to show that humans do, in fact, have a natural ability to choose God, if they wanted too---the problem is that they don't and will never want to choose God unless they are regenerated by the Spirit. Revival then, for Edwards, would be the Spirit's work of regeneration in large numbers of people in a shorter temporal space than usual. Because Edwards sees the preaching of the word as the usual means (even in revival) of the Spirit's work, he advocates indiscriminate preaching.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Sep 7, 2010)

lynnie said:


> Riley, I am a sister
> 
> I don't think we will agree on Finney's private Calvinism, whatever it was he called himself. Remove original sin and the whole structure collapses.
> 
> ...


 
Oops! Sorry.  I think I thought you were just Scottish or something. It helps to add an avatar.

---------- Post added at 11:23 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:22 AM ----------




lynnie said:


> Riley, I am a sister
> 
> I don't think we will agree on Finney's private Calvinism, whatever it was he called himself. Remove original sin and the whole structure collapses.
> 
> ...


 
Notice that I said _Calvinistic_ and not that he was a *Calvinist.*


----------



## py3ak (Sep 7, 2010)

Willem van Oranje said:


> The fact of the matter is that Finney considered himself to be Calvinistic, and that he privately affirmed unconditional election.


 
That's interesting. Do you have a source for that?


----------



## lynnie (Sep 7, 2010)

Jess- Horton has written some incredibly beautiful things. It is hard (impossible?) to beat Riddlebarger for eschatology. I do not mean to implicate a whole seminary, please accept my clarification.

We were talking to a guy recently, a very godly, balanced, older man who attended a Reformed confessional seminary and loves Reformed theology. He was saying that if he had to move to another area for some reason and went looking for a church, and wanted to check out the local PCA and OPC churches, there are things that he might want to find out if they are into first, red flags for him, as it were. Things like Federal Vision, deaconesses, theistic evolution. Then he said that he would consider it also a necessity that they repudiate the charges coming out of WSC against guys like Edwards and LLoyd-Jones. He used the word "evil".

I thought the word "evil" might be a bit strong, but I don't know. We are never all going to agree on everything. Every teacher has flaws, and no old dead theologian is perfect. But it is seems like an effort is underway to minimize private prayer and to trash any experiential reality of the Holy Spirit.....joy, assurance, God's love, holiness, glory.....the things Edwards and Lloyd-Jones wrote about. Yeah, I know people can get totally off balanced in the experiential direction, but read the bible. It is overflowing with men meeting God as an experiential reality.

I am sure everybody is motivated by a desire for truth, but I think I would share Ivan's sentiments about those people disparaging men who spoke and wrote about true Revival such as Edwards, L-J, Murray.

---------- Post added at 11:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:37 AM ----------

Phillip- very helpful clarification, thank you!!


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Sep 7, 2010)

py3ak said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> > The fact of the matter is that Finney considered himself to be Calvinistic, and that he privately affirmed unconditional election.
> ...



Finney on Election

"Again. If God foreknew whom he would save, he must have had some design about it. He must have designed that they should be saved, or should not be, or that he would have no design about it. It is unreasonable to suppose that he could have had either of the last two; he must therefore have had the first, to wit, that they should be saved.

Finney on "How to Preach the Gospel":

"4. Another important thing to observe is, that a minister should dwell most on those particular points which are most needed. I will explain what I mean.
Sometimes he may find a people who have been led to place great reliance on their own resolutions. They think they can consult their own convenience, and by and by they will repent, when they get ready, without any concern about the Spirit of God. Let him take up these notions, and show that they are entirely contrary to the Scriptures. Let him show that if the Spirit of God is grieved away, however able he may be, it is certain he never will repent, and that by and by, when it shall be convenient for him to do it, he will have no inclination. The minister who finds these errors prevailing, should expose them. He should hunt them out, and understand just how they are held, and then preach the class of truths which will show the fallacy, the folly, and the danger of these notions.
So on the other hand. He may find a people who have got such views of Election and Sovereignty, as to think they have nothing to do but to wait for the moving of the waters. Let him go right over against them, and crowd upon them their ability to obey God, and to show their obligation and duty, and press them with that until he brings them to submit and be saved. They have got behind a perverted view of these doctrines, and there is no way to drive them out of the hiding-place but to set them right on these points. Wherever a sinner is intrenched, unless you pour light upon him there, you will never move him. It is of no use to press him with those truths which he admits, however plainly they may in fact contradict his wrong notions. He supposes them to be perfectly consistent, and does not see the inconsistency, and therefore it will not move him, or bring him to repentance.
I have been informed of a minister in New England, who was settled in a congregation which had long enjoyed little else than Arminian preaching, and the congregation themselves were chiefly Arminians. Well, this minister, in his preaching, strongly insisted on the opposite points, the doctrine of election, Divine sovereignty, predestination, etc. The consequence was, as might have been expected where this was done with ability, there was a powerful revival. Some time afterwards this same minister was called to labor in another field, in this State, where the people were all on the other side, and strongly tinctured with Antinomianism. They had got such perverted views of election, and Divine sovereignty, that they were continually saying they had no power to do anything, but must wait God's time. Now, what does this minister do but immediately go to preaching the doctrine of election. And when he was asked, how he could think of preaching the doctrine of election so much to that people, when it was the very thing that lulled them to a deeper slumber, he replied. "Why, that's the very class of truths by which I had such a great revival in ----;" not considering the difference in the views of the people. And if I am correctly informed, there he is to this day, preaching away at the doctrine of election, and wondering that it does not produce as powerful a revival as it did in the other place. Probably those sinners never will be converted. You must take things as they are, find out where sinners lie, and pour in truth upon them there, and START THEM OUT from their refuges of lies. It is of vast importance that a minister should find out where the congregation are, and preach accordingly.
I have been in many places in times of revival, and I have never been able to employ precisely the same course of preaching in one as in another. Some are intrenched behind one refuge, and some behind another. In one place, the church will need to be instructed, in another, sinners. In one place, one set of truths, in another, another set. A minister must find out where they are, and preach accordingly. I believe this is the experience of all preachers who are called to labor from field to field."

It is apparent here that Finney believed in unconditional election, but he believed that it should not be preached, at least not in churches with a Calvinist foundation (as was the case in most of New England, New York, and Pennsylvania.) This is what I was referring to when I said that the New School revivalism was an overreaction against hyper-Calvinistic preparationism. "Come to Christ now. You can do it. Don't sit there and wait" was the idea.

Also, he had much too high a view of the means of grace, even to the denial of the immediate means of regeneration. For Finney and the New Schoolers, God unconditionally foreordained that his elect would be saved, not through the immediate means of regeneration, but purely by the mediate or providential means of all the circumstances which would draw them to a conviction of sin and faith in Christ, especially persuasive preaching. God sovereignly, providentially, and infallibly provided for his elect everything that would conduce and persuade them to their decision for Christ, according to these men.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 7, 2010)

From the first sermon you linkted, I am not sure how I am to conclude that Finney believed in unconditional election. Notice this inference:
I. Foreknowledge and election are not inconsistent with free agency, but are founded upon it. The elect were chosen to eternal life, because God foresaw that in perfect exercise of their freedom, they could be induced to repent and embrace the Gospel.​ (Emphasis added)

Also, his whole doctrine of election is quite unusual, as even his headings indicate (the explanations help not at all). 



> IX. Election opposes no obstacle to the salvation of the non-elect.
> 
> X. This is the best that could upon the whole be done for the inhabitants of this world.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Sep 7, 2010)

py3ak said:


> From the first sermon you linkted, I am not sure how I am to conclude that Finney believed in unconditional election. Notice this inference:
> I. Foreknowledge and election are not inconsistent with free agency, but are founded upon it. The elect were chosen to eternal life, because God foresaw that in perfect exercise of their freedom, they could be induced to repent and embrace the Gospel.​ (Emphasis added)
> 
> Also, his whole doctrine of election is quite unusual, as even his headings indicate (the explanations help not at all).




Ruben, this is soteriology, "New School style". It defies previous categories. It is not quite Calvinist or Arminian. It proclaims that God is sovereign over salvation, but that he only uses ordinary means to bring his elect to salvation.

Millard J. Erickson is a modern example of this view of election.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 7, 2010)

Whoever else may have bought that crazines, it's not exactly _unconditional_ election if it's based on God predicting either who will or who might believe.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Sep 7, 2010)

py3ak said:


> Whoever else may have bought that crazines, it's not exactly _unconditional_ election if it's based on God predicting either who will or who might believe.


 
It's more nuanced than that. It's not God _merely_ predicting. It's God unconditionally foreordaining salvation of his elect and then applying it to them via the ordinary means of preaching and persuasion.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 7, 2010)

> I. Foreknowledge and election are not inconsistent with free agency, but are founded upon it. The elect were chosen to eternal life, because God foresaw that in perfect exercise of their freedom, they could be induced to repent and embrace the Gospel.





Willem van Oranje said:


> It's more nuanced than that. It's not God merely predicting. It's God unconditionally foreordaining salvation of his elect and then applying it to them via the ordinary means of preaching and persuasion.



Riley, how exactly is something unconditional, when it's based (conditioned) on God foreseeing?


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Sep 7, 2010)

py3ak said:


> > I. Foreknowledge and election are not inconsistent with free agency, but are founded upon it. The elect were chosen to eternal life, because God foresaw that in perfect exercise of their freedom, they could be induced to repent and embrace the Gospel.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
It's not based on God's foreseeing, according to Finney. Go back and read Finney again.

Addendum: the distinction which makes it not "conditioned" upon man's will as in Arminianism is the deterministic aspect. According to the New School Presbyterian/Finney idea a man believes in Christ because God has determined for it so to be, and likewise a man does not believe in Christ because God has determined that he would not believe in Christ. Arminianism flips the causal relationship and makes election based on foreseen faith. But that is not what Finney is saying. He is saying that those whom God elected, he made to believe. The difference between Finney and us is not in the outcome, but in the fact that Finney's idea realies essentially on the ordinary means. 

God had ordained that x preacher preach y persuasive sermon to z individual, and by this means z individual was persuaded to embrace Christ, as God had determined all along. For he controls all human events by his providence. In contrast, an Arminian would simply say that God foresaw that z individual would believe, and therefore elected him, not the other way around.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Sep 7, 2010)

Chaplainintraining said:


> but Princeton refuses to let it out in public because of what it contains



Interesting... especially when the Edwards collection is at... Yale! 

Edwards Collection


----------



## Philip (Sep 7, 2010)

> God had ordained that x preacher preach y persuasive sermon to z individual, and by this means z individual was persuaded to embrace Christ, as God had determined all along. For he controls all human events by his providence.



Exactly how is this different from the teaching of Romans 10?


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Sep 7, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> > God had ordained that x preacher preach y persuasive sermon to z individual, and by this means z individual was persuaded to embrace Christ, as God had determined all along. For he controls all human events by his providence.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly how is this different from the teaching of Romans 10?


 
By its neglect and practical denial of the immediate supernatural means of the *effectual call* as necessary to salvation, as distinct from any human means of persuasion or personal human decision-making.

---------- Post added at 03:50 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:47 PM ----------




SolaScriptura said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > but Princeton refuses to let it out in public because of what it contains
> ...


 
On top of that, they are putting the whole thing online. That's not something you do when you're trying to hide something.


----------



## Philip (Sep 7, 2010)

> By its neglect and practical denial of the immediate supernatural means of the effectual call as necessary to salvation, as distinct from any human means of persuasion or personal human decision-making.



In other words, the Finneyan position is that God works through the human means alone without an act of regeneration made by the Holy Spirit in response to the preaching of the word?


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Sep 7, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> > By its neglect and practical denial of the immediate supernatural means of the effectual call as necessary to salvation, as distinct from any human means of persuasion or personal human decision-making.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, the Finneyan position is that God works through the human means alone without an act of regeneration made by the Holy Spirit in response to the preaching of the word?



That is as I understand it. This view is a form of divine determinism as distinguished from Arminian-type views. It mainly differs from our view based on anthropology.


----------



## Philip (Sep 7, 2010)

Willem van Oranje said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> > > By its neglect and practical denial of the immediate supernatural means of the effectual call as necessary to salvation, as distinct from any human means of persuasion or personal human decision-making.
> ...


 
The difference is [-]total depravity[/-] radical corruption.


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Sep 7, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> Willem van Oranje said:
> 
> 
> > P. F. Pugh said:
> ...



Is that a contrast, or did you change your mind mid-sentence?

I believe the contrast with our view is even deeper. Finney essentially did not believe in the existence of a human nature. For him it was just about the sum of our choices and actions.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 7, 2010)

Willem van Oranje said:


> It's not based on God's foreseeing, according to Finney. Go back and read Finney again.



OK.



> *Originally posted by Charles Finney*
> I. Foreknowledge and election are not inconsistent with free agency, but are founded upon it. The elect were chosen to eternal life, because God foresaw that in perfect exercise of their freedom, they could be induced to repent and embrace the Gospel.



The "because God foresaw" still seems to be in there.

And previously he had stated:


> The *elect, then, must be those whom God foresaw could be converted* under the wisest administration of his government. That administering it in a way that would be most beneficial to all worlds, exerting such an amount of moral influence on every individual, as would result, upon the whole, in the greatest good to his divine kingdom, he foresaw that certain individuals could, with this wisest amount of moral influence, be reclaimed and sanctified, and for this reason, they were chosen to eternal life.


----------



## Philip (Sep 7, 2010)

> Is that a contrast, or did you change your mind mid-sentence?
> 
> I believe the contrast with our view is even deeper. Finney essentially did not believe in the existence of a human nature. For him it was just about the sum of our choices and actions.



I dislike the "Total depravity" terminology: too easily misunderstood and imprecise. 

Did Finney then believe that we just do things with no reason? Now he's beginning to sound like Leibniz (a harder determinist than any Calvinist).


----------



## jwright82 (Sep 7, 2010)

I can't find my books on Edwards, we are in moving limbo and they are packed indefinantly. Am I to understand that perhaps some of the disagreement with Edwards is over the direction his followers took after his death, which hardly seems fair to me?


----------



## Willem van Oranje (Sep 8, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> > Is that a contrast, or did you change your mind mid-sentence?
> >
> > I believe the contrast with our view is even deeper. Finney essentially did not believe in the existence of a human nature. For him it was just about the sum of our choices and actions.
> 
> ...


 
I like it. The only reason there is any good left in anyone is due to the restraining work of the Holy Spirit. 
When it comes to the human nature in and of itself, it is Totally Depraved.


----------



## lynnie (Sep 9, 2010)

This thread still going? Hey, don't miss the link by Mark-mvdm- up at # 18. Excellent.


----------



## Paul Trask (Sep 10, 2010)

Revivals occurred in Scotland and Wales in the 19th century and earlier among Presbyterians. What does he say to that? Lloyd-Jones was a product of the Welsh revival. That's why he spoke about revival.


----------

