# Was Jonathan Edwards a "virtual pantheist"?



## Charles Johnson (Jul 4, 2018)

The following is a quote from A. A. Hodge's _Outlines of Theology_: 
"Besides pure pantheism there has existed an infinite variety of impure forms of virtual pantheism. This is true of all systems that affirm the impersonality of the infinite and absolute, and which resolve all the divine attributes into modes of causality. The same is true of all systems which represent providential preservation as a continual creation, deny the real efficiency of second causes, and make God the only agent in the universe, e. g., Edwards on "Original Sin," pt. 4, ch. 3..."​Any thoughts on why Hodge might consider Edwards a "virtual pantheist"? I haven't read "Original Sin", the work in question.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jul 5, 2018)

In Edwards' occasionalism, the created world does not contain within itself the ability to cause any effect and, indeed, does not even persist in time. Instead of God preserving creation through providence, he is actually involved in a continual work of creation at every moment. On a traditional orthodox view of second causes, we can speak of God creating a world where I drop a bowl and cause it to shatter. With Edwards, God is creating a world-moment where I drop a bowl and then (atemporally, of course, from God's perspective), creates a world-moment where the bowl shatters. There is no intrinsic connection between the two other than God's will.

On top of this is Edwards' doctrine of necessary creation and his idealism. God is bound by his own character to create and to create this particular world as the possible world most wise, good, etc. If creation, then, is a necessary manifestation of the divine character, and has its existence fundamentally in the mind of God (Edwards' idealism), and has no intrinsic ability to act, can we separate creation from God in any meaningful way? This would imply pantheism or, at least, panentheism, with Edwards' strong position on divine simplicity suggesting the former.

It should be noted that Edwards in no place admits of or defends pantheism and not everyone agrees that it is a necessary implication of his philosophy. Hodge, however, isn't the only one to have taken up this criticism and remarked upon Edwards' departure from historical orthodoxy here. Many new Calvinists take up Edwards' position on the free will in particular without having a clue that, as useful as he is, he does not represent the mainstream of Reformed, confessional thought on the matter.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 5, 2018)

TheOldCourse said:


> In Edwards' occasionalism, the created world does not contain within itself the ability to cause any effect and, indeed, does not even persist in time. Instead of God preserving creation through providence, he is actually involved in a continual work of creation at every moment. On a traditional orthodox view of second causes, we can speak of God creating a world where I drop a bowl and cause it to shatter. With Edwards, God is creating a world-moment where I drop a bowl and then (atemporally, of course, from God's perspective), creates a world-moment where the bowl shatters. There is no intrinsic connection between the two other than God's will.
> 
> On top of this is Edwards' doctrine of necessary creation and his idealism. God is bound by his own character to create and to create this particular world as the possible world most wise, good, etc. If creation, then, is a necessary manifestation of the divine character, and has its existence fundamentally in the mind of God (Edwards' idealism), and has no intrinsic ability to act, can we separate creation from God in any meaningful way? This would imply pantheism or, at least, panentheism, with Edwards' strong position on divine simplicity suggesting the former.
> 
> It should be noted that Edwards in no place admits of or defends pantheism and not everyone agrees that it is a necessary implication of his philosophy. Hodge, however, isn't the only one to have taken up this criticism and remarked upon Edwards' departure from historical orthodoxy here. Many new Calvinists take up Edwards' position on the free will in particular without having a clue that, as useful as he is, he does not represent the mainstream of Reformed, confessional thought on the matter.


So he did not see God creating the Universe, and then having placed in it ongoing history that would be happening, as in immediate and long term historical events? That things happen always immediately, as God was causing them to always be determined directly when happening? No secondary cause and effects?


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jul 5, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> So he did not see God creating the Universe, and then having placed in it ongoing history that would be happening, as in immediate and long term historical events? That things happen always immediately, as God was causing them to always be determined directly when happening? No secondary cause and effects?



Yes, from his _Works_: "God’s_ preserving _created things in being is perfectly equivalent to a _continued creation_, or to his creating those things out of nothing at _each moment_ of their existence."

Hodge further explicates his criticism in _The Confession of Faith_:



> Some true Christian theologians have taken a view of the relation of God to the world which comes perilously near, if it does not coincide with, this great Pantheistic heresy. This view is, that God’s power is constantly exerted in continually creating every individual thing again and again every fraction of duration; that created things have no real being of their own, and exist only as thus they are each moment the product of creative energy; and hence that the immediate cause of the state or action of any creature one moment of time is not its state or action the previous moment, but the direct act of divine creative power. If this be so, it is plain that God is the only real agent in the universe; that he is the immediate cause of all things, including all evil passions and wicked thoughts and acts; that consciousness is a thorough delusion, and the free agency and moral accountability of man vain imaginations.



Now many have denied the implication he draws and sought to defend Edwards from such charges, especially since Edwards does in some places allow some agency to created beings in such as way as seems to conflict with his occasionalism. William Hamilton went so far as to accuse Edwards of heresy, while William Cunningham defended Edwards against such charges rather ably. We can't flatly say Edwards was a "pantheist," but I do think that it's fair to say that if his ideas aren't carefully qualified and nuanced they can involve us in pantheistic-like (or Neoplatonic) problems.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 5, 2018)

He uses the same language as Pseudo-Dionysius in seeing creation as an overflow, and calling God "Being," in which creation would even be necessary in a sense.

He is more panentheist than pantheist.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jul 5, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> He uses the same language as Pseudo-Dionysius in seeing creation as an overflow, and calling God "Being," in which creation would even be necessary in a sense.
> 
> He is more panentheist than pantheist.



Yes, but his idealism argues that all things only have existence in the divine consciousness/idea, and then his doctrine of divine simplicity leads him to propose that "all God's ideas are only the one idea of Himself" (from _Of Being_). This, to my understanding, seems to move him towards the realm of pantheism as Hodge claims, rather than panentheism.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 5, 2018)

TheOldCourse said:


> Yes, but his idealism argues that all things only have existence in the divine consciousness/idea, and then his doctrine of divine simplicity leads him to propose that "all God's ideas are only the one idea of Himself" (from _Of Being_). This, to my understanding, seems to move him towards the realm of pantheism as Hodge claims, rather than panentheism.



Certainly, not disputing that. I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt since panentheism is more salvageable than pantheism.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jul 5, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> He uses the same language as Pseudo-Dionysius in seeing creation as an overflow, and calling God "Being," in which creation would even be necessary in a sense.
> 
> He is more panentheist than pantheist.



I think this is more or less an accurate assessment. Interestingly enough, I will be preaching “Sinners in the hands of an angry God” this Sunday. Should be fun.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 5, 2018)

TheOldCourse said:


> Yes, from his _Works_: "God’s_ preserving _created things in being is perfectly equivalent to a _continued creation_, or to his creating those things out of nothing at _each moment_ of their existence."
> 
> Hodge further explicates his criticism in _The Confession of Faith_:
> 
> ...


How would he handle the problem then of God revealing to us in the Bible future history, and with the implication that to God that Future has already happened, as he exists outside of space/time, and He already has determined and set what will happen in the end?


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 5, 2018)

TheOldCourse said:


> Yes, but his idealism argues that all things only have existence in the divine consciousness/idea, and then his doctrine of divine simplicity leads him to propose that "all God's ideas are only the one idea of Himself" (from _Of Being_). This, to my understanding, seems to move him towards the realm of pantheism as Hodge claims, rather than panentheism.


So he would be seeing the Universe itself as being the extension of His own Being then?


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 5, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Certainly, not disputing that. I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt since panentheism is more salvageable than pantheism.


If he indeed held to some form of Pantheism, does that not color the whole of his theology then?


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jul 5, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> If he indeed held to some form of Pantheism, does that not color the whole of his theology then?



No, because he doesn't "hold" to some form of pantheism. The argument is that a number of his theological/philosophical positions, when taken together, may imply a type of pantheism. He never acknowledged or owned that implication and it certainly couldn't be considered a central part of his theological system. I'm not aware of any contemporary of his bringing up the criticism which is unfortunate as it would have been interesting to hear him deal with it. Criticisms of this sort seem to have started arising more in the 19th century with the influence of Scottish Common Sense Realism. Much of what he wrote was sound and orthodox. There are just a few areas that are potentially problematic and they are mostly so by distant implication rather than _per se_. I do think that we should be cautious in accepting his philosophical determinism.



> How would he handle the problem then of God revealing to us in the Bible future history, and with the implication that to God that Future has already happened, as he exists outside of space/time, and He already has determined and set what will happen in the end?



I'm not sure what you are seeing as the problem here. While, on Edwards' view, God does create each world-moment such that they are successive in time (and ex nihilo in his strongest statements), that doesn't mean that God is, himself, performing the act in time. Indeed, in Edwards' thought I would presume he would consider time as only existing within God's creative-consciousness and thus not something God could ever be "within."



> So he would be seeing the Universe itself as being the extension of His own Being then?



Edwards would prefer to speak in terms of God's consciousness or ideas rather than his being. For Edwards, things only have existence as they are apprehended by the consciousness. Humanly speaking, a tree falling in the woods with no one around does not make a sound for Edwards as it is not perceived. Of course, God does perceive, and indeed creates, the falling of the tree so it does occur, but the classic thought experiment illustrates that, according to Edwards, objects do not exist apart from the consciousness of them. The tricky part is that Edwards also held that God, by necessity and according to his own character, must engage in creation and, indeed, must create this particular world as the best of all possible worlds. Since the universe in exhaustive detail is then determined by God's character, God's consciousness or idea of the world is really just his idea of himself.

The caveat to all of this is that I'm no Edwards scholar. I've read a great deal of him and in particular with respect to his orthodoxy on these subjects, but it was years ago and now I'm mostly going by memory and some quick references to refresh myself on the matter.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 5, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> If he indeed held to some form of Pantheism, does that not color the whole of his theology then?



No. Just because someone is wrong in one area does not mean they are wrong in all areas. Rome is correct on abortion, for example.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## DTK (Jul 6, 2018)

As "loosey-goosey" as A. A. Hodge was with evolution, we all should be reminded that it's not a good idea to throw rocks at others while living in a glass house.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 6, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> No. Just because someone is wrong in one area does not mean they are wrong in all areas. Rome is correct on abortion, for example.


It would depend on which aspect of a person theology was wrong then, as someone who violates a Cardinal truth of Christian would thus invalidate the whole of their beliefs?


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 6, 2018)

DTK said:


> As "loosey-goosey" as A. A. Hodge was with evolution, we all should be reminded that it's not a good idea to throw rocks at others while living in a glass house.


Good point, as he was indeed weak in regards to creation and how God was involved in that process.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 6, 2018)

This concept of God willing part of His being outwards for creation to occur would seem to be leading towards some type of Open Theism , as God creates as soon as He knows of something?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 6, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> It would depend on which aspect of a person theology was wrong then, as someone who violates a Cardinal truth of Christian would thus invalidate the whole of their beliefs?



Perhaps, but as we've demonstrated Edwards never said that God = creation. Yes, I think much of his proposal is philosophically flawed but that's a different claim.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 6, 2018)

Edwards speaks of God as “being-in-general” whose infinity contains all perfections and excellencies (Volume I p. 98 in Banner of Truth edition).


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 6, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Edwards speaks of God as “being-in-general” whose infinity contains all perfections and excellencies (Volume I p. 98 in Banner of Truth edition).


Still seems to be stating that all of creation would be God expanding Himself outward to create it from Himself when the need arises.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 6, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Perhaps, but as we've demonstrated Edwards never said that God = creation. Yes, I think much of his proposal is philosophically flawed but that's a different claim.


Are you saying then that Edwards could have help to a Pantheistic worldview in regards to how God interacts in His creation, but that was not actually formally stipulated and spelled out?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 6, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Are you saying then that Edwards could have help to a Pantheistic worldview in regards to how God interacts in His creation, but that was not actually formally stipulated and spelled out?



I don't understand what you are asking, at least not the first clause.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 6, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Still seems to be stating that all of creation would be expanding Himself outward to create it from Himself when the need arises.



Creation is the subject in your sentence, not God.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 6, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I don't understand what you are asking, at least not the first clause.


Edwards might have held to a viewpoint like pantheism, but all that can be stated is that would be a maybe, not a definite.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 6, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Edwards might have held to a viewpoint like pantheism, but all that can be stated is that would be a maybe, not a definite.



Logically, his ontology leads to that. But we are all holding views no doubt, whose logical conclusions we are not aware of


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 6, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Logically, his ontology leads to that. But we are all holding views no doubt, whose logical conclusions we are not aware of


And that we would no doubt reject if we were aware of where those views led.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 6, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> And that we would no doubt reject if we were aware of where those views led.



I hope so. It's rather difficult to knowingly believe something you know to be false.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 7, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I hope so. It's rather difficult to knowingly believe something you know to be false.


Have you ever had to change your theological position on an issue then?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 7, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Have you ever had to change your theological position on an issue then?



Everyone does. I can think of a few.

1. I used to be a theonomist, but now I hold to natural law.
2. I used to reject the Covenant of Works, but now I embrace it.
3. I used to be credobaptist, but now I am paedobaptist.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 7, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Everyone does. I can think of a few.
> 
> 1. I used to be a theonomist, but now I hold to natural law.
> 2. I used to reject the Covenant of Works, but now I embrace it.
> 3. I used to be credobaptist, but now I am paedobaptist.


What caused you to change your mind on those issues?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 7, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> What caused you to change your mind on those issues?



1. Realizing General Equity is inevitable and contradicts the stricter Bahnsenian Thesis.
2. Do this and live principle. And if we do'nt have the CoW, we risk collapsing the inner/outer distinction of the CoG into one way of being into the CoG, which leads to Federal Visionism.
3. God promsies to be God to our children, and he doesn't make this promise apart from the sign of the covenant.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 7, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> 1. Realizing General Equity is inevitable and contradicts the stricter Bahnsenian Thesis.
> 2. Do this and live principle. And if we do'nt have the CoW, we risk collapsing the inner/outer distinction of the CoG into one way of being into the CoG, which leads to Federal Visionism.
> 3. God promsies to be God to our children, and he doesn't make this promise apart from the sign of the covenant.


Clarification on point 3, are you saying that the saved parents are assured saved children then?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 7, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Clarification on point 3, are you saying that the saved parents are assured saved children then?



No.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 7, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Clarification on point 3, are you saying that the saved parents are assured saved children then?



To clarify: the children are in covenant with God and have the sign of the covenant. God promises to be a God to them. But none of that negates the duty to believe


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 9, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> To clarify: the children are in covenant with God and have the sign of the covenant. God promises to be a God to them. But none of that negates the duty to believe


God would be the God of the children of the saved parents, regardless if they take the sign of water baptism, as He will save those who are His elect still?


----------



## Gforce9 (Jul 9, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> God would be the God of the children of the saved parents, regardless if they take the sign of water baptism, as He will save those who are His elect still?



Your statement taken as "stand alone" is true, but it doesnt address the sign, the relationship to the thing signified, or the recipients of the sign. Why would you withold something that was given (sign), as Jacob stated, that should be applied?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jul 9, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> God would be the God of the children of the saved parents, regardless if they take the sign of water baptism, as He will save those who are His elect still?



God sets apart those to whom he is the covenantal God by means of his sign and seal. If he is their God, covenantally speaking, then the sign of that relationship belongs to them. While there may be a federal application of the sign (thus circumcision was for males only), the sign applies to all who are considered under that federal relationship and thus should not be withheld from any members for whom the sign is appropriate. Accordingly, baptism is administered to both male and female children of the New Covenant.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Jul 9, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> God would be the God of the children of the saved parents, regardless if they take the sign of water baptism, as He will save those who are His elect still?



Baptism..does not save. None of our outward workings of obedience save us. Jacob already made that clear in the very statement you quoted from him "but none of that negates the duty to believe."

To withhold Baptism is sin, which in the very least is a denial to acknowledge and proclaim outwardly the Promises of our great God. Now with all that said, can we avoid the baptism debate (on this thread) because it is not the purpose of the original post (Johnathan Edwards a "virtual pantheist"?). If you want to discuss baptism, why not make a new thread or read old ones.

Now since I posted, I will say that i do not believe Johnathan Edwards to have been a "virtual pantheist". Pantheism as i understand it was a heresy...so you might as well pose the question "Was Johnathan Edwards a "virtual heretic"?

NO he was not..he was a bold man of sound faith, who like all of us had/have flaws in faith and practice. We owe him much grace (and thanks for that matter) ...as we all need/desire much grace ourselves when we give an account for all we have said and done.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 9, 2018)

Grant.Jones said:


> Baptism..does not save. None of our outward workings of obedience save us. Jacob already made that clear in the very statement you quoted from him "but none of that negates the duty to believe."
> 
> To withhold Baptism is sin, which in the very least is a denial to acknowledge and proclaim outwardly the Promises of our great God. Now with all that said, can we avoid the baptism debate (on this thread) because it is not the purpose of the original post (Johnathan Edwards a "virtual pantheist"?). If you want to discuss baptism, why not make a new thread or read old ones.
> 
> ...


He might have held to Pantheism of some degree, but that would be from drawing some kind of inference from his writings, but not being to ahve himself state categorical that he held to that viewpoint.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 9, 2018)

God commanded the sign of the covenant to be placed on children of believers. Now, if believers refuse to put God's sign on their children, will God still be God to them? In a sense, sure, but why go that route? It's better that kids grow up in a Reformed baptist household than in a family with three Demi-gender parents. The child will get good instruction, etc. But you are getting all of that outside the way that God promised to be God to your children.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 11, 2018)

BayouHuguenot said:


> God commanded the sign of the covenant to be placed on children of believers. Now, if believers refuse to put God's sign on their children, will God still be God to them? In a sense, sure, but why go that route? It's better that kids grow up in a Reformed baptist household than in a family with three Demi-gender parents. The child will get good instruction, etc. But you are getting all of that outside the way that God promised to be God to your children.


This all would be going back into just how new we see the New Covenant as being though, and that would be a topic and discussion for another day.


----------



## TheOldCourse (Jul 11, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> This all would be going back into just how new we see the New Covenant as being though, and that would be a topic and discussion for another day.



We are getting far afield, but you asked "God would be the God of the children of the saved parents, regardless if they take the sign of water baptism, as He will save those who are His elect still?" 

If God is the God of the children of the saved parents, which you seem to grant, in any manner peculiar to them relative to the heathen masses, that demands a setting apart of them as his covenant people since the covenantal relationship, fundamentally, is for God to be their God and they to be His people. To signify and seal this relationship God has given us the sacrament of baptism.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 11, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> God would be the God of the children of the saved parents, regardless if they take the sign of water baptism, as He will save those who are His elect still?



Yes and no...

In Gen 17 we see the result of rebellion:

11 And ye shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a token of the covenant betwixt me and you. 12 And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which _is_ not of thy seed. 13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. 14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

_The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ge 17:10–14.

So, in the compound sense, yes, God would still be a God to the parent and child, but in the divided sense, they are cut off.

Consider the response of Zipporah to Moses:


Exodus 4:25
25 Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast _it_ at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband _art_ thou to me.

Poole writes:
"Perceiving the danger of her husband, and the cause of it, and her husband being disenabled from performing that work, whether by some stroke or sickness, or by the terror of so dismal and unexpected an apparition to him, and delays being highly dangerous, she thought it better to do it herself as well as she could, rather than put it off a moment longer; whether because the administration of that sacrament was not confined to any kind or order of persons, or because, if it was so, she did not apprehend it to be so, or because she thought this was the least of two evils, and that it was safer to commit a circumstantial error, than to continue in a substantial fault.

Matthew Poole, _Annotations upon the Holy Bible_, vol. 1 (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1853), 124–125.

"And because she durst not accuse God, the author of this work, she falls foul upon her husband as the occasion of it, and as a costly and bloody husband to her, whose endangered life she was forced to redeem with blood, even the blood of her little child, by which as he received a new life after a sort, so she did anew, and the second time, espouse him."

Matthew Poole, _Annotations upon the Holy Bible_, vol. 1 (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1853), 125.


----------



## TylerRay (Jul 11, 2018)

I don't think I've ever seen a thread change topics so radically or so quickly. From JE and pantheism to infant baptism. Go figure.

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 11, 2018)

Poole goes on to say that in Exodus 4:24 that God was looking to kill Moses for the sin of neglect:


14 And the uncircumcised man child whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people; he hath broken my covenant.

_And the uncircumcised man-child;_ or rather, _and as for the uncircumcised man-child_. So the nominative is put absolutely, as is frequent in the Hebrew tongue. _Whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised_, or, _who shall not circumcise the flesh of his foreskin;_ for the Hebrew verb may be rendered actively, which seems best here; because the punishment seems more justly to belong to the parent, who was guilty of this neglect; than to the child, who was not capable of this precept, and therefore not guilty of the violation of it. And this may further appear from Exod 4:24, 25, where God seeks to kill, not the child, but the father, Moses, for this sin. And _the flesh of_ the child’s _foreskin_ is rightly called _the flesh of his_, i.e. the parent’s, _foreskin_, because the child is a part and the possession of his parent. So that this threatening concerns only grown persons, and of them only such as shall wilfully and unnecessarily neglect this duty; for otherwise it was neglected by the Israelites for forty years together in the wilderness, Josh. 5:7, without any token of God’s displeasure for it. _That soul shall be cut off from his people_. This phrase denotes either, 1. An exclusion from fellowship with God’s people, and from all the promises, privileges, and blessings belonging to them, either in this life or that to come. Or rather, 2. An untimely and violent death, as may be gathered from Exod. 31:14, to be inflicted by the magistrate, to whom God committed the execution of this as well as other laws; and in case of his neglect and default, or the secrecy of the fact, by the extraordinary hand of God, who sometimes ascribes this act to himself, as Lev. 17:10; 20:6. _He hath broken my covenant_, that sacred bond which tied him and me together; and by his neglect and contempt of the condition required on his part, he hath forfeited the blessing promised on my part.



Matthew Poole, _Annotations upon the Holy Bible_, vol. 1 (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1853), 40.

Poole also shares a difference in God's response to the neglect by comparing the 40 years in the wilderness and Moses' neglect. One may wonder in this age, if the credo baptist is seen as the former. in my opinion, neither scenario is approved of God, but that God may be long suffering to ignorance.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 11, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> I don't think I've ever seen a thread change topics so radically or so quickly. From JE and pantheism to infant baptism. Go figure.


I am trying to keep from being into another water baptism Presbyterian Vrs reformed baptist discussion.

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## TylerRay (Jul 11, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I am trying to keep from being into another water baptism Presbyterian Vrs reformed baptist discussion.


I think that threshold has been crossed already. Nearly half of the thread has nothing whatsoever to do with Edwards or pantheism.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Gforce9 (Jul 11, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> I think that threshold has been crossed already. Nearly half of the thread has nothing whatsoever to do with Edwards or pantheism.



Additionally, Mr. Edwards, posthumously, of course, wishes not to be embroiled in such matters as pantheism, wig powder content, or any water debates, including polo, fresh spring-vs-tap, or waterboarding for truth.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 12, 2018)

Gforce9 said:


> Additionally, Mr. Edwards, posthumously, of course, wishes not to be embroiled in such matters as pantheism, wig powder content, or any water debates, including polo, fresh spring-vs-tap, or waterboarding for truth.


He would probably find it amusing just how we are defining his theological views on this area.


----------

