# Jonathan Edwards and Justification



## Taylor (Sep 4, 2016)

Hello, brothers and sisters.

Recently I listened to this podcast in which Dr. R. Scott Clark talked about Jonathan Edwards' deficient view of justification (specifically see 39:09-46:45 in the link above). In short, his accusation is that Edwards simply is "ambiguous" regarding justification by faith alone. According to Dr. Clark, Hodge considered Edwards a pantheist, as well, but according to this site this is only characteristic of early Edwards. As far as I am aware, Edwards held to the Westminster Standards.

Now, I realize that in the context of the video topic (the so-called "QIRC" and "QIRE") Edwards, with his interest in religious phenomena, is somewhat of an opponent, so that might have fueled the attack, but does anyone know what Dr. Clark is talking about regarding Edwards theology of justification? In the podcast, he seemed like his opinion of him is not that broadly accepted.

Thank you all.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Sep 4, 2016)

At his blog, in response to a citation from Edwards by an unnamed author related to the Shepherd controversy, Clark states:

"The citation of Edwards is fascinating. As anyone who has studied Edwards’ doctrine of justification it is fraught with difficulties to say the least. A recent volume sought to exonerate his doctrine of justification but, so far as I was able to tell, it never made reference to the article that highlighted the great difficulty in the first place: Thomas A. Schafer, “Jonathan Edwards and Justification By Faith,” _Church History_ 20 (1951): 55–67. *It may not be possible to say exactly what Edwards’ doctrine of justification was or that he had a single, coherent doctrine of justification. For more on this see the relevant section in* _Recovering the Reformed Confession_."

I do not have access to the original item from Thomas A. Schafer, “_Jonathan Edwards and Justification by Faith_,” Church History 20 (1951), but it seems to be one item to which RS Clark implies in his _RtRC_ book (which I do have and have read) that important questions raised by Schafer have failed to be answered.

You might try the following which do provide piecemeal comments and analysis of the above:

http://morningview.org/wp-content/u...ss-Doctrine-of-Justification-by-Tom-Hicks.pdf

https://www.rts.edu/sharedresources/documents/global/Edwards on Just.pdf

http://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ref-rev/14-1/14-1_mcdermott.pdf (was a very slow link in my case)

Clark is a PB member and may weigh in to more properly answer your question.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 4, 2016)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> At his blog, in response to a citation from Edwards by an unnamed author related to the Shepherd controversy, Clark states:
> 
> "The citation of Edwards is fascinating. As anyone who has studied Edwards’ doctrine of justification it is fraught with difficulties to say the least. A recent volume sought to exonerate his doctrine of justification but, so far as I was able to tell, it never made reference to the article that highlighted the great difficulty in the first place: Thomas A. Schafer, “Jonathan Edwards and Justification By Faith,” _Church History_ 20 (1951): 55–67. *It may not be possible to say exactly what Edwards’ doctrine of justification was or that he had a single, coherent doctrine of justification. For more on this see the relevant section in* _Recovering the Reformed Confession_."
> 
> ...



That is helpful. I will look into it. Thanks!

I guess it was just shocking for me to hear that because I have the Banner of Truth Edwards collection, and at the end of Vol. I there is a 32-page discourse entitled "Justification by Faith Alone." Of course, the 32 pages are somewhere around 5-point, single spaced type on 8.5 x 11 in. paper, so it is a fairly hefty treatise. I simply could not imagine that in all those words, Edwards' doctrine of justification could be anything like "ambiguous." Perhaps I should sit my rear end down and read it.


----------



## MW (Sep 4, 2016)

Religious Affections is a spiritual classic. Edwards systematised the subject. There may be some differences of opinion on the "system," but the strands of thought are present in the earlier reformed tradition. They were not invented in the 18th century. Calvin, Owen, et al., certainly spoke of the affections as an integral part of Christian experience.

Charles Hodge, in his Systematic Theology, regularly sought to vindicate Edwards, notwithstanding the peculiarities of some of Edwards' explanations.

The issue of pantheism emerges with regard to a specific explanation of original sin. Edwards wrote within the context of new philosophical ideas, and an understanding of these ideas may account for a number of his peculiar explanations, without consigning him to a place outside of confessional orthodoxy. Hodge himself wrote within the milieu of new philosophical ideas, and stated things in relation to inductivism which earlier reformed theologians would have rejected; but we do not consign him a place with the unorthodox because of it.

On justification by faith, I would recommend reading Edwards' sermon on Justification by Faith Alone on Romans 4:5.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 4, 2016)

MW said:


> Religious Affections is a spiritual classic. Edwards systematised the subject. There may be some differences of opinion on the "system," but the strands of thought are present in the earlier reformed tradition. They were not invented in the 18th century. Calvin, Owen, et al., certainly spoke of the affections as an integral part of Christian experience.
> 
> Charles Hodge, in his Systematic Theology, regularly sought to vindicate Edwards, notwithstanding the peculiarities of some of Edwards' explanations.
> 
> ...



Very helpful, as usual. Thank you!


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Sep 5, 2016)

One of the "categories" I like to publish solid, biblical, reformed works in is justification. One of the works we did was Edwards' Justification By Faith Alone. Why? He is a clear.

"We assert therefore that a sinner is justified in the sight of God neither totally nor in part because of the goodness of such obedience, or of any works at all, but only on account of what Christ did and suffered, received by faith." This is quoted by a _young_ Edwards in his graduation sermon at Yale, entitled, “A sinner is not justified in the sight of God except through the righteousness of Christ obtained by faith.” (Volume 14, Yale Edition of Edwards’ _Works_). See also his sermon, “None are saved by their own righteousness,” (Yale, _Works_, Volume 19). YOu may also see his _Miscellanies_ #315, #488 and #855.

In our published work he says:

"And by that righteousness being imputed to us, is meant no other than this, that the righteousness of Christ is accepted for us, and admitted instead of that perfect inherent righteousness which ought to be in ourselves." (88).

"To prove that the righteousness of Christ is in this way imputed. There is the very same need of Christ’s obeying the law in our stead, in order to the reward, as of his suffering the penalty of the law in our stead, in order to our escaping the penalty, and the same reason why one should be accepted on our account, as the other." (90).

"The words show that we are justified by that righteousness of Christ which consists in his obedience, and that we are made righteous or justified by that obedience of his, that is, his righteousness, or moral goodness before God." (102)

"So, I hope, I have made it evident, that the righteousness of Christ is indeed imputed to us." (112)

"So that though the saints’ inherent holiness is rewarded, yet this very reward is indeed not the less founded on the worthiness and righteousness of Christ." (143)

_Thank you Mr. Edwards for being precise, and clear._

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Sep 5, 2016)

Hi All,
{edited}
Among professional scholars of Edwards there have been serious questions about his' doctrine of justification at least since the publication of Thomas A. Schafer's 1951 essay. There's a chapter on Edwards in _RRC_, where the literature is documented in the footnotes. By definition "ambiguous" does not preclude any place where Edwards was clear but it does mean that there are _other _places where he was not. Hence the _ambiguity_.4. As to Edwards on _Religious Affections_, I argue that it marks a shift away from the earlier Reformed piety. This is a minority view but I am not alone. Richard Muller, who has read a little Reformed theology and Paul Helm have both raised similar questions.


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Sep 5, 2016)

Thread is back open. Several posts have been removed or edited to get back to the topic.


----------



## MW (Sep 5, 2016)

A glaring problem in Schafer's article is the Calvin v. Calvinist school of thought on assurance. It is also worth noting that he acknowledged Edwards' orthodoxy on all the key issues pertaining to the doctrine itself. The issue for him appeared to be a lack of emphasis on the doctrine in Edwards' works, especially in the last twenty years.

It is certainly the case that Edwards did not rest in formulaic expressions, and was concerned to give a well-rounded explanation of the teaching. He carefully noted the difference and connection between faith as it justifies and faith as accompanied with other graces in the Christian life. Anyone who rejects the orthodox teaching that faith is not alone in the person justified will likely find difficulties in Edwards' doctrine; but there is overt clarification in Edwards which demonstrates that he maintained the orthodox doctrine of justification by faith alone.


----------



## MW (Sep 6, 2016)

On religious affections, here is John Owen, predating Jonathan Edwards, and standing squarely in the reformed tradition:



> That view of the glory of Christ whereof we treat consists in two things, — namely, its especial nature, and its necessary adjunct or effect. The first is, a spiritual perception or understanding of it as revealed in the Scriptures. For the revelation of the glory of his person, office, and grace, is the principal subject of them, and the principal object of our faith. And the other consists in multiplied thoughts about him, with actings of faith, in love, trust, delight, and longing after the full enjoyment of him, 1 Peter 1:8. If we satisfy ourselves in mere notions and speculations about the glory of Christ as doctrinally revealed unto us, we shall find no transforming power or efficacy communicated unto us thereby. *But when*, *under the conduct of that spiritual light*, *our affections do cleave unto him with full purpose of heart*, *our minds are filled with the thoughts of him and delight in him*, *and faith is kept up unto its constant exercise in trust and affiance on him*, — *virtue will proceed from him to purify our hearts*, *increase our holiness*, *strengthen our graces*, *and to fill us sometimes* “*with joy unspeakable and full of glory*.” This is the just temperature of a state of spiritual health, — namely, when our light of the knowledge of the glory of God in Christ does answer the means of it which we enjoy, and *when our affections unto Christ do hold proportion unto that light*; and this according unto the various degrees of it, — for some have more, and some have less. Where light leaves the affections behind, it ends in formality or atheism; and where affections outrun light, they sink in the bog of superstition, doting on images and pictures, or the like.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Sep 6, 2016)

I wrote that questions have been raised about Edwards' doctrine of justification _since_ Schaefer's essay. A number of scholars both orthodox (e.g., W. Robert Godfrey) and neo-orthodox () have raised legitimate questions. Were there no ambiguity, there would be no question. Here is the footnote from _Recovering the Reformed Confession_:



> Thomas A. Schafer, “Jonathan Edwards and Justification By Faith,” _Church History_ 20 (1951): 55–67. More recently, George Hunsinger, W. Robert Godfrey, and others have also raised questions about Edwards’ doctrine of justification. See, George Hunsinger, “Dispositional Soteriology: Jonathan Edwards on Justification by Faith Alone.” _Westminster Theological Journal_ 66 (2004): 107–20; W. Robert Godfrey, “Jonathan Edwards and Authentic Spiritual Experience” (Paper presented at the Knowing the Mind of God: Papers Read at the 2003 Westminster Conference, London, 2004); Gary Steward, “Faith and Obedience in Jonathan Edwards’ Understanding of Justification By Faith Alone” (Unpublished paper, 2006). John Gerstner and Jonathan Neil Gerstner, Samuel Logan, Jeffrey Waddington, and Brooks Holifield have defended Edwards’ orthodoxy on justification. See John H. Gerstner and Jonathan Neil Gerstner, “Edwardsean Preparation for Salvation,” WTJ 42 (1979): 5–71; Samuel T. Logan, Jr., “The Doctrine of Justification in the Theology of Jonathan Edwards,” WTJ 46 (1984): 26–52; Jeffrey C. Waddington, “Jonathan Edwards’s ‘Ambiguous and Somewhat Precarious Doctrine of Justification,” WTJ 66 (2004): 357–72; Holifield, Theology in America, 119–120.



One thing that interests me is the lengths to which his defenders must go to defend his orthodoxy. The same is not true of, e.g., Thomas Boston or R. C. Sproul. Who doubts Boston or Sproul on justification? No one. Thus, there is no literature on one side or the other.

As to Edwards on religious affections, there is no doubt, as anyone who has read _RRC_ can see, that Owen and the mainstream of Reformed orthodoxy (one thinks immediately of Perkins) were interested in religious affections. There is no doubt that one can, as has been shown here, quote them in favor of religious affections. What I doubt is that religious affections played the same role in Owen or Perkins as in Edwards.

The structure of Edwards' theology was considerably different than that of Perkins. 

I am hardly the first one to note that there were significant deviations in Edwards' theology from Reformed orthodoxy. Again, I quote from _RRC_:



> Of course, modern scholarship is not the first to suggest that there might be reasons to be cautious about Edwards’ theology. Charles Hodge (1797–1878) offered strong criticism of Edwards’ doctrine of original sin and “continued creation.” Hodge said, “according to the theory of continued creation there is and can be no created substance in the universe. God is the only substance in the universe.” He concluded, this “doctrine, therefore, in its consequences, is essentially pantheistic.”



See Charles Hodge, _Systematic Theology_, 3 vols. (New York: Scribner, Armstrong and Co, 1873), 2.219.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Sep 6, 2016)

Taylor Sexton said:


> According to Dr. Clark, Hodge considered Edwards a pantheist



As you will see from the quotation supplied by Dr Clark, Charles Hodge did not consider Jonathan Edwards to be a pantheist. Instead, he believed that pantheism was the logical outcome of his theory of continued creation. That distinction is a significant one.


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Sep 6, 2016)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Taylor Sexton said:
> 
> 
> > According to Dr. Clark, Hodge considered Edwards a pantheist
> ...



Indeed. The very point of asserting the logical conclusion of someone's doctrine or belief is precisely because the person in question does not hold to that conclusion. The discontinuity between their stated belief and the logical conclusion thereof demonstrates that perhaps they may be mistaken.


----------



## MW (Sep 6, 2016)

I don't think Edwards' defenders need to go to any great length. His orthodoxy on the doctrine of justification is plainly stated. One must ignore his plain statements in order to cast aspersions on him. And I suppose that one would only want to cast aspersions on him because of some doctrinal disagreement to start with. Those who dislike the orthodox doctrine that faith is not alone in those who are justified will probably find fault with Edwards on his insistence that non-justifying graces are present with justifying faith; that faith receives the truth in the love of it and obeys the truth from the heart, though one is not justified on account of these other graces.

There is nothing different in Thomas Boston. If one accepts Boston's doctrine one should accept Edwards' doctrine.

Moreover, Thomas Boston maintained continued creation in opposition to the Deists; so the doctrine of continued creation is no prejudice to accepting Edwards' orthodoxy.

As noted, Hodge undertook to vindicate Edwards at various points in his Systematic Theology. In the very discussion on original sin he distinguished Edwards' view from the realists.

There are certainly pantheistic strands in Edwards' teaching. But a judgment of charity would take into consideration that he was opposing a worldview which was increasingly Deistic; and his commitment to orthodoxy is self-corrective.

On religious affections, I would observe again that the strands are all present in the earlier reformed tradition. There is nothing novel in Edwards. He should be appreciated for bringing these strands together, even when one finds faults with the system.

If anything his views on the will and on virtue should be targets of criticism as these are genuine departures from the earlier tradition in a Lockean direction. If I remember correctly, it was Edwards on the will that Prof. Muller specifically highlighted for criticism; and 19th cent. theologians regularly dissented from his views on virtue.


----------



## MW (Sep 6, 2016)

Readers who have been introduced to the book, Recovering the Reformed Confession, might find the following review to be of some assistance:

http://opc.org/os.html?article_id=157


----------



## MW (Sep 6, 2016)

It has already been shown that John Owen had earlier given the same place to the affections as would be taught by Jonathan Edwards. The following demonstrates that William Perkins had earlier laid the same stress on the affections.

William Perkins, A Declaration of the true manner of knowing Christ crucified (Cambridge: Printed by John Legate, 1596), 4-5:



> The third point in lively knowledge is, that by all the affections of our hearts we must be carried to Christ, and as it were transformed into him. Whereas he gave himself wholly for us, we can do no less than bestow our hearts upon him. We must therefore love him above all, following the martyr Ignatius, who said that Christ his love was crucified. We must value him at so high a price, that he must be unto us better than ten thousand worlds: yea all things which we enjoy must be but as dross and dung unto us in respect of him. Lastly, all our joy, rejoicing, comfort, and confidence, must be placed in him. And that thus much is required in knowledge, it appears by the common rule of expounding Scripture, that words of knowledge imply affection. And indeed it is but a knowledge swimming in the brain, which doth not alter and dispose the affection and the whole man.



The same was taught by Richard Sibbes, Works, 1:159:



> God hath made the soul for a communion with himself, which communion is especially placed in the affections, which are the springs of all spiritual worship. Then the affections are well ordered, when we are fit to have communion with God, to love, joy, trust, to delight in him above all things. The affections are the inward movings of the soul, which then move best when they move us to God, not from him. They are the feet of the soul, whereby we walk with, and before God. When we have our affections at such command, that we can take them off from any thing in the world, at such times as we are to have more near communion with God in hearing or prayer, etc., as Abraham when he was to sacrifice left whatsoever might hinder him at the 'bottom of the mount,' Gen. 22:5.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 6, 2016)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> As you will see from the quotation supplied by Dr Clark, Charles Hodge did not consider Jonathan Edwards to be a pantheist. Instead, he believed that pantheism was the logical outcome of his theory of continued creation. That distinction is a significant one.





Bill The Baptist said:


> Indeed. The very point of asserting the logical conclusion of someone's doctrine or belief is precisely because the person in question does not hold to that conclusion. The discontinuity between their stated belief and the logical conclusion thereof demonstrates that perhaps they may be mistaken.



In my defense, I was simply repeating exactly what I heard Dr. Clark assert regarding Hodge's beliefs on the podcast linked in the OP. At 42:12 of the podcast, Dr. Clark says the following:



> Charles Hodge, who is not known for hyperbole, *called him [Edwards] a pantheist*.



Whether or not he actually did, I don't know—hence the reason for my posting here. Again, I am just repeating what I heard, not making my own deductions.


----------



## KGP (Sep 7, 2016)

MW said:


> > God hath made the soul for a communion with himself, which communion is especially placed in the affections, which are the springs of all spiritual worship. Then the affections are well ordered, when we are fit to have communion with God, to love, joy, trust, to delight in him above all things. The affections are the inward movings of the soul, which then move best when they move us to God, not from him. They are the feet of the soul, whereby we walk with, and before God. When we have our affections at such command, that we can take them off from any thing in the world, at such times as we are to have more near communion with God in hearing or prayer, etc., as Abraham when he was to sacrifice left whatsoever might hinder him at the 'bottom of the mount,' Gen. 22:5.



This is an excellent excerpt, thanks for posting it. I have recently been stung by the realization that Abraham was more willing to put the knife to his very own son than I am willing to put the knife to my affection for trivial and even sinful affections on my own heart. So I especially appreciate the mention of Abraham here.


----------

