I got Edwards' 2 vol. works from BoT -- where should I be cautious?

[clawrence9008]

I am getting the 2 vol. works of Jonathan Edwards (Banner of Truth edition) as an early Christmas present, and I wanted some counsel on where I should be cautious when going through his works. I intend on first reading the sermons in vol. 2, as well as "A History of the Work of Redemption" and "Dissertation on the End for Which God Created the World" in vol. 1 and "Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God" in vol. 2, as I feel confident that these are going to be works that will be the most immediately beneficial for me. I have heard that his treatises on original sin and the freedom of the will have some suspect/potentially heterodox things in them (I have also heard R. Scott Clark and others strongly criticize his Religious Affections). My question therefore is, what works of his am I "safe" reading (there's generally nothing in them that strays from standard Reformed theology) and what works do I need to proceed with caution with?

 

[Pomopu]

I have no idea. But congrats and enjoy. Every time I read Edwards, I come a way an inch more in love with God than I was before.

"East of Eden," the podcast by the Reformed Forum, is superb. Enjoy that podcast, and enjoy the volumes!

 

[Ed Walsh]

(I have also heard R. Scott Clark and others strongly criticize his Religious Affections).

R.A. was perhaps the scariest book I ever read.

 

[Deleted member 12431]

Not all of his works or conclusions are suspect- thankfully, a significant amount of them can be embraced by confessionally Reformed believers. What is suspect, in my estimation, is his theological method in general. It is overly indebted to the philosophy of his time and is far too speculative in certain places. For instance, his notion of "conditions" in his treatise on Justification by Faith Alone, his understanding of creation as articulated in his work on Original Sin, and his theological determinism in Freedom of the Will which creates an issue of God's potentially being the author of sin when it comes to the fall. I love Edwards and his rigor- I wish there were more minds like his in the Reformed world. But his brilliance and idiosyncrasy often led him into areas of departure from the Reformed Standards, whether or not he was conscious of it.

I particularly enjoy Edwards's ethical writings- The End for Which God Created the World, The Nature of True Virtue, and Charity and Its Fruits (the latter is not in the 2 vol. BOT set).

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

He's perfectly sound. His critics greatly exaggerate.

 

[No Other Name]

R.A. was perhaps the scariest book I ever read.

I love Edwards. I have only read his Resolutions, several sermons, and I have struggled (productively) with Freedom of the Will.

As an ex-charismatic, I have hesitated approaching Religious Affections.

Can you please elaborate on what you mean, Ed? I value your thoughts on this.

Thank you, brother.

(Anyone can reply as well).

 

[Ed Walsh]

As an ex-charismatic, I have hesitated approaching Religious Affections.

This note is not an attempt at a proper book review, as I only want to mention one aspect of the book that was helpful to me in retrospect.

The book could almost be summed up as an experiment in Christian psychology. You'll see nothing like a Systematic Theology in this work. If I recall, not too many thus sayeth the Lords either.

I still think the work can be beneficial in certain carefully picked situations. Even though it was hard, I am glad I read it and may reread it someday.

 

[RamistThomist]

I've come around to be a grudging admirer of some of Edwards; I'm a sympathetic critic. I'll grant that he didn't introduce a deviation on free choice that Muller said he did (if only because for all practical purposes it doesn't matter in day to day choices). I'll even grant that more earlier concerns about "continuous creation" can be traced simply to sloppy language by Edwards.

RA is great. I think it marked an advance in epistemology. To be sure, if one is prone to doubt and introspection, it might be wise to avoid reading it for a while.

 

[jwithnell]

If nothing else, RA is helpful as an historical reference to the first great awakening, especially when compared to an earlier work, something like "The Surprising Events" which was his first reflection as the event was unfolding. Frankly, I wish all reformed folks studied the era from the awakening through about 1860.

 

[No Other Name]

I'll even grant that more earlier concerns about "continuous creation" can be traced simply to sloppy language by Edwards.

Random tangent incoming, but there is a secular version of "continuous creation" that asserts that at the edges of the expanding universe, potential energy fields "outside" are converted to kinetic energy "creating" a new area added to the universe where none existed before and is a fringe (partial) explanation for "dark energy" and the continual acceleration of the universe's expansion.

To be sure, if one is prone to doubt and introspection, it might be wise to avoid reading it for a while.

I am only speaking for myself but I am not prone to doubt in the faith or the evidence of God's work in my daily spiritual walk. But wouldn't everyone be prone to introspection by necessity? Even commanded to do so?

Unless there is a difference between examining oneself and introspection that you have in mind?

 

[RamistThomist]

I am only speaking for myself but I am not prone to doubt in the faith or the evidence of God's work in my daily spiritual walk. But wouldn't everyone be prone to introspection by necessity? Even commanded to do so?

Depends on what we mean. I have in mind those who always ask, "Yeah, but how can I know I'm saved?" There was a phenomenon among Dutch Americans who, although baptized and lived godly lives, never could believe God would really save them. They never took the Supper and died in terror. David Engelsma mentions that account.

 

[No Other Name]

Depends on what we mean. I have in mind those who always ask, "Yeah, but how can I know I'm saved?" There was a phenomenon among Dutch Americans who, although baptized and lived godly lives, never could believe God would really save them. They never took the Supper and died in terror. David Engelsma mentions that account.

Thank you, brother.

 

[Logan]

He's perfectly sound. His critics greatly exaggerate.

This. Edwards shouldn't be swallowed without thought and some of his metaphysical discussions are "interesting", but he's sound and he's been loved by Reformed Christians for centuries. I wouldn't "avoid" him any more or less than I'd avoid Owen or Flavel. He's not in the same realm of needing cautious reading as someone like Baxter.

 

[paranymph]

The Banner edition was "revised and edited" by Edward Hickman. Does this significantly change anything from the original?

The Works of Jonathan Edwards

<p><em>The Works of Jonathan Edwards</em> exemplifies his plain, expository style, intense spirituality and impresses the reality of God upon his readers. Clothbound, two volumes.</p>

banneroftruth.org

 

[retroGRAD3]

Depends on what we mean. I have in mind those who always ask, "Yeah, but how can I know I'm saved?" There was a phenomenon among Dutch Americans who, although baptized and lived godly lives, never could believe God would really save them. They never took the Supper and died in terror. David Engelsma mentions that account.

This still happens in some dutch denominations, sadly.

 

[moral necessity]

Depends on what we mean. I have in mind those who always ask, "Yeah, but how can I know I'm saved?" There was a phenomenon among Dutch Americans who, although baptized and lived godly lives, never could believe God would really save them. They never took the Supper and died in terror. David Engelsma mentions that account.

If you have a reference to David Engelsma account, I'd be interested in that too!

Thanks and blessings!

 

[RamistThomist]

If you have a reference to David Engelsma account, I'd be interested in that too!

Thanks and blessings!

Sure thing.

 

[RamistThomist]

If you have a reference to David Engelsma account, I'd be interested in that too!

Thanks and blessings!

The Current Crisis in Assurance: An Interview with David J. Engelsma - Grace Evangelical Society

faithalone.org

 

[Pomopu]

Where can I find R. Scott Clark's criticism of Religious Affections?

 

[moral necessity]

The Current Crisis in Assurance: An Interview with David J. Engelsma - Grace Evangelical Society

faithalone.org

Thank you for that!

Blessings!

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

Where can I find R. Scott Clark's criticism of Religious Affections?

Clark attacks Edwards routinely on his blog.

Clark is fairly dogmatic in his belief that self-examination and looking at one's fruits should have no part in one's assurance, whereas Edwards routinely calls to self-examination and calls out hypocrisy and presumption, so they don't make great bedfellows.

 

[No Other Name]

Where can I find R. Scott Clark's criticism of Religious Affections?

He has several posts on Edwards, but this seems to be the primary one in mind here:

Why Caution About Jonathan Edwards Is In Order - The Heidelblog

Jonathan Edwards (1703–58) is America’s most famous theologian and perhaps its most famous philosopher too. He is an important and influential figure and worth seeking to understand for those reasons alone. We should think about Edwards for other reasons, however, He is the theologian par...

heidelblog.net

 

[Pomopu]

He has several posts on Edwards, but this seems to be the primary one in mind here:

Why Caution About Jonathan Edwards Is In Order - The Heidelblog

Jonathan Edwards (1703–58) is America’s most famous theologian and perhaps its most famous philosopher too. He is an important and influential figure and worth seeking to understand for those reasons alone. We should think about Edwards for other reasons, however, He is the theologian par...

heidelblog.net

I'm casually reading until: "His account of his wife’s religious experience, including levitation. . ." Uhhhh, I'm so confused! Crazy.

 

[RamistThomist]

I'm casually reading until: "His account of his wife’s religious experience, including levitation. . ." Uhhhh, I'm so confused! Crazy.

Unless she was spiritually levitated, feeling her body move up while actually remaining in place. Not an uncommon experience among the enthusiastically inclined. In any case, it's an obscure passage.

 

[No Other Name]

I'm casually reading until: "His account of his wife’s religious experience, including levitation. . ." Uhhhh, I'm so confused! Crazy.

You and me both, brother.

Clark is fairly dogmatic in his belief that self-examination and looking at one's fruits should have no part in one's assurance, whereas Edwards routinely calls to self-examination and calls out hypocrisy and presumption, so they don't make great bedfellows.

It seems like Clark has a lot more against Edwards than simply a difference in the role of self-examination here.

 

[No Other Name]

I say it seems like because there is little in the way of evidence for his claims in here that I can see:

Claims like:

Edwards was "fiddling with the doctrine of justification"

"It is not that Edwards never said orthodox and orthodox sounding things on justification. He did. The problem is that he said other things that are not easily squared with what the Reformed churches confess. Further, because of his pantheism [sic] there is an underlying problem in his doctrine of justification, a doctrine of theosis (divinization). Michael McClymond described this problem in a 2003 essay. I catalogued most of the literature on this question in RRC up to about 2007: ..."

"Pantheism (or, if Crisp is correct, panentheism) is no mere 'blemish' on Edwards theology. No, Calvin was not a Pantheist, nor was Luther, nor was Bunyan, nor was Owen. Pantheism is a fundamental error not a blemish. It changes everything, as indeed a number of Edwards scholars have recognized.

The ambiguities in his doctrine of justification are not mere 'blemishes.' Were it just a blemish, I wouldn’t have drawn attention to it in Recovering the Reformed Confession nor again here. All the confessional Protestants agree that justification is the article of the standing or falling of the church. How can corrupting a foundational truth be a mere blemish?

His view of religious affections could possibly be a blemish. I have talked to many, however, who have labored under Edwards view of affections, who have struggled and doubted and lived with guilt and failure. On that level, it seems to me to be more than a blemish but a symptom of a deeper problem, his debt to Platonism, which vitiated his theology."

 

[CasualWestminsterEnjoyer]

It seems like Clark has a lot more against Edwards than simply a difference in the role of self-examination here.

Clark has attacked a wide range of figures who teach that works are important for assurance, that there will be a judgment according to works, and similar things. He has attacked Mark Jones, John Piper, and others over the years. Sometimes, like in the case of FV writers, his concerns seem more justified, while in other cases he appears to be grasping for straws.

In the case of Edwards he levels other accusations, but given his tendencies it's reasonable to suspect that differences in the role of good works and self-examination in assurance is at the root of it.

Anyone who's read Edwards knows how silly it is to call him a "pantheist." Do we really think Jonathan Edwards is on the same level as Hindus and Hegel?

But Edwards gets attacked constantly with all manner of accusations because of his preaching. Some folks simply do not like "fire and brimstone" gospel preaching, and so much so that they'll find other accusations to level.

 

[No Other Name]

Clark cites sources:

"In the creature’s knowing, esteeming, loving, rejoicing in, and praising God, the glory of God is both exhibited and acknowledged; his fullness is received and returned. Here is both an emanation and remanation. The refulgence shines upon and into the creature, and is reflected back to the luminary. The beams of glory come from God, and are something of God, and are refunded back again to their original. So that the whole is of God, and in God, and to God; and God is the beginning, middle and end in this affair. [Edwards]

This Neoplatonism (for that is what it amounts to) is something Edwards picked up from his voracious reading, particularly in the writings of Cambridge Platonists like Henry More, an early influence on Edwards.20 But like Plotinus, Edwards is a kind of idealist, and his Neoplatonism, baptised into the Reformed faith, implies the doctrine that the world exists ‘in’ God and that it is ‘emanated’ by God. The precise shape of Edwards’ panentheism need not detain us here.21 The fact that he is a panentheist should be evident, however.

Oliver Crisp, “On the orthodoxy of Jonathan Edwards,” Scottish Journal of Theology 67.3 (2014), 307, 313–14."

and

" John Cooper says, ‘All things considered, his affirmation that “the whole is of God, and in God, and to God” [in YE8, p. 531] is best construed philosophically as panentheism which borders on Spinozan pantheism.’ Panentheism, p. 77. Similar sentiments are expressed by Douglas Elwood in The Philosophical Theology of Jonathan Edwards, and, more recently, Bombaro, Jonathan Edwards’ Vision of Reality, especially appendix A, and Crisp, Jonathan Edwards on God and Creation, ch. 7. But this line of interpretation is resisted by, among others, Sang Lee in The Philosophical Theology of Jonathan Edwards, expanded edn (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000 [1988]), ch. 7, and, more recently, Steven Studebaker and Robert Caldwell III, The Trinitarian Theology of Jonathan Edwards: Text, Context, and Application (Farnham: Ashgate, 2012), ch. 9."

Now, when I was getting my astrophysics degree, I wandered into an Episcopalean church and read a couple of books by Paul Tillich. That was a panentheistic experience.

So far, there seems very little to no evidence to suggest Edwards is within a light year of Tillich.

 

[MyCrows]

Do the accusations of pantheism come out of his understanding of creation/providence? I have heard this before but have not seen someone show how it leads to pantheism.

 

[jduguid]

I'm casually reading until: "His account of his wife’s religious experience, including levitation. . ." Uhhhh, I'm so confused! Crazy.

I read this and thought, "Isn't this a myth?" And then remembered the best thing I had read about this was another Puritanboard thread:

Concerning Sarah Edwards' mystical experience?

I know it is documented that Sarah Edwards, during the Greater Awakening, lay prostrate for 19 days unable to speak. I was listening to a lecture on this and the speaker claimed that Martyn Lloyd-Jones, in The Puritans (Banner of Truth), asserts that Sarah Edwards was transported across the...

www.puritanboard.com