Jonathan Edwards and the OPC?

Status
Not open for further replies.

jwright82

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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.
 
:scratch: 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.
 
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 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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.

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

I have a couple sermons of his about justification I will read and see.
 
:scratch: 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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.


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.
 
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!
 
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."
 
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."

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Riley, I am a sister :D

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?
 
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.
 
Riley, I am a sister :D

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?

Oops! Sorry. :oops: 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 ----------

Riley, I am a sister :D

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?

Notice that I said Calvinistic and not that he was a Calvinist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top