Jonathan Edwards and the OPC?

[py3ak]

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

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

 

[lynnie]

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

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

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

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

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

Phillip- very helpful clarification, thank you!!

 

[Willem van Oranje]

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

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

Finney on Election

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

Finney on "How to Preach the Gospel":

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

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

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

 

[py3ak]

From the first sermon you linkted, I am not sure how I am to conclude that Finney believed in unconditional election. Notice this inference:

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

(Emphasis added)

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

IX. Election opposes no obstacle to the salvation of the non-elect.

X. This is the best that could upon the whole be done for the inhabitants of this world.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

From the first sermon you linkted, I am not sure how I am to conclude that Finney believed in unconditional election. Notice this inference:

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

(Emphasis added)

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

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

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

 

[py3ak]

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

 

[Willem van Oranje]

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

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

 

[py3ak]

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

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

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

 

[Willem van Oranje]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[SolaScriptura]

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

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

Edwards Collection

 

[Philip]

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

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

 

[Willem van Oranje]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edwards Collection

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

 

[Philip]

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

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

 

[Willem van Oranje]

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

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

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

 

[Philip]

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

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

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

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

 

[Willem van Oranje]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[py3ak]

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

OK.

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

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

And previously he had stated:

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

 

[Philip]

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

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

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

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

 

[jwright82]

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

 

[Willem van Oranje]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[lynnie]

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

 

[Paul Trask]

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