Jonathan Edwards on Turretin and van Mastricht

Status
Not open for further replies.

Stephen L Smith

Administrator
Staff member
In both Iain Murray's and George Marsden's biography's, it is stated that Jonathan Edwards regarded van Mastricht's work as superior to that of Turretin. Does any one know why?
 

py3ak

Unshaven and anonymous
Staff member
A 1746 letter to Joseph Bellamy is probably the primary source for that statement. Edwards says:

They are both excellent. Turretine is on Polemical divinity; on the 5 Points, & all other Controversial Points; & is much larger in these than Mastricht; & is better for one that desires only to be thoroughly versed in Controversies. But take Mastricht for divinity in General, doctrine Practice & Controversie; or as an universal system of divinity; & it is much better than Turretine or any other Book in the world, excepting the Bible, in my opinion.

Turretin set out to write elenctic theology, so naturally that is, in fact, what he produced. But precisely because of that, Turretin by himself, brilliant and profitable though he is, is not sufficient. Of course, at the moment Turretin has a distinct advantage for many of us: he has been translated into English. But hopefully it will not be very long before the translation of Mastricht is completed.
 
Last edited:

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
In both Iain Murray's and George Marsden's biography's, it is stated that Jonathan Edwards regarded van Mastricht's work as superior to that of Turretin. Does any one know why?

According to Richard Muller and a few other historians on Reformed scholasticism, Edwards did not accept Turretin's view on contingency. Maybe Edwards implicitly saw that his view on the human will was out of bound with Turretin.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top