"Resolved, Never hence-forward, till I
die, to act as if I were any way my own, but entirely and
altogether God's." (from the "Resolutions" of
Jonathan Edwards, begun in 1722)
"Perhaps the simplest statement of it is
the best: that it lies in a profound apprehension of God in His
majesty, with the inevitably accompanying poignant realization of
the exact nature of the relation sustained to Him by the creature
as such, and particularly by the sinful creature. He who believes
in God without reserve, and is determined that God shall be God
to him in all his thinking, feeling, willing—in the entire
compass of his life-activities, intellectual, moral, spiritual,
throughout all his individual, social, religious
relations—is, by the force of that strictest of all logic
which presides over the outworking of principles into thought and
life, by the very necessity of the case, a Calvinist."
(Benjamin Breckenridge Warfield, Calvin and Calvinism in The
Works of Benjamin B. Warfield volume 5, pages 354-355).
"He looked upon those who called
themselves Calvinists, that were for palliating the matter by, as
it were, trimming off the knots of Calvinism, that they might
conform it more to the taste of those who are most disposed to
object against it, [as men who] were really giving up and
betraying the cause they pretended to espouse." (Samuel
Hopkins in Life of Jonathan Edwards p. 52).
"The key to an understanding of Jonathan
Edwards is that he was a man who put faithfulness to the Word of
God before every other consideration. At critical points in his
life...he put the truth first. He did this when considerations of
personal interest -- 'my own reputation, future usefulness, and
my very subsistence'—all made the opposite course of action
seem expedient. It was this which Edwards rejected...He knew that
'success' is not to be judged in the short-term. The Christian's
business is to honour God, and in his own time God will honour
his truth and those who are faithful to it." (Iain Murray,
Jonathan Edwards: A New Biography, page 471).
Certain men throughout the history of the Christian church
capture the imagination. Paul, Augustine, Wycliffe, Hus, Luther,
Calvin, Zwingli—each holds the possibility of fascinating
reflection and thought. Some have left to us great amounts of
writing by which we may learn of their thought, and, possibly, of
their living. Others have left us but a tantalizing sheaf of
papers by which to learn anything about them. The Christian
historian, on the whole, has a great storehouse of information
available to him, from which he must pick and choose that which
is accessible and proper.
When one comes to the life and writings of one Jonathan Edwards
of Northampton, Massachusetts, however, one is faced with an
overabundance of material. A voracious reader and writer, Edwards
has left to us not only the books published during his lifetime,
but hundreds of hand-written sermons, as well as personal
journals and his "Miscellanies" from which the
researcher can cull countless jewels. But here the very immensity
of the task of even trying to review Edwards comes into view. Not
only is the material available so vast, but it is at times very
complex and difficult to follow. It comes to us in many
forms—books, treatises, sermons—and given that all the
manuscripts available have not even been put into print, no one
can claim to know Edwards in an exhaustive way. (In this work,
the primary source of information is to be found in the two
volume edition of The Works of Jonathan Edwards printed in
England in 1834, and currently republished by the Banner of Truth
Trust). At the same time, a brief review runs the danger of
misrepresenting Edwards' viewpoint for simply lacking all the
materials or the time to dig through what is available.
The methodology of this paper, then, is designed to "make
the best" of the fact that there is simply far too much
Edwards available for review! Hence, to attempt to present a
balanced and accurate viewpoint of the theology of Jonathan
Edwards, this work will pursue its goal in two ways. First, the
primary emphasis of Edwards' thinking will be identified, and
this topic will become the guiding consideration in materials to
be reviewed. Secondly, different kinds of "Edwardsian"
literature will be called into service. One primary text,
Edwards' A Dissertation Concerning the End for Which God Created
the World, though published posthumously (1765), was certainly
intended for publication by Edwards himself, and hence represents
his "literary" style. A number of sermons will be
examined, for here Edwards truly communicates to the people of
his church the doctrines and beliefs that to him were central to
the Christian faith. And, when profitable, personal writings from
his memoirs or Miscellanies will be invoked. By this twofold
approach it is hoped that an accurate, balanced presentation of
Jonathan Edwards as theologian and Christian man can be
presented.
Jonathan Edwards: The Man
Jonathan Edwards was born October 5, 1703 at East Windsor,
Connecticut, the only son of Timothy and Esther Edwards. Jonathan
had ten sisters, most of whom were six feet tall or taller! He
grew up in Connecticut, and went to New Haven to study at Yale at
the age of 13 (1716). He continued his advanced studies until
1722, when he then took up the pastorate of a small Presbyterian
church in New York. Two years later, in 1724, he was elected
tutor at Yale, and served in that capacity until called to be
assistant pastor at Northampton to his aging grandfather, Solomon
Stoddard, a man of no small reputation in New England himself.
The next year he married Sarah Pierrepont, seven years younger
than himself, daughter of James Pierrepont, minister of the New
Haven church. He met Sarah while a graduate student at Yale. One
could, with great profit, spend much time examining the unique
and lasting relationship between Jonathan and Sarah Edwards; the
spiritual bond between them, and the outlook of Sarah on
spiritual things, are treasures to be held dearly in our modern
world. Their eleven children are no less remarkable, as Elisabeth
Dodds notes,
In 1900 a reporter tracked down 1,400 descendants of
Jonathan and Sarah Edwards. He found that they included 13
college presidents, 65 professors, two graduate school deans,
100 lawyers, 66 physicians, 80 holders of public office,
including three senators and three governors of states.
Members of his this clan had written 135 published books, and
the women were repeatedly described as 'great readers' or
'highly intelligent'...of course, there were platoons of
missionaries.1
In 1729 Solomon Stoddard died, leaving the church at
Northampton in the care and supervision of Jonathan. In 1731
Edwards spoke in Boston, preaching one of the primary texts which
will shortly be reviewed, God Glorified in Man's Dependence. The
major themes of Edwards' theology are to be found in this early
sermon. He made an impression on a number of Christian leaders at
this time.
Many historians mark the beginning of the "Great
Awakening" in New England (not including Frelinghuysen's
work in the Middle Colonies) with the revival at Northampton.
Whatever the case may be, the revival in 1734 certainly marked an
important stage in the ministry of Jonathan Edwards. As the Great
Awakening spread, so did the opposition to it. This called forth
from Edwards' two of his most popular works, A Faithful
Narrative of the Surprising Work of God (1737) and The
Distinguishing Marks of a Work of the Spirit of God. (1740)
The distribution of these works spread the fame of the pastor at
Northampton across the Atlantic, where many believers were very
interested in information about the Awakening in the colonies.
The great revivalist George Whitefield visited the Edwards home
in October of 1740, as the Awakening was growing in strength. The
next year Edwards preached what has become (and quite
inaccurately) his most famous sermon at Enfield, Connecticut, Sinners
in the Hands of an Angry God. As the work progressed,
however, Edwards began to reflect on some of the excesses seen in
the revival (especially in light of the objections of men such as
Charles Chauncy of Boston), and there is a level of moderation
(but certainly continued support for the revivals) in his 1742
work Some Thoughts Concerning the Present Revival of Religion
in New England and even more so in his 1746 work A
Treatise Concerning Religious Affections. In both Edwards
defends the role of the emotions in religious worship, while also
drawing a line in regards to what is, and what is not, properly
ascribed to the Spirit of God.
By the late 1840s, however, the Great Awakening could be
viewed as a past event, and dark clouds were on the horizon in
Northampton. The Edwards home continued to be a place of great
activity, even after the death of David Brainerd there in 1747.
The next year brought on the controversy that would eventually
lead to Edwards' dismissal from his long-time pastorate by a vote
of 230 to 23--a controversy that centered around the requirements
for being a "communicant" at the Lord's Supper in the
church. Edwards wished to change the precedent established by his
grandfather Solomon Stoddard, and it is a monument to the memory
of Stoddard (as well as the intransigence of the New Englander)
that despite Edwards' fame and long time of ministry, he was
dismissed for even attempting to change the status quo. Edwards
asked the people of his church to read his recently published An
Humble Inquiry into the Rules of the Word of God, concerning the
Qualifications Requisite to a compleat Standing and full
Communion in the Visible Christian Church, but to no avail.
Even if they had read the book, the majority would not have
understood it anyway. The Edwards family stayed in Northampton
for nearly a year after the dismissal, simply lacking any place
to go. In 1751, however, he accepted a call to the little
frontier outpost of Stockbridge, there to minister to a
congregation made up almost totally of Indians. The move allowed
Edwards to write some of his most important works, such as his
great A Careful and Strict Enquiry into the modern prevailing
Notions of Freedom of Will (1754) and The Great
Christian Doctrine of Original Sin defended which was at the
printer's when Edwards died in 1758.
Edwards' daughter Esther married Aaron Burr, who became
president of Princeton in 1757. However, in the summer Burr died,
leaving Esther a widow and Princeton without a president. The
College at Princeton immediately called Edwards to be president.
Edwards balked, but eventually accepted the post, leaving for
Princeton in January of 1758. His wife stayed behind, with most
of the children, to pack and prepare to follow him after the
weather became better. He was received joyfully, and set about
his work with great energy. However, a smallpox epidemic was
sweeping the area, and on February 23 Edwards was inoculated
against smallpox. The process of inoculation was still new and
not fully understood, and Edwards became gravely ill. Finally, on
March 22, 1758, with friends around his bedside, Edwards spoke
his last words:
Shortly after leaving...messages for absent members of the
family, 'he looked about and said, "Now where is Jesus
of Nazareth, my true and never-failing Friend?" ' Then
when those at his bedside believed he was unconscious and
expressed grief at what his absence would mean both to the
College and to the church at large, they were surprised when
he suddenly uttered a final sentence, 'Trust God, and you
need not fear.' 2
Something of the spiritual depth of Edwards and his wife can
be seen in Sarah's response upon hearing of the news. She could
write but briefly due to illness, but she took up pen to write a
few lines to Esther at Princeton:
What shall I say? A holy and good God has covered us with
a dark cloud. O that we may kiss the rod, and lay our hands
on our mouths! The Lord has done it. He has made me adore his
goodness, that we had him so long. But my God lives; and he
has my heart. O what a legacy my husband, and your father,
has left us! We are all given to God; and there I am, and
love to be.3
It is sad to note, however, that this was not the end of grief
for the Edwards family. Esther never received the lines scribbled
by her ill mother, for she died, suddenly, only sixteen days
after her father, leaving two infants (Sally and Aaron, who
became Vice-President of the United States, but lived a life that
would have shamed Edwards had he lived to see it). To add even
further difficulty, Sarah Edwards herself died October 2nd of the
same year, while traveling to collect the orphans of her
daughter.
To understand the theology of Jonathan Edwards, one must
understand what it is to bow before the sovereign God. One must
understand things such as holiness, justice, and sin. Edwards'
modern biographers, who do not share Edwards' dedication to
things of God, and do not understand such concepts, can only be
baffled at the incredible contradiction of Jonathan Edwards. His
writings must seem to them incredibly harsh and difficult. Sadly,
even most modern Christians would scratch their heads in baffled
bewilderment at much of what he said and preached. Not only is
his theology not popular today in most Christian circles, but the
very foundations of living which were taken by him as granted
would be alien in much of "Christendom" today.
Before delving into the actual writings and sermons of
Jonathan Edwards, in a respectful attempt at communicating the
main elements of his theology in "simplified" form, it
is this writer's firm conviction that to properly understand
Jonathan Edwards, one must experience his personal spirituality.
One must understand what drove that incredible intellect, and yet
kept him bound to the Word of God. It is not pretended that all
can understand what Edwards is about to say, for this author
would find himself in agreement with Edwards on the incapacity of
natural man to receive the things of the Spirit of God. But, for
the one to whom God has graciously granted that "glimpse of
God's glory" that radically changes the heart of man,
Edwards' words will be familiar indeed.
Below is reproduced a lengthy section from the Memoirs of
Jonathan Edwards as found in his Works volume 1, pages xlvi-xlviii. It is felt that the length of the citation is
justified by the importance of the material to understanding
Edwards' theology.
Since I came to Northampton, I have often had sweet
complacency in God, in views of his glorious perfections, and
of the excellency of Jesus Christ. God has appeared to me a
glorious and lovely Being, chiefly on account of his
holiness. The holiness of God has always appeared to me the
most lovely of all his attributes. The doctrines of God's
absolute sovereignty, and free grace, in showing mercy to
whom he would show mercy; and man's absolute dependence on
the operations of God's Holy Spirit, have very often appeared
to me as sweet and glorious doctrines. These doctrines have
been much my delight. God's sovereignty has ever appeared to
me a great part of his glory. It has often been my delight to
approach God, and adore him as a sovereign God, and ask
sovereign mercy of him.
I have loved the doctrines of the gospel; they have been
to my soul like green pastures. The gospel has seemed to me
the richest treasure; the treasure that I have most desired,
and longed that it might dwell richly in me. The way of
salvation by Christ has appeared, in a general way, glorious
and excellent, most pleasant and most beautiful. It has often
seemed to me, that it would, in a great measure, spoil
heaven, to receive it in any other way. That text has often
been affecting and delightful to me, Isa. xxxii. 2. 'A man
shall be an hiding place from the wind, and a covert from the
tempest,' &c.
It has often appeared to me delightful, to be united to
Christ; to have him for my Head, and to be a member of his
body; also to have Christ for my Teacher and Prophet. I very
often think with sweetness, and longings, and pantings of
soul, of being a little child, taking hold of Christ, to be
led by him through the wilderness of this world. That text,
Matt. xviii. 3. has often been sweet to me, 'Except ye be
converted, and become as little children,' &c. I love to
think of coming to Christ, to receive salvation of him, poor
in spirit, and quite empty of self, humbly exalting him
alone; cut off entirely from my own root, in order to grow
into and out of Christ: to have God in Christ to be all in
all; and to live, by faith on the Son of God, a life of
humble, unfeigned confidence in him. That scripture has often
been sweet to me, Ps. cxv. 1. 'Not unto us, O Lord, not unto
us, but unto thy name give glory, for thy mercy, and for thy
truth's sake.' And those words of Christ, Luke x. 21. 'In
that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O
Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these
things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto
babes: even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight.'
That sovereignty of God, which Christ rejoiced in, seemed to
me worthy of such joy; and that rejoicing seemed to show the
excellency of Christ, and of what spirit he was.
Sometimes, only mentioning a single word caused my heart
to burn within me; or only seeing the name of Christ, or the
name of some attribute of God. And God has appeared glorious
to me, on account of the Trinity. It has made me have
exalting thoughts of God, that he subsists in three persons;
Father, Son, Holy Ghost. The sweetest joys and delights I
have experienced, have not been those that have arisen from a
hope of my own good estate; but in a direct view of the
glorious things of the gospel. When I enjoy this sweetness,
it seems to carry me above the thoughts of my own estate; it
seems at such times, a loss that I cannot bear, to take off
my eye from the glorious, pleasant object I behold without
me, to turn my eye in upon myself, and my own good estate.
My heart has been much on the advancement of Christ's
kingdom in the world. The histories of the past advancement
of Christ's kingdom have been sweet to me. When I have read
histories of past ages, the pleasantest thing, in all my
reading, has been, to read of the kingdom of Christ being
promoted. And when I have expected, in my reading to come to
any such thing, I have rejoiced in the prospect, all the way
as I read. And my mind has been much entertained and
delighted with the scripture promises and prophecies, which
relate to the future glorious advancement of Christ's kingdom
upon earth.
I have sometimes had a sense of the excellent fulness of
Christ, and his meetness and suitableness as a Saviour;
whereby he has appeared to me, far above all, the chief of
ten thousands. His blood and atonement have appeared sweet,
and his righteousness sweet; which was always accompanied
with ardency of spirit; and inward strugglings and
breathings, and groanings that cannot be uttered, to be
emptied of myself, and swallowed up in Christ.
Once, as I rode out into the woods for my health, in 1737,
having alighted from my horse in a retired place, as my
manner commonly has been, to walk for divine contemplation
and prayer, I had a view, that for me was extraordinary, of
the glory of the Son of God, as Mediator between God and man,
and his wonderful, great, full, pure and sweet grace and
love, and meek and gentle condescension. This grace that
appeared so calm and sweet, appeared also great above the
heavens. The person of Christ appeared ineffably excellent,
with an excellency great enough to swallow up all thought and
conception—which continued, as near as I can judge,
about an hour; which kept me the greater part of the time in
a flood of tears, and weeping aloud. I felt an ardency of
soul to be, what I know not otherwise how to express, emptied
and annihilated; to lie in the dust, and to be full of Christ
alone; to love him with a holy and pure love; to trust in
him; to live upon him; to serve and follow him; and to be
perfectly sanctified and made pure, with a divine and
heavenly purity. I have several other times had views very
much of the same nature, and which have had the same effects.
I have, many times, had a sense of the glory of the Third
Person in the Trinity, and his office as Sanctifier; in his
holy operations, communicating divine light and life to the
soul. God in the communications of his Holy Spirit, has
appeared as an infinite fountain of divine glory and
sweetness; being full, and sufficient to fill and satisfy the
soul; pouring forth itself in sweet communications; like the
sun in its glory, sweetly and pleasantly diffusing light and
life. And I have sometimes an affecting sense of the
excellency of the word of God as a word of life; as the light
of life; a sweet, excellent, life-giving word; accompanied
with a thirsting after that word, that it might dwell richly
in my heart.
Often, since I lived in this town, I have had very
affecting views of my own sinfulness and vileness; very
frequently to such a degree, as to hold me in a kind of loud
weeping, sometimes for a considerable time together; so that
I have often been forced to shut myself up. I have had a
vastly great sense of my own wickedness, and the badness of
my heart, than ever I had before my conversion. It has often
appeared to me, that if God should mark iniquity against me,
I should appear the very worst of all mankind; of all that
have been since the beginning of the world to this time: and
that I should have by far the lowest place in hell. When
others, that have come to talk with me about their
soul-concerns, have expressed the sense that they have had of
their own wickedness, by saying, that it seemed to them, that
they were as bad as the devil himself; I thought their
expressions seemed exceedingly faint and feeble, to represent
my own wickedness.
My wickedness, as I am in myself, has long appeared to me
perfectly ineffable, and swallowing up all thought and
imagination; like an infinite deluge, or mountains over my
head. I know not how to express better what my sins appear to
me to be, than by heaping infinite upon infinite, and
multiplying infinite by infinite. Very often, for these many
years, these expressions are in my mind, and in my mouth,
'Infinite upon infinite—Infinite upon infinite!' When I
look into my heart, and take a view of my wickedness, it
looks like an abyss, infinitely deeper than hell. And it
appears to me, that were it not for free grace, exalted and
raised up to the infinite height of all the fulness and glory
of the great Jehovah, and the arm of his power and grace
stretched forth in all the majesty of his power, and in all
the glory of his sovereignty, I should appear sunk down in my
sins below hell itself; far beyond the sight of every thing,
but the eye of sovereign grace, that can pierce even down to
such a depth. And yet, it seems to me that my conviction of
sin is exceedingly small and faint; it is enough to amaze me,
that I have no more sense of my sin. I know certainly, that I
have very little sense of my sinfulness. When I have had
turns of weeping and crying for my sins, I thought I knew at
the time, that my repentance was nothing to my sin.
I have greatly longed of late for a broken heart, and to
lie low before God; and, when I ask for humility, I cannot
bear the thoughts of being no more humble than other
Christians. It seems to me, that though their degree of
humility may be suitable for them, yet it would be a vile
self-exaltation in me, not to be the lowest in humility of
all mankind. Others speak of their longing to be 'humbled to
the dust;' that may be a proper expression for them, but I
always think of myself, that I ought, and it is an expression
that has long been natural for me to us in prayer, 'to lie
infinitely low before God.' And it is affecting to think, how
ignorant I was, when a young Christian, of the bottomless,
infinite depths of wickedness, pride, hypocrisy, and deceit,
left in my heart.
Though it seems to me, that in some respects I was a far
better Christian, for two or three years after my first
conversion, than I am now; and lived in a more constant
delight and pleasure; yet of late years, I have had a more
full and constant sense of the absolute sovereignty of God,
and a delight in that sovereignty; and have had more of a
sense of the glory of Christ, as Mediator revealed in the
gospel. On one Saturday night, in particular, I had such a
discovery of the excellency of the gospel above all other
doctrines, that I could not but say to myself, 'This is my
chosen light, my chosen doctrine;' and of Christ, 'This is my
chosen Prophet.' It appeared sweet, beyond all expression, to
follow Christ, and to be taught, and enlightened, and
instructed by him; to learn of him, and to live to him.
Another Saturday night (Jan. 1739,) I had such a sense, how
sweet and a blessed thing it was to walk in the way of duty;
to do that which was right and meet to be done, and agreeable
to the holy mind of God; that it caused me to break forth
into a kind of loud weeping, which held me some time, so that
I was forced to shut myself up, and fasten the doors. I could
not but, as it were, cry out 'How happy are they, who do that
which is right in the sight of God! They are blessed indeed,
they are the happy ones!' I had, at the same time, a very
affecting sense, how meet and suitable it was that God should
govern the world, and order all things according to his own
pleasure; and I rejoiced in it, that God reigned, and that
his will was done.
The great themes of Edwards' theology are all found here in
personal expression—here is a man who loves the sovereignty
of God. Here is one who can speak of the beauty of holiness. Most
in the world hate the very concept of God's sovereignty and His
holiness, so how could Jonathan Edwards not be an enigma to them?
Here we find the reason why the quiet, thoughtful minister from
Northampton could preach Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.
There was, to him, no inconsistency between God's grace and His
justice, God's love and His wrath. Edwards' God was not
either/or, but both/and. This man loved the God of the Bible, not
the God of his imagination. Edwards' God was not made in the
image of man.
We also see the centrality of Christ. The Lordship of Christ
would not be a matter of debate in Edwards' thinking as it is
today. Jesus Christ, in His Person and His Work, was completely
satisfactory and sufficient. He is reported to have said,
"Though millions of sacrifices had been offered; yet nothing
was done to purchase redemption before Christ's incarnation, so
nothing was done after His resurrection to purchase redemption
for men. Nor will there be anything more done to all
eternity."4 The Lord Jesus was to him
"sweetness" itself.
But we also see, in stark contrast, the depth of Edwards'
conviction of sin. Man's nature as fallen is the counterpart to
the sovereignty of God as the central conviction of his thought.
It has been said that those who feel no conviction of sin either
know little of God, or little of themselves, or both. When one
has the view of the holiness of God reflected in Edwards' memoirs
above, and which shall permeate his writings to follow, one must
also see sin in a dread fashion, even when that sin is part of
one's own life. While from the "world's" view his life
would be exemplary, yet Edwards knew in his heart his own pride,
rebellion, and slothfulness. From the contrast of the great
holiness of God and his own sin comes his rapture with the Gospel
of grace. Indeed, it can be seen that without the elements of the
true nature of God and a true apprehension of the fallenness of
man, the grace of God seen in the Gospel would never be truly
appreciated.
Edwards was a man of great intellectual powers. Fascinated
with the writings of Newton and Locke, he bent his mind to the
study of theology, basing his work on the idea that since God is
Creator, then that which is around us in creation will be in
harmony with what God has revealed through Scripture. Being a
thorough-going Calvinist, Edwards is steeped in the thought
patterns, and even at times in the phraseology, of John Calvin.
Yet, he goes beyond Calvin at key points, entering into areas
that the Reformer of Geneva left to "speculation,"
perhaps we might theorize, because Calvin had gone into those
areas, and had found them to contain more danger than good. One
will certainly find a great deal of common ground, for example,
between the 18th chapter of Book I of Calvin's Institutes and
Edwards sermon on the Divine Decrees (to be reviewed below). But
one will also find a greater emphasis upon reason and logical
argument in Edwards, along with a willingness to speculate on
that which Calvin did not. We shall examine this at greater
length below.
In this writer's opinion, the primary focus, then, of Jonathan
Edwards the theologian is co-terminous with that of Jonathan
Edwards the passionate follower of a sovereign God. The nature
and attributes of God—his eternality, Trinity, sovereignty,
holiness and providence—along with His gracious election to
salvation through the completed work of Jesus Christ, brought to
reality in the life of the believer by the outpoured love of God
(that is, in Edwards' view, the Holy Spirit), comprises the
pivotal, central focus of Edwards' theology. Following, we shall
demonstrate this from his writings in particular.
The Theology of Jonathan Edwards
As mentioned above, it is simply impossible, outside of an
extensive literary effort, to do full justice to the immense body
of material that is the theological writings of Jonathan Edwards.
Hence, to facilitate the attempt at "brevity," we shall
look to the following writings/ sermons/treatises as our source
of information.
On July 8th, 1731, the young Jonathan Edwards preached a
sermon in Boston that well demonstrated, for anyone willing to
listen, Edwards' commitment to the Calvinistic heritage that was
his, despite the declining popularity of such a perspective. The
sermon was entitled God Glorified in Man's Dependence.
His first point was as follows:
First, All the good that they have in and through Christ;
he is made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and
redemption. All the good of the fallen and redeemed creature
is concerned in these four things, and cannot be better
distributed than into them; but Christ is each of them to us,
and we have none of them any otherwise than in him.5
This foundational sermon will serve to sound those thoughts
and concepts that will reoccur like a theme in a Beethoven
symphony throughout the length and breadth of the Edwardsian
material. Here one of those themes is introduced: Christ, the
focus of God's work of redemption, by which (and through whom
only) the believer has "wisdom, righteousness,
sanctification, and redemption." The union of believer with
Christ is, for Edwards, the avenue by which the blessings of God
in Jesus are ours.
This is nothing but the Calvinistic concept of the covenant of
grace, as we shall see. But is this relationship with Christ the
result of man's seeking it? Certainly not, for he continues,
It is of him that we are in Christ Jesus, and come to have
an interest in him, and so do receive those blessings which
he is made unto us. It is God that gives us faith whereby we
close with Christ.6
Drawing from the language of Paul in 1 Corinthians 1, Edwards
follows consistently the concept of the sovereignty of God, here
in election and grace. Here he openly asserts that God is the one
who gives saving faith—a point that should remain clear in
the readers mind when approaching Edwards' discussion of
justification, and the somewhat unclear comments made regarding
the role and source of faith. Here Edwards is not dealing with
the intricacies of attempting to unify the eternal decrees of
God, men's actions in time, and the grounds of justification,
with all the attendant difficulties therein. Here he speaks with
plainness:
Hence we may learn a reason why faith is that by which we
come to have an interest in this redemption; for there is
included in the nature of faith, a sensible acknowledgment of
absolute dependence on God in this affair...Faith abases men,
and exalts God; it gives all the glory of redemption to him
alone.7
Is, then, "faith" that gives to man a role in
salvation true, saving faith? Does it have its origin in God?
Seemingly the answer for Edwards would be no. When he discusses
the the "divine and supernatural light" that is part of
God's work of regeneration, it will become clear that there are
certain marks or aspects of real, saving faith that are very
important to Edwards. There seems little question where he would
come down on the current "lordship salvation"
controversy.
God is sovereign in electing men to grace, says Edwards.
Because of this, he is glorified by our absolute dependence upon
him:
God is glorified in the work of redemption in this, that
there appears in it so absolute and universal a dependence of
the redeemed on him...Those that are called and sanctified
are to attribute it alone to the good pleasure of God's
goodness, by which they are distinguished. He is sovereign,
and hath mercy on whom he will have mercy...Hence these
doctrines and schemes of divinity that are in any respect
opposite to such an absolute and universal dependence on God,
derogate from his glory, and thwart the design of our
redemption...However they may allow of a dependence of the
redeemed on God, yet they deny a dependence that is so
absolute and universal.8
By such strong approbation of the sovereignty and election of
God, in a climate that was moving more and more toward an Arminian/Universalist direction (witness
Chauncy), Edwards was
firmly planting his feet in a well-tried heritage, and giving
notice to all that his teaching and preaching would not be
"new and novel" but rather solidly based in the
acceptance of the teachings of the Word of God. Not only this,
but those who would seek to find for man a role or part in his
own salvation would find Jonathan Edwards a strong foe indeed.
Another theme so pre-eminent in Edwards' theology is present
here as well, that being the glory of God. What brings glory to
God? And why is the glorification of God so important? Here
Edwards' close affinity to the Westminster divines and their work
is seen.
We see from this first sermon the inter-relatedness for
Edwards of theology "proper"; that is, of the doctrine
of God and his attributes, and that of soteriology. One cannot
study Edwards' doctrine of God without dealing with His
graciousness in salvation; and even more so is his doctrine of
salvation utterly dependent upon a proper understanding of the
nature of God. Here Edwards differs radically from so much in
modern American thinking, that can hold one belief in regards to
God and another belief that is utterly foreign and contradictory
in regards to salvation. One aspect of Edwards that can be said
with little fear of contradiction: he was greatly concerned with
the consistency of his beliefs and preaching, and dedicated much
time and effort to self-examination in this area. Sadly, for some
today, it is this very concern for consistency that renders him
"unfit" for modern consumption.
Therefore, the remaining writings shall touch again upon the
subjects broached in this early sermon: God's sovereignty, his
decrees, his glory, his grace, and the resulting doctrine of
salvation, focusing upon the nature of saving faith.
Theology Proper
The book of Romans, particularly chapter 9, has always been a
source of clear teaching on the sovereignty of God. Here, in an
undated sermon, Edwards drew out the concept in clear language,
discussing both the sovereignty of God alone, and more
particularly, the sovereignty of God in election:
In speaking of this he enters into a more minute
discussion of the sovereignty of God in electing some to
eternal life, and rejecting others, than is found in any
other part of the Bible; in the course of which he quotes
several passages from the Old Testament, confirming and
illustrating this doctrine.9
Most of Edwards' sermons and writings are broken up into
outline form, though certainly anyone familiar with them might
wonder at times if a few points had gotten lost here and there!
It is most difficult, at times, to remember, after an extended
and closely reasoned argument, just where the next point picks up
in the over-all scheme of things. In this sermon, as is normal
for Edwards, we find him listing the particulars of that which he
wishes to prove, followed by a point-by-point argument
establishing his thesis. His first point is to define God's
sovereignty:
But the expression implies that it is God's mere will and
sovereign pleasure, which supremely orders this affair. It is
the divine will without restraint, or constraint, or
obligation....The sovereignty of God is his absolute,
independent right of disposing of all creatures according to
his own pleasure.10
Some have accused Edwards of wandering from the Calvinistic
fold, but certainly these words demonstrate the error of such a
charge. There is no modification of the doctrine of God's
sovereignty anywhere in Edwards. Some mistake some of the more
speculative of his words as being representative of some kind of
fundamental shift in thinking on his part; but, as we shall see
when encountering some of these passages (see below at reference
43), he is always careful to safeguard those clear, very orthodox
beliefs that are in perfect harmony with his expressions here. It
must be remembered that in Edwards we do not find a simply
slavish repetition of old Puritan concepts, but a new and living
statement of them within a changing cultural context. Here is
Puritanism meeting the new age of "enlightened"
thought. Here is one of America's greatest philosophers and
intellects bravely making a statement of God's absolute right to
dispose of man as he wishes. Surely such a statement was not made
without careful consideration of the ramifications of such faith.
One who makes such stupendous statements must feel a
responsibility to be consistent with them and to think thoroughly
about their representation of God Himself. If his writings are
any indication, Edwards took that responsibility soberly.
How does this sovereignty interface with salvation? Edwards
answers:
What God's sovereignty in the salvation of men implies. In
answer to this inquiry, I observe, it implies that God can
either bestow salvation on any of the children of men, or
refuse it, without any prejudice to the glory of any of his
attributes, except where he has been pleased to declare, that
he will or will not bestow it...God was not obliged to
promise that he would save all who believe in Christ...He may
have mercy on the greatest of sinners, if he pleases, and the
glory of none of his attributes will be in the least sullied.
Such is the sufficiency of the satisfaction and righteousness
of Christ, that none of the divine attributes stand in the
way of the salvation of any of them.11
Salvation fully and totally of God—this is Edwards'
belief. The human will cannot stand in the way of God's work in
bringing those whom he chooses to himself. But the
"wholeness" of Edwards' thinking is evident here, too,
for he is jealous of the attributes of God. How can God bring
sinful man to himself without causing damage to his holiness?
Through the full and complete satisfaction of the Jesus Christ.
Because his holy demands are met in the death of Christ, the
salvation of the elect is possible. What a tremendous work, then,
must be the death of Christ, to be sufficient to safeguard the
holiness of the Almighty! And so Edwards believed:
If the wicked man himself should be thrust into hell, and
should endure the most extreme torments which are ever
suffered there, it would not be a greater manifestation of
God's abhorrence of it, than the sufferings of the Son of God
for it.12
Holiness and sacrifice, justice and grace, fully intertwined
and completely harmonious. All of God, none of man, complete in
and of itself, based fully on God's unwavering will.
We are dependent not only on his wisdom to contrive a way
to accomplish [salvation], and on his power to bring it to
pass, but we are dependent on his mere will and pleasure in
the affair.13
As Edwards was want to do (indeed, could it not be said that
this is the hallmark of all great preaching, most notably amongst
the Puritans?), he then made direct application of this doctrine
to the people of God. What of God's sovereignty? What should the
response of man be? Does not preaching sovereignty cause men to
hate God, to loathe him? Edwards replies,
The absolute, universal, and unlimited sovereignty of God
requires, that we should adore him with all possible humility
and reverence. It is impossible that we should go to excess
in lowliness and reverence of that Being who may dispose of
us to all eternity, as he pleases.14
A response of loathing, then, is surely not for God's people,
and does not figure in Edwards' thinking. Surely the unregenerate
man is going to see God's sovereignty as a hateful thing, if he
looks at things without seeing also God's grace in Christ; but
the regenerate man must needs see the necessity of falling before
such a great King and worshipping him. While modern psychologists
might decry such an abasing attitude, the one who knows God and
man truly sees with Edwards the fitness of such an attitude. The
fact that man in his natural state does not properly view God or
himself is taken as revealed truth, and as a great stumbling
block for many:
This is the stumbling-block on which thousands fall and
perish; and if we go on contending with God about his
sovereignty, it will be our eternal ruin. It is absolutely
necessary that we should submit to God, as our absolute
sovereign, and the sovereign over our souls; as one who may
have mercy on whom he will have mercy, and harden whom he
will.15
In June, 1735, the congregation of Christians at Northampton
were treated to an exposition on God's sovereignty entitled, The
Sole Consideration, That God is God, Sufficient to Still All
Objections to His Sovereignty which was based on the Psalmists'
words at Psalm 96:10, "Be still and know that I am
God." Here Edwards argues from the nature of God as God, to
the necessity of sovereignty. Indeed, it would seem for him that
absolute sovereignty is implicit in theism itself. The sermon is
not lengthy, and the argument for sovereignty is straightforward
and follows the lines laid down in the sermon just reviewed from
Romans 9. It is the application of the concept that is so
profound and insightful. By the skillful use of rhetorical
questions, Edwards makes convincing use of the doctrine on a
practical level, and ties it in with other important doctrines.
In the context of the ungrateful person, he asks:
What thoughts have you of God, that you think he is more
obliged to hear what you say to him, than you are to regard
what he says to you?16
What an understanding of human nature! When all is well man
ignores God as a needless thing; but when adversity strikes,
things change quickly! But what does this tell us of man's
thoughts of God? Would one who sees the true nature of God treat
him so lightly? Edwards continues by making practical application
to people's rejection of the judgment of God and the doctrine of
original sin (in almost prophetic tones, given the mass movement
away from this doctrine that was to come about during the rest of
that century):
It is from little thoughts of God, that you quarrel
against his justice in the condemnation of sinners, from the
doctrine of original sin.17
In regards to the human penchant to act as "judge"
of God's dealings with men, and to accuse the Almighty of
injustice, Edwards fires this salvo:
What horrid arrogance in worms of the dust, that they
should think they have wisdom enough to examine and determine
concerning what God doth, and to pass sentence on it as
unjust!18
Few who battle with the teaching of works-salvation think, in
our modern days, of the effectiveness of the Biblical
presentation of the sovereignty of God against such falsehood.
But Edwards saw this long ago as well:
If you had your eyes open to see that he is God indeed,
you would wonder how you could think to commend yourselves to
so great a Being by your gifts, by such poor affections, such
broken prayers, wherein is so much hypocrisy, and so much
selfishness.19
Finally, in reference to the very doctrine of election itself,
Edwards asserts that it is from a deficient view of the majesty
and nature of God that man rears up and hurls charges of
injustice at the God of Israel. He writes, "It is from mean
thoughts of God, that you contend with him, because he bestows
grace on some, and not on others."20 Surely such
practical applications of this one doctrine to not only moral
issues, but to other doctrines as well, shows the primacy of the
teaching in Edwards' mind.
To this point the writings examined have been of the sermonic
order. Next we shall introduce one of Edwards' better known
works, A Dissertation Concerning the End for which God
Created the World. There is a noticeable shift in style, for
he had done work on this material in preparation for publication
before his death. The actual treatise was written in 1755 while
at Stockbridge. Here Edwards the philosopher and theologian comes
to the fore. Here also we encounter the issue of the relationship
between reason and revelation in Edwards; the treatise begins
with the acknowledgment of the foundational element of revelation
in any such enterprise as determining the end for which God
created the world. Yet, the fact remains that the first section
of the work is "non-Scriptural" in that it is an
examination of the issue based solely upon logical
argumentation—reason. It is a closely argued attempt to
demonstrate the "reasonableness" of the material that
would then be presented from Scripture. First, Edwards writes,
Indeed this affair seems properly to be an affair of
divine revelation. In order to be determined what was
designed, in the creating of the astonishing fabric of the
universe we behold, it becomes us to attend to, and rely on,
what HE has told us, who was the architect...Nor is it to be
supposed that mankind—who, while destitute of
revelation, by the utmost improvements of their own reason,
and advances in science and philosophy, could come to no
clear and established determination who the author of the
world was—would ever have obtained any tolerable settled
judgment of the end which the author of it proposed to
himself in so vast, complicated, and wonderful a work of his
hands.21
Here the orthodox Reformed concept of the centrality of
revelation is clearly set forth. Man, unaided by special or
divine revelation, could not so much as come to a "clear and
established determination" of who the author of the world
was, let alone the purpose of his work! Man is presented as
dependent upon divine revelation. Reason is not supreme, nor
determinative. Yet, to stop here would present an unbalanced view
of Edwards' beliefs.
I confess there is a degree of indistinctness and
obscurity in the close consideration of such subjects, and a
great imperfection in the expressions we use concerning them;
arising unavoidably from the infinite sublimity of the
subject, and the incomprehensibleness of those things that
are divine. Hence revelation is the surest guide in these
matters: and what that teaches shall in the next place be
considered. Nevertheless, the endeavors used to discover what
the voice of reason is, so far as it can go, may serve to
prepare the way, by obviating cavils insisted on by many; and
to satisfy us, that what the word of God says of the matter
is not unreasonable.22
Here the great philosopher bows to the central facet of his
own belief: the fact of his own fallenness and his dependence
upon God. Here it is seen in the recognition of the limitation of
human reason, especially in dealing with topics outside of its
purview. Edwards recognizes the "obscurity" of the
logical argument that appears between his first statements seen
above and the conclusion, given here, which appear immediately
prior to his review of the Scriptural teaching on the subject. He
attributes the difficulty of being limited to "reason"
in regards to determining the ends for which God created the
world first to the imperfection of the terms we use to describe
the divine, or as he says, the "infinite sublimity of the
subject". But, he also admits the "incomprehensibleness
of those things that are divine." That is, reason and logic
can define some boundaries, and make some basic statements about
such things, but exact definition is outside of reason's ability,
limited as it is to simply the natural, when revelation is left
outside of that data from which it can draw. Edwards freely owns
the necessity of revelation, and speaks of it as the "surest
guide" in these matters.
So why, in so much of his work, does he devote so much time to
the closely argued logical presentations that are a hallmark of
his philosophical writings? Because Edwards has a holistic view
of the world; that is, since God is the Creator, and God is true,
then his creation will be logical and ordered, just as God is.
Hence, while reason cannot replace revelation, nor subserviate
revelation, it can speak truly, within its own peculiar
limitations, and give witness to the truth and consistency
(harmony) of God's revelation of himself and his actions in the
world. Reason is seen here in a fashion like John the Baptist
coming before Christ, preparing the way. Reason can function as a
preparatory tool. While man, unaided by revelation, cannot, by
his reason alone, come to truth about God (in opposition to
Aquinas and later Roman Catholic natural theology), God's
revelation is not unreasonable nor contradictory. God has made
the mind of man, and, while completely aware of the danger of
pride and rebellion on the part of the creature, Edwards is
convinced that it is important that we know "that what the
word of God says of the matter is not unreasonable." It
could not be other for Edwards; God's revelation is not by this
set in the seat of judgment by human reason. It would be an error
to say that Edwards would ever judge the word of God as
"unreasonable." Rather, his intent is to demonstrate
the harmony that exists between reason that is based upon
presuppositions that recognize God, and the revelation of God.
Surely he would realize that man's mind, and hence his reason,
that continues in rebellion against God, would not fear being so
proud as to declare God's works "unjust" (see reference
18 above). But the regenerate mind, the mind enlightened by the
Spirit of God and hence freed (to the extent given at this time)
from the bondage to self and sin, is able to reason more clearly
on these things, and to see the marvelous continuity of God's
revelation and the world around him. Here is the balance of
Jonathan Edwards. A mind capable of such incredible thought and
argument, fascinated with the world around him, also enraptured
in love to the Creator. Does one wish to understand the
fascination this man has held for believers over the past two
hundred years? Here is a glimpse of the reason.
The first section of this treatise, then, is the
"logical" or "rational" argument. It is
fascinating that his conclusions here do not go as far as that
provided by Scripture; that is, he is consistent in not
attempting to make reason provide the positive answer to the
question, for he knows it cannot. Rather, reason provides a broad
framework, some guidelines, that are then shown to be consistent
with the revelation of God. He begins by saying,
That no notion of God's last end in the creation of the
world, is agreeable to reason, which would truly imply any
indigence, insufficiency, and mutability in God; or any
dependence of the Creator on the creature, for any part of
his perfection or happiness.23
Edwards argues that the only logical or rational perspective
on God himself must include within it the concept of his
eternity, immutability, and utter independence from any created
thing. Not only would the modern concepts of "finite
godism" cause him to shudder, but the frequent charge made
by his modern interpreters of an incipient pantheism is hereby
refuted. Surely this treatise will give us comments that, if
taken in isolation, might indicate some kind of compromise of the
utter transcendence of God. But, when the author begins by
stating openly and forcefully that such a concept is against his
thinking, we must needs be fair in giving that statement its full
weight.
As Edwards moves into his presentation of the
"rational" argument of God's end in creating the world,
he puts forth the concept that God intended, in creation, to
exhibit his being in his work. He writes,
And if it was God's intention, as there is great reason to
think it was, that his works should exhibit an image of
himself as their author, that it might brightly appear by his
works what manner of being he is, and afford a proper
representation of his divine excellencies, and especially his
moral excellence, consisting in the disposition of his heart;
then it is reasonable to suppose that his works are so
wrought as to show this supreme respect to himself, wherein
his moral excellence primarily consists.24
From this Edwards derives the concept that God's primary
purpose was in reference to himself; that is, that God wished to
communicate that which was innate in his own being. Note,
however, that this is not to say that this action in any way
"completes" a deficiency in God! Rather, the purpose of
the creation was the demonstration of His being itself:
Therefore to speak strictly according to truth, we may
suppose, that a disposition in God, as an original property
of his nature, to an emanation of his own infinite fulness,
was what excited him to create the world; and so, that the
emanation itself was aimed at by him as a last end of the
creation.25
What, then, is the composition of this emanation? To what does
it have reference? Edwards asserts that:
One part of that divine fulness which is communicated, is
the divine knowledge. That communicated knowledge, which must
be supposed to pertain to God's last end in creating the
world, is the creature's knowledge of HIM. For this is the
end of all other knowledge.26
The communication of true knowledge of himself, then, is part
of the emanation of his "fulness" of which Edwards
speaks. But at this point Edwards takes somewhat of a detour to
examine a troubling question. If God then wishes to reveal true
knowledge of Himself to his creatures, and we know that this
revelation is of his own will and directed only to those
creatures he wills it to (i.e., the elect), then what is the end
result of such a revelation in eternity? Things become somewhat
difficult to follow here:
In this view, those elect creatures which must be looked
upon as the end of all the rest of the creation, considered
with respect to the whole of their eternal duration, and as
such make God's end, must be viewed as being, as it were, one
with God. They were respected as brought home to him, united
with him, centering most perfectly, as it were swallowed up
in him; so that his respect to them finally coincides, and
becomes one and the same, with respect to himself...What has
been said shows, that as all things are from God, as their
first cause and fountain; so all things tend to him, and in
their progress come nearer and nearer to him through all
eternity: which argues, that he who is their first cause is
their last end.27
Certainly one can see upon what grounds critics have based
charges of pantheism or some kind of mystical concept of an
eventual "oneness" of the elect with God. But is
Edwards really saying that the elect eventually are
"absorbed" into God, or, if we read closely, is he not
saying that their end becomes one with the end of God in
creation? This seems far more likely, in light of his comments
later in the treatise:
If God has respect to something in the creature, which he
views as of everlasting duration, and as rising higher and
higher through that infinite duration, and that not with
constantly diminishing (but perhaps an increasing) clarity;
then he has respect to it, as, in the whole, of infinite
height; though there never will be any particular time when
it can be said already to have come to such a height. Let the
most perfect union with God be represented by something at an
infinite height above us; and the eternally increasing union
of the saints with God, by something that is ascending
constantly towards that infinite height, moving upwards with
a given velocity; and that is to continue thus to move to all
eternity. God, who views the whole of this eternally
increasing height, views it as an infinite height. And if he
has respect to it, and makes it his end, as in the whole of
it, he has respect to it as an infinite height, though the
time will never come when it can be said it has already
arrived at this infinite height...We may judge of the end
that the Creator aimed at, in the being, nature, and tendency
he gives the creature, by the mark or term which they
constantly aim at in their tendency and eternal progress;
though the time will never come, when it can be said it is
attained to, in the most absolutely perfect manner.28
Here it seems that Edwards feels the weight of the objections
to the previous statements, and wishes to clarify his thoughts on
the issue. While he continues to posit a "movement" of
the creature in regards to union with God, he points out that,
logically, an infinite distance would never be traversed, even in
eternity. Hence there will never come a time when the creature
"arrives" at the perfect union with God. The
Creator/creation distinction, therefore, is safeguarded. Indeed,
it might profitably asked if it was ever really endangered, as
one can see how the creature could, theoretically, be in perfect
union, without losing its nature as a creation, nor compromising
God's existence as unique Creator. One might also ask if Calvin
was not the wiser when he avoided engaging just such theoretical
topics as this by making such statements as,
...let us remember here, as in all religious doctrine,
that we ought to hold to one rule of modesty and sobriety:
not to speak, or guess, or even to seek to know, concerning
obscure matters anything except what has been imparted to us
by God's Word.29
It would seem that Edwards has either rejected such advice, or
has, given his over-riding commitment to the harmony of creation
(reason and revelation), stretched his own interpretation of
Calvin's words to the maximum. Ever thinking of the objections
that could be voiced, Edwards now fields the criticism that his
argument thus far might include within it the idea of change in
God. If God finds happiness in the communication of his nature to
the creature, does this not imply change in God? To which he
replies,
For though these communications of God—these
exercises, operations, and expressions of his glorious
perfections, which God rejoices in—are in time; yet his
joy in them is without beginning or change. They were always
equally present in the divine mind. He beheld them with equal
clearness, certainty, and fulness, in every respect, as he
doth now. They were always equally present; as with him there
is no variableness of succession.30
He here posits a concept of time in which, of course, God is
not experiencing a progression of events. Time is then the
creation of God, and he is present equally and fully at all
points in time, just as he is present fully in all points in
space, another aspect of the creation. Hence, there can be, by
definition, no change in God, but the joy of his revelation of
his fulness to man has been his experience in eternity.
With this the inquiry based upon reason alone ends, and the
topic of Scripture is now engaged. One will notice a great
increase, then, in the clarity of the statements that are made.
The already established themes of Edwards' theology—the
centrality of the Being of God—will be seen here again as
well.
When God is so often spoken of as the last as well as the
first, the end as well as the beginning, it is implied, that
as he is the first, efficient cause and fountain, from whence
all things originate; so, he is the last, final cause for
which they are made; the final term to which they all tend in
their ultimate issue.31
The main thesis of the Scriptural section (and, of course, the
whole treatise) is that the "emanation of being"
discovered by reason as the ultimate end of God's creation, is
revealed more particularly in Scripture as the glory of God. He
writes,
What God says in his word, naturally leads us to suppose,
that the way in which he makes himself his end in his work or
works, which he does for his own sake, is in making his glory
his end...In these places we see, that the glory of God is
spoken of as the end of God's saints, the end for which he
makes them, i.e., either gives them being, or gives them a
being as saints, or both...and the end in which God's design
in this work is obtained and summed up, is his glory. This
proves...that God's glory is the end of the creation...The
Scripture speaks of God's glory, as his ultimate end of the
goodness of the moral part of the creation; and that end, in
relation to which chiefly the value of their virtue
consists...When the church says, Not unto us, not unto us, O
Jehovah, but to they name give glory, it would be absurd to
say, that she only desires that God may have glory, as a
necessary or convenient means of their own advancement and
felicity. From these things it appears...that God's glory is
the end of the creation.32
This is the positive aspect; that is, God's glory is seen in
his salvation of the elect, and in their desire to ascribe glory
to him, even throughout eternity. The concept of the regenerate
heart's love for the glory of God will be amplified in later
materials. But on the negative side,
Here it is evident the last verse comes in, in connexion
with the foregoing, as giving another reason of the
destruction of the wicked, viz. showing the riches of his
glory on the vessels of mercy: higher degrees of their glory
and happiness, in a relish of their own enjoyments, and a
greater sense of their value, and of God's free grace in
bestowing them.33
God's glory is seen, Edwards asserts, by the contrast between
the riches of mercy poured out on the elect and the punishment of
the wicked. Edwards then provides some definitions of Biblical
terms in relationship to the thesis being put forward. What does
it mean to "be glorified" in reference to God?
And it is manifest in many places, where we read of God's
glorifying himself, or of his being glorified, that one
thing, directly intended, is making known his divine
greatness and excellency.34
Here the conclusion of the rational argument (God's making
known His being) is connected with the Biblical presentation
(God's glory is his ultimate end). Never one to be satisfied with
simply the abstract, Edwards ties this in with the praise of man
by saying,
It is manifest the praise of God, as the phrase is used in
Scripture, implies the high esteem and love of the heart,
exalting thoughts of God, and complacense in his excellence
andperfection.35
Echoes of his own experience in the woods that day in 1737!
His experience of praise was centered in the contemplation of the
majesty of God, and here this figures in the very definition of
praise itself. Having taken great pains to logically argue from
Scripture that the chief end of God in the creation of the world
(which most men would have been happy to simply quote from the
Westminster Catechism and be done with) is his own glory, he
concludes,
For it appears, that all that is ever spoken of in the
Scripture as an ultimate end of God's works, is included in
that one phrase, the glory of God; which is the name by which
the ultimate end of God's works is most commonly called in
Scripture; and seems most aptly to signify the thing.
The thing signified by that name, the glory of God, when
spoken of as the supreme and ultimate end of all God's works,
is the emanation and true external expression of God's
internal glory and fulness...Thus we see that the great end
of God's works, which is so variously expressed in Scripture,
is indeed but ONE; and this one end is most properly and
comprehensively called, THE GLORY OF GOD; by which name it is
most commonly called in Scripture; and is fitly compared to
an effulgence or emanation of light from a luminary.36
Led by Scripture, and aided by logic and reason, Jonathan
Edwards gives to the world an answer to the ultimate question:
"Why?" Few, of course, like the answer, or understand
it at all. Some might feel he has gone too far, that God has not
deigned to reveal the particulars. No matter what perspective one
takes, one must be truly respectful of the effort made, and the
consistency of the answer given.
Another example of the more speculative or philosophical work
of Edwards is to be found in a sermon(?) entitled Concerning
the Divine Decrees in General, and Election in Particular.
Here Edwards struggles with some of the same concerns that Calvin
did at the end of Book I of the Institutes, and on into
the early chapters of Book II. They follow the same path, but, as
normal, where Calvin would stop and say, "this is as far as
the Bible allows us to go with certainty" Edwards says,
"well, I think I can make out the path a little farther
ahead." The resulting statements one might ponder for quite
some time, and ask how Calvin would have reacted to them; indeed,
if Calvin had had the same thoughts, but not the
desire/opportunity/courage to put them to paper. This writer
feels that this is the case; that Edwards was probably following
a road that very few had traveled before; but that if he had
looked closely at the ground, he would have found the faint, two
hundred year-old tracks of a French scholar and
theologian—tracks going both directions!
Calvin had been ridiculed by Sebastian Castello as proposing
"two wills" in God, to which he responded in Book I,
chapter 18, section 1. Here Edwards addresses the same issue upon
the proposition that God has decreed whatsoever comes to pass,
including the actions of sinful men. The charge made against
Calvin was still being made in Edwards day (and continues till
today!):
The Arminians ridicule the distinction between the secret
and revealed will of God, or, more properly expressed, the
distinction between the decree and law of God; because we say
he may decree one thing, and command another.37
He answers such a charge on the basis of an appeal to
Scripture, pointing to the many instances in the Bible where just
such a thing clearly took place. The primary example he uses is
that of the death of Christ, a thing clearly decreed from
eternity, yet involving the active sin of man, actions which are
clearly against the legal or moral laws of God. From this Edwards
moves into the Arminian concept of "foreknowledge" and
what it means. Rather than following a linguistic path of
connecting the term with the Old Testament concept of
"knowledge" (yadah), Edwards allows the Arminian
definition to stand, but then turns it on its head by stating,
Contingency, as it is holden by some, is at the same time
contradicted by themselves, if they hold foreknowledge. This
is all that follows from an absolute, unconditional,
irreversible decree, that it is impossible but that the
things decreed should be. The same exactly follows from
foreknowledge, that it is absolutely impossible but that the
thing certainly foreknown should precisely come to pass...The
foreknowledge of God will necessarily infer a decree: for God
could not foreknow that things would be, unless he had
decreed they should be; and that because things would not be
future, unless he had decreed they should be.38
This goes back to Edwards' concept of time as created thing,
and the impossibility, based upon this, of contingency, shadows
of which were seen in the above discussion of the end for which
God created the world. If God foreknows something, then it will
surely come to pass, unless there can be error in God's
knowledge. Hence, there is no difference between this
foreknowledge and decree, for it will surely come to pass no
matter what word you use to describe it. But, someone might say,
God knows what comes to pass, but what comes to pass is not part
of his decree. But, Edwards retorts, this would mean that things
can happen which are contrary to God's will, and hence reduce his
happiness. He argues,
If God is infinitely happy now, then every thing is now as
God would have it to be now; if every thing, then those
things that are contrary to his commands. If so, it is not
ridiculous to say, that things which are contrary to God's
commands, are yet in a sense agreeable to his will?39
Well, why bother? is surely a response that any Calvinist has
heard at least once or twice in life. Jonathan Edwards to the
rescue:
They say, to what purpose are praying, and striving, and
attending on means, if all was irreversibly determined by God
before? But, to say that all was determined before these
prayers and strivings, is a very wrong way of speaking, and
begets those ideas in the mind, which correspond with no
realities with respect to God. The decrees of our everlasting
state were not before our prayers and strivings; for these
are as much present with God from all eternity, as they are
the moment they are present with us.40
The same God who decreed all things, also decreed the means as
well, and that, Edwards stresses, congruently with all other
decrees. Hence, there is no "dependence" upon a
"previous" decree for the later decree; both are
equally eternal and important. God has decreed that we pray and
strive, and attend "on the means". This is his decree
just as surely as election and predestination. But, we hear
again, this means that God decrees sin, and hence is the author
thereof. Edwards (as Calvin) gladly owns God's decree of sin. But
neither would say that God then becomes the actual author
thereof, since both refer to the purpose or intention of the
action as determinative as to its goodness or evilness. He
writes,
God decrees that they shall be sinful, for the sake of the
good that he causes to arise from the sinfulness thereof;
whereas man decrees them for the sake of the evil that is in
them...for men act in committing it with a view to that which
is evil.41
The same action is under scrutiny, but the one wills it for
the good (God) while the man wills it for evil. Hence the
difference between them, and the grounds for judgment as well. Of
course, Edwards' full understanding of how this (as Calvin would
say) "secret impulse" of God's decree comes over into
temporal reality is to be found in his huge work on the Freedom
of the Will. But how, then, does Edwards work out this seeming
anomaly—that God's decree would include in it evil? He
begins,
So God, though he hates a thing as it is simply, may
incline to it with reference to the universality of things.
Though he hates sin in itself, yet he may will to permit it,
for the greater promotion of holiness in this universality,
including all things, and at all times...God inclines to
excellency, which is harmony, but yet he may incline to
suffer that which is unharmonious in itself, for the
promotion of universal harmony, or for the promoting of the
harmony that there is in the universality, and making it
shine the brighter.42
The concept of "harmony" has been seen as
foundational to Edwards' thinking, but it must be maintained that
this is not the same kind of pantheistic harmony of Eastern
religions; this is the consistency of the nature of the Holy God.
But, some might object, is this not simply "the ends justify
the means?" This doesn't seem to be an accurate description,
for the saying itself assumes human motivations, and here we are
discussing the eternal and infinite wisdom and being of God. God
is the end, and the means as well! We are looking at the temporal
aspects of the eternal decrees. It is from this vantage point
that contradiction seems to arise, but, Edwards would say, this
is simply due to the nature of the situation, not due to any
actual contradiction on God's part.
Then, in the midst of this discussion, one encounters a
startlingly clear and cogent statement, comprising "section
10" of the discourse. Given the immense importance of this
section, it is here given at length:
It is a proper and excellent thing for infinite glory to
shine forth; and for the same reason, it is proper that the
shining forth of God's glory should be complete; that is,
that all parts of his glory should shine forth, that every
beauty should be proportionably effulgent, that the beholder
may have a proper notion of God. It is not proper that one
glory should be exceedingly manifested, and another not at
all; for then the effulgence would not answer the reality.
For the same reason it is not proper that one should be
manifested exceedingly, and another but very little. It is
highly proper that the effulgent glory of God should answer
his real excellency; that the splendour should be answerable
to the real and essential glory, for the same reason that it
is proper and excellent for God to glorify himself at all.
Thus it is necessary, that God's awful majesty, his authority
and dreadful greatness, justice, and holiness, should be
manifested. But this could not be, unless sin and punishment
had been decreed; so that the shining forth of God's glory
would be very imperfect, both because these parts of divine
glory would not sine forth as the others do, and also the
glory of his goodness, love, and holiness would be faint
without them; nay, they could scarcely shine forth at
all...And as it is necessary that there should be evil,
because the display of the glory of God could not but be
imperfect and incomplete without it, so evil is necessary, in
order to the highest happiness of the creature, and the
completeness of that communication of God, for which he made
the world; because the creature's happiness consists in the
knowledge of God, and sense of his love. And if the knowledge
of him be imperfect, the happiness of the creature must be
proportionately imperfect; and the happiness of the creature
would be imperfect upon another account also; for, as we have
said, the sense of good is comparatively dull and flat,
without the knowledge of evil.43
To which might be added his words from the above sermon on
sovereignty,
It is agreeable to God's design in the creation of the
universe to exercise every attribute, and thus to manifest
the glory of each of them.44
Here Edwards ventures an answer to yet another
"ultimate" question that would cause most less intrepid
writers to recoil in fear (and maybe rightly so!). The connection
in Edwards' thinking between the glory and holiness of God, and
his own personal experience of sin, has already been noted from
his personal memoirs. Here we find a theological extrapolation of
that personal experience. That is not to say that Edwards is here
simply importing experience into dogmatics; rather, he again
finds a consistency between the two. Basically, Edwards is
asserting that God's glory must be equally displayed, and this
involves (drawing from his work on the end for which God created)
the display, to the creature, of his attributes. Since God's
justice and holiness could not be displayed outside of the
existence of evil (sin), then, Edwards says, God decreed a
perfect plan in which all of his attributes would be harmoniously
communicated. Most draw back, however, when he writes, "And
as it is necessary that there should be evil..." Upon first
blush this seems almost dualistic, but upon closer examination it
is clear that he is not asserting a necessary existence of evil
collaterally with the existence of God; rather, he is stating
that to complete the plan of God to display all of his attributes
to man, and to create the highest happiness and fulfillment of
man, evil becomes a necessary part of the plan of God by which he
brings this about. One is indeed wise to ponder this question
long and hard before brushing Mr. Edwards' suggestion aside; at
the same time, it is doubtful that he himself would have
suggested that this scenario be accepted with dogmatic authority.
John Calvin was very strong in asserting that God's decree was
"no mere permission."45 Yet Edwards uses the
same term, "permission," but in such a way as to allow
him to say the same thing as Calvin! At the same time, God is
definitely portrayed as the absolute and only cause of all that
is good:
Hence God decrees from all eternity, to permit all the
evil that ever he does permit; because God's permitting is
God's forbearing to act or to prevent...God decrees all the
good that ever comes to pass; and therefore there certainly
will come to pass no more good, than he has absolutely
decreed to cause; and there certainly and infallibly will no
more believe, no more be godly, and no more be saved, than
God has decreed that he will cause to believe, and cause to
be godly, and will save.46
If this is so, then one can plainly see that the whole of
God's work is based upon his grace and sovereign purpose; no man
can look at himself as "special" above another, for
whatever we have, we have from God. We deserved nothing good, yet
have so much of it.
If the foundation of that distinction that there is
between one man and another, whereby one is a good man, and
another a wicked man, be God's pleasure, and his causation;
then God has absolutely elected the particular persons that
are to be godly.47
And in a rhetorical question to those who would say that such
an "arbitrary" judgment or action on the part of God is
not worthy of him, or that such is simply beyond our
comprehension, Edwards asks,
And cannot a God of infinite wisdom and infinite power
cause the nature of things to be such, and order them so
after they are caused, as to have things as he chooses, or
without his will's being crossed, and things so coming to
pass that he had rather have them otherwise?48
Indeed! There is much more in this rich treatise that could be
profitably examined, but this final quotation will have to
suffice. In regards to the foreknowledge of God being directly
related to the very decree of God itself, Edwards notes:
And it is owing only to him, that is the first being, and
that exists necessarily, of himself, that all other things,
that are not in their own nature necessary, or necessarily
future, but merely possible, are brought out of that state of
mere possibility, into a state of futurition, to be certainly
future.49
Here Edwards shows his familiarity with Scholastic theology,
and the concepts of "necessary" and
"possible" being. However, it would be wrong to import
into his thinking, then, the natural theology that had even by
that time become so closely related to such concepts. As has been
seen, Edwards would not balk at a "synthesis" approach
that saw the usefulness of certain of the Scholastic propositions
(such as this distinction between "necessary" and
"potential" being, which is so important to certain of
Aquinas' theistic proofs) while not buying into anything that
would compromise the centrality of divine revelation, nor place
more in the capacity of man than Scriptural revelation would
allow.
To this point we have centered our inquiry, quite rightly it
would seem, on the same areas that give determinative form to all
of Edwards' thinking and theology, that being the nature and
attributes of God. Next, we move to the personal application of
these truths.
Salvation: Grace, Conversion, and the Religious
Affections
As has been noted, it is virtually impossible to draw lines
between Edwards' doctrine of God and his soteriology. They are,
in his mind, completely intertwined. This has been seen already
in the fact that God's work of redemption is repeatedly addressed
in the context of such high theological discussions as those
attending sovereignty, eternity, and the decrees. But, Edwards
did indeed address just this topic, and his comments are very
enlightening.
One source of information on Jonathan Edwards' view of grace
is his Treatise on Grace which is not found in his
collected Works.50 Here Edwards addresses the issue of
saving grace and common grace, and differentiates between the
two. The same problem faces the reviewer as that which was
encountered in Edwards' theology proper—this man strove for
great consistency in his theology, and hence many concepts that
would be nicely treated separately are intertwined in his
writings. The discussion of grace moves directly into the marks
of true conversion, which leads into the religious affections.
For Edwards, the true mark of a Christian was to be found in an
apprehension of the excellency of divine things. This key element
of his thinking will round out our brief review of the core
elements of his theology.
Edwards provides us with a clear thesis statement at the
beginning of his Treatise on Grace:
And that special or saving grace in this sense is not only
different from common grace in degree, but entirely diverse
in nature and kind, and that natural men not only have not a
sufficient degree of virtue to be saints, but that they have
no degree of that grace that is in godly men, is what I have
now to show.51
From here Edwards delves into the Scriptures and comes quickly
to the conclusion,
So that it is manifest by this, that men that have been
the subjects only of the first birth, have no degree of that
moral principle or quality that those that are new born have,
whereby they have a title to the kingdom of heaven.52
This is followed by further examination of many passages
addressing the natural state of fallen man, and the difference
between the natural man and the man who has been subject of the
working of God's Spirit. In addressing this, then, Edwards
asserts that the disjunction between saved and unsaved,
regenerate and unregenerate, is so drastic, so sharp, that
conversion itself must be an immediate thing:
From what has been said, I would observe that it must
needs be that conversion is wrought at once. That knowledge,
that reformation and conviction that is preparatory to
conversion may be gradual, and the work of grace after
conversion may be gradually carried on, yet that work of
grace upon the soul whereby a person is brought out of a
state of total corruption and depravity into a state of
grace, to an interest in Christ, and to be actually a child
of God, is in a moment...By which it seems evident that it is
done at once and not gradually; whereby Christ, through His
great power, does but speak the powerful word and it is done,
He does but call and the heart of the sinner immediately
comes.53
The consistency between this and his theology proper in
regards to sovereignty and providence hardly needs to be pointed
out. But it must be remembered that in his context, this subject
was a point of some debate, and would, indirectly, bear upon two
of Edwards' greatest battles: the defense of the Awakening
against the likes of Chauncy, and the correct doctrine on who is
truly a part of the church of God, which eventually led to his
dismissal from the Northampton church.
For Jonathan Edwards, conversion was the work of God, which
resulted in a radical change in man. Before conversion, man was
totally unable to bring about this change by the exercise of his
own will or faculties:
Therefore it follows that saving grace in the heart, can't
be produced in man by mere exercise of what perfections he
has in him already, though never so much assisted by moral
suasion, and never so much assisted in the exercise of his
natural principles, unless there be something more than all
this, viz., an immediate infusion or operation of the Divine
Being upon the soul.54
It has already been said that the resulting change in the
heart that comes from conversion is "radical", but how
so? Here we begin to get a glimpse (already seen in his earlier
personal remarks) of Edwards' view on the religious affections,
to which we will turn briefly at a later time. How can we know
that conversion has taken place? What is the nature of the
regenerate soul? What will this person do? The answer, for
Edwards, is "love." The converted person will love
God—all of God, including his holiness, mercy, grace,
justice—all of God. He writes,
Divine love, as it has God for its object, may be thus
described. 'Tis the soul's relish of the supreme excellency
of the Divine nature, inclining the heart to God as the chief
good. The first thing in Divine love, and that from which
everything that appertains to it arises, is a relish of the
excellency of the Divine nature; which the soul of man by
nature has nothing of...When once the soul is brought to
relish the excellency of the Divine nature, then it will
naturally, and of course, incline to God every way...He that
is once brought to see, or rather to taste, the superlative
loveliness of the Divine Being, will need no more to make him
long after the enjoyment of God, to make him rejoice in the
happiness of God, and to desire that this supremely excellent
Being may be pleased and glorified.55
The man who loves God is the one who longs to please God, to
love God, to experience God; and that not because of any selfish
reason, but solely for the sake of God himself. Remember the cry
of his heart to be "annihilated", utterly swept up in
the contemplation of the majesty of God? Here is the essence of
Edwards' belief about the change wrought in the heart in
salvation. In speaking of this Paul Helm wrote, "Edwards'
argument here...is that the natural man is capable of loving God
for selfish reasons, but not of loving God as He is in
himself."56 Edwards wrote,
A natural principle of self-love may be the foundation of
great affections towards God and Christ, without seeing
anything of the beauty and glory of the divine nature. There
is a certain gratitude that is a mere natural thing.57
But of the man at conversion he says in the same treatise,
"There is a new understanding of the excellent nature of God
and his wonderful perfections, some new view of Christ in his
spiritual excellencies and fulness, or things are opened to him
in a new manner, whereby he now understands those divine and
spiritual doctrines which once were foolishness unto him."58
Here is the evidence of the presence of the Spirit of God in a
person's life—a love for the divine nature, which is
certainly not present by nature in man. It is fascinating at this
juncture to point out that Edwards, in this treatise on grace,
moves quite naturally into a discussion of theology proper again;
here, transitioning into a discussion of the Person of the Holy
Spirit, bringing forth the concept of the identification of the
Holy Spirit as the "love of God." Not only this, but
this continues directly into his essay on the Trinity where he
develops this idea all the way into what has been called his very
own "ontological proof" of the Trinity. The point in
bringing this out is the inter-connectedness of the nature of God
with the salvation of man. Listen to his words,
He (the Spirit) is the deity wholly breathed forth in
infinite, substantial, intelligent love: from the Father and
Son first towards each other, and secondarily freely flowing
out to the creature, and so standing forth as distinct
personal subsistence...And so God is Himself the portion and
purchased inheritance of His people. Thus God is the Alpha
and Omega in this affair of redemption...By this, also, we
may understand how the saints are said to be made 'partakers
of God's holiness', not only as they partake of holiness that
God gives, but partake of that holiness by which He himself
is holy. For it has been already observed, the holiness of
God consists in that Divine love in which the essence of God
really flows out...We have shown that the holiness and
happiness of God consist in the Holy Spirit; and so the
holiness and happiness of every holy or truly virtuous
creature of God, in heaven or earth, consist in the communion
of the same Spirit.59
While Edwards' speculations on the nature of the Trinity would
be fascinating indeed, they fall outside of the current stream of
inquiry. From his treatise on grace we turn to his early (1734)
work, A Divine and Supernatural Light, Immediately Imparted
to the Soul by the Spirit of God, Shown to be Both a Scriptural
and Rational Doctrine. Here we find the work of the Spirit
in conversion represented as a spiritual and divine light, as he
says in his thesis statement:
That there is such a thing as a spiritual and divine
light, immediately imparted to the soul by God, of a
different nature from any that is obtained by natural means.60
This is much as what was said about the difference between
common grace and the saving grace of God above; indeed, the
"supernatural light" might well be described as the
work of the Holy Spirit, who brings true faith to the heart of
the elect. We would expect, then, given Edwards' consistency,
that the description of this light would follow the same lines as
those laid down differentiating saving grace from common grace,
regenerate from unregenerate, and this is exactly what we find:
This spiritual light is not the suggesting of any new
truths or propositions not contained in the word of
God...This spiritual light primarily consists in the former
of these, viz. A real sense and apprehension of the divine
excellency of things revealed in the word of God. A spiritual
and saving conviction of the truth and reality of these
things, arises from such a sight of their divine excellency
and glory; so that this conviction of their truth is an
effect and natural consequence of this sight of their divine
glory...There is not only a rational belief that God is holy,
and that holiness is a good thing, but there is a sense of
the loveliness of God's holiness.61
There are some vital aspects of Edwards' theology to be noted
here. First, the divine light is not revelatory in the sense of
adding to Scripture; rather, the divine light allows the
prejudices of the heart, that stand in the way of full
understanding, to be removed ("As the prejudices of the
heart, against the truth of divine things, are hereby removed; so
that the mind becomes susceptive of the due force of rational
arguments for their truth.")62 The light results
in an "apprehension" of the beauty of the nature of
God, and results in a firm conviction and faith that God is
indeed true, just, loving and merciful.
The role of the mind, reason, again comes to the fore as
Edwards turns to discuss the effect upon the reason of this
supernatural light, this work of God:
Not that they had a stronger reason, or had their reason
more improved; but their reason was sanctified, and those
blinding prejudices, that the scribes and Pharisees were
under, were removed by the sense they had of the excellency
of Christ, and his doctrine...As he that beholds objects on
the face of the earth, when the light of the sun is cast upon
them, is under greater advantage to discern them in their
true forms and natural relations, than he that sees them in a
dim twilight...A true sense of the divine excellency of the
things of God's word doth more directly and immediately
convince us of their truth; and that because the excellency
of these things is so superlative...They believe the
doctrines of God's word to be divine, because they see a
divine, and transcendent, and most evidently distinguishing
glory in them; such a glory as, if clearly seen, does not
leave room to doubt of their being of God, and not of men.
Such a conviction of the truths of religion as this,
arising from a sense of their divine excellency, is included
in saving faith...God, in letting in this light into the
soul, deals with man according to his nature, and makes use
of his rational faculties. But yet this light is not the less
immediately from God for that; the faculties are made use of
as the subject, and not as the cause.63
The truth of divine things, then, is indeed rational; but the
mind blinded by sin cannot see this. The divine light dispels
this darkness and allows the mind of man to function correctly
again, as that mind can now appreciate the proper foundation for
all thinking, that being the beauty of the nature of God himself.
Possibly drawing from Calvin's metaphors found in the Institutes
Book I, chapter 2, sections 2 and 3, Edwards refers to the work
of the Spirit as light cast into the dim shadows, resulting in
clearer, more precise sight. And from this we see the connection
between the spiritual enlightenment by the Spirit, and the
intellectual conviction that follows, for the mind then has
accessible to it that which was not available before: spiritual
truth. This is all part of real, or "saving faith." If
one wishes to ask of Edwards how one knows who is, and who is not
a Christian, by now the answer should be abundantly clear.
But again we find Edwards following the lines of Calvin in
Book I, chapters 7-9 with his following comments on the
relationship of the Spirit and the Scriptures:
It conveys to our minds these doctrines; it is the cause
of a notion of them in our heads, but not of the sense of
their divine excellency in our hearts...The mind cannot see
the excellency of any doctrine, unless that doctrine be first
in the mind; but seeing the excellency of the doctrine may be
immediately from the Spirit of God; though the conveying of
the doctrine or proposition itself may be by the word....As
for instance, the notion that there is a Christ, and that
Christ is holy and gracious, is conveyed to the mind by the
word of God; but the sense of the excellency of Christ by
reason of that holiness and grace, is nevertheless
immediately the work of the Holy Spirit.64
The natural man, then, could read of God's holiness in the
Word of God, and would there encounter truth. But outside of a
quickening by the author of those words, the heart will remain
numb to the majesty and beauty of that truth. There is, then, a
necessary inter-action of the rational and the spiritual for full
comprehension; neither is complete without the other.
This light is the gift of God. It is the work of God. It
cannot be produced by the actions of men or the exercise of
natural abilities. Edwards writes,
It is rational to suppose that God would reserve that
knowledge and wisdom, which is of such a divine and excellent
nature, to be bestowed immediately by himself; and that it
should not be left in the power of second causes...How
rational is it to suppose that God, however he has left lower
gifts to second causes, and in some sort in their power, yet
should reserve this most excellent, divine, and important of
all divine communications, in his own hands, to be bestowed
immediately by himself, as a thing too great for second
causes to be concerned in?...It is rational to suppose, that
it should be beyond man's power to obtain this light by the
mere strength of natural reason; for it is not a thing that
belongs to reason, to see the beauty and loveliness of
spiritual things; it is not a speculative thing, but depends
on the sense of the heart.65
This is another way of asserting sovereignty; man is incapable
of "working up" this sense of the excellency of divine
things; it is not something that is the result of second causes;
it is, as befits its high character, the sovereignly bestowed
gift of God, given to those he will and to none other. The gift
not only "frees" reason, but it transcends reason in
giving to the mind this sense of the sublimity of divine doctrine
and truth. Indeed, it is Edwards' assertion that this sense is
not even within the realm of the reason at all (not meaning that
it is unreasonable or irrational, but simply "other"
than based on reason alone). He illustrates this by saying,
But if we take reason strictly—not for the faculty of
mental perception in general, but for ratiocination, or a
power of inferring by arguments—the perceiving of
spiritual beauty and excellency no more belongs to reason,
than it belongs to the sense of feeling to perceive colours,
or to the power of seeing to perceive the sweetness of food.
It is out of reason's province to perceive the beauty or
loveliness of any thing: such a perception does not belong to
that faculty. Reason's work is to perceive truth and not
excellency.66
This experience of the "divine light," which he
would later simply identify as true, Christian
"conversion," was so important to Jonathan Edwards that
he refused to abandon one of the logical conclusions of this
belief (that being that only those who are so converted should be
partakers of the Lord's Supper in the church) despite what he
knew could happen. His dedication to the truth of this teaching
was stronger than all else, and he remained committed to it till
the end of his days. As with all else, this was not simply to him
a doctrinal tenet, or a theological point of debate; he lived his
theology. He speaks of an experience that, seemingly, only those
who have experienced it can understand. It is hard to give to
this experience words of description, for, as Edwards said above,
our language is inadequate for the depiction of heavenly things.
But, to those who speak of a time in life where they saw, for the
first time, the holiness and power of the Almighty God, Edwards
is a brother and compatriot. These people speak of being
drastically changed—their entire outlook on life is changed
and altered, never to be the same again. Edwards spoke of this
long ago:
Yea, the least glimpse of the glory of God in the face of
Christ doth more exalt and ennoble the soul, than all the
knowledge of those that have the greatest speculative
understanding in divinity without grace...There is nothing so
powerful as this to support persons in affliction, and to
give the mind peace and brightness in this stormy and dark
world.67
Summary and Conclusion
The theology of Jonathan Edwards is soundly Reformed. The same
driving forces that forged the doctrines of John Calvin are to be
found in Jonathan Edwards. Classically, the Reformed theological
position could be identified in two ways: first, by its strong
doctrine of the nature of God as the central and controlling
aspect of the entire system; secondly, by its emphasis upon the
fallen nature and capacities of man.
We have seen, in numerous and striking ways, the height of
Edwards' doctrine of God. For Jonathan Edwards, the nature and
attributes of God--all of them—are absolutely core to all
else. The very end for which God created the world, he preaches,
is for his own glory. The bare consideration that God is God, he
proclaims, is sufficient to still all objections to his
sovereignty. Divine sovereignty is as much a part of belief in
the Christian God for Edwards as his being sinless is for many
others—he simply cannot conceive of a God who is anything
but properly described in Psalm 115:3: "Our God is in
heaven; he does whatever pleases him."
From this basis Edwards tackles the "ultimate"
questions and objections which are to him lodged against basic
theism, not simply against his own belief system. His consistency
both drives him, as well as provides to him, a strong (even
"inflexible") framework in which he is do to his work.
He stresses the reality and inescapability of the divine decrees,
arguing masterfully that there are not two wills in God, but one,
and that his decrees are in perfect harmony with his nature as
the omniscient, complete, perfectly sovereign Creator.
The glory of God must be displayed! All of God's attributes
must be revealed to mankind, including his justice, wrath, and
holiness. The attributes of God are not for him abstracts, but an
ever-present reality, indeed, an object of humble adoration and
worship.
The work of this sovereign God in man is marked by the same
characteristics as his being: he is completely sovereign in
salvation. It is his to give mercy, or his to withhold it. When
he gives of His Spirit, the result is an effective change of the
recipient. Conversion for Edwards is a change, an enabling
through the "divine and supernatural light" to
appreciate the things of God. The person to whom this great gift
has come is then struck with a love for God—not a watered
down version of the deity, but the Holy and Just God. Jesus
Christ becomes the center of all life for those joined to him. It
is this love of the divine doctrines that separates the
unregenerate from the regenerate, for such a love is beyond the
ability of the natural man. This love of God— his nature,
his gospel, his actions in the world—is so important to
Edwards that nothing, including expulsion from his pulpit, could
stop his proclamation of it.
No one, who has deep respect and admiration for Jonathan
Edwards, can feel satisfied upon reaching the end of a review of
his writings. One simply cannot escape the feeling that there is
so much more to be said. Indeed, if one finds oneself in
heartfelt agreement with Mr. Edwards on the doctrines of the
faith, and feels, as he did, that these issues are central to the
Christian experience, one will wish that all could be exposed to
these writings. Hence, one who has had the wonderful opportunity
to spend even a few dozen hours basking in the rich light of
these works, marveling at the perception and insight of this
humble servant of God, feels a true responsibility to bring some
of these treasured insights to others.
For two hundred years and more the writings of Jonathan
Edwards have fascinated readers, no matter what their background.
Some have come away hating him, not for anything of himself, but
for what he said and believed. Surely this would not have
surprised him in the least. Others try to approach him with an
air of neutrality, not deigning to even entertain a whole picture
of the man, but (possibly out of self-preservation) rather
zeroing in so closely on one particular aspect of his
"philosophy" so as to avoid the confrontation that any
honest person must have with the teaching that was his. But
others, men and women who find in him a kindred spirit, turn to
these writings and find in them what they also find in Calvin, or
the more modern Warfield. There is a fraternity of those who
smile knowingly upon reading about the Religious Affections, and
this "divine and supernatural light" of which he
speaks, resulting in this "apprehension of the excellency of
divine things." To these Edwards speaks of truth, not just
to the reason, but to the heart as well. This writer has yet to
find a clearer presentation of his own experience with this
"divine light" than that given by his brother over two
centuries ago.
This review, it is hoped, is not ending here, either for the
writer, or for the readers. This should be a beginning. There are
few sources of reading material that could be more profitably
recommended to our nation, or more particularly, to the church of
Christ today. Our secular society needs to listen to Jonathan
Edwards call them back to personal holiness in humble obedience
to the sovereign and holy God. There is much need to pray that we
would learn to love the holiness of God. The writings of Edwards
function like a strong dose of medicine in a sick church centered
so much on self, with little or no concern for God and his glory.
If this brief attempt will in any way aid or encourage someone to
take to heart the truths here presented, it will have done that
for which it was intended.
The words below were written originally about John Calvin of
Geneva, but apply equally as well, as has been shown, to Jonathan
Edwards of Northampton:
It was that we might know ourselves to be wholly in the
hands of this God of perfect righteousness and goodness - not
in those of men, whether ourselves or some other men - that
he was so earnest for the doctrine of predestination: which
is nothing more than the declaration of the supreme dominion
of God. It was that our eternal felicity might hang wholly on
God's mighty love - and not on our sinful weakness - that he
was so zealous for the doctrine of election; which is nothing
more than the ascription of our entire salvation to God. As
he contemplated the majesty of this Sovereign Father of men,
his whole being bowed in reverence before Him, and his whole
heart burned with zeal for His glory. As he remembered that
his great God has become in His own Son the Redeemer of
sinners, he passionately gave himself to the proclamation of
the glory of His grace. Into His hands he committed himself
without reserve: his whole spirit panted to be in all its
movement subjected to His government - or, to be more
specific, to the 'leading of His Spirit.' All that was good
in him, all the good he hoped might be formed in him, he
ascribed to the almighty working of this Divine Spirit. (B.B. Warfield, Calvin and Calvinism, p. 23).
Endnotes:
1. Elisabeth
Dodds, "My Dear Companion" in Christian
History Vol. 4, No. 4, page 16. 2. Iain Murray, Jonathan
Edwards: A New Biography (Southampton: Banner of Truth
Trust, 1987) p. 441. 3. Ibid., p. 442. 4. Christian History Vol.
4, No. 4, (no author given), pg. 4. 5. Jonathan Edwards, The
Works of Jonathan Edwards in Two Volumes, Edited by Edward
Hickman (Southampton: Banner of Truth Trust, 1984), 2:3.
(Hereafter, Works). 6. Works 2:3. 7. Works
2:7. 8. Works 2:3, 4, 6. 9. Works 2:849.
10. Works
2:850. 11. Ibid. 12. Works 2:851.
13. Works
2:853. 14. Works 2:854. 15. Ibid. 16. Works
2:109. 17. Ibid. 18. Works 2:110. 19. Ibid. 20. Ibid.
21. Works 1:97. 22. Works 1:106.
23. Works
1:97. 24. Works 1:98. 25. Works 1:100.
26. Works
1:101. 27. Works 1:101-102. 28. Works 1:120.
29. John Calvin, The Institutes of the Christian Religion
Edited by McNiell (Philadelphia:Westminster Press, 1960), Book I,
Chapter 14, Section 4, page 164. 30. Works 1:102. 31. Works
1:106. 32. Works 1:107-109. 33. Works 1:115.
34. Works 1:118. 35. Ibid. 36. Works 1:119.
37.
Works 2:526. 38. Works 2:527, 532. 39. Works
2:527. 40. Ibid. 41. Works 2:527, 529.
42. Works 2:528. 43. Ibid. 44. Works 2:853.
45. Calvin, Institutes,
I:18.1, p. 228. 46. Works 2:529, 532. 47. Works
2:531. 48. Works 2:532. 49. Ibid. 50. Jonathan Edwards, Treatise
on Grace & Other Writings Edited by Paul Helm
(Greenwood, South Carolina: The Attic Press, 1971). 51. Edwards, Treatise,
p. 26. 52. Edwards, Treatise, p. 27. 53. Edwards, Treatise,
pp. 33-35. 54. Edwards, Treatise, p. 39. 55. Edwards, Treatise,
pp. 48-49. 56. Paul Helm in Edwards, Treatise, p. 11. 57. Works 1:275.
58. Works 1:282. 59. Edwards, Treatise,
pp. 63, 68, 73, 75. 60. Works 2:13. 61. Works
2:13-14. 62. Works 2:14. 63. Works 2:14-15.
64.
Works 2:15. 65. Works 2:16. 66. Works
2:17. 67. Ibid.
Bibliography
Calvin, John. The Institutes of the Christian Religion.
Edited by McNiell. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.
Dodds, Elisabeth. "My Dear Companion" in Christian
History Magazine, Volume IV, No. 4.
Edwards, Jonathan. The Works of Jonathan Edwards in Two
Volumes. Edited by Edward Hickman. Southampton: Banner of
Truth Trust, 1984. (First published in London, 1834)
________, Treatise on Grace & Other Writings.
Edited by Paul Helm. Greenwood, South Carolina: The Attic Press,
Inc., 1971.
Gerstner, John H. Jonathan Edwards: A Mini-Theology.
Wheaton, Illinois: Tyndale House Publishers, 1987.
Lloyd-Jones, D.M. The Puritans: Their Origins and
Successors. Southampton: Banner of Truth Trust, 1987.
Murray, Iain H. Jonathan Edwards: A New Biography.
Southampton: Banner of Truth Trust, 1987.
|
