Most Significant Contribution

[ITS]

From your study, what do you feel is Jonathan Edwards's most significant contribution to the church? What (if any) was his greatest weakness?

[kmiller]

The End for Which God Created the World is a work that paints a picture of God that few have ever done. Jonathan Edwards saturated his mind in his pursuit to understand the written word of God, and his countless hours of study have resulted in this profound theological work; its message: The chief end of God is to glorify God and enjoy Himself forever.
Edwards? treatise consists of three main sections (introduction, Chapter one, and Chapter two); the first section is a discussion of the meaning of terms (the use of ?ultimate end,? ?last end,? and ?chief end). Edwards included this section ?To avoid all confusion in our inquiries concerning the end for which God created the world? and further adds that ?a distinction should be observed between the chief end for which an agent performs any work and the ultimate end. These two phrases are not always precisely of the same signification, and though the chief end be always an ultimate end, yet every ultimate end is not always a chief end? ( 1). Edwards defines a ?chief end? as being ?most valued, and therefore most sought after by the agent in what he does? ( 7). Edwards then lists nine ?General Positions? that finish clarifying what is meant by the terms ?ultimate end,? ?last end,? and ?chief end.? One can refer back to Edwards? introduction for clarification of these terms, for Edwards does not make the effort to define these terms in chapter?s one and two (see 10-26).
The second major division of The End for Which God Created the World is Chapter one ( 27-124). In this chapter, Edwards argues his thesis philosophically to show the rationality of God?s chief end; he makes the following statement explaining why he does so, ?objections have chiefly been made against what I think the Scriptures have truly revealed from the pretended dictates of reason, I would, in the first place, soberly consider in a few things what seems rational to be supposed concerning this affair?and then proceed to consider what light divine revelation gives us in it? ( 30).
Edwards, in writing this chapter, desires to dispel any erroneous idea of why God does what He does; to start, Edwards makes this thought provoking statement, ?The notion of God creating the world, in order to receive any thing properly from the creature, is not only contrary to the nature of God, but inconsistent with the notion of creation; which implies a being receiving its existence, and all that belongs to it, out of nothing? ( 33). He attempts to destroy the heart of any man centered theology by demonstrating the rational of a God centered purpose for all things, including God Himself. Since all things are subject to a God (or Yahweh) centered existence, then Edwards argues that since God is God, he must ?esteem and delight in his own perfections and virtues, he cannot but value and delight in the expressions and genuine effects of them. So that in delighting in the expressions of his perfections, he manifests a delight in himself; and in making these expressions of his own perfections his end, he makes himself his end? ( 59), and the result of such a delight results in God having a ?respect to himself, or an infinite propensity to and delight in his own glory? and is ?that which cause him to incline to its being abundantly diffused, and to delight in the emanation of it? ( 65). Edwards then suggests that not only is it the duty of God to enjoy Himself, but that it is the creature?s chief end to enjoy Him as well. Even though Edwards goes to great length to argue, philosophically, the purpose of all that exists, he understands that Biblical ?revelation is the surest guide in these matters? but also argues that 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 ( 124).
In chapter two of Edwards? treatise, the third major section of this work, he answers the question, ?What is to be learned from Holy Scriptures concerning God?s last end in the creation of the world?? Edwards proves what he argues philosophically in chapter one with scripture in chapter two. Edwards brings together a collogue of Biblical texts to settle the argument that ?Scriptures speak on all occasions as though God made himself his end in all his works, and as though the same being, who is the first cause of all things, were the supreme and last end of all things ( 125).
The End for Which God Created the World is an intensely difficult read, for ?Edwards? text is tremendously difficult, as we should expect, since it is dealing with an issue that is right at the edge of human comprehension and on that can only be grasped and gloried in through God?s Spirit illuminating our minds and regenerating our hearts? (Mark Talbot, Book Review: ?God?s Passion for His Glory: Living the Vision of Jonathan Edwards, by John Piper?). All who read Edwards? The End for Which God Created the World, will agree with the above statement.

My Analysis of the Book
Even though I found Edwards? dissertation to be a very difficult read, I discovered it to be the most important book that I have read to date outside of the Bible. Edwards presents a philosophical, biblical, and theological defense for God?s pursuit for His glory in all things. The reader is forced to see the thematic drama of scripture, God?s passion for His glory, through this amazing study of the chief end of God.
As stated above, The End for Which God Created the World can be divided into three major divisions: 1. the introduction, which is a defining of terms, 2. Chapter one, which is a philosophical argument for what end God created the world, and 3. Chapter two, which is a biblical argument for the end for which God created the world. In my opinion all three sections are much needed articulations for Edwards? arguments.
It seems that the introduction serves more as point of reference than any thing else, for Edwards uses the phrases ?chief end? and ?ultimate end? often; this section explains that these ?two phrases are not always precisely of the same signification, and though the chief end by always an ultimate end, yet every ultimate end is not always a chief end? ( 1). Chapters one and two of Edwards? dissertation are related in their arguments, with the exception that Chapter one is philosophical and Chapter two is more of a topical Bible study, but the entire work as a whole was intensely difficult to wrestle through, for Edwards, in my view, successfully deals with a subject that is right at the edge of human comprehension.
For most of my Christian experience, I never considered God?s pursuit of His glory to be thematic in the Bible, nor have I ever experienced any professor or pastor suggesting such a theme in the scriptures; in fact, I was taught to believe that God?s kingdom plan was that theme that tied all of scripture together?The End for Which God Created the World seems to dispel that notion.
The first time that I was ever introduced to Edwards God-centered theology was when I read The Supremacy of God in Preaching, by John Piper, since then, I have read five of his books (God? s Passion for His Glory being the final one to date). Over and over, Piper has alluded to The End for Which God Created the World, and I have finally read it.
Two truths that have emerged from Edwards presentation is, 1. ?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? ( 142), and 2. ?God in seeking his glory seeks the good of his creatures, because the emanation of his glory implies the communicated excellency and happiness of his creatures ( 114). If the above statements are biblical, then the great drama of all of history and things to come is not that God will one day establish an earthly kingdom, but will glorify His name in all things (this truth amplifies all the doctrines of the Scriptures, including the doctrine of endless punishment ).
One statement that I have read repeatedly in Piper?s work that has had its origin in The End for Which God Created the World, which has also redefined how I teach, preach, and live my life is found in the following words penned by Edwards? hand,
The happiness of the creature consists in rejoicing in God, by which also God is magnified and exalted. Joy, or the exulting of the heart in God?s glory, is one thing that belongs to praise. So that God is all in all with respect to each part of that communication of the divine fullness which is made to the creature. What is communicated is divine or something of God, and each communication is of that nature, that the creature to whom it is made is thereby conformed to God and united to him, and that in proportion as the communication is greater or less. And the communication itself is no other, in the very nature of it, than that wherein the very honor, exaltation, and praise of God consists ( 72).
The idea that my happiness is dependant on my satisfaction in God is staggering, yet soberingly true. After I first read these words, my view of God?s eschatological decree began to be redefined. No longer did I see Israel or God?s kingdom plan as the great theme of the Bible, but I saw God?s glory as being that theme.
I do not believe that it is an overstatement to suggest that Jonathan Edwards? The End for Which God Created the World is one of the most important books that I have read to date. No other book, besides the Bible, has so radically affected my view of God than this book. I am especially glad that I read John Pipers formatted edition, for I found both his format and copious footnotes to be extremely helpful in helping me soak in Edwards? God-centered vision of reality with little confusion.
I am convinced that if all worship leaders, pastors, elders, and evangelists read The End for Which God Created the World, we would have more God-centered praise songs and hymns written, hear less of the self-help sermons, see churches that are purpose drive by the supremacy and glory of God, and people who respond to a pure Gospel instead of a self-help gospel. Our churches needs an Edwards type of, ?God-centered, soul-satisfying, sin-destroying,? theology. The End for Which God Created the World is, in my opinion, his most significant contribution.
Edwards' concept of the man's dispostion before the fall was probably his greatest mistake.

[brshaw]

From your study, what do you feel is Jonathan Edwards's most significant contribution to the church? What (if any) was his greatest weakness?

I believe that Jonathan Edwards?s most significant contribution to the church was the product of his ability to combine his gifts as a theologian and pastor. He was perhaps the world?s greatest theologian, and he also preached and lived his theology. Rarely do we find as gifted a theologian as Edwards with the zeal for personal purity and heartfelt passion for purity among his people. With many great theologians, students are left asking, ?So what?? Not so with Edwards; every sermon and most of his treatises abound with practical application.

Edwards?s weakness, if he had one, was his apparent awkwardness in interpersonal relationships outside his own family ? and his seeming inability to show many in his church flock on a one-on-one basis the warmth we know he felt toward them.

[CThornton]

From your study, what do you feel is Jonathan Edwards's most significant contribution to the church? What (if any) was his greatest weakness?
Carl Thornton, Jr.
130 West Lynne Drive
Martinez, Ga. 30907
Student ID #352
The Theology of Jonathan Edwards


Interactive Assignment - Posting

What do you feel is Jonathan Edwards’ most significant contribution to the church? What (if any) was his greatest weakness?

I think Jonathan Edwards’ most significant contribution was his enthusiastic support of the truth of God’s sovereignty. I see God’s sovereignty as being intricately tied to many of Gods’ attributes including His wisdom and authority.

As I examine my own life and observe the habits of many of God’s people, I see numerous instances of submission to God’s word/will but I also see numerous instances of disobedience. Occasions wherein fervent prayer is given in behalf of others is very encouraging. Seeing members of the body work to get food to the needy and hearing about conversations that helped bring healing to the hurting are beautiful testimonies of Christ’s works through the church to others and are very exciting. However, occasions wherein members of the church slander and discredit other members of the church, situations wherein sexual sin takes place, observing as members of the body boast about their accomplishments as they pursue what turn out to be selfish ambitions are very concerning. It is very interesting that so many who attend church services express strong approval verbally when sermons are taught regarding God’s requirements while many who express the approval often do the opposite of what they’ve agreed is right and good.

As these acts of disobedience are observed, it becomes clear that many of God’s children (I’m not referring to hypocrites, but, rather, the people who are truly born again but are carnal) have a difficult time truly acknowledging our Father’s authority. As a result, they also have a difficult time embracing His sovereignty. Sometimes this failure is due to arrogance and contrariness while at other times it’s due to lack of understanding.

It’s possible that if the church would value and honor God’s sovereignty more, we may become clearer about God’s ways. Edwards pointed out the importance of God being the One Who sovereignly decides who will be saved and who will not be saved. I certainly agree with that point. And while we note God’s sovereignty we should also note the importance of tying it directly to God’s perfect wisdom and knowledge. I believe that God’s sovereign decision as to who becomes a member of the elect and who does not is based entirely on His complete knowledge as to who meets the requirements of being saved. I think we sometimes make the matter more complicated than it needs to be and that’s why it’s great that God knows all and makes His decision based on His knowledge rather than making His decision based on man’s presumed knowledge. God’s sovereignty regarding the election of members into His kingdom and the maintaining/keeping of those people who are elect is paramount since often His people have difficulty distinguishing between the wheat and the tares.

I think Edwards’ greatest weakness is that he committed too deeply to that form of doctrine developed by man instead of committing himself wholly to the doctrine given in and by scripture. As a result, he often made points that run counter to biblical teaching such as his contention that Adam was not given enough grace to prevent him from sinning as well as his contention that a sinner who pursues morality will probably escape hell and certainly escape much torment. The bible is clear that pursuing morality certainly will not have a person counted as righteous before God but, rather, the person who believes in his heart that God raised Jesus from the dead and confesses with his mouth the lordship of Jesus shall be saved. There are many people who do good works that will never obtain salvation for them. Edwards knew this and stated so. Had he stuck to this point, he should not have then deviated by stating that the pursuit of morality could possibly have a person escape hell. Pursuing morality is one of those good works that may count for something in the earthly realm but does not gain us access to heaven. I think Edwards would have been much more helpful to anyone interested in the truth and value of the word of God if he had more closely followed the teachings of God and rejected the teachings of man that run counter to biblical doctrine.

[CThornton]

The End for Which God Created the World is a work that paints a picture of God that few have ever done. Jonathan Edwards saturated his mind in his pursuit to understand the written word of God, and his countless hours of study have resulted in this profound theological work; its message: The chief end of God is to glorify God and enjoy Himself forever.
Edwards? treatise consists of three main sections (introduction, Chapter one, and Chapter two); the first section is a discussion of the meaning of terms (the use of ?ultimate end,? ?last end,? and ?chief end). Edwards included this section ?To avoid all confusion in our inquiries concerning the end for which God created the world? and further adds that ?a distinction should be observed between the chief end for which an agent performs any work and the ultimate end. These two phrases are not always precisely of the same signification, and though the chief end be always an ultimate end, yet every ultimate end is not always a chief end? ( 1). Edwards defines a ?chief end? as being ?most valued, and therefore most sought after by the agent in what he does? ( 7). Edwards then lists nine ?General Positions? that finish clarifying what is meant by the terms ?ultimate end,? ?last end,? and ?chief end.? One can refer back to Edwards? introduction for clarification of these terms, for Edwards does not make the effort to define these terms in chapter?s one and two (see 10-26).
The second major division of The End for Which God Created the World is Chapter one ( 27-124). In this chapter, Edwards argues his thesis philosophically to show the rationality of God?s chief end; he makes the following statement explaining why he does so, ?objections have chiefly been made against what I think the Scriptures have truly revealed from the pretended dictates of reason, I would, in the first place, soberly consider in a few things what seems rational to be supposed concerning this affair?and then proceed to consider what light divine revelation gives us in it? ( 30).
Edwards, in writing this chapter, desires to dispel any erroneous idea of why God does what He does; to start, Edwards makes this thought provoking statement, ?The notion of God creating the world, in order to receive any thing properly from the creature, is not only contrary to the nature of God, but inconsistent with the notion of creation; which implies a being receiving its existence, and all that belongs to it, out of nothing? ( 33). He attempts to destroy the heart of any man centered theology by demonstrating the rational of a God centered purpose for all things, including God Himself. Since all things are subject to a God (or Yahweh) centered existence, then Edwards argues that since God is God, he must ?esteem and delight in his own perfections and virtues, he cannot but value and delight in the expressions and genuine effects of them. So that in delighting in the expressions of his perfections, he manifests a delight in himself; and in making these expressions of his own perfections his end, he makes himself his end? ( 59), and the result of such a delight results in God having a ?respect to himself, or an infinite propensity to and delight in his own glory? and is ?that which cause him to incline to its being abundantly diffused, and to delight in the emanation of it? ( 65). Edwards then suggests that not only is it the duty of God to enjoy Himself, but that it is the creature?s chief end to enjoy Him as well. Even though Edwards goes to great length to argue, philosophically, the purpose of all that exists, he understands that Biblical ?revelation is the surest guide in these matters? but also argues that 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 ( 124).
In chapter two of Edwards? treatise, the third major section of this work, he answers the question, ?What is to be learned from Holy Scriptures concerning God?s last end in the creation of the world?? Edwards proves what he argues philosophically in chapter one with scripture in chapter two. Edwards brings together a collogue of Biblical texts to settle the argument that ?Scriptures speak on all occasions as though God made himself his end in all his works, and as though the same being, who is the first cause of all things, were the supreme and last end of all things ( 125).
The End for Which God Created the World is an intensely difficult read, for ?Edwards? text is tremendously difficult, as we should expect, since it is dealing with an issue that is right at the edge of human comprehension and on that can only be grasped and gloried in through God?s Spirit illuminating our minds and regenerating our hearts? (Mark Talbot, Book Review: ?God?s Passion for His Glory: Living the Vision of Jonathan Edwards, by John Piper?). All who read Edwards? The End for Which God Created the World, will agree with the above statement.

My Analysis of the Book
Even though I found Edwards? dissertation to be a very difficult read, I discovered it to be the most important book that I have read to date outside of the Bible. Edwards presents a philosophical, biblical, and theological defense for God?s pursuit for His glory in all things. The reader is forced to see the thematic drama of scripture, God?s passion for His glory, through this amazing study of the chief end of God.
As stated above, The End for Which God Created the World can be divided into three major divisions: 1. the introduction, which is a defining of terms, 2. Chapter one, which is a philosophical argument for what end God created the world, and 3. Chapter two, which is a biblical argument for the end for which God created the world. In my opinion all three sections are much needed articulations for Edwards? arguments.
It seems that the introduction serves more as point of reference than any thing else, for Edwards uses the phrases ?chief end? and ?ultimate end? often; this section explains that these ?two phrases are not always precisely of the same signification, and though the chief end by always an ultimate end, yet every ultimate end is not always a chief end? ( 1). Chapters one and two of Edwards? dissertation are related in their arguments, with the exception that Chapter one is philosophical and Chapter two is more of a topical Bible study, but the entire work as a whole was intensely difficult to wrestle through, for Edwards, in my view, successfully deals with a subject that is right at the edge of human comprehension.
For most of my Christian experience, I never considered God?s pursuit of His glory to be thematic in the Bible, nor have I ever experienced any professor or pastor suggesting such a theme in the scriptures; in fact, I was taught to believe that God?s kingdom plan was that theme that tied all of scripture together?The End for Which God Created the World seems to dispel that notion.
The first time that I was ever introduced to Edwards God-centered theology was when I read The Supremacy of God in Preaching, by John Piper, since then, I have read five of his books (God? s Passion for His Glory being the final one to date). Over and over, Piper has alluded to The End for Which God Created the World, and I have finally read it.
Two truths that have emerged from Edwards presentation is, 1. ?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? ( 142), and 2. ?God in seeking his glory seeks the good of his creatures, because the emanation of his glory implies the communicated excellency and happiness of his creatures ( 114). If the above statements are biblical, then the great drama of all of history and things to come is not that God will one day establish an earthly kingdom, but will glorify His name in all things (this truth amplifies all the doctrines of the Scriptures, including the doctrine of endless punishment ).
One statement that I have read repeatedly in Piper?s work that has had its origin in The End for Which God Created the World, which has also redefined how I teach, preach, and live my life is found in the following words penned by Edwards? hand,
The happiness of the creature consists in rejoicing in God, by which also God is magnified and exalted. Joy, or the exulting of the heart in God?s glory, is one thing that belongs to praise. So that God is all in all with respect to each part of that communication of the divine fullness which is made to the creature. What is communicated is divine or something of God, and each communication is of that nature, that the creature to whom it is made is thereby conformed to God and united to him, and that in proportion as the communication is greater or less. And the communication itself is no other, in the very nature of it, than that wherein the very honor, exaltation, and praise of God consists ( 72).
The idea that my happiness is dependant on my satisfaction in God is staggering, yet soberingly true. After I first read these words, my view of God?s eschatological decree began to be redefined. No longer did I see Israel or God?s kingdom plan as the great theme of the Bible, but I saw God?s glory as being that theme.
I do not believe that it is an overstatement to suggest that Jonathan Edwards? The End for Which God Created the World is one of the most important books that I have read to date. No other book, besides the Bible, has so radically affected my view of God than this book. I am especially glad that I read John Pipers formatted edition, for I found both his format and copious footnotes to be extremely helpful in helping me soak in Edwards? God-centered vision of reality with little confusion.
I am convinced that if all worship leaders, pastors, elders, and evangelists read The End for Which God Created the World, we would have more God-centered praise songs and hymns written, hear less of the self-help sermons, see churches that are purpose drive by the supremacy and glory of God, and people who respond to a pure Gospel instead of a self-help gospel. Our churches needs an Edwards type of, ?God-centered, soul-satisfying, sin-destroying,? theology. The End for Which God Created the World is, in my opinion, his most significant contribution.
Edwards' concept of the man's dispostion before the fall was probably his greatest mistake.

Carl Thornton, Jr.
130 West Lynne Drive
Martinez, Ga. 30907
Student ID #352
The Theology of Jonathan Edwards


Interactive Assignment – Response
What do you feel is Jonathan Edwards’ most significant contribution to the church? What (if any) was his greatest weakness?

K. Miller responded that she found Edwards’ discussion of God’s chief end in creation to be his most significant contribution. I certainly agree that this was a very significant contribution.

Understanding that God’s chief end in creation is not man, not even man’s salvation, but God Himself can help us learn to practice humility. Very often, people, even Christians, see man as being their chief end. We learn to put ourselves above everyone else as evidenced by our inclination to join network marketing groups so that we can “help others” when we are really seeing people as dollar signs who can help make us wealthier. We often put a spouse ahead of everyone else not necessarily because we want so much for the spouse but, sometimes, because we rationalize, even if subconsciously, that the better life goes for them the better life will go for us. Improving life for the spouse is really a means to an end: a better life for us. Often testimonies concerning God’s faithfulness center more on our faith and our faith-motivated works (such as a multitude of confessions…) than on God’s mercy and reliability.

Yet God makes it clear in His word that He is the creator and He is His chief end. In the 12th chapter of Ecclesiastes, Solomon wrote a conclusion to his writings in that book. In the 13th verse he gave the conclusion of the whole matter and indicated that man’s whole duty is to fear God and keep His commandments. The man who keeps the commands is not the main one to consider, but, rather, the One whose commands are to be kept is of main consideration.

I Corinthians 15 reveals much concerning the beginning of eternity: that point wherein God will come to dwell with His people. Verse 28 says “And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” KJV. We see that God being all in all is His chief interest.

In the 2nd chapter of Ephesians we read about the ultimate/chief reason for God’s mercy in bringing salvation to the elect: “Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.” KJV In these and subsequent verses, it is made abundantly clear that God‘s mercy and grace, along with the implementation of His plan are the reasons anyone is saved. The supreme involvement of the Father and His Son are highlighted and will be highlighted for all eternity. So, as said earlier, even when it comes to God’s awesome plan of salvation, God and glorification of Him is God’s chief end.

[clrhymes]

What do you feel is Jonathan Edwards’ most significant contribution to the church? What (if any) was his greatest weakness?

MOST SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION

I think Jonathan Edwards’ most significant contribution was his enthusiastic support of the truth of God’s sovereignty as evidenced and explained in His sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” The half-covenants of Stoddard’s lined the church pews with many indifferent individuals who felt as if God was dependant on them and not that they were dependant on God. God was somewhat begging them to accept His grace and be saved and be members of His church. Then came Edwards with a powerful sermon teaching the absurdity of self-determination, the absurdity of indifference, and the absurdity of the concept of contingency.

Moreover, Edwards gave the entire church a different way of viewing God the Father, that of an infralapsarian. That is, that God eternally contemplated man as fallen – infralapsis – after the fall as sinners, not as man - in His eternal now, as if they were already sinners. And from that mass of perishing people, he elected/chose to save some. People who had no deserving characteristics. He saves people out of a mass of perishing ones. Instead of seeing God as being forced to save mankind, he gave the church the realization that it is a marvelous thing that he chose any at all. That, I feel, was the thinking that led men to repent and led them to the Great Awakening.


GREATEST WEAKNESS

Like Thornton expressed, in the online posting that I read, I think Edwards’ greatest weakness is that he committed too deeply to that form of doctrine developed by man instead of committing himself wholly to the doctrine given in and by scripture. It’s one thing to base your opinions on Scripture, but another thing to be Scriptural. One may preach FROM the Bible, while another preaches THE BIBLE.

As a result, Edwards often made points that run counter to biblical teaching. Here is His saying and I quote “Whether God has decreed all things that ever come to pass or not, all who admit the existence of God, admit that He knows all things beforehand. It is self-evident that if God knows all things beforehand He either approves of them or not. He is either willing they should be or He is not willing that they should be. But to will that they should be is to decree them.”

There are so many cases where two of these statements are false.
(1) ‘God is either willing or unwilling that they should be.’ The Bible says God is not willing that ANY should perish, but that all should come to repentance. Yet he decreed some to have means of salvation and others not to. By this definition, God is allowing damnation for those he is not willing to be damned. Moreover, he not only allows it, but decrees their damnation.

(2) ‘To will them is to permit them.’ Conversely, if God is willing than none perish, and if to will this is to decree this, then God has not decreed for any to perish. This is the Bible, just with this one verse alone. We could go into many things that God has decreed without willing and willed without decreeing. God has decreed that all who heed not the gospel be lost, but he is not willing that any should perish. We have many rulers, kings, parents, police officers, employers, who decree things that they are not willing to see enacted. We establish laws in hopes that they will not have to be executed. And such with God. He has not desired for ANY to perish.

Thornton said it best, “I think we sometimes make the matter more complicated than it needs to be and that’s why it’s great that God knows all and makes His decision based on His knowledge rather than making His decisions based on man’s presumed knowledge. God’s sovereignty regarding the election of members into His kingdom and the maintaining/keeping of those people who are elect is paramount since often His people have difficulty distinguishing between the wheat and the tares. I think Edwards would have been much more helpful to anyone interested in the truth and value of the word of God if he had more closely followed the teachings of God and rejected the teachings of man that run counter to Biblical doctrine.”[/b]

[clrhymes]

Clifford L. Rhymes
College Park, Ga. 30349
The Theology of Jonathan Edwards

Interactive Assignment – Response

Concerning the weakness of Jonathan Edwards:


Thornton said it best, “I think we sometimes make the matter more complicated than it needs to be and that’s why it’s great that God knows all and makes His decision based on His knowledge rather than making His decisions based on man’s presumed knowledge. God’s sovereignty regarding the election of members into His kingdom and the maintaining/keeping of those people who are elect is paramount since often His people have difficulty distinguishing between the wheat and the tares. I think Edwards would have been much more helpful to anyone interested in the truth and value of the word of God if he had more closely followed the teachings of God and rejected the teachings of man that run counter to Biblical doctrine.”

There are so many things that Edwards makes difficult, such as the simple idea of God's role as Creator of the Universe. Edwards becomes so difficult that he borders on pantheism.

His exact words were "If Beings existing means Eternal existence, and if eternal existence implies unlimited existence, it would seem to follow that from Beings being infinite, it must be one; So the Eternal, infinite Being must be One being. To be infinite is to be all, and it would be a contradiction to suppose two alls. All that is real is immediately in the first [Divine] Being."

In Miscellany 880, Edwards states that God is the sum of all being, and there is no being without his being. All things are in him and he in all. Edwards uses the Scripture that he that loves his wife loves himself and Edwards uses the analogy to say that God loves himself through his creatures who are himself.

Charles Hodge says that Edwards’ theory of constant creation destroys continuity, existence of the external world, second causes, moral responsibility, and amounts to pantheism.

[jcislove]

From your study, what do you feel is Jonathan Edwards's most significant contribution to the church? What (if any) was his greatest weakness?

Rob Lopez
Alliance Theological Seminary
Nyack, NY

Jonathan Edwards was profound in his ability to unravel the metaphorical language of the Scriptures. His penetration into the Biblical text is arguably unrivaled by few others. Thius simple and humble man lived ona utopian level of holiness unknows to many in the modern church.

He had a magnificent ability to communicate deep Biblical truths with every day life imagery. The images of an intensely heated furnace and the spider dangling on a thin line over a gulf of flames are enough to scare anyone. Yet, the question is can those imagaes save. I think Edwards would assure us that they can not. In his sermon "A Divine and Supernatural Light...shown to be both a Scriptural and Rational Doctrine", salvation is the result of "divine illumination".

Edwards' greatest contribution to the church is his ability to take any Biblical text and through it communicate the gospel. The real gospel, the gospel that saves. And he did it not just in words, but with conviction.

As far as weaknesses, I don't see any save that which Dr. Gerstner holds, namely his interpretation of the doctrine of original sin. This man was brilliant and his teachings are badly needed by the 21rst century church.

[jcislove]

I believe that Jonathan Edwards?s most significant contribution to the church was the product of his ability to combine his gifts as a theologian and pastor. He was perhaps the world?s greatest theologian, and he also preached and lived his theology. Rarely do we find as gifted a theologian as Edwards with the zeal for personal purity and heartfelt passion for purity among his people. With many great theologians, students are left asking, ?So what?? Not so with Edwards; every sermon and most of his treatises abound with practical application.

Edwards?s weakness, if he had one, was his apparent awkwardness in interpersonal relationships outside his own family ? and his seeming inability to show many in his church flock on a one-on-one basis the warmth we know he felt toward them.


Edwards was indeed a great theologian and pastor. You are correct in your observation that it is a rare phenomenon that we find the two together. In today's world I think of John Piper, who incidently recieved much of his inspiration from Edwards. That is a great observation.

I would differ with you on your analysis of his weaknesses. The family is the chief responsibility of a man, not thier church flock. This is evident from 1 Timothy 5:8. The man's chief responsibility is his own familty. With the size of Edwards' family there was probably a need for him to spend a large amount of time at home.

Any pastor should be both a good father. May the Lord bless you in your ministry

[Aaron Choi]

From your study, what do you feel is Jonathan Edwards's most significant contribution to the church? What (if any) was his greatest weakness?

I believe that Jonathan Edwards made the greatest contribution to the church in the area of rationality and philosophy. There is no doubt that Edwards was a theologian of the highest caliber, but much of this can be attributed to his profound ability to interact with a variety of opposing theological views with the logical precision he did. Many have termed him a “philosopher theologian” for his ability to synthesize these two disciplines into a complementary approach that worked well in tackling the doctrinal and practical issues of his day. “Freedom of the Will” is evidence of his ability to deal with a theological issue (i.e., the Ariminian notion of free will versus a traditional Reformed view) in a rational AND biblical manner. A second, but equally strong contribution that Edwards made was his continual emphasis on the glory of God. All things should be done for the glory of God as Paul clearly states in 1 Corinthians 10:31.
Edwards’ greatest strength, his inquiring mind, sometimes got him into trouble and also became his greatest weakness. Gerstner is not shy about his critique of Edwards’ understanding of the origin of sin. He prefers to see Edwards being silent on the issue but the great theologian is unable to leave the issue to rest and attempts to make sense of it, only to confuse the issue further and to make some controversial conclusions along the way. Others have seen this boundless rationality getting Edwards into trouble in his understanding of God. Many of his statements regarding the nature of God have been interpreted as pantheistic or panentheistic in nature.

[Aaron Choi]

The End for Which God Created the World is a work that paints a picture of God that few have ever done. Jonathan Edwards saturated his mind in his pursuit to understand the written word of God, and his countless hours of study have resulted in this profound theological work; its message: The chief end of God is to glorify God and enjoy Himself forever.
Edwards? treatise consists of three main sections (introduction, Chapter one, and Chapter two); the first...

Kmiller: Thank you so much for your thorough and comprehensive review of Edwards’ “The End for Which God Created the World.” I mentioned in my own post to the original question that Edwards had God’s seeking out his own glory as the overarching rubric that was applied to all his theological musings. This is not because such a matrix was placed upon the biblical text unfairly but because Edwards saw the Scriptures drawing such an understanding out of it. I have only read parts of the book itself, but see this clear exposition of God glorifying himself clearly in what I have read of Edwards elsewhere. As you articulate: “The idea that my happiness is dependent on my satisfaction is staggering [and sobering].” We are unduly indebted to Edwards in explicating this in his characteristic clear manner.

[Aaron Choi]

I believe that Jonathan Edwards?s most significant contribution to the church was the product of his ability to combine his gifts as a theologian and pastor. He was perhaps the world?s greatest theologian, and he also preached and lived his theology. Rarely do we find as gifted a theologian as Edwards with the zeal for personal purity and heartfelt passion for purity among his people. With many great theologians, students are left asking, ?So what?? Not so with Edwards; every sermon and most of his treatises abound with practical application.

Edwards?s weakness, if he had one, was his apparent awkwardness in interpersonal relationships outside his own family ? and his seeming inability to show many in his church flock on a one-on-one basis the warmth we know he felt toward them.

Brshaw: You are absolutely right in calling to attention the copious applications that made up the majority of Edwards’ sermons. Although he was skilled as an exegete and thinker, he always made sure that his Northampton congregation understood the bottom line of what would have otherwise been abstract and impractical theological concepts. Bringing the Scriptures to “real life” is a difficult task for those who are interested in the deeper theological issues that have captivated the minds of so many great theologians throughout the centuries but rarely do we find someone like Edwards, who pushes through contemplation to the world that we live in. Regarding Edwards’ weakness in his social skills, have you read Iain Murray’s comments regarding this common critique? I found his insight enlightening although in the end, I am inclined to agree with you.

[Aaron Choi]

Carl Thornton, Jr.
130 West Lynne Drive
Martinez, Ga. 30907
Student ID #352
The Theology of Jonathan Edwards


Interactive Assignment - Posting

What do you feel is Jonathan Edwards’ most significant contribution to the church? What (if any) was his greatest weakness?

I think Jonathan Edwards’ most significant contribution was his enthusiastic support of the truth of God’s sovereignty. I see God’s sovereignty as being intricately tied to many of Gods’ attributes including His wisdom and authority.

As I examine my own life and observe the habits of many of God’s people, I see numerous instances of submission to God’s word/will but I also see numerous instances of disobedience. Occasions wherein fervent prayer is given in behalf of others is very encouraging. Seeing members of the body work to get food to the needy and hearing about conversations that helped bring healing to the hurting are beautiful testimonies of Christ’s works through the church to others and are very exciting. However, occasions wherein members of the church slander and discredit other members of the church, situations wherein sexual sin takes place, observing as members of the body boast about their accomplishments as they pursue what turn out to be selfish ambitions are very concerning. It is very interesting that so many who attend church services express strong approval verbally when sermons are taught regarding God’s requirements while many who express the approval often do the opposite of what they’ve agreed is right and good...

Carl: It is difficult not to see Edwards’ vehement and staunch belief in the absolute sovereignty of God. Ultimately, it’s not only a theological issue but an ecclesiological one as you state. Indeed, if we would value the sovereignty of God more than we do today, we would understand the ways of God in a manner that is clearer and subsequently, we would be able to execute his commands with greater diligence and accuracy. With respect to your comments about Edwards’ greatest weakness: I’d be interested in reading a direct quote from Edwards that asserted that Adam had insufficient grace to prevent him from sinning. Would Edwards disagree with you that the Bible is clearer in presenting Christ and his righteousness for sinners than human morality as a means of divine acceptance before God? Thanks for your post!

[Aaron Choi]

Carl Thornton, Jr.
130 West Lynne Drive
Martinez, Ga. 30907
Student ID #352
The Theology of Jonathan Edwards


Interactive Assignment – Response
What do you feel is Jonathan Edwards’ most significant contribution to the church? What (if any) was his greatest weakness?

K. Miller responded that she found Edwards’ discussion of God’s chief end in creation to be his most significant contribution. I certainly agree that this was a very significant contribution.

Understanding that God’s chief end in creation is not man, not even man’s salvation, but God Himself can help us learn to practice humility. Very often, people, even Christians, see man as being their chief end. We learn to put ourselves above everyone else as evidenced by our inclination to join network marketing groups so that we can “help others” when we are really seeing people as dollar signs who can help make us wealthier. We often put a spouse ahead of everyone else not necessarily because we want so much for the spouse but, sometimes, because we rationalize, even if subconsciously, that the better life goes for them the better life will go for us. Improving life for the spouse is really a means to an end: a better life for us. Often testimonies concerning God’s faithfulness center more on our faith and our faith-motivated works (such as a multitude of confessions…) than on God’s mercy and reliability.

Yet God makes it clear in His word that He is the creator and He is His chief end. In the 12th chapter of Ecclesiastes, Solomon wrote a conclusion to his writings in that book. In the 13th verse he gave the conclusion of the whole matter and indicated that man’s whole duty is to fear God and keep His commandments. The man who keeps the commands is not the main one to consider, but, rather, the One whose commands are to be kept is of main consideration.

I Corinthians 15 reveals much concerning the beginning of eternity: that point wherein God will come to dwell with His people. Verse 28 says “And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.” KJV. We see that God being all in all is His chief interest.

In the 2nd chapter of Ephesians we read about the ultimate/chief reason for God’s mercy in bringing salvation to the elect: “Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.” KJV In these and subsequent verses, it is made abundantly clear that God‘s mercy and grace, along with the implementation of His plan are the reasons anyone is saved. The supreme involvement of the Father and His Son are highlighted and will be highlighted for all eternity. So, as said earlier, even when it comes to God’s awesome plan of salvation, God and glorification of Him is God’s chief end.

Re: Carl’s response to kmiller. Like you, I found kmiller’s original response to be very helpful. Thanks for bringing up the biblical passages that support the idea that God has sought out his own glory (not the exaltation of man as humanism would be inclined to say). Your reference to 1 Corinthians 15:28 and Ephesians 2 counteract the kind of preaching that is commonly heard from pulpits today, namely, that God has sent his son to die for the interest of man. Although this may be true, such interest in humanity is only as a result of God’s own interest in exalting of himself, which is accompanied by the residual benefit of man’s salvation for the purpose of being “vessels of glory” to the magnifying of God’s grace, as Paul states in Romans.

[Aaron Choi]

What do you feel is Jonathan Edwards’ most significant contribution to the church? What (if any) was his greatest weakness?

MOST SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTION

I think Jonathan Edwards’ most significant contribution was his enthusiastic support of the truth of God’s sovereignty as evidenced and explained in His sermon “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” The half-covenants of Stoddard’s lined the church pews with many indifferent individuals who felt as if God was dependant on them and not that they were dependant on God. God was somewhat begging them to accept His grace and be saved and be members of His church. Then came Edwards with a powerful sermon teaching the absurdity of self-determination, the absurdity of indifference, and the absurdity of the concept of contingency.

Moreover, Edwards gave the entire church a different way of viewing God the Father, that of an infralapsarian. That is, that God eternally contemplated man as fallen – infralapsis – after the fall as sinners, not as man - in His eternal now, as if they were already sinners. And from that mass of perishing people, he elected/chose to save some. People who had no deserving characteristics. He saves people out of a mass of perishing ones. Instead of seeing God as being forced to save mankind, he gave the church the realization that it is a marvelous thing that he chose any at all. That, I feel, was the thinking that led men to repent and led them to the Great Awakening...

Clifford: Thank you for pointing out that Edwards really was an impetus to the Great Awakening because of his writings that pointed out that God did not need to save any by way of obligation or necessity. It truly is a marvelous thing that God would choose to save any at all and meditation on this simple but profound truth should increase our sense of appreciation and love for God’s sending of Christ. His sermons sure did have a way of being a paradigm shift for so many. I believe that is why people are so shocked when they read sermons like “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” So many of us in the church today are prone to being half-hearted in our obedience to God but Edwards never left room for the believer in his congregation to be comfortable in this indecision. Clifford, did you see any valuable contributions that Edwards’ philosophical tendencies led to? I have ambivalence myself about his philosophizing because I see good and bad results that came from it.

[Aaron Choi]

Clifford L. Rhymes
College Park, Ga. 30349
The Theology of Jonathan Edwards

Interactive Assignment – Response

Concerning the weakness of Jonathan Edwards:


Thornton said it best, “I think we sometimes make the matter more complicated than it needs to be and that’s why it’s great that God knows all and makes His decision based on His knowledge rather than making His decisions based on man’s presumed knowledge. God’s sovereignty regarding the election of members into His kingdom and the maintaining/keeping of those people who are elect is paramount since often His people have difficulty distinguishing between the wheat and the tares. I think Edwards would have been much more helpful to anyone interested in the truth and value of the word of God if he had more closely followed the teachings of God and rejected the teachings of man that run counter to Biblical doctrine.”

There are so many things that Edwards makes difficult, such as the simple idea of God's role as Creator of the Universe. Edwards becomes so difficult that he borders on pantheism.

His exact words were "If Beings existing means Eternal existence, and if eternal existence implies unlimited existence, it would seem to follow that from Beings being infinite, it must be one; So the Eternal, infinite Being must be One being. To be infinite is to be all, and it would be a contradiction to suppose two alls. All that is real is immediately in the first [Divine] Being."

In Miscellany 880, Edwards states that God is the sum of all being, and there is no being without his being. All things are in him and he in all. Edwards uses the Scripture that he that loves his wife loves himself and Edwards uses the analogy to say that God loves himself through his creatures who are himself.

Charles Hodge says that Edwards’ theory of constant creation destroys continuity, existence of the external world, second causes, moral responsibility, and amounts to pantheism.

Re: Clifford’s response to Carl. Thanks for bringing up the issue of Edwards’ pantheistic leanings. It is surprising that Edwards would have made such an error. What do you think gave rise to this exactly? I am inclined to believe that he drew these conclusions because he was zealous to show the all-encompassing presence of God through all and in all. Could you also comment on Hodge’s other views about Edwards? Surely he is critical of the pantheism that Edwards’ writings conveyed, but would Hodge appreciate his Reformed predecessor on any other point(s) of his theology?

[Aaron Choi]

Rob Lopez
Alliance Theological Seminary
Nyack, NY

Jonathan Edwards was profound in his ability to unravel the metaphorical language of the Scriptures. His penetration into the Biblical text is arguably unrivaled by few others. Thius simple and humble man lived ona utopian level of holiness unknows to many in the modern church.

He had a magnificent ability to communicate deep Biblical truths with every day life imagery. The images of an intensely heated furnace and the spider dangling on a thin line over a gulf of flames are enough to scare anyone. Yet, the question is can those imagaes save. I think Edwards would assure us that they can not. In his sermon "A Divine and Supernatural Light...shown to be both a Scriptural and Rational Doctrine", salvation is the result of "divine illumination".

Edwards' greatest contribution to the church is his ability to take any Biblical text and through it communicate the gospel. The real gospel, the gospel that saves. And he did it not just in words, but with conviction.

As far as weaknesses, I don't see any save that which Dr. Gerstner holds, namely his interpretation of the doctrine of original sin. This man was brilliant and his teachings are badly needed by the 21rst century church.

Rob: Like you, I am struck by the conviction with which Edwards preached the gospel of Christ. He did not present the gospel in a manner that would fail to convey the urgency to accept. I wonder however if Edwards’ interpretation of metaphorical language in Scripture was always warranted by proper hermeneutics. There have been times as I have read though Edwards that I believed he took far too much of an allegorical stance on certain biblical texts. But there is no doubt that the vivid imagery that accompanied his expositions did wonders for bringing the text alive to his hearers, and today to his readers.

[Aaron Choi]

Edwards was indeed a great theologian and pastor. You are correct in your observation that it is a rare phenomenon that we find the two together. In today's world I think of John Piper, who incidently recieved much of his inspiration from Edwards. That is a great observation.

I would differ with you on your analysis of his weaknesses. The family is the chief responsibility of a man, not thier church flock. This is evident from 1 Timothy 5:8. The man's chief responsibility is his own familty. With the size of Edwards' family there was probably a need for him to spend a large amount of time at home.

Any pastor should be both a good father. May the Lord bless you in your ministry

Re: jclove’s response to brshaw. I have also noticed much of Piper’s preaching and writing to be influenced by Edwards, and Piper himself is unabashed in his gratitude for Edward’s contribution to his own ministry. Do you think that Edwards spent all his time at home, and away from his congregation, simply to spend time with his family? George Marsden and Iain Murray point out that much of his studying and writings took place within the walls of his home. Of course, I agree that the pastor’s family should be given greater priority ultimately than even his own church per Paul’s instructions to Timothy about the qualifications of potential elders being men who are able to manage their own household properly. However, I don’t think that brshaw was making the claim that the family life of Edwards was not important enough to the man. Rather, he simply stated that Edwards could have done more than he did to be a direct ministerial influence to his congregation. His reputation seems to give warrant to brshaw’s claim.

[Moses Cho]

From your study, what do you feel is Jonathan Edwards's most significant contribution to the church? What (if any) was his greatest weakness?

I believe that Edwards’ most significant contribution to the church of Jesus Christ is His entranced vision of the sovereign God and personification of not merely possessing a conviction of its truthfulness but “delightful conviction” in it, that is, in its “exceeding[ly] pleasant, bright, and sweet (Personal Narrative)” essence. Therefore, it was only reasonable for him to resolutely teach and defend it. Many a men and women who had studied his life and writings have been affected by this very thing (e.g. John Gerstner, John Piper, etc.). Candidly speaking, I too want to be like Edwards because I want to see and enjoy God as he did. As far as his greatest weakness is concerned, it was obviously his prideful and self-righteous attitudes. He humbly admits, “I am greatly afflicted with a proud and self-righteous spirit, much more sensibly, than I used to be formerly. I see that serpent rising and putting forth its head, continually, everywhere, all around me” (Personal Narrative). George M. Marsden notes that this was the mature Edwards’ most lamentable and besetting sin that was also noticed by others (Jonathan Edwards, 45). Not to tolerate such sins, but it is understandable how a mind so great and religious affections so passionate can fall into such pitfalls.

[Moses Cho]

I believe that Jonathan Edwards?s most significant contribution to the church was the product of his ability to combine his gifts as a theologian and pastor. He was perhaps the world?s greatest theologian, and he also preached and lived his theology. Rarely do we find as gifted a theologian as Edwards with the zeal for personal purity and heartfelt passion for purity among his people. With many great theologians, students are left asking, ?So what?? Not so with Edwards; every sermon and most of his treatises abound with practical application.

Edwards?s weakness, if he had one, was his apparent awkwardness in interpersonal relationships outside his own family ? and his seeming inability to show many in his church flock on a one-on-one basis the warmth we know he felt toward them.

Thank you for your comments, brshaw. Perhaps, we rarely do find gifted theologians with zeal for personal and corporate purity because we rarely search for them or just are unaware of them. As an attendee of an evangelical seminary, I would like to think that there are more of such than we are aware of. Yet, speaking solely from personal experience, I cannot disagree with you that with many great theologians, we are left asking, “So what?” In fact, that question many times does not even surface because it often seems to be the case that theology should be studied as a mere mental exercise. So, I totally concur with your words, “Not so with Edwards.” I can recall reading the application section of his sermon The Sole Consideration, that God is God, Sufficient To Still All Objections To His Sovereignty and being convicted of my low view of God as never before. This is not to say that I do not appreciate the theologians that God has graciously granted us, whether they are of the past who have left us great books or professors who are models of great studious discipline with regards to things concerning our God. Your comments have reminded me to aspire to be a theologian but one whose religious affections coincide with my very theology, that is, analogous to Edwards.