Academic literature on the topic 'Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758)'

Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758) In Effect Lived Two Lives: One As The Pastor Of Churches In New England, Teaching His People The Faith And Including In That The Ethical Side Or Outworking Of The Faith, The Other As A Theorist Of God’s Relation To His Universe. These Two Roles Need To Be Borne In Mind In What Follows. The First Is Closely Connected With Doctrinal And Practical Themes Of The Christian Faith, The Second With The Meaning And Truth Of Ethical Matters At Their Most Fundamental Level. To Have A Rounded View Of Edwards’s Ethics, We Need Both. KEYWORDS: Jonathan Edwards, Ethics, True Religion, Doctrine And Life, John Locke, Religious Affections, Nature Of True Virtue, Charity And Its Fruits

AbstractThe New England Puritan theologian, Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) famously changed his mind on the question of the qualifications for communion in his church, a matter that led to his dismissal from the pastorate at Northampton. This paper sets Edwards' contribution to the Communion Controversy in New England into the broader context of his thought, especially his doctrine of the Church. I argue that, although there are objections to Edwards' position, his sacramental theology makes a constructive contribution to ecclesiology.

The relationship of the thought of Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758) to that of John Calvin and Reformed tradition has been frequently assumed and asserted but seldom detailed. Edwards, the “last American Puritan,” influential theologian of revival, and “Dordtian Philosophe,” worked within a generally Calvinist framework of divine sovereignty but also, within the context of the Enlightenment, experimented with that framework, pushing categories such as love, beauty, and personal affections to the epicenter of Christian life. His innovative conservatism is seen first in his espousal of idealism, as enunciated in aesthetics, the relationality of being, and occasionalism; secondly, in experientialism, involving a “new sense of the heart,” delineation of the signs of grace, typology, and prophecy; and thirdly, through historicism, including millennialism, anti-Catholicism, and an emphasis on revivals, integral to his view of the Work of Redemption through guiding concepts of the “happy fall,” cessationism, and covenantalism.

The purpose of this paper is to investigate what are Jonathan Edwards’ (1703–1758) “religious affections” and “distinguishing marks” for judging the genuineness of affections, and to evaluate the revival experience of Korean missionary Robert A. Hardie (1865–1949), who initiated the Korean Great Revival (1903–1910) in view of Edwards’ religious affections. Edward’s book, Treatise Concerning Religious Affections, was written in the historical background of the Great Awakening of the early 1740s, and the concept of religious affections originated from his personal experience in childhood and from the influence of John Locke’s empiricism. Rejecting the positions of the revivals of his day as unshackled emotionalism, Edwards defended revivalism by emphasizing the significance of “spiritual sensation”. However, he believed that revivals must be evaluated for their genuineness in terms of religious affections and suggested distinguishing marks to assess whether revival experiences were true or not. A number of descendants of the Great Awakening came to Korea as missionaries and contributed to the Korean Great Revival. In particular, Hardie’s repentance started the revival and the revival movements spread to the whole country in a similar pattern. This paper suggests that Hardie’s revival experience proves to be true gracious affection in light of Edwards’ distinguishing marks.

A recently discovered manuscript by the French missionary Adolph Mabille (1836-1894) in the Morija Archives, Lesotho, remedies the lack of attention ofA History of the Work of Redemption(hwrhereafter), by Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) in the nineteenth century. This manuscript found its way from colonial America to Africa through French missionary endeavors in relgious educational training (Paris) and teaching (Basutoland). Edwards’s original aim, and the subsequent publication of ‘outlines of a body of divinity’, converged in nineteenth-century France, where thehwrwas translated in the context ofLe Réveiland taught in the course of systematic theology at the Paris Evangelical Mission Society Mission house, exemplified by Mabille’sDogmatique. Moreover, the appropriation of Edwards’shwrin the combined context of missions and religious education was extended in Basutoland, as seen in theKatekisma. The outline of the catechism may be due to Mabille’s classical training and acquaintance with ‘universal chronology’ and Scripture, but it also reflected his intimate knowledge of Edwards’s work. The reception of Edwards’s exposition of redemptive history in the catechism of Basutoland thus resonates in part with Mabille’sDogmatique—a text transmission of Edwards’sHistoire. The transmission of this text remained the same in structure, was shortened in content and modified over time, but continued as intended by Edwards: to show ‘a work that God is carrying on from the fall of man to the end of the world’.

In the book “Freedom of the Will”, Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) put forward a strong ar-gument for theological fatalism. This argument, I suppose, can be considered as the universal basis for discussion between Fatalists and Anti-Fatalists in the 20th century, especially in the context of the most powerful argument for fatalism, introduced by Nelson Pike. The argument of Edwards rests upon the following principles: (a) if something has been the case in the past, it has been the case necessarily (Necessity of the past); (b) if God knows something (say A), it is not the case that ~A is possible (Infallibility of God`s knowledge). Hence, Edwards infers that if God had foreknowledge that A, then A is necessary, and it is not the case that someone could voluntarily choose ~A. The article argues that (i) the Edwards` inference Kgp → □p rests upon the modal fallacy; (ii) the inference „God had a knowledge that p will happen, therefore „God had a knowledge that p will happen” is the proposition about the past, and hence, the necessarily true proposition“ is ambiguous; thus, it is not the case that this proposition necessarily entails the impossibility of ~p; (iii) it is not the case that p, being known by God, turns out to be necessary. Thus, we can avoid the inference of Edwards that if Kgp is a fact of the past, then we cannot freely choose ~p. It has also been shown that the main provisions of the argument of Edwards remain significant in the context of contemporary debates about free will and foreknowledge (Theories of soft facts, Anti-Ockhamism, theories of temporal modal asymmetry, „Timeless solution”). Additionally, I introduce a new challenge for fatalism – argument from Brouwerian axiom.

SummaryMore and more theologians are giving up the doctrine of Christ’s impeccability. This has a great deal to do with how one construes certain metaphysical assumptions about human nature. For some theologians of the Reformed tradition, in particular, Christ’s human nature consists of an immaterial soul and a material body, so much so, that this so-called ‘mind-body dualist’ structure of human nature has become seemingly indispensible to maintaining an impeccable Christ. In this paper, I explore how an alternative metaphysical story about Christ’s human nature, put forward by the American Reformed theologian, Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758), offers both a coherent Christological account of Christ’s human nature and at the same time, offers some ancillary promise for maintaining Christ’s impeccability by virtue of its being able to overcome the challenge to mind-body dualist metaphysics known as ‘interactionism’.

Bibliography: pages 232-241.
Philosophy and theology combine in Jonathan Edwards in a way that is not usual for either discipline. The field of study is therefore that of historical philosophy and historical theology but only in so far as to give the historical situation and interpretation of Jonathan Edwards' epistemology. The philosophy is Christian, Neo-Platonic and Lockean and the theology is Calvinistic. The author gives the historical background with reference to John Locke,· Isaac Newton and compares Edwards with Kant who was almost contemporary and shows that epistemology is situational and that a philosopher's works can never be studied out of context. He then touches on the massive Puritan heritage of Jonathan Edwards' and shows briefly the epistemological tradition of Calvin but chiefly concentrating on the knowledge of faith. He traces this through the English Puritans to Jonathan Edwards. The author then by means of a detailed commentary from various parts of Edwards' works· places the locus of Edwards' epistemology in the doctrine of the Sovereignty of God. · He shows that each Person of the Triune God, was a permanent emotional, devotional, theological and homiletical feature in Edwards' life. The holistic vision of God working in a consciously epistemological way from eternity to eternity, raises the locus of the epistemology far above Perry Miller's comment that Edwards was extrapolating Lockean psychology into the Godhead. The reverse was true, the vision of God in His eternal sovereignty, omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, places the locus in eternity, in the heavens, so to speak, and the ordinary elements of epistemology usually discussed by philosophers, must be considered in that context if they are to be true to Jonathan Edwards. This locus is most clearly seen when the eschatological development of his epistemology into eternity is systematised. Knowledge is bound up with glory, virtue, joy, beauty and with an existential encounter with God, growing into eternity. Knowledge is viewed as being mediated by Christ the God-man to an hierarchy of created spirits. Knowledge is itself in an hierarchy and must be considered in its full implications. The knowledge of the damned involves Edwards in a contradiction as he sees them growing in knowledge, suffering and pain yet cut off from Christ the mediator of knowledge and also growing in stupor.

De tous les personnages historiques qui animent les débats autour du Grand Réveil, nul n’occupe une position plus influente que le pasteur de Northampton, Massachusetts, Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758). Prenant comme point du départ la pensée scientifique et philosophique la plus récente, il entreprend de moderniser la théologie réformée afin de l’adapter à l’ère des Lumières. C’est avant tout la notion d’expérience individuelle qui prend une importance particulière lorsque le théologien tente d’expliquer le processus de conversion : en effet, il défend une interprétation libérale et indulgente de ces expériences, même si elles semblent associées à des comportements irréguliers, violents ou même insensés. Edwards se trouve alors contraint à défendre les pratiques les plus anti-autoritaristes au nom du droit fondamental de croire ce que son cœur ressent, même si une telle posture est en contradiction avec la doctrine religieuse établie ou la pratique sociale traditionnelle
Among the figures involved in the debates that took place during Great Awakening, none was more influential than the pastor of Northampton, Massachusetts, Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758). Building upon the latest scientific and philosophical thought, Edwards set about bringing the reformed theology he inherited from his Puritan forebears into line with the Enlightenment. Specifically, the notion of individual experience took on great importance as he sought to explain the process of conversion, arguing for a more open and inclusive interpretation of what often appeared to be the disorderly, violent or even insane behavior of those undergoing conversion experiences during the Great Awakening. Edwards’ analyses appeared to justify their most anti-authoritarian practices in the name of the inviolable right to believe in what one felt in one’s heart, even if such beliefs were in contradiction with established religious doctrine or traditional social practice

This thesis is a study of the soteriological thought of the American theologian and preacher, Jonathan Edwards. In the first part of the thesis, previous relevant scholarly studies are examined. What becomes apparent is that in the light of the unpublished manuscripts there is still a great amount of research to be done on Edwards' soteriology. This thesis identifies the central core of Edwards' thought to be God's wisdom as it appears in the great plan and work of redemption. Examination is made of the major themes in Edwards' writings with constant reference to parts of the vast corpus of Edwards' unpublished writings which are held at the Beinecke Library, Yale. The main part of the thesis consists of three sections: the need of redemption, the provision of redemption and concluding with the application of redemption. The controversial subjects of Edwards' views on the atonement and the sinner's natural ability to respond to the offer of the Gospel are considered. The picture that emerges from both his published and unpublished works is that of an atonement that was available for all. Christ died for all that all might have an opportunity to be saved. All that do not respond are doubly guilty because they had the natural ability to do so. But it is not a synergistic theology. Clearly there are tensions within his theology, which is why there has been so much controversy about Edwards and his theology. This study works through these tensions as Edwards developed them.

This thesis examines the revivalist writings of Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) and George Whitefield (1714-1770) for evidence that the Great Awakening altered their perspective on revival. It is principally based on primary sources written between 1736 and 1743. Six separate chapters explore their background, their understanding of revival, their efforts at propagating it, their techniques in managing the revival, their defense of revival, and their institutionalization of revival. Both their understandings of revival came from their own observations of the revivals that accompanied their evangelistic efforts. Their theological background, heavily influenced by Calvin, insisted that God was responsible for both conversions and revival. The thesis notes that Whitefield�s and Edwards� use of four primary techniques to propagate revival evolved as they experienced revival. Their preaching, their organization of small, religious education groups, their publishing of sermons, and their written narratives of revival all show signs of adaptation to changing circumstances. Both managed revival by using small groups and publications to guide people way from inappropriate spiritual expressions. These groups and documents also provided opportunities to educate new converts about their spiritual experiences. Edwards and Whitefield had the opportunity to clarify their understanding of revival as they defended the revival against those critics who questioned their claims about God�s role in the religious events of 1735-1743. Both institutionalized revival by interacting with the next generation of evangelical ministers and by making available their doctrines and their own experiences in their published narratives. This propensity to publish their reflections on revival allowed future generations access to their revival principles. The overriding hypothesis of this study is that Whitefield�s and Edwards� understanding of revival grew out of their involvement in revival in the eighteenth century religious revivals of colonial North America and that their revival writings and preaching were attempts to codify and transfer the lessons they had learned about revival to future generations of Christians who might, they hoped, themselves experience a God-ordained time of revival. The key conclusions of this study are that 1) Whitefield�s and Edwards� positions on revival issues developed through repeated exposures to revival, 2) Whitefield and Edwards used similar means to propagate, manage, defend, and institutionalize revival, 3) Whitefield�s sermons and journals themselves express a clear and concise theology, 4) a comparison of Whitefield�s and Edwards� theology refutes the suggestion that the lack of a uniform theology throughout the colonies negates the reality of the Great Awakening, 5) a careful study of Whitefield�s and Edwards� revival writings produces a heightened awareness of the nature of their narrative works, 6) Edwards� revival writings show a concern for worship that is too often missed in studies of his work, 7) Edwards and Whitefield were actively involved in developing, recording, and teaching the principles of authentic revival.

Thesis (PhD)--Stellenbosch University, 2012.
ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This study examines the work of John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, and N.T. Wright on the doctrine of Justification. As a comparative study in theology, this work aims to discover areas of continuity and discontinuity between these three theologians. Since all three are identified, or self-identity, with the Reformed theological tradition, it seeks to discern whether the Reformed tradition has been historically open to change, development and transformation in the articulation of doctrine. An underlying question in the study of Calvin, Edwards, and Wright on Justification is what it means to faithfully embody a theological tradition while standing critically within it. As this pertains to the Reformed tradition, the question is whether this robust theological tradition is in fact a “living tradition,” open to fresh insight and re-articulation from succeeding generations of scholars. In this sense, the study examines whether the Reformed tradition has been generally faithful to the principles of semper reformanda and sola scriptura. The work briefly traces the historical development of the doctrine of Justification through some of the major periods of church history. This is followed by chapters on Calvin, Edwards, and Wright, one chapter each, in order to examine their major works on the subject. This analysis takes note of how each one defines particular subjects related to Justification. These include the notions of “justification” itself, “faith,” “the righteousness of God,” “imputation,” and the place of obedience and good works in relation to justification. The sections on Calvin, Edwards, and Wright also include some discussion of scholarly response, reception, or evaluation of each one’s work. The final chapter discusses the idea of “tradition” as a dynamic, living, and on-going conversation about doctrine. This section also focuses on some of the main areas of agreement and disagreement in the views on Justification between Calvin, Edwards, and Wright. The overall aim is to take one of the principle theologians of the Protestant Reformation, and the Reformed tradition in particular – John Calvin – and to see how later theologians, in different historical contexts, develop, build upon, react to, or contribute to Calvin’s doctrine. Edwards represents 18th century Puritan-influenced American Colonialists and the Reformed theology of their day. N.T. Wright represents 20th and 21st century English Biblical scholarship. Wright approaches the subject of Justification as an Anglican New Testament specialist and historian. Since both Edwards and Wright are associated with the Reformed tradition and have found commentators and respondents within that tradition, they become important voices for discerning the direction this doctrine has taken since the time of the Reformation. Ultimately, one hopes that if a living theological tradition is discernible and demonstrable, this can contribute positively to the current debates on Justification within the Reformed churches, further encouraging the semper reformanda principle. Furthermore, one hopes that a living Reformed tradition will enable improved ecumenical relationships and lead to greater unity in the universal Church which has often been divided over the doctrine of Justification. Perhaps the work of Calvin, Edwards, and Wright can assist today’s Reformed theologians by pointing us in a constructive way forward.
AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Hierdie studie ondersoek die werk van Johannes Calvyn, Jonathan Edwards, en NT Wright ten opsigte van die leerstelling aangaande die regverdigmaking deur die geloof. As 'n vergelykende studie in die teologie, het hierdie studie ten doel om areas van kontinuïteit en diskontinuïteit tussen hierdie drie teoloë te vind. Aangesien al drie geïdentifiseer word, of self-identifiseer, met die Gereformeerde teologiese tradisie, poog die studie om te onderskei of die Gereformeerde tradisie histories oop was vir verandering, ontwikkeling en transformasie ten opsigte van die artikulasie van hierdie leerstelling. 'n Onderliggende vraag by die studie van Calvyn, Edwards, en Wright aangaande die leer van die regverdigmaking deur die geloof is die vraag wat dit beteken om 'n teologiese tradisie getrou te beliggaam en terselfdertyd krities binne die tradisie te staan. Aangesien hierdie studie verwys na die Gereformeerde tradisie, is die vraag of dié robuuste teologiese tradisie in werklikheid 'n "lewende tradisie" is wat oop is vir vars insigte en re-artikulasies deur opvolgende geslagte van navorsers. In hierdie opsig ondersoek die proefskrif of die Gereformeerde tradisie oor die algemeen getrou was aan die beginsels van semper reformanda en sola Scriptura. Die studie skets kortliks die historiese ontwikkeling van die leer van die regverdigmaking deur die geloof tydens enkele belangrike tydperke in die kerkgeskiedenis. Dan volg hoofstukke oor onderskeidelik Calvyn, Edwards, en Wright, waarin hulle belangrike werke oor die onderwerp ondersoek word. Hierdie analise neem kennis van hoe elkeen van hulle bepaalde onderwerpe definieer wat met die leerstelling oor die regverdiging deur die geloof verband hou. Dit sluit in die begrippe "regverdigmaking", "geloof", “God se geregtigheid", "toerekening", en die posisie van gehoorsaamheid en goeie werke in verhouding tot regverdigmaking. Die gedeeltes oor Calvyn, Edwards, en Wright sluit ook ‘n bespreking van die akademiese resepsie en evaluering van elkeen se werk in. Die laaste hoofstuk bespreek die idee van "tradisie" as 'n dinamiese, lewende, en deurlopende gesprek oor doktriene. Hierdie afdeling fokus ook op 'n paar van die belangrikste ooreenkomste en verskille in Calvyn, Edwards, en Wright se standpunte oor regverdigmaking. Die oorhoofse doel is om te kyk na die werk van een van die vooraanstaande teoloë van die Protestantse Hervorming, spesifiek in die Gereformeerde tradisie - Johannes Calvyn - en te ondersoek hoe latere teoloë, in verskillende historiese kontekste, sy artikulasie van die leerstelling oor regverdigmaking ontwikkel, daarop bou, daarop reageer, of daartoe bydra. Edwards verteenwoordig die 18de eeuse Puriteins-beïnvloede Amerikaanse kolonialiste en die Gereformeerde teologie van hul dag. N.T. Wright is gekies as verteenwoorder uit die 20ste en 21ste eeuse Engelstalige wetenskaplike wereld. Wright benader die onderwerp van regverdigmaking as 'n Anglikaanse Nuwe Testamentiese spesialis en historikus. Aangesien sowel Edwards as Wright verbonde is aan die Gereformeerde tradisie en gespreksgenote binne daardie tradisie gevind het, gee hulle ʼn belangrike aanduiding van die rigting waarin hierdie leerstelling sedert die Reformasie ontwikkel het. Ten slotte, ‘n fokus op 'n lewende teologiese tradisie kan 'n positiewe bydrae lewer tot die huidige debatte oor regverdigmaking in die Gereformeerde kerke, en die beginsel van semper reformanda verder aanmoedig. Die fokus op ʼn 'n lewende Gereformeerde tradisie kan beter ekumeniese verhoudings bevorder en tot groter eenheid in die universele (“katolieke”) kerk lei, wat dikwels oor die leer van die regverdigmaking deur die geloof verdeel is en verdeel word. Miskien kan die werk van Calvyn, Edwards, en Wright vir vandag se Gereformeerde teoloë ʼn konstruktiewe rigting vorentoe aandui.

The extent to which the 'honour' of the Spirit influenced the theology of Jonathan Edwards is a hitherto underdeveloped theme. Against a backdrop of Patristic thought and in dialogue with the theology of Karl Barth, evaluation is made of pneumatological union in Edwards' Trinitarian theology as this centres on the nature and inter-relatedness of the 'three unions' that characterize his theology: the union of the three Persons of the Trinity, the union of the saints with God, and the union of the divine and human natures of Christ. Edwards' seeks to honour the Spirit as the mutual love of the Father for the Son within his Augustinian, Lockean model of the immanent Trinity, and as 'Person' in the economy. The challenges of doing so within the limits of this psychological model of the Trinity are evaluated in dialogue with the Cappadocian Fathers and Barth. In a manner patterned after union in the Trinity, Edwards gave prominence to the concept of the pneumatological union of the saints with God in Christ, in fulfilment of the self-glorifying purpose of God in creation and redemption. Edwards' experiential theology of conversion, and his elevation of subjective sanctification by the Spirit over objective justification in Christ, for assurance, is contrasted with Barth's greater emphases on the Christological union of God with humanity and objective justification in Christ. Barth's more contemplative approach is contrasted with the overly introspective spirituality of Edwards. Edwards' view of the role of the Spirit in the hypostatic union of God with humanity in Christ, which is reflective of the other unions, is also evaluated in light of Patristic, Reformed-Puritan and Barthian thought on the nature of the humanity Christ assumed, and the doctrine of the vicarious humanity of Christ. A more emphatic incarnational emphasis may have saved Edwards' Spirit- honouring spirituality from an anthropocentricity which is ironical given that the glory of God is his ontic doxological concern.

This research endeavors to answer the question of why the believer should obey, specifically considering the issues of motive and ability. The thesis of this study is that Jonathan Edwards provides the critical missing element of happiness in the sanctification debates of today, an element that is crucial for the doctrine of sanctification because it points to the One in whom true happiness is found and who is the believer’s good. This argument puts the focus on relationship and underlines the importance of union, all the while keeping the necessary tension of God’s work and man’s responsibility in obedience where Scripture places it. Edwards is a needed voice amid the questions that are raised concerning this essential doctrine today. Edwards shows that the affections and happiness do matter. This happiness comes through union, which not only connects the believer to the source of happiness, which is the Triune God but also enables a Christian to pursue it. Chapter 1 introduces the topic of study, setting the framework of what this research intends to do. Chapter 2 establishes the context of the sanctification debates today and the need in also showing how this context is bridged with Edwards own time. Chapter 3 provides the foundation of Edwards’s theology of sanctification with the Trinity, observing the ground of holiness, happiness, and grace. Chapter 4 gives the context of sanctification and how it fits into Edwards’s theology of the Christian life in a holistic redemption, showing both the objective and subjective work of Word and Spirit. Chapter 5 picks up the heart of the argument in looking at three major undercurrents in the Christian life as observed by Edwards, with the chapter answering the question of why the believer should obey. Chapter 6 explores the means to happiness, by examining the principle means of grace developed by Edwards all of which revolve around the truth of God’s Word as used by the Holy Spirit. Chapter 7 the research provides a biblical and theological evaluation of Edwards’s arguments as discussed in this dissertation, giving a defense of happiness as an answer to obedience. Chapter 8, the conclusion, presents the application of this research to the debates today as well as providing the theological legacy of Jonathan Edwards on the doctrine of sanctification.