Thursday, April 1, 2010

Jonathan Edwards, a Good Yardstick of Reformed Orthodoxy? Nah!


Given the recent wave of sentiment (mostly negative) over John Piper's endorsement of Rick Warren—with the former's thumbs up chiefly predicated on the latter's supposed interest in Jonathan Edwards—I have compiled the following quotes which will serve to cast light on some of Edwards' elemental beliefs:

"One suspects, however, that confessional Reformed folk might not be so ready to identify with Edwards' theology if they understood its debt to modernity and specifically to certain forms of rationalism and idealism." — Dr. R. Scott Clark, 'Recovering the Reformed Confession', p. 84.

"Charles Hodge (1797—1878) offered strong criticism of Edwards's doctrine of original sin and 'continued creation.' Hodge said, 'According to the theory of continued creation there is and can be no created substance in the universe. God is the only substance in the universe.' He concluded that this 'doctrine, therefore, in its consequences, is essentially pantheistic.'" — ibid., p. 85

"He rejected the traditional Reformed doctrine of concursus, that God works fully in every thing but does so through 'second causes' (WCF 5.2), which led to his occasionalism whereby the world is said to be re-created (which notion the earlier Reformed orthodox had rejected) moment by moment." — ibid., p. 87.

"...the measure of one's ministry was no longer whether a minister proclaimed the law and the gospel and administered the means of grace according to Scriptures as understood by the Reformed confessions. Rather, the measure of one's ministry was now the result of that preaching...specifically the degree to which it generated a certain religious enthusiasm or experience." — ibid., p. 89.

"Because of his neo-Platonism, Edwards established an ideal, a paradigm of conversion and religious experience, to be wrought not only progressively by the ordinary means of grace, but immediately by the Spirit." — ibid., p. 93.

"For Edwards, true religion was not simply an orthodox profession of faith...accompanied by an ordinary Christian life lived in the communion of the saints. But he demanded more, an extraordinary experience of grace...Attention is no longer on the objective work of Christ for his people and the secret but ordinary work of the Spirit in his elect through the Word and sacraments." — ibid., pp. 94—95.

"Edwards taught a doctrine of divinization. The only thing missing is the word itself." — Michael J. McClymond, 'Salvation and Divinization: Jonathan Edwards and Gregory Palamas and the Theological Uses of Neoplatonism'.



7 comments:

  1. Personally, I'd be more apt to question the wisdom of R. Scott Clark and Mr. McClymond than that of the brilliant and time-tested Edwards. Though, to be sure, he had his errors like all others.

    But I agree that Rick Warren's supposed interest in Edwards is no reason for Piper to bring him to the Conference. An atheist can read good theology - that alone doesn't make him a Christian or a Calvinist. I've read, studied, and even enjoyed Bertrand Russell - does that qualify me to speak at a conference for atheists?

    Blessings,
    Derek

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hi, Derek,

    Dr. R. Scott Clark is a Reformed scholar of historical theology, so I believe he has the credentials to back up his claims. Notice that even the esteemed Princeton theologian Charles Hodge takes issue with Edwards' aberrant formulations—formulations that are owing more to his embrace of Neoplatonism than orthodox Reformed theology.

    I was equally surprised by these revelations about Jonathan Edwards, but then erecting "sacred cows" is indeed unwise.

    Yours in Christ,
    Warren

    ReplyDelete
  3. Warren,

    Scott Clark is indeed highly respected, but some observations and opinions of super-scholars have to be taken with a grain of salt. On various issues (including the accuracy of Edwards' theology, I'd guess), Dr. Clark will disagree with Dr. Mohler who will disagree with Dr. Frame who will disagree with Dr. Sproul who will disagree with Dr. Grudem who will disagree with Dr. Duncan who will disagree with Dr. Horton, ad infinitum. Each of these men is highly qualified and well studied - but none is without error.

    It seems to me that Scott Clark and some others in the "Truly Reformed" movement are trying to create a Reformed Magisterium that authoritatively dispenses sound doctrine. That, to me, is the dark side of Reformed theology. I believe there is plenty of room for disagreement on a variety of non-essential issues - but agreement about the Gospel is essential and non-negotiable. I prefer T4G to TR, but it seems like Scott Clark would not think T4G is Reformed enough. On the other hand, Clark's peers Ligon Duncan and Mark Dever partake joyfully in T4G.

    Just my observations.

    Blessings,
    Derek

    ReplyDelete
  4. Derek,

    I think disagreements between various theologians are not as "never-ending" as it seems. The underlying systems and presuppositions that undergird a group of theologians' arguments determine identity and therefore the boundaries of expression.

    Actually, the "Truly Reformed" movement is not trying to create anything. On the contrary, it advocates a return to the pre-existent confessions and creeds of historic, Protestant Christianity which are precisely the identifying factors and boundary markers of what it means to be Protestant and Reformed. Disagreements are founded on systems and presuppositions, as mentioned above. The issue is: to which system or presupposition should one adhere to if one claims to be Reformed? The T4G, "New Calvinism" types seem to think that TULIP is enough. Historic Reformed Christianity proposes otherwise.

    YIC,
    Warren

    ReplyDelete
  5. Derek,

    "It seems to me that Scott Clark and some others in the "Truly Reformed" movement are trying to create a Reformed Magisterium that authoritatively dispenses sound doctrine. I believe there is plenty of room for disagreement on a variety of non-essential issues - but agreement about the Gospel is essential and non-negotiable."

    - The essential/inessential distinction refers to the question of whether a particular doctrine is necessary for salvation. For example, doctrines concerning church government are inessential for salvation. Therefore, disagreement on such a matter should not lead us to conclude that the other isn't of the visible church.

    Now, just because a doctrine is nonessential (for salvation) that doesn't mean it is not important. Furthermore, an emphasis on "room for disagreement" on such things assumes a latitudinarian approach when it comes to nonessentials. However, many Reformed folk do not share this latitudinarian approach and those who do really shouldn't because our Confessional Standards cover not only the essentials but also much of the nonessentials. We happen to take our confessional identity seriously. The problem with many evangelicals is that they are ignorant about this and there are some who even think that all that really matters is what the Gospel means to them. So, when they encounter Reformed folk who know most of their doctrines and believe them to be true as taught by Scripture, these evangelicals then assume that such Reformed folk ("Truly Reformed") are being dogmatic. It is not our problem if you're unsure of what the Bible says regarding matters that are nonessential to salvation.

    And, it certainly is unjust for people to claim that our scholars are trying to establish a "Reformed Magisterium" when all they're doing is teaching us the finer points of Reformed theology. There is nothing new under the sun. Much of what Reformed scholars teach now has already been touched upon by other Reformed scholars/theologians in the past.

    In order to understand why the scholars you mentioned would disagree with each other, why don't we look at their backgrounds:

    Mohler - Calvinistic Southern Presbyterian
    Frame - claims to be Reformed but has many disagreements with the Reformed (ex. regulative principle)

    Reformed:
    R.S. Clark and Michael Horton (Continental/Dutch Reformed)
    Ligon Duncan (Scottish Reformed/American Presbyterian)

    Show me an instance where these three Reformed theologians (Clark, Horton and Duncan) have strongly disagreed with each other. If there ever was a point wherein they had such a strong disagreement then that is probably an extra-confessional one.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Now, just because a doctrine is nonessential (for salvation) that doesn't mean it is not important. Furthermore, an emphasis on "room for disagreement" on such things assumes a latitudinarian approach when it comes to nonessentials."

    - so you are saying the truly reformed got it right even in the nonessentials? if so, what is your attitude on not truly reformed people who have a different view in the nonessentials?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Joel de Leon said:
    Show me an instance where these three Reformed theologians (Clark, Horton and Duncan) have strongly disagreed with each other. If there ever was a point wherein they had such a strong disagreement then that is probably an extra-confessional one.

    I don't doubt that they agree on the essentials, and since they are confessionally Reformed they will probably agree on the specifics of the confessions. But the topic of discussion here was the Reformed orthodoxy of Jonathan Edwards - a subject on which I'd expect to find a wide variety of views, even among TR's. There are thousands of similar issues on which these men may disagree in a scholarly fashion without declaring one another "outside the club."

    As mentioned previously, I trust the wisdom of Edwards more than the wisdom of Scott Clark. If someone can prove certain aspects of Edwards' theology were unscriptural, I'll accept it and disagree with Edwards on those points (without labeling him "less than orthodox"). But Scott Clark's mere accusations of rationalism, idealism, occasionalism and neo-Platonism don't lessen my respect for Edwards one iota. Rather, they make me wonder what axe Clark is grinding.

    Warren, you have been a great source of encouragement and a solidly focused blogger. I have appreciated and still appreciate what you write. I recognize that you are excited about going deeper in confessional Reformed theology, and I applaud that. But I fear that the TR trend could lead good, solid Biblical thinkers into a form of doctrinal Pharisaism.

    I wouldn't call myself "confessionally" Reformed, and certainly not TR, but I am a Calvinist with the deepest respect for the Reformed tradition. It's disheartening to see a Reformed teacher excluding someone like Jonathan Edwards - who is rightly regarded as one of the most brilliant Calvinists in history. If Edwards gets this much criticism, how can anyone who doesn't line up perfectly with R. Scott Clark hope to find any fellowship with TR's? From the outside looking in, it feels like exclusivism.

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts with Thumbnails