FRIDAY EDWARDS QUOTE

Last year I wrote a Masters Thesis at Dallas Theological Seminary entitled "A Synthesis of Jonathan Edwards's Thoughts on Theodicy and Its Pastoral Implications." The word theodicy is a compound of the two Greek words theos (God) and dike (justice or righteousness). It is the field of theology that deals with the problem of evil, which raises significant questions about the love and justice of God, hence theodicy is "the justification of God." I've done more work on my thesis since turning it in so that it is much different (and better I think) than what I originally submitted. I plan to continue working on it indefinitely.

Anyway, the last chapter deals with the pastoral implications of Edwards's theodicy. In order to examine such a potentially extensive subject so briefly, I chose to examine a sermon he wrote that explicitly addresses theodicy. It is titled "All God's Methods are Most Reasonable." The 24 year-old Edwards wrote the sermon late in 1727 after a year of "interning" at the Northampton church under the care of his esteemed grandfather Solomon Stoddard. It is a three-part treatment of Isaiah 1:18-20 in which Edwards systematically overviews the decrees of God. The sermon is framed under six headings, the first of which deals with the reasonableness of God's decreeing sin. He begins by asserting:

God is most reasonable in his decreeing and permitting sin. We are taught by God's Word that God decrees the sins of men; they sin according to his determinate counsel and foreknowledge (Acts 2:23). And it's impossible but that every one of God's decrees should come to pass. The decree of God don't cause sin; there is a great deal of difference between determining that a thing shall be done and to do it. But though the decree of God don't work sin, yet it's impossible but it should be wrought according to his decree.

And God himself orders it so in his providence, that all his decrees should be brought about, and though he has no positive influence in the evil of sin--for it is impossible he should, for the evil of sin is not a positive but a negative thing--yet he withholds that grace and influence that would restrain the creature from sinning, which grace being withheld, sin doth certainly follow.

First, notice that Edwards speaks of God's ordering of sin in terms of both the decreeing and permitting sin. Those ideas are crucial to his Calvinistic theodicy. The idea of decree properly signifies the activity of God in deciding that sin should occur in his creation, whereas the idea of permission signifies the manner by which God actually brings his decree to pass in history. He describes God's ordering of sin by both decree and permission. It is determining that sin should occur so that it must necesarily come to pass (i.e. decree); it is NOT the doing or working of sin (i.e. permission). It is the ordering of sin through providence (i.e. decree); it is NOT the ordering of sin through any positive influence in the evil of sin itself (i.e. permission). Edwards explains briefly, that the thought of God positively ordering the evil of sin is unreasonable because sin is fundamentally a negative (or privative) thing. Therefore, God orders sin through a negative influence (i.e. permission) that Edwards describes as the withholding of grace (i.e. permission) so that sin doth certainly follow (i.e. decree).

Second, notice the authority to which Edwards primarily appeals is the Word of God. Particularly he points to Acts 2:23 where we learn that the most evil act ever perpetrated, the crucifixion of the incarnate Son of God, was actually decreed by God prior to creation. The verse reads: "this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men."

Next Edwards offers four reasons in support of the biblical doctrine that God is most reasonable in the decreeing and permitting of sin. He writes:

First. God is no way obliged to afford to his creatures such grace and influence as shall render it impossible for him to sin. . . .

Second. God may order that a thing shall certainly be done, so that it is impossible but that the thing should come to pass, and yet not force the doing. . . .

Third. If it were not reasonable that God should permit sin, God would not be to be feared. There would be no foundation for any such thing as the fear of God. There would be no such thing as his fearful and awful majesty. 'Tis that wherein the majesty of God very much consists, that his displeasure is exceedingly to be dreaded; as his favor is infinitely desirable, so his anger is infinitely dreadful. But if God were obliged not to permit sin, there could be no such thing as dreading his displeasure; for it would be impossible there should be any such thing as threatening or punishment. . . .

Fourth. If God were obliged never to permit sin, there would be no reason to thank God for preserving of us from sin and affording his grace. We can't be preserved from sin, except it be by God's continual influence and his Spirit's upholding of us. 'Tis only by that that we can be preserved. . . .

We see Edwards beginning here with a fundamental understanding of the Creator-creature distinction. Everything the creature possesses comes by the grace of his Creator. Therefore, it is unreasonable to think that God is obliged to give creaures the grace to keep us from sinning. God is no more obliged to give his creatures anything than he was obliged to create them in the first place. Only God can oblige God. Second, he speaks of how the sin God decrees comes to pass through the negative influence of God (i.e. his permission or withholding of grace). Since that is the case, then God cannot be charged with actively working sin. Edwards finishes with two points offering reasons why God's decreeing sin is ultimately beneficial to God's creatures. It is a means by which the awful majesty of God is revealed so that his creatures might fear him appropriately. It is also a means by which the grace of God in preserving his children from sin is revealed so that they might be filled with gratitude for him.

Edwards finishes this section with a two points of application:

I. Hence we learn that sinners are inexcusable in their sins. All the evil of sin is from themselves: they have nothing that they can charge God with; he is just and righteous and holy in all that he doth in relating to the ordering and permitting of their sin: they have nowhere else that they can lay any blame, but only upon themselves.

'Twill be no excuse at all to them to say that God decreed their sin, and it is impossible but that God's decrees should come to pass, and that he withheld his grace and did not prevent them, and that sin necessarily followed: for although God permitted them, he did not compel or persuade 'em, nor anyway influence them to do the evil, but the origin of it is in their own hearts as we have shown.

There is a time coming when they will see the justice and righteousness of God in all that he does relating to it. And they will see that they themselves only are to blame. . . .

II. Let the mouths of God's people be filled with his praises for saving them from sin. Sinners have great reason to bless God for his restraining them from sin, that he has not suffered them to be much worse than they be: for God don't owe them his restraining grace. But God's people have much mor reason to bless his name, that he has not only given them restraining, but sanctifying, grace. God did most justly and reaonably in appointing and permitting the fall of man, and so that they should be brought into the miserable and sinful state they are naturally in, to have their hearts under the reign and dominion of sin. God and his throne is righteous in all this, and he might have allowed you to go on without restraint and yet have been just and righteous in his judgments.

Therefore you have great reason to praise and magnify his holy name, that he has given you his unmerited grace and saved you from sin, from the power and dominion of it, and given you a principle of holiness. If it were unreasonable in God to appoint or permit sin, then you would have no cause of thankfulness; but as we have showed, it is not so. Wherefore praise the Lord whilst you have any being, and declare the wondrous things that God hath done for you.

What a finish! Arminian theologians typically mount the charge against Calvinism that God's decreeing of sin somehow militates against human responsibility. Edwards's first point of application turns that charge on its head. We learn through the doctrine of God's decree that humans are solely culpable for the evil of sin. In the final judgment they will be justly condemned for their sin. Also, as Edwards's second point of application demonstrates, the redeemed have every reason to praise God and none other for their salvation from sin. He alone is responsible for their rescue. He alone has saved them. All praise and glory to him alone!

INTERESTING DISCUSSION ON ROMAN CATHOLICISM AT CRM

Recently Dr. D. Jeffrey Bingham, Department Chair and Professor of Theological Studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, engaged in a Q&A session with an academic student group called The Forum. The topic was "Evangelicals Converting to Roman Catholicism." DTS student Jeff Wright was there taking notes and recently finished up a three-part series at the Conservative Reformed Mafia recounting the Q&A. As always Dr. Bingham, whose specialty is early church history, was clear, kind, uber informed, and insightful.

During the Q&A, Dr. Frank Beckwith's name came up. If you recall last spring Dr. Beckwith, professor of theology at Baylor University and former Evangelical Theological Society president, converted to Roman Catholicism (see, here, here, here, and here). Well, long story short, Dr. Beckwith commented under Jeff's second post. The discussion has been interesting. Here are the links:

Liveblogging from The Forum of DTS' Q&A with Dr. D. Jeffrey Bingham, Part One

The Forum of DTS' Q&A with Dr. D. Jeffrey Bingham, Part Two

The Forum of DTS' Q&A with Dr. D. Jeffrey Bingham, Part 3 of 3

FRIDAY EDWARDS QUOTE

Edwards describes the problem of infinite regress with regard to Arminian free will in his treatise on "Efficacious Grace," Writings on the Trinity, Grace and Faith, vol. 21 of The Works of Jonathan Edwards, 268-67:

Self-determining Power. If our free acts of will are all self-determined, i.e., if our will be the cause of their particular determination, then such a particular determination of our will is the fruit of some voluntary endeavor of the mind in order to bring to pass that effect. Everything that I am properly the voluntary cause of, is the effect of some voluntary endeavor or effort of mine, and if every free determination of my will be the effect of some voluntary effort of mine, then that effort is properly antecedent to this effect; and as the effort, by the supposition, is voluntary, here was an act of the will antecedent to the determination of the will, and this prior act of the will must be free, too, otherwise they will not suppose the act that is consequent and dependent on it must be free, too, otherwise they will not suppose the act being free, must also be self-determined, i.e. it must in like manner be the effect of some voluntary effort: and so there is another third act of the will which also must be free, and so on; and so we must go on in infinitum, or we shall come to a first act that is the first link in the chain; and this also must be free, and consequently must be the fruit of a voluntary effort of the mind and of an antecedent act: which is a contradiction.

If you read the whole quote above, I applaud you. Edwards's reasoning on this point is difficult to grasp. Let's trace out what he is saying point by point:

(1) If the freedom of an act of the will requires self-determination, then a free act of the will comes from some voluntary effort of the mind or self.

(2) And if an act of the will comes from some voluntary effort of the mind, then that voluntary effort is antecedent to the act of the will.

(3) And that antecedent voluntary effort must also be a free act, since the determination of the will that follows it is free.

(4) But if an antecedent voluntary effort is required in order for an act to be free, then there must also be a second voluntary effort antecedent to the first voluntary effort, and so on in infinitum.

(5) Therefore, the idea that free will requires self-determination cannot be true, since, if it were, there could be no original cause. And if there can be no original cause, there can be no effect. And since the act of the will is an effect, if there can be no effect, then there can be no act, and thus no determination.

(6) Therefore, the self-determining power of the will is a contradiction.

BECOME A BETTER YOU WITHOUT THE GOSPEL

Tim Challies has posted a review of Joel Osteen's new book Become a Better You. Here's an excerpt:

I think the secret to Osteen’s success is this: he teaches self-help but wraps it in a thin guise of Christian terminology. Thus people believe they are being taught the Bible when the reality is that they are learning mere human wisdom rather than divine wisdom. Osteen cunningly blends the wisdom of this age with language that sounds biblical. He blends the most popular aspects of New Age and self-help teaching with Christianity. And his audience is eagerly drinking this in. . . .

. . . This is not to say that Osteen has no understanding of Christianity. Become a Better You contains some teaching that seems consistent with the Bible, and certainly there is lots of Christian terminology woven in. But Osteen teaches what is clearly a woefully inadequate theology of sin, repentance, sanctification and life. Osteen seems unable or unwilling to bring the power of the gospel to bear on life—real life. Life, he teaches, is not a meant to bring glory to God, but is meant to bring blessing and ease to the individual. He occasionally shares words that approximate the gospel, but ones that always stop short of providing the complete gospel as we find it in the Bible. “We’ve all sinned, failed, and made mistakes,” he says, “But many people don’t know they can receive God’s mercy and forgiveness.” That sounds fair, but he goes on to say, “As long as you’re doing your best and desire to do what’s right according to God’s Word, you can be assured God is pleased with you.” Is it enough to desire to do what’s right? Is God pleased with those who do their best? “That accusing voice will come to you and tell you, ‘You lost your temper last week in traffic.’ Your attitude should be, ‘That’s okay. I’m growing.’” But sin is never okay, whether we are growing or not. We can never excuse sin and can never minimize it.

CBS has also posted the 60 Minutes interview which includes a critique of Osteen's message from WTS California professor Michael Horton. Here's an excerpt from the interview:

"To become a better you, you must be positive towards yourself, develop better relationships, embrace the place where you are. Not one mention of God in that. Not one mention of Jesus Christ in that," Pitts remarks.

"That's just my message. There is scripture in there that backs it all up. But I feel like, Byron, I'm called to help people…how do we walk out the Christian life? How do we live it? And these are principles that can help you. I mean, there’s a lot better people qualified to say, 'Here’s a book that going to explain the scriptures to you.' I don’t think that’s my gifting," Osteen says.

What is the problem with Osteen's comment? Did you catch it? Besides the obvious problem that one of the qualifications for pastors is to be gifted in explaining the scriptures (2 Timothy 3:14-4:5), what is the implication behind what he has said?

Implication: Christian living is not vitally connected to Christian theology. You can teach one without reference to the other.

In other words, Osteen is teaching that you can be a better you without the gospel, which is a false gospel. Listen to Paul's charge and warning to Timothy:

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching. For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths. As for you, always be sober-minded, endure suffering, do the work of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry (2 Timothy 4:1-5).

DAN WALLACE ON THE PRAGMATISM OF AMERICAN EVANGELICALISM

Dr. Dan Wallace posted an article this week over at Parchment and Pen in which he expresses concern for the pragmatism that defines much of American evangelicalism today. Here's an excerpt:

I confess: I have a love-hate relation with American evangelicalism. It is to a large degree a product of American practicality. We are a culture that is highly successful—at least in terms of how we define success. But the rest of the world may not define it the same way. In Cambridge, success is not measured by what’s in one’s bank account but by what’s in one’s mind. In years past, it also was measured by what was in one’s heart.

WHO'S IN THE COVENANT?

Recently I have been discussing the question of covenant membership, particularly with regard to the Westminster Confession of Faith, with a fellow from Kansas named Roger Mann. Our discussion has taken place in the comments section under this post as well as an earlier one. I think many substantive issues have been raised.

FRIDAY EDWARDS QUOTE

Today is a good day. It's "Edwards day" in my personal study schedule. Given my recent discussions on Arminianism I have revisited some of Edwards's writings on that subject. I just read these tidbits from The "Miscellanies":

t. Universal Redemption. Universal redemption must be denied in the very sense of Calvinists themselves, whether predestination is acknowledged or no, if we acknowledge that Christ knows all things. For if Christ certainly knows all things to come, he certainly knew, when he died, that there were such and such men that would never be the better for his death. And therefore, it was impossible that he should die with an intent to make them (particular persons) happy. For it is a right-down contradiction [to say that] he died with an intent to make them happy, when at the same time he knew they would not be happy. Predestination or no predestination, it is all one for that. This is all that Calvinists mean when they say that Christ did not die for all, that he did not die intending and designing that such and such particular persons should be the better for it; and that is evident to a demonstration. Now Arminians, when [they] say that Christ died for all, cannot mean, with any sense, that he died for all any otherwise than to give all an oppotunity to be saved; and that, Calvinists themselves never denied. He did die for all in this sense; 'tis past all contradiction.

u. Decrees: whether God has decreed all things that ever come to pass, or no. All that own the being of a God own that he knows all things beforehand. Now it is self-evident, that if he knows all things beforehand, he either doth approve of them, or he doth not approve of them; that is, he is either willing they should be, or is not willing they should be.

Here we see Edwards demonstrating the vital connection between the doctrines of divine foreknowledge and divine foreordination. If God knows all that will ever happen in his creation prior to its creation (including every decision made by his moral creaures), then those foreknown happenings must come to pass just as he has known them. And if God knows all that will happen, and yet decides to create anyway, then he must in some sense approve of all that happens in his creation. This is no different than saying that God has foreordained or decreed all that comes to pass.

MORE ON ARMINIANISM

If you've missed it, the discussion on Arminianism that began more than a week ago in the comments section under this post has grown to almost 50 entries. Some really meaty issues arose after Dave posted a series of questions around comment 33 (about 10-15 comments from the latest comment). I think Dave and I have covered some good ground of late.

PIPER ON N.T. WRIGHT'S DOCTRINE OF JUSTIFICATION

From the Desiring God Blog (with a full audio file available):

Bob Allen: Where does N. T. Wright make a change to what you’ve just stated?

John Piper: Wright’s grasp—or expression—of the gospel itself does not include justification or a statement about how to be saved.

Let me read you a quote or two:

“The gospel’ itself refers to the proclamation that Jesus, the crucified and risen Messiah, is the one, true and only Lord of the world.” (“Paul in Different Perspectives”)

For Paul, this imperial announcement was “that the crucified Jesus of Nazareth had been raised from the dead; that he was thereby proved to be Israel’s Messiah.” (What Saint Paul Really Said, 46)

That’s great. That’s true and wonderful and glorious. He has defended the resurrection of Jesus, and I’m thankful for it. But then he says these sorts of things:

“‘The gospel’ is not an account of how people get saved. It is . . . the proclamation of the lordship of Jesus Christ.” (133)

“Paul’s gospel to the pagans was not a philosophy of life. Nor was it, even, a doctrine about how to get saved.” (90)

“My proposal has been that ‘the gospel’ is not, for Paul, a message about ‘how one gets saved.’” (60)

“The gospel is not . . . a set of techniques for making people Christians.” (153)

Now, I find that misleading at best, because to declare the lordship of Jesus and say that’s the gospel, rather than the gospel being an explanation of how to be saved overlooks the problem that, for the person who has been in treason against the Lord of the universe all his life, the resurrection is not good news. It’s really bad news. He’s going to be destroyed if the resurrected Lord has all power in heaven and on earth.

How can that be that good news for him unless you begin to explain the meaning of Jesus’ death and what he achieved. What makes the resurrection good news is that now reconciliation with God can be enjoyed by faith, and you can move from being on the wrong side to the right side. All of that is a necessary explanation of what makes the resurrection of Jesus Christ “gospel.”

Wright’s view is a shift in emphasis. He believes in the death of Christ; he believes in the substitutionary atonement; he believes in penal substitution. But he is always backgrounding these things so that the universal lordship of Christ is foregrounded. It’s the negations he makes that are so troubling, not his affirmations.

Here’s a few more illustrations of the sentences that, when I read them, I thought, he can’t mean this:

“Justification is not how someone becomes a Christian. It is the declaration that they have become a Christian.” (125)

“‘Justification’ in the first century was not about how someone might establish a relationship with God. It was about God’s eschatological definition, both future and present, of who was, in fact, a member of his people.” (119)

“[Justification] was not so much about ‘getting in’, or indeed about ‘staying in’, as about ‘how you could tell who was in.’” (119)

I think that is very wrong and very hurtful to the doctrine of justification, because he’s disconnecting it from the event by which we are saved, or by which we enter into favor with God. To me, that’s the main issue—at what point is God totally for me? Wrath was upon me before my conversion; wrath was upon me before I was in Christ by faith; after faith and union with Christ, wrath is no longer on me.

Justification, I believe, is the way the Bible describes that moment.. Justification is the act by which God says, “I no longer count you guilty. I count you as righteous with the righteousness of my son.” That’s a saving moment, clustered with the call. Wright sees our call as the only decisive saving moment. And I want to put with the call the work of God in justifying me.

Here’s another statement from Wright: “I must stress again that the doctrine of justification by faith is not what Paul means by ‘the gospel.’” (132)

I just think that’s a devastating way to talk. He says,

If we come to Paul with these questions in mind—the questions about how human beings come into a living and saving relationship with the living and saving God—it is not justification that springs to his lips or pen. The message about Jesus and his cross and resurrection—‘the gospel’ . . . is announced to them; through this means, God works by his Spirit upon their hearts. (116)

I think it is devastating to say that when it comes to having a living and saving relationship with the Lord, justification does not come to Paul’s lips or pen. That is not only misleading and destructive, it’s just wrong.

The clearest example of how wrong it is is in Acts 13. Paul closes his sermon in Antioch with:

Let it be known to you therefore, brothers, that through this man forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and by him everyone who believes is justified from everything from which you could not be justified by the law of Moses.” (Acts 13:38–39, my translation).

So here he is bringing his sermon to a close—his gospel sermon in which he’s bringing people into an eternal relationship with god—and he brings it to a climax with justification.

So for N. T. Wright to say that justification does not come to Paul’s lips or pen when we ask him about how to find a living, saving relationship with God, I just say, No way. It’s not only misleading, it’s not true to the text and it’s going to hurt the church.

This is the fourth question in a 7-part interview that John Piper did in preparation for his forthcoming book The Future of Justification.

PAUL HELM ON DR. WILLIAM YOUNG AND JONATHAN EDWARDS

Paul Helm has written a tribute to Dr. William Young encouraging the purchase of Dr. Young's Selected Works. Helm speaks of Young's encounter with Jonathan Edwards writing:

In Jonathan Edwards Bill found a powerful advocate of determinism, which has fed his own emphasis upon the divine decree. It is clear to Bill that God's counsel, while inscrutable and in that sense mysterious, works through and by means of the ordering of the thoughts and choices of men and women who nonetheless remain responsible for their voluntary (and in that sense, free) choices. Edwards provided for Bill a philosophical defense of this view which he already found in Scripture and which is also stated with such elegance and economy in Chapter 3 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, 'Of God's Decree'. 'I could be labeled a pretty strong determinist. But I assure you that I am a very soft determinist, in the sense that I take a very hard view with regard to human responsibility. I believe God holds men accountable, and holds men accountable for all kinds of things with regard to which men would like to make excuses for themselves. And this is perfectly consistent with God having, from eternity, foreordained whatsoever comes to pass, including all human actions. If you want to call me a determinist, you can.'

Here's the chapter of the Westminster Confession of Faith that Helm refers to above:

Chapter III: Of God’s Eternal Decree

3.1. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

3.2. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions; yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.

3.3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of His glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.

3.4. These angels and men, thus predestinated, and foreordained, are particularly and unchangeably designed, and their number so certain and definite, that it cannot be either increased or diminished.

3.5. Those of mankind that are predestinated unto life, God, before the foundation of the world was laid, according to His eternal and immutable purpose, and the secret counsel and good pleasure of His will, has chosen, in Christ, unto everlasting glory, out of His mere free grace and love, without any foresight of faith, or good works, or perseverance in either of them, or any other thing in the creature, as conditions, or causes moving Him thereunto; and all to the praise of His glorious grace.

3.6. As God has appointed the elect unto glory, so has He, by the eternal and most free purpose of His will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by His Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by His power, through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

3.7. The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonor and wrath for their sin, to the praised of His glorious justice.

3.8. The doctrine of this high mystery of predestination is to be handled with special prudence and care, that men, attending the will of God revealed in His Word, and yielding obedience thereunto, may, from the certainty of their effectual vocation, be assured of their eternal election. So shall this doctrine afford matter of praise, reverence, and admiration of God; and of humility, diligence, and abundant consolation to all that sincerely obey the Gospel.

HYMN OF GRACE

Jared Nelson has posted a wonderful meditation and hymn by Josiah Conder over at Dead Theologians. I encourage you to check it out. Here's a snipit from Conder's hymn:

My heart knows none above You;
For Your rich grace I thirst;
I know that if I love You,
You must have loved me first.

FRIDAY EDWARDS QUOTE

A week or so ago I was rummaging through Edwards' "Miscellanies" to see what he had written on a particular topic. I don't remember now what the topic was, but that's really neither here nor there. Anyway, I stumbled upon this quote and put it on my cork board. I just glanced over the quotes I've tacked up over the last few months and read it again. Given some of the discussions I've been having lately on Mormonism and Arminianism I think Edwards's words are poignant:

'Tis a hundred pities that men don't think what the question is, about which they dispute (Miscellanies No. 36).

This is, I think, one of the great difficulties in any dispute. However much is said, if the parties aren't addressing the same question, then they will inevitably tend to misunderstand one another's answers. We cannot understand answers apart from understanding the questions behind them.

One thing I learned from the discussion on Mormonism is that its fundamental question is this:"Was Joseph Smith a prophet of God sent to restore the purity of the church?" Mormons answer "Yes." All other questions addressed by Mormonism are subservient to this one question. So if a non-Mormon asks a Mormon a question which subverts the fundamental question, the answer to expect (at least from the consistent Mormon) is a questioning of the legitimacy of your question by pointing to their fundamental question. And that is fine, we all do that. My point is, when arguing with a consistent Mormon, you can save a lot of time by arguing against the legitimacy of the claim of restoration and/or the claim that Joseph Smith was a true prophet. Otherwise, regardless of how logical and biblical your argument is, you may not be arguing against Mormonism. You may just be answering questions the system does not ask.

One thing I've learned so far from the discussion I've been privileged to enjoy on Arminianism is that its fundamental question is: "How can I deny the greatness of God?" (JUST KIDDING). No really, it is: "Does the goodness of God require the self-determination [ammended from "ultimate autonomy" on 10-8-7, see comments section below] of man in moral decision making (i.e. libertarian free will)?" Arminians answer "Yes." All other questions addressed by Arminianism are subservient to this one question. So if you are to dispute Arminiansim, you must argue against the Arminian concept of divine goodness and/or against libertarian free will. Otherwise, you may not be arguing against Arminianism at all. You may just be answering questions the system does not ask.

Both converstaions have caused me to also ask, what is the fundamental question of Calvinism?

Well, first we have to seek precision in what we mean by Calvinism. Mormonism is fairly easy to define. It is pretty much a monolithic movement begun by a single figure who is presumed to have final authority on all central matters. Arminiansm is a little more difficult to define. It is not monolithic. However, given that it began through the teachings of James Arminius which were crystallized in The Remonstrant Articles as a formal reaction against Calvinism, then it does lend itself to a fairly precise definition. But what about Calvinism?

John Calvin was a second generation reformer (i.e. Reformation 2.0). As such, his doctrine was not as defined by what he was reacting against. Nonetheless, he was reacting against something. Primarily, he was continuing the Reformation reaction against the abuses of medeival Roman Catholicism which centered around the questions of authority and the application of the benefits of the atonement. He was also reacting against the proto-rationalistic trend that had developed in his day toward unitarianism. That trend was begun in large part by Michael Servetus and the Socinians.

Given those catalysts, Calvin stresses the trinity against Socinian unitarianism. He also stresses the primacy of Scripture and the monergistic application of the atonement against the Roman Catholic papacy and Roman Catholic synergism, respectively. As you can see, Calvinism does not lend itself as easily to precise definition. In order to boil it down to a central question, I think we have to contextualize it more tightly than the context of Calvin himself.

In the discussions I have been having, and, I think, the discussions that typically take place on Calvinism, it is probably best to define it according to the Synod of Dordt. At Dordtrecht the Dutch Calvinists responded to the Arminian reaction (i.e. The Remonstrant Articles) against Calvinist soteriology (i.e. the application of the benefits of Christ's atonement) in a document called The Canons of Dordt. That is where what is commonly referred to as the five points of Calvinism were formally set forth.

Given that context we can formulate a fundamental question for Calvinism. I think the question is "How can we understand the Bible best?" (AGAIN JUST KIDDING). No really, it is: "Is the absolute sovereignty of God ultimately compatible with the moral responsibility of his creatures?" Calvinists answer "Yes." All other questions addressed by Dordtian Calvinism are subservient to this one question. So if you are to dispute with Dordtian Calvinism, you must argue against the Calvinist concept of divine sovereignty and/or against the concept of compatibilism. Otherwise, you may not be arguing against Dordtian Calvinism. You may just be answering questions the system does not ask.

In matters of dispute it is best to question before we question.

BTW, the Desiring God bookstore currently has volumes by or on Edwards at discounted rates. If you would like a nice collection of Edwards's major works, check out the 2 volume Hendricksen edition of The Works of Jonathan Edwards. At $37.80, it's a steal! Also, don't miss God's Passion for His Glory, which includes Edwards's treatise The End for Which God Created the World. The softcover is on sale for $7.70! Besides the Bible, that book has had more impact on my life and worldview than any other.

HAPPY BIRTHDAY JONATHAN EDWARDS

Today marks the 304th year since the birth of Jonathan Edwards. Here are a few thoughts about Edwards in tribute:

"That good and sensible man . . . that great man" (John Wesley).

"Mr. Edwards is a solid, excellent Christian . . . I think I have not seen his fellow in all New England" (George Whitfield).

"The profoundest reasoner, and the greatest divine, in my opinion, that America ever produced" (Samuel Davies).

"No man is more relevant to the present condition of Christianity than Jonathan Edwards. . . . He was a mighty theologian and a great evangelist at the same time. . . . He was pre-eminently the theologian of revival. If you want to know anything about true revival, Edwards is the man to consult" (D. Matryn Lloyd-Jones).

"Never was there a happier combination of great power with great piety" (Thomas Chalmers).

"He was distinctly a great man. He did not merely express the thought of his time, or meet it simply in the spirit of his tradition. He stemmed it and moulded it. . . . His time does not explain him" (F. J. E. Woodbridge).

“Edwards was extraordinary. By many estimates, he was the most acute early American philosopher and the most brilliant of all American theologians. At least three of his many works—Religious Affections, Freedom of the Will, and The Nature of True Virtue—stand as masterpieces in the larger history of Christian literature. The appeal of his thought endures” (George M. Marsden).

“Jonathan Edwards’s stature as a significant American thinker is universally acknowledged” ( Glenn Kreider).

“One studies the times and backgrounds of some men in order to understand them. Others have such rare greatness that one studies them in order to understand their times, or even to comprehend the deepest meaning of the intellectual and other influences that were effectual upon them. Jonathan Edwards was such an original" (Paul Ramsey).

“Evangelicals have not thought about life from the ground up as Christians, because their entire culture has ceased to do so. Edwards’ piety continued on in the revivalist tradition, his theology continued on in academic Calvinism, but there were no successors to his God-entranced worldview or his profoundly theological philosophy. The disappearance of Edwards’ perspective in American Christian history has been a tragedy” (Mark Noll).

“Modern evangelicalism is being doctrinally hollowed out by its love affair with pragmatism and numerical success. Edwards’s relentless God-centeredness and devotion to Biblical [sic] contours of doctrine are profoundly needed in our day” (John Piper).

And finally, here is a bit of Edwards thoughts on himself.

In a letter to Edwards sent to Scottish minister James Robe on May 12, 1743. The occasion of the letter was to encourage the revival that had come to Scotland and report the stifling of revival in New England. Edwards closes the letter writing:

I hope, dear Sir, you'll remember me in your prayers. Never was I so sensible in any measure how vain a creature man is, what a leaf driven of the wind, what dry stubble, what poor dust, a bubble, a shadow, a nothing, and more vain than nothing, and what a vain and helpless creature I am, and how much I need God's help in everything, as of late. Dear Sir, don't forget New England, and don't forget your affectionate and obliged brother and servant, and unworthy fellow laborer, Jonathan Edwards.

Also Edwards wrote in his personal resolutions:

8. Resolved, to act, in all respects, both speaking and doing, as if nobody had been so vile as I, and as if I had committed the same sins, or had the same infirmities or failings as others; and to let the knowledge of their failings promote nothing but shame in myself, and prove only an occasion of my confessing my own sins and misery to God.

A DISCUSSION ON DEFINITIONS

D.C. Cramer and I have engaged in yet another interesting discussion over at his blog. With his permission I offer a link to it here.

PAUL HELM ON CALVIN AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JUSTIFICATION AND SANCTIFICATION

Paul Helm has posted a set of articles for October over at his blog Helm's Deep. His post Analysis 7: Losing Sight of the Insight is excellent. Here's a primer:

In the September Analysis 6 (‘Calvin’s Stroke of Genius’) we noted that John Calvin habitually thinks of the relation between justification and sanctification as two distinct but inseparable gifts of Christ to his people. Justification does not cause sanctification even though it is a necessary precondition of it. Both justification and sanctification are directly given by the Mediator. We noted that this stroke of genius makes apparent a biblical idea of wonderful power and simplicity. The risen and ascended King gives gifts – chief among them free justification, and free sanctification, bound inseparably together. It is interesting that although Calvin is called (by B.B. Warfield) the theologian of the Holy Spirit, in the passages on the double grace quoted in Analysis 6 there is little or nothing said about the Holy Spirit as the communicator of this grace. Calvin does not deny this, of course, but at this point he is resolutely Christocentric.

This wonderful idea is not for Calvin a mere clever scholarly insight that is to be noted and then filed away. It occurs all over the place in his writings: not only in the Institutes, but in his personal confession of faith, catechisms, his work on the sacraments, and his commentaries. It may be said to be a central feature of his theology, a key theological idea.

The loss

However, in my estimate this stroke of genius has not been sufficiently appreciated by subsequent Reformed theology. . . .

Read the rest here.

JOEL OSTEEN PROVOKES AN INTERESTING CONVERSATION ON COVEANT THEOLOGY . . . WHO WOULD HAVE THUNK IT?

D. C. Cramer, former philosophy student and current divinity student at TEDS, and I have engaged in an interesting conversation in the comments section under my latest post on Joel Osteen (which was actually just a pointer to Tony Felich's post). Who would've thought that Osteen would provoke a conversation on Covenant Theology? The Lord works in mysterious ways indeed!