Overview of Jonathan Edwards theology

The below excerpt is from Kyle Strobel's book Jonathan Edwards Theology: a reinterpretation. Pg 4-5

Underscored, embolden, or italicized words and (parenthetical comments) are my own:

_______________________________________________________

First, Edwards theology begins with God, and in his eternal life as Trinity, as the ontological principle (nature of being or existence) which grounds his systematic task. 

Second, Edwards begins 'from eternity' and then 'descends' to address God's work in time, i.e. God's economic movement to create (begin something) and sustain (continue) it.

Third, this work in time is the work of redemption, directing the revolutions in the world and guiding it toward resurrection, judgment, and consummation. 

Fourth and finally, Edwards's theology is a theology of redemptive history, grounded in and formed by the God who is redeeming, or more specifically, the God who redeems in, through, and as Christ.

Further elaboration of the above points:

First, Jonathan Edwards's theology is fundamentally Trinitarian. Edwards's account of the trinity is the anchor, or in his words, the fountain of all that is. Edwards's theology traces the contours of the trinity so that the ordering, emphasis, and teleology (final /designed/ planned aim) of his thought find its home in his Trinitarian analysis. 

Several key concepts come into focus as a result of this ordering. 

First, Edwards emphasizes personhood. This emphasis grounds his depiction of the Trinity and organizes his discussions concerning God's attributes and his work of redemption. The formal demarcations (what differentiates and distinguishes persons) of the processions (i.e.The Son and Spirit) are not addressed through origin (e.g. begotteness) but through *personhood (i.e. individual understanding and will. God as a person has his own understanding [his own comprehension of objective truth] and will). 

  *For a further discussion on "personhood" click here. 

Second, Edwards develops his formal analysis of the processions in terms of the beatific vision. The Father gazes upon the Son and the Son upon the Father, not in a detached fashion, but with delight (the Spirits spiration). In other words, the happiness of the Father and Son is the Spirit, and the vision of God shared by Father and Son, is, in Edwards' phrase, 'happifying'. (makes one happy)  

Last, as an account of mutual beholding in the Godhead leading to affections, Edwards' depiction of the Trinity serves as the archetype (he is the source and model; we are like him) for creaturely knowledge of God, i.e. knowing God requires apprehension that happifies.

Second, God descends to create the world and sustains it (GOD is the first cause and initiator who comes to us. We do not go up to him). Edwards refers to this as God's emanation. God is diffusive (outward flowing); he is communicative *(shares and passes along things about himself by words and actions) in both his imminent (within the Trinity) and economic (outward exchange/ interaction) existence. God is a God who reveals himself in the world for the purpose of affectionate knowledge (of others) which is an image of his own inner Trinitarian self-knowing. (God is happy in what he sees and knows about himself and seeks to bring others into this happiness),

*and we are like him in this way. As we receive love from him we desire to pass it along to others. He is the source of that love, for himself first and then to and for us and out to others through us. We are conduits.

This grounds the third point, that God sustains creation for the purpose of perfecting this affectionate knowledge as well as perfecting the union believers have with Christ. God is guiding creation to resurrection, judgment, and consummation, which, for the elect, entails the full beatific vision of God (we shall be like him when we see him as he is), or true participation in God's self-knowing and self-loving. The parallel of God's emanation is thus, in Edwards's terminology, *remanation, the glory of God received and communicated back to its divine source.

*This is at the heart of our value. We are valuable because we can experience and enjoy God who is most valuable, expressing our value of him back to him and out to others by pointing others to him.

The Trinity, as the fountain, gives shape to all theology so that the beautification thread formed in his doctrine of the Trinity is woven throughout the whole until it finds its perfection in consummation (i.e. eternal glory). Edward's theology, in this sense, it's cyclical. Everything moves from God, and everything returns to him in judgment. The elect continue on this trajectory (past judgment) to God, while the reprobate does not. 

Rom 11:36  For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.

Along with being cyclical, Edwards thought, is teleological. The elect do not disappear into God, but commune with God eternally, because this eternal union is *asymptotic – always (throughout eternity) growing closer without collapsing into a singular entity. 

* asymptotic - adjective Mathematics.

1. of or pertaining to an asymptote (a straight line approached by a given curve as one variable in the equation of the curve approaches infinity).
2. (of a function) approaching a given value as an expression containing a variable tends to infinity. 
3. (of two functions) so defined that their ratio approaches unity as the independent variable approaches a limit or infinity. 
4. (of a formula) becoming increasingly exact as a variable approaches a limit, usually infinity. 
5. coming into consideration as a variable approaches a limit, usually infinity: asymptotic property; asymptotic behavior.

Fourth, Christ as the image of God, is the locus (central focal point or location) of revelation to the creature and as God- man, is the point of mediation between God and man. Affectionate knowledge of God, as noted above, entails beholding God. Christ reveals God in his excellencies, calling the elect to behold and see his goodness and beauty. Redemption, through Christ work, is the central thread that shapes Edwards entire theological project. Redemption is what the world was created for and redemption entails God's revealing himself in Christ with affectionate creaturely response.

End of book excerpt
___________________________________________________________

If redemption is what the world was created for and the rebellion of man proceeds and necessitates redemption then the fall was part of God's plan from the beginning.

1Pet 1:18  knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold, 19 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. 20  He was foreknown before the foundation of the world (i.e. before anything was created, which of course includes mankind) but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you

In order for Christ to be foreknown as the redeemer, it also had to be known (by God) why or who he was redeeming i.e. that redemption was even necessary. There is no redemption if there is nothing that needs to be paid for i.e. bought back. 

Redeem defined. 

The different "flavors" of Christianity

I came to Christ my senior year in high school at a Nicky Cruz Crusade in 1971. Cruz came to Christ through David Wilkerson who was of a more charismatic persuasion. 

My first church was a fundamentalist Independent Baptist Church (the John Rice, Jack Hyles, Jack Van Impe legalistic variety...if you are old enough to remember those dudes). Before that I was unchurched. Neither of my folks were practicing faith of any kind, though my mom was raised Catholic and my dad grew up in the Church of Christ, but had walked away from the church as a young man and never returned. 

A year after I came to Christ, I went to Lynchburg Baptist College (now Liberty U) and then transferred to Columbia Bible College (now Columbia International U) after two years. I graduated from Columbia in 77. Columbia's theological roots were in the Keswick or "deeper life" movement. 

While at Columbia, I was exposed to a whole spectrum of views through the various students and faculty, from Reformed, to Arminian, to deeper life, to charismatic. I also started reading folks like Francis Schaeffer and CS Lewis and some works out of a more Reformed tradition. I eventually landed in an Orthodox Presbyterian Church after College for a couple of years -- which is on the far right theologically and the most conservative spectrum of Reformed churches. Solid doctrinally for the most part, but very little life. I found the label "the frozen chosen" to be appropriate. They were all "up in their heads" and somewhat oblivious in their approach to the mysteries of the Spirit and how to live in God's presence (or possibly it was more my lack of spiritual maturity, and I was not ready to hear whatever they offered in this area). I learned a ton theologically while there, however, and became more convinced and grounded in a Reformed theological outlook.

With my then-growing family (2 already born and one on the way) we moved to Massachusetts in 1982 to open a sales office for my business. While there we attended a Christian Reformed Church (Dutch Reformed) for about 4 years, then a Congregational Church for about 6 years eventually landing in a Baptist church for around 6 years (my wife had left our marriage and the Baptist church had a strong youth group which I attended for the benefit of my 4 kids, ages 12, 11, 9 and 7 at that time). 

After living in Massachusetts for approximately 16 years, I moved to the West Coast and attended an Evangelical Wesleyan Church for 4 years, eventually landing in a non-denominational Charismatic Church (co-pastored by 2 brothers) for 13 years, where I taught an adult bible class for 12 of those years.

I moved to Texas - since my daughter and her husband were considering starting their family (they have a son now) - and attending a Baptist church (in name only...which they keep under wraps) that operates more like a Presbyterian church in its form of government (e.g. a plurality of elders/pastors) and also in their eschatology, but also like a charismatic church in their style of worship.  

The main thing Baptist about them is that they practice adult Baptism. Otherwise, they even enjoy a good glass of wine or a beer - definitely not the kind of Baptist Church I used to attend. (They also do not emphasize the "cultural mandate" and exercising dominion over all aspects of culture, which is more common in Presbyterian and Dutch Reformed circles).

Why my church history? I have seen a lot of shapes and varieties of churches and the full theological spectrum within the church as a whole. I have observed what I feel are the good and not-so-strong sides of these various groups and drawn some conclusions along the way. The following are the differences I have seen. I am not suggesting I am right necessarily, only giving you my observations and understanding. In the following thoughts, I will discuss these and mainly compare and contrast the broader groups of Charismatic to non-Charismatic.

Charismatics

Charismatics tend to draw their sense of God's love through his present work and activity, such as experiences and manifestations of his love in and through his Spirit and various spiritual gifts. They are more experience and feeling-oriented in how they approach God, tending to look to experiences/manifestations as much as God's word, sometimes giving personal encounters with God more weight than scripture. Given the inclination of our fallen hearts, I have concluded this ¹can be and often is very shaky ground to stand on. They tend to be so focused on present experience that they can lose sight of the significance, importance, and completeness of God's past work in and through Christ and the vast depth and richness of that work for us in our day-to-day lives i.e. they tend to chase present experiences/manifestations of God instead of appreciating the rock-solid realities of God's presence due to Christ's work on our behalf, despite present circumstances, experiences, and manifestations or lack of them.

Other Evangelicals

On the other hand, non-charismatic types i.e. Calvinists, Reformed, Baptists, and non-charismatic evangelicals, tend to focus more on God's past work and Christ's future return, with minimum emphasis on his present work i.e. the necessity of ²operating "in the Spirit" and what that means exactly. They have a tendency to draw their sense of God's love through the depth and breadth of Christ's past work - if they do at all. 

My observation is many evangelicals within the non-charismatic part of the church know more about God - in their head - instead of having an ongoing, vital, daily personal relationship and experience of God. This was also true of me for a long time and is something I am constantly discovering more about. 

I find this is where Charismatics are stronger than most other evangelical churches. They at least have some life in them and seek to operate in the Spirit, if not always as strongly grounded in God's word. The downside of this, however, is that Charismatics can confuse some subjective experiences as proof they know God, when their experience may have nothing to do with God. Non-Charismatics, on the other hand, are propositional or doctrine-oriented (even among those who do not consider themselves cessationists or recognize the validity of all the gifts and the various activities of the Spirit). In fact, non-charismatics are so focused on propositional truth in scripture that they confuse knowledge about God with knowing God. (I discuss this further here.) There is little emphasis on seeking God's presence or experiencing manifestations of his presence ²through His Spirit and what that looks like in our day-to-day walk with God. They are so focused on Christ's past work, they can lose sight of God's present ongoing work by His Spirit and what it means and looks like. This is especially true of those in reformed circles, from my experience. 

Both Christ's past work and the Spirit's present work are necessary means by which God shows his love and grace to us and through us. They are equally vital. I would also suggest that for us to experience the latter (the work of the Spirit) as God intends, we must be firmly grounded in the former (the work of Christ). I address this tension throughout the various posts on this blog. To focus primarily on one to the exclusion of the other is missing out on all the vital means by which God reveals himself to us, no matter which side you fall on. 

We cannot emphasize one to the point of minimizing the other or we will miss out on the full benefit of both and the vital connection between them. A key work of the Spirit is to reveal to us the things of Christ. And not just propositionally, but in the day-to-day experience and manifestation of his presence through the various gifts and other means of grace i.e. worship, prayer, meditation, etc. 

Now, in saying all of this, these differences are not absolute distinctions but tendencies. All groups for the most part would say they believe what the other groups emphasize, but from my experience and observation, there is a very definite distinction in practice, even if there is a verbal acknowledgment by each of the other's views and approaches.

I would also add that the last church I attended (Baptist in affiliation) was more "charismatic" than most, and the former charismatic church I was in was far more scripturally oriented than most, with a slight reformed leaning in eschatology, while Arminian in their soteriology. But even with these two more "centrist" churches, there is still a considerable difference between them when you look "under the hood" and see how they operate and what they emphasize. 

For the non-charismatic groups, seeking and knowing the work of the Spirit is vital and a key missing piece. We are under grace because of the past work of Christ. But to be under grace is also to operate in the presence of God by His Spirit. I touch on this more here.  

My last church emphasized the past work of Christ and minimized the present work of the Spirit, as is typical of most non-charismatic churches.

Where I have landed... at present

I have personally been heavily influenced by Jonathan Edwards (1703 - 1758 who was instrumental in the first Great Awakening during the 1730's and 40's) and those who have studied him, such as John Piper (a Baptist), Tim Keller (a Presbyterian), and Kyle Strobel, (a professor at Talbot Seminary - also the son of Lee Strobel, author of "A Case for Christ").

Strobel is considered an Edwards scholar and did his Ph.D. about his understanding of spiritual formation - often referred to as sanctification. Edwards is wordy and also uses the 1700s variety of English - not unlike King James type English minus the "thee's and thou's" etc - which makes him hard to read.  Strobel, however, wades through this and does an excellent job of distilling his work and bringing out key aspects of Edwards's understanding of God in a way we can understand. I highly recommend all his work. The book at this link is a good summary overview by Strobel of what Edwards addresses regarding "spiritual formation" or what most evangelicals call sanctification. 

I have also posted some main truths Edwards discusses, summarized by Strobel here. 

While Edwards (along with the others mentioned) is within the reformed wing of the church, Edwards understands the importance of operating in the presence of God and the role of both our affections and our reason. As some may be aware, he's written an entire treatise on "Religious Affections" in an attempt to address and assess the increase in emotional displays during the "Great Awakening" in the 1730s - e.g. folks loudly crying out to God for mercy, going into trances or convulsions, fainting, weeping sometimes for days, etc. Though he felt there were excesses and counterfeit displays of "the Spirit" he also believed much of this was the work of God. 

(by "religious" Edwards means spiritual, as we would use it today. Not the legalistic performance-based variety common within the Evangelical community today) 

Interestingly, Edwards stresses (correctly I believe) that Christ is the eternal Word of God i.e. the truth and light (knowledge) of God revealed in the flesh and the Spirit is the passion and love of God poured out on us, through which Christ is revealed and the grace of Christ's work is applied (for a further discussion on this click here). Or as Edwards also likes to say, Christ is the light of God and the Spirit is the heat of God. Both knowledge and affection are vital in experiencing all of who God is and offers according to Edwards. So Edwards would not fit well in either a Charismatic or a stereotypical Evangelical church today, or maybe, to say it more positively, he could possibly work well with either. 

The balance and conclusion

Our current walk with God and the presence of the Spirit are anchored in the past work of Christ i.e. the gospel of grace. Without that work and a clear grasp of grace, there wouldn't be our present walk with in and by the Spirit. Our present experience of God is based on a clear and full understanding of this past work.  The truer our understanding, the greater our faith and the stronger we will experience the presence of God through His Spirit and day-to-day walk with God right now, this moment. We are not to focus just on Christ's past work or our future hope of glory but on our present ongoing dependence on/faith in/walk with God. Our experience of God does not start and end with the past work of Christ but only begins there. This past work is the vital foundation for our ongoing participation in the ever-present love of the Father, Son, and Spirit. As scripture says, "the just shall live (present continuous action in the original Greek) by faith" and "If we live by the Spirit, let us also walk by the Spirit" (Gal 5:25) - it is worth noting the context of Galatians is a discussion of being under grace and not the law i.e. there is a direct tie into operating in the Spirit and being under grace. For a further discussion on how the Spirit and grace are connected, click here. 

God did what he did in the past so we might know Him and walk with him in joy and power in every present moment today for the glory of His name. 

___________________________________________________________________

¹Early on in his ministry, George Whitefield approached God in this way but later abandoned it after making a decision on "an impression from the Lord" that later proved to clearly not be His leading. 

²For a discussion on what I believe it means to operate in the Spirit, click here and here. 

For a discussion on being empowered by the Spirit, click here and here. 

Does God value us?

The following excerpt is from Jonathan Edwards's dissertation titled "The End for Which God Created the World." As the title shows, Edwards primarily addresses the reason God created. 

In this quote, Edwards explains why it is right (*moral) for God to have the highest regard and respect for himself over and above all other beings or things.

However, we wish to look at this quote more closely to see what Edwards says about God having regard and respect for beings other than himself and why he would.

"...At least, a great part of the *moral rectitude of God, whereby he is disposed (drawn) to every thing that is fit, suitable, and amiable [i.e. good, right, pleasant, admirable] in itself, consists in his having the highest regard to that which is in itself highest and best (i.e. Himself). The moral rectitude of God must consist in a due respect to things that are objects of moral respect; that is, to intelligent beings capable of moral actions and relations. And therefore it must chiefly consist in giving due respect to that Being (i.e.God) to whom most is due; for God is infinitely the most worthy of regard (i.e. being highly regarded). The worthiness of others (beings) is as nothing to his; so that to him belongs all (the greatest/highest) possible respect. To him belongs (is rightfully his) the whole of the respect that any intelligent being is capable of. To him belongs (it is also rightfully his) ALL the heart. Therefore, if moral rectitude of heart consist in paying the respect of the heart which is due, or which fitness and suitableness requires, fitness requires infinitely the greatest regard (but not the only regard i.e. he also has regard to others) to be paid to God; and the denying of supreme regard here would be a conduct infinitely the most unfit. Hence it will follow, that the moral rectitude of the disposition, inclination, or affection of God chiefly (but not exclusively) consists in a regard to HIMSELF, infinitely above his regard to all other beings; in other words, his holiness consists in this.” (any emphasis such as parenthetical, emboldened or underscored comments etc. are my own)

Though the main and most important point Edwards makes above is that God is the highest and greatest being, and therefore must have the highest and greatest respect for himself, he also hints that he has regard for any being capable of moral respect. 

"The moral rectitude of God must consist in a due respect to things (beings) that are objects of moral respect; that is, to intelligent beings capable of moral actions and relations..." i.e. beings other than God that can also recieve and give God honor in the same way He does between the Father, Son, Spirit. 

Edward's use of the word "must" shows the ¹moral ²necessity of God having regard for any being capable of having "¹moral actions and relations." This is primarily true of God in regards to Himself but also of others like Him i.e. you and I. God created us as intelligent beings capable of moral actions and relations, to use Edwards words. This is clearly suggested by the Bible's saying that we are "made in the image of God."

By God's own nature and design, he must value and love the most lovely and valuable. And who would that be? God himself is the most worthy of adoration and love. Why? From, through, and to him are all things. Without him nothing would be, that is. He is supremely valuable above all other beings or things.  He is love and life.

And Christ is the perfect eternal expression-reflection-image of God. If we see Christ for who he truly is, we see God as He truly is. But after Christ, we are next.

God's value of us has nothing to do with what we do or say but who we are, who God Himself designed us to be. It is an innate capacity and ability given to us by God and is therefore something he holds in the highest regard (just below regard for Himself). God is not obligated by us - by what we do or don't do - to value us. He values us because of who He made us to be i.e. our being, not our doing. The reason God loves us and desires to be in union with us is self "imposed" i.e. self-generated. 

This is due to our nature (God's and ours) and his design of those other beings i.e. we are like God - His image-bearers - with the capacity to engage in "moral actions and relations."

What is the nature of those moral actions and relations? What are "¹moral actions and relations" comprised of? Any actions that deliberately/willfully acknowledges God's ultimate worth and any beings capable of doing so. This is not just true of God, but of us as well. And it is only true of us because it's true of God 1st - and that He made us like Himself.

God has the highest regard for what we do. Our God-honoring conduct is genuinely pleasing to Him (as much as our dishonoring Him is not). But our capacity to live for God's honor is only possible because of who He has made us to be.

Therefore, it is not only good and right that God has the highest regard for himself as the highest and most significant being, but to also have regard for other beings like him who are capable of having similar regard for him.

Who are those beings other than God? Us! We are created in the image of the greatest being of all. Though God is the ultimate and only infinite being who is most worthy, elicits the highest regard, and is capable of giving (and receiving) the greatest respect, we are like him and therefore capable of giving him due respect in the same way he does; in a way no other creature can. Though our ability to willfully regard God properly - i.e. to recognize and bring him his due glory and honor - is small ("as nothing") compared to his, it is a capability we have nonetheless, which ³no other creature has (only we, out of all the rest of creation, are like God).

The point is God values ("has regard for") us due to our ability to appreciate and enjoy his infinite worth. The greater that ability the more he values (regards) the one who possesses this quality. God, having the greatest ability, elicits the greatest regard for himself first and foremost. Because we, too, have this ability, we are also valued accordingly.

Again Edwards says God has 

"...due respect to things that are objects of ¹moral respect; that is, to intelligent beings (i.e. us as well as himself) capable of moral actions and relations..."  

In short, God values in us what he values in himself, the ability to give due regard and recognition to his great value and glory. Certainly, our capability is of an infinitely lesser degree than his, but a capability we have nevertheless. A capacity he values in us. 

Because this capability is given to us by God, it is not a point of pride but of humility. It is a gift, not anything accomplished or earned by us. It is who he has made us to be, not what we have done by or for ourselves. 

Knowing that our capability to properly regard (value/glorify) God is only a drop in an infinite ocean compared to his is also a point of humility. He alone is the infinite source. We are simply conduits/vessels. 

Why does God love me?! 

When people say "I don't understand why God would love me," what is discussed above is precisely why God would ⁴love you. He made you with the capacity to know and enjoy him in all his infinite glory in the same way (quality, not quantity) he knows and enjoys himself. And in turn to radiate out to others his glory i.e. we are able to make Him known to others in a direct and deliberate way. 

To say it another way, we are able to deliberately, willfully, and consciously glorify God and enjoy him forever in a way no other creature can. All of this and more is included in our being made in his image.

God values -- "has high regard for" -- us precisely because he values himself first, in whose image we have been created.

Some other links that touch on different aspects of God valuing us:

Our worth is based on what?

Why in God's name does he love us?

God's love based on who or what?

Created for glory

Lovable vs lovely

Hardwired for greatness

The most valuable values us 

Our worth Gods glory

Giving and receiving glory

______________________________________________________________

¹For a further discussion on the basis for morality, click here.

²It is unnecessary in the sense that God is not obligated by something outside himself. God needs no one and nothing (no created thing) and answers only to himself. But because of who he is and who he made us to be as his image-bearers, this is a "necessity" first because of his nature and design. It is the way things operate because it is the way God designed them to operate according to his own nature. If there is any necessity, it is one God has within and to himself - within his being, according to who he is as the all-glorious God. It is not something imposed upon Him externally by something other then Him. 

³all of God's creation glorifies him by design. We, however, appear to be the only beings that glorify him by both design and choice. The angels chose him at one point when some rebelled with Lucifer and others did not. We, however, are still in an ongoing state where we can choose not to trust him in this life, whereas angels apparently no longer have to deal with this decision. They only desire God, which appears to also be our future glorified state. 

⁴This is also why God is pleased with us the more we delight in him. Not unlike a wife would be when her husband is delighted in her. Even though His love for us and acceptance of us is not based on or affected by our delight or lack of delight in him - i.e. his love is secured and poured out on us because of the efforts of Christ, not ours. Nothing we do or don't do can separate us from his love once we are "in Christ" — we can nevertheless bring greater joy to God's heart the more we trust and delight in him.

For a fuller discussion on pleasing God, click here. 

To say it another way, our rebellious unfaithfulness (sin) matters. It not only has a negative impact on us and those around us, but it also shows our lack of love for God and dishonors him i.e., we do not treat Him with the due respect He rightly deserves. It saddens God because he loves us and knows our honoring him is not only for our good but the means by which others are drawn to him through us. It saddens him if his glory is not being spread more effectively through us to others, affecting their experience and enjoying God in all his glory. 

  

Heb 11:6  "And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him."