Jonathan Edwards is deeply loved today and widely admired by Evangelicals, and it may come as a surprise and shock to many, especially his Baptists fans to discover that he affirms Infant Baptism as the true and correct form of Christian Baptism! First, I will share a bit of background on Edwards and then a few quotations from his Miscellanies on Infant Baptism.
There has been a watershed of work due to the rediscovery and reawakening of Jonathan Edwards, who was a Puritan Congregational Reformed minister in the early 18th century. He is one of the greatest theologians in American history and in time will be considered among the great doctors of the Church. He was largely unknown and forgotten, and suffered with a horrible stigma as a fire and brimstone purtianical (tyrannical?) preacher due to his famous sermon that ignored the Great Awakening, titled: "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God". However, there has been an Edwardsian Renaissance due to the infamous book infamous book "Jonathan Edwards" by Perry Miller, a Harvard University historian. Edwards became widely popular among Evangelicals through the preaching and myriad of writings by Baptist pastor John Piper such as, "God's Passion for His Glory: Living the Vision of Jonathan Edwards (With the Complete Text of The End for Which God Created the World)". In last last decade that has been a watershed of work done on Edward's advanced ideas that had hitherto been buried in old notebooks in chicken-scratch writing, but is now freely available at the Yale Jonathan Edwards Center (and the following quotations are from that website).
The Miscellanies 911. BAPTISM OF INFANTS.
God, in his institutions in his church, has respect to the state of his church in its future ages, many times. Thus baptism is calculated for the state of the Christian church in the millennium, when parents will truly give up their children, and so fully, that they shall generally be accepted, and their children will be sanctified in their infancy. That is the proper, appointed season of the application of redemption, the elect season, wherein there will probably be an hundred times more of the application of redemption than in all preceding ages put together; and therefore, the ordinances and means of application are especially calculated for that season.
- Jonathan Edwards , The "Miscellanies," 833-1152 (WJE Online Vol. 20) , Ed. Amy Plantinga Pauw
The Miscellanies 932. PROGRESS OF THE WORK OF REDEMPTION. (Add this to No. 911.)
The glorious times, the proper and appointed season of the APPLICATION of redemption. This is spoken of as the proper time of the first resurrection, Revelation 20:6, and also the proper time of the marriage of the Lamb, and the bringing guests to the marriage supper, Revelation 19:9.
- Jonathan Edwards , The "Miscellanies," 833-1152 (WJE Online Vol. 20) , Ed. Amy Plantinga Pauw
Moïse Amyraut (1596 – 1664) was a Huguenot, as my own ancestors were as well, and this name means French Calvinist. Moses Amyraut was of the school of Saumer, and this man is interesting because of his modified Calvinism, that allowed for Hypothetical Universalism and hence became the eponymous founder of Amyrauldism.
A favorite theologian of mine, B.B. Warfield, consider Amyrauldism an "a logically inconsistent form of Calvinism and therefore an unstable form of Calvinism." I found Warfield's harsh dismissal of Amyrauldism provocative, regardless of whether I agree or not with Warfield, what he wrote in his "Plan of Salvation" against Moses Amyraut is famous.
I've had renewed interested in Amyrauldism, after learning that Jürgen Moltmann had studied him for his doctorate, and I've had great interest in the universalistic forms of Calvinism due to the influence of Karl Barth. Continue reading...
At many times, John Calvin's describes the ontology of Scripture using the same vernacular as contemporary statements such as the Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy, as well as dictation theories such as Plenary Verbal Inspiration that makes strong assertions about the Scripture's inerrancy, infallbility, and identity with the Word of God. Despite the similarities at times, when reading Calvin's voluminous commentaries, there are many times when Calvin makes conclusions that these statements and theories would never allow. This is especially true in that Calvin is willing to identify and work through certain kinds of errors he encounters in the scriptures, and is comfortable understanding the Scriptures being both human writings and the divine Word of God -- where these modern statements and theories strive endlessly to deny that any errors, as such, exist. Among the categories of errors in Scriptures, Calvin includes intentional and unintentional misquotations, technical inaccuracies, historical errors, scientific errors, cultural accommodations and even theological errors! All of these types of errors do not undermine or discredit Calvin's firm belief that although the Scriptures are a human document, they are also the inspired Word of God, and working through these difficulties are matters of little consequence to him and do not undermine or disable the Word of God revealed in them. Continue reading...
B.B. Warfield is famous for his endorsement of Evolution from within the Reformed Church Tradition, and his ability to distinguish the agnosticism of Charles Darwin from Darwin's work as a Naturalist. All of Warfield's writings on Evolution have been assembled in an extremely helpful book edited by Mark A. Noll and David N. Livingstone, "B.B. Warfield: Evolution, Science and Scripture (selected writings)". The book contains Warfield's review of Darwin's letters and selections of his writings on the topic of evolution. One of the most helpful articles is Warfield's essay, "Calvin's Doctrine of Creation" where Warfield claims that "Calvin's doctrine of creation is [...] an evolutionary one." Continue reading...
How are we to understand the two famous Creation narratives in Genesis 1-2, considering the scientific knowledge we have of the cosmos today? If we were to read Genesis 1-2 as a straight forward scientific account, we'd come to conclude that the Sun is the greatest luminary in the cosmos, and that the Moon is the second greatest, and both of these luminaries exceeding all the stars in the universe? Is such a literal torchering of the text necessary when exegeting Genesis? John Calvin says of course not!
RSV Genesis 1:16, "And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also."
In a provocative, famous and illuminating selection of John Calvin's commentary, we encounter Calvin's extremely helpful approach to Genesis 1-2. I've quoted this at length below with some [...] omissions, and the most interesting words in bold below. Continue reading...
Should Genesis 1-2 be used to define our Doctrine of Creation? Alister E. McGrath's excellent three volume study on the relationship between Theology and Natural Science contained an excellent quote demonstrating that beginning with the first two chapters of the Bible, due to it's prime real estate location in the book of the Bible has caused problems in the development of the Doctrine of Creation that has not been a problem for other Christian Dogmas. McGrath uses an excellent quotation by Emil Brunner to demonstrate this point, and concludes that if we began our study of the Doctrine of Creation in John 1:1 instead of Genesis 1:1, we would have avoided much of the controversies in this Doctrine of Creation that we haven't encountered by avoiding this path with other Dogmas.
Scripture, when rightly interpreted, leads to Christ; Christ can be known properly only through Scripture. As Luther put it, Christ is 'the mathematical point of Holy Scripture', just as Scripture 'is the swaddling cloths and manger in which Christ is laid'. John Calvin made a similar point: 'This is what we should should seek . . . throughout the whole of Scripture: to know Jesus Christ truly, and the infinite riches which are included in him and are offered to us by God the Father.'
Considerations such as this raise a question of considerable importance. Emil Brunner raises this in a very focused form - namely, whether Genesis 1-2 is the foundational statement of a Christian doctrine of Creation:
"The uniqueness of this Christian doctrine of Creation and the Creator is continually being obscured by the fact that theologians are so reluctant to begin their work with the New Testament; when they want to deal with the Creation, they tend to begin with the Old Testament, although they never do this when they are speaking of the Redeemer. The emphasis on the story of Creation at the beginning of the Bible has constantly led theologians to forsake the rule which they would otherwise follow, namely, that the basis of all Christian articles of faith is the Incarnate Word, Jesus Christ. So when we begin to study the subject of Creation in the Bible we ought to start with the first chapter of the Gospel of John, and some other passages of the New Testament, and not with the first chapter of Genesis." (Emil Brunner, The Christian Doctrine of Redemption. pg6.)
- Alister E. McGrath, "Scientific Theology: Volume 1: Nature", pg143
Karl Barth and Evangelical Theology: Convergences and Divergences, edited by Sung Wook Chung, arrived via Interlibrary Loan, and after reading it, I have some comments about the best essays in this book, and will politely skip over the ones that I graciously that I did not, so to speak, enjoy. The hallmark of this book is Dr. Kevin Vanhoozer's essay, "A Person of the Book? Barth on Authority and Interpretation." I recommend buying this book, even if it were for this essay alone, because I appreciated it so much! Additionally, the essays by Alister E. McGrath, "Karl Barth's Doctrine of Justification from an Evangelical Perspective" and Oliver D. Crisp's essay, "Karl Barth on Creation", were also almost as helpful as Vanhoozer's essay. And one surprisingly good essay, by an Assemblies of God minister, Frank D. Macchia on "The Spirit of God and the Spirit of Life: An Evangelical Response to Karl Barth's Pneumatology" concludes my list of excellent essays in this book. There were many things that helped me in the other essays, however, these four were the most useful, in this order. Continue reading...
Jürgen Moltmann discusses Calvin and Luther's positions on prayers for the dead, and explains why he prays for the dead. This audio clip is from the fifth session of the 2009 Conversation with Jurgen Moltmann by the Emergent Village. To listen to all the audio for that conference, see my previous post.
"Well what do you want to pray for? There's a long tradition of prayer for the dead. This was the medieval Catholic tradition, the prayer for the dead. Luther said to pray three or four times for the beloved dead and then stop and hand it over to God because they are included already in the prayer of Christ. And Calvin, said no, don't follow the old Catholic tradition. I think I am praying for the dead, because the dead are not dead. They died but we cannot say that they are dead now. For Martin Luther, it was, they are sleeping until the day of resurrection. For Calvin, they are watching over us, they are with us, in their own way. And I think this is the truth of the so-called ancestor cult in Asia. The dead are not, in a modern sense, dead and gone and annihilated and away. They are present. If we believe Romans 14 that Christ is the Lord over the Living and the Dead, then we have a community with the dead in Christ, and a community of hope, because we were raised from death together. And therefore, we must overcome this modern understanding of death as annihilation. We should learn from the ancestor veneration in africa and asia again. And this would help, then you may pray for your grandmother."
Paul Tillich's book, New Being, contains a helpful chapter that asks "Is there any word from the Lord?" It's question asked by people throughout all ages, and even today it is a common question many have asked, or even claim that God has answered them.
NEW BEING: Chapter 16: "Is There Any Word From the Lord?"
Am I a God at hand, says the Lord, and not a God afar off? Can a man hide himself in secret places so that I cannot see him? says the Lord. Do I not fill heaven and earth? says the Lord. I have heard what the prophets have said who prophesy lies in my name, saying, "I have dreamed, I have dreamed!" How long shall there be lies in the heart of the prophets who prophesy lies, and who prophesy the deceit of their own heart, who think to make my people forget my name by their dreams which they tell one another, even as their fathers forgot my name for Baal? Let the prophet who has a dream tell the dream, but let him who has my word speak my word faithfully. What has straw in common with wheat? says the Lord, is not my word like fire, says the Lord, and like a hammer which breaks the rock in pieces? Therefore, behold, I am against the prophets, says the Lord, who steal my words from one another. Behold, I am against the prophets, says the Lord, who use their tongues and say, "Says the Lord."
Then Zedekiah the king asked Jeremiah secretly in his house and said: "Is there any word from the Lord?" And Jeremiah said: "There is: For thou shalt be delivered into the hand of the king of Babylon."
Is there any word from the lord? This is a question asked by men in all periods of history. It has been asked by kings in moments of danger. They asked it of priests and prophets. It has been asked by people in all ages and places in times of unrest. They asked it of extraordinary men and women, often of those considered to be abnormal, of ecstatics and hysterics. It has been asked by individuals in moments of great personal decisions. They asked it of holy Scriptures which should give a special word to them, from saints and inner voices. Continue reading...
Hermeneutics and exegesis, i.e. the interpretation of scripture, is a difficult task! The Bible consists of multiple genres, contexts, authors, and situations with some writings distanced by over a millennium and this fact makes it very difficult to construct dogmatics from these eclectic texts. Often, two different scriptures will come together in such tension that is paradoxical, making a harmonization incredibly difficult, and dare I say, impossible to conclude what is being communicated. As an example, there are two strong threads in scripture that on one hand argue that man's anthropology consists of two parts (i.e. dichotomy) but there are other scriptures that conclude three parts (i.e. trichotomy). So which is it? dichotomy or trichotomy?
Reformed Theologians have concluded that Dichotomy is the correct anthropology. So there's some common heremenutical strategies that fail to solve this problem. 1) The first would be to deny that there are two views in tension, and declare that all verses only teach Dichotomy or Trichotomy, and this is absurd in this example. 2) The second would be to harmonize the view, and take the least common definition between the two, such that three may include two, but two may not include three, and come to the wrong answer in Trichotomy. Although, these two methods often come to helpful conclusions, more often than not, we are confronted with solutions that cannot be solved in these two ways. Continue reading...