I'm currently reading George Marsden's huge biography on Jonathan Edwards and I hope to do book-report entry when I'm done (if that time ever comes!). There was something, however, that I found interesting as I learned more about certain controversies that were floating around in Edward's day concerning the sacraments and who were admissible to them.
When Edward's was a young man, there began to be popularized a concept known as the "half-way covenant." This was where the children of non-communicant members were still given the sacrament of baptism in infancy. This practice gained a fairly wide acceptance even among conservative ministers like Jonathan's father, Rev. Timothy Edwards.
The next major development in this time period was when Jonathan's maternal grandfather, Rev. Solomon Stoddard, began to argue in favor of administering communion to those who demonstrated a pious life, but who, nevertheless, had not become full communicant members. He spoke of the Lord's Supper being a "converting ordinance." Jonathan Edwards would come to disagree with his grandpa's practice when he took over his pastorate in Northhampton.
Who was right in all of this? I used to think that Solomon Stoddard was a bit of a wacko speaking of the Lord's Supper in this way (what else should we do with Paul's language in I Corinthians 11:28ff?). Yet, while I still think that Stoddard's idea is unbiblical, I can see why he would do it. This is because conservatives such as Timothy and Jonathan Edawards, as well as Increase and Cotton Mather, had an equally unbiblical and detrimental view on who should be admitted to membership.
New England Puritanism had devolved to the extent that there was such an emphasis placed upon personal experience that many, no doubt, true believers lacked the assurance of salvation. There was a certain pattern that all who were truly converted were to experience. First, they were to be "awakened" to the eternal realities and the majesty of God. Next, they were to be tormented, as it were, concerning their own sin and depravity. This process, known as "Law Work" could last for days, months, or even years! At this stage, however, there still is no saving grace or assurance of pardon for these individuals. What was sought and finally required for one to be truly sure of their salvation (and therefore to be made full communicant members of their church) was an intense and sudden conversion experience where the individual just knew that he or she was saved. Even Jonathan Edwards himself did not think he was really saved until he was a grad student at Yale, even though he was raised in a Christian home and never showed any major sinful behavior.
If we were to follow this criteria (sadly many do to this day), I wonder how many of us would be assured of our salvation... I know I wouldn't. The reason I know I have eternal life is primarily because of the work of Christ. I do not need any intense and sudden conversion experiences. I have faith, as far as I remember I always have, and by the grace of God, I always will.
2 comments:
I got here from the heidelblog. I hope you don't mind me asking you a couple of questions. What is your opinion on Edward's "Religous Affections"? I have been interested in all of this since I read something by Michael Horton a while back. He mentioned a controversy in New England between the much revered Thomas Hooker and John Cotton. Cotton was accused of antinomianism by these guys. In short he took his sermons and backed them up with John Calvin and then he took these other Puritan preachers and their stuff lined up with the Council of Trent. Knowing that Hooker influenced Edwards (especially his work on the Parable of the Ten Virgins) I was really taken back. Assurance due to faith in Christ's work is massive and a possibly ignored topic. Any thoughts? Thank you for the blog and Lord bless you!
James
I personally have not read Religious Affections beyond a brief speed read for class, but I do remember a heavy dose of "fruit inspection," that is, an over-emphasis on introspection verses the "extra-spective" nature of faith (the gospel is outside of us). While I John tells us that we can be assured of our faith by our love for the brethren, I do not think that he had in mind for us to keep a daily tally of how many good works we did (like Edwards did). Also, beyond the unrealistic Christian model that Edwards' border-line obsessive compulsive behavior sets for his ordinary readers, there is also some confusion about the role of faith. Faith (I've been told) is not really distinguished from other virtues like love. Edwards spoke of love as the distinguishing property of saving faith and the fact that we are justified by love. This is only slightly different than Rome's assertion that saving faith is only that which is "formed by love." Certainly, I do not think that Edwards was consciously going this route, but he seems to be less than helpful in this regard. Reformed theology is clear that faith is not meritorious and that it is merely an instrument for salvation (HC #60-61, BC art. 22).
thanks for the response,
Jon
Post a Comment