Edwardsean Theology, Part 5: Speaking to Frogs? Man as a Responsible Agent

I was conversing with a good friend during the last few days, contemplating together the content of my last post. He stated rather profoundly that Edwards, “Wasn’t telling frogs to get saved!” (paraphrase) This statement came in the context of Man as a responsible agent. Much of Edwards motivation in Anthropology was to undeniably assert that Man had a moral responsibility to God and was required to fulfill it. Man, however, is in every way unable to do so. Man is a responsible moral agent: preaching the gospel to a member of the human race is different than preaching it to a frog! Edwards defense against mediate imputation is that original sin is the cause of Man’s moral corruption: hence, man’s evil inclinations are produced. As I previously stated, man’s guilt is not based on acts, but upon essence: unregenerate Man is guilty because of what he is. These teachings do not contradict the idea of Man as a free and responsible agent. (If we deny this, then we really would be preaching to frogs!) Edwards principle of dichotomist ability was his way of making each man personally responsible for his sin. Man’s natural abilities gave him a choice – his spiritual principles (i.e. corrupted morality) informs those choices and determines them (inevitably, wrong choices). Hence, Man is free as well as responsible. Edwards was very strict concerning Man’s condition. He states: “They [unregenerate men] are totally corrupt, in every part, in al their faculties … Their heads, their hearts, are totally depraved; all the members of their bodies are only instruments of sin; and all their senses, seeing, hearing, tasting, etc. are only inlets and outlets of sin, channels of corruption (Discourse IV: “The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners,” Works, I:670).” To Edwards, Man is indeed without an excuse (see more in his Works, I:676). To Edwards, Man’s inability (technically speaking) is linked to his unwillingness, not his inability. Man, in his constitution, is a moral being, as well as a responsible agent. Very simply, that is how mankind was created! As a Calvinist, I do not contest the idea that Man is a free and moral and responsible agent. To say otherwise is to contest the very way in which Man is created. We, like Edwards must recognize that despite the utter depravity and inability of Man, He is still a responsible agent, balking against the claims of the Creator. Let us remember this when we preach/teach/converse with others, that we are not speaking to frogs!

Edwardsean Theology, Part 4: The Principle of Dichotomist Ability in relationship to the Free Will of Man

I have mentioned and harped on Edward’s unique view of the inclinations of man ever since starting this series. It is due to the unique nature of its proponent (Edwards, a Calvinist) that I have placed such emphasis upon it. As I had already noted, this dichotomy does not bode well with my own Calvinism for reasons that I will recount and elaborate upon. Edwards never went so far as to say that man cannot come to Christ, but rather that his bondage is self-inflicted (self-willed) and voluntary – Man “will not come to Christ.” Edwards wrote that, “We may learn the reason why natural men will not come to Christ: they do not come because they will not come.” Edward’s dichotomy between the natural ability and spiritual principles taught that man has the natural capacities to make free choices. The idea of free will is not problematic for the Calvinist: as I stated in Part 3, “Man is free in the sense that He possess the faculties of moral agency (i.e. the “affections”: mind, will, and emotions). Edwards assumed that their was nothing outside of Man informing the choices: hence, he was volitionally free. This is natural ability. To Edwards, Man can indeed make right choices if he wills to, but he never will due to the corruption of his spiritual principles. I must admit that I initially found Edward’s view appealing: he presented an anthropology that affirms Calvinistic doctrines while seemingly explaining the effects of the Fall upon mankind’s inner parts. His conclusions do not seem outrageous: Man does have true choice, but true choice can never be a contradictory choice. Man’s natural ability could, on its own, truly choose right: however, this truly true choice of right would contradict his fallen spiritual principles. Hence, his only true choice would be to follow his inclinations and therefore choose evil. His spiritual principles inform his natural abilities: therefore, Edwards can theologically explain why it is that man will always choose evil outside of regeneration. It is due to corrupt communication between the two parts. A true choice cannot be contradictory and since Man must follow his inclinations, he chooses sin. Edwards admitted this: Man has two wills (i.e. the rational will and the will of the appetite). The rational will had “sufficient” but not “efficient” grace (refer back to Part 1 on this point as it relates to Adam’s original sin). Edwards used this piece of his anthropology to affirm that Man cannot save himself because he lacks the moral ability. Man’s is not, in Edwards view, naturally depraved, but morally depraved and the unfortunate progression/conclusion is that in Edward’ anthropology, Man is only partially depraved! This conclusion is what has not allowed me to accept Edwards view on this particular point. Edward’s view does not allow me to say “Total Inability” and really mean “Total Inability”: Edward’s view harbors a part of man that is, though even in a “hypothetical” way, able to choose right. While yes, Edwards would always and most definitely say that Man would never actually choose good, I am still more than uncomfortable to go so far as to say that a part of man is actually able to do good.

Interlude: Katharine Jefferts Schori

I found some down time to reflect on an interview that I recently read in TIME: I was more than disturbed by its content. Perhaps it is good that I do not know what is going on among the Christian liberals, but nontheless, I fear that much of America views this as the new "norm" of Christianity. The interview can be found here. Please read and comment: perhaps we can get a few thoughts.

Edwardsean Theology, Part 3: Human Depravity and Free Will

Edwards was a strong Calvinist, and it is not surprising that his views on depravity reflects this tradition. To Edwards, all of mankind was infected by original sin (i.e. original sin was universal, including even infants). The era in which Edwards ministered was characterized by spiritual decline (hence the controversial “Half-Way Covenant”) leading some to hypocritically act outwardly moral. Edwards confronted this kind of living, saying instead that the work of the Spirit (regeneration) was the only means by which one could be moral. Edwards has puzzled me concerning this aspect of anthropology: in a previous post, I wrote on the inclinations on man and Edwards view on the “natural abilities” versus the “spiritual principles” dichotomy within man. It seems as though his dichotomy would contradict his view of depravity: however, if we remember correctly, Edwards protected himself by claiming that the Fall affected the spiritual principles, which informed the natural abilities; therefore, man would always naturally choose what is wrong. I promised in that first post that we would delve into the Edwardsean view of free will, so here we go! I hope that we will be able to complete it here, but I believe we may have to carry over to next week. As I previously mentioned, Edwards ministry occurred during a time of spiritual decline in New England. For example, one of Edwards first major treatise (Misrepresentations Corrected) confronted his cousin Solomon Williams’ view of church membership. Williams taught that there was a level at which an unregenerate person can consent to the gospel, and that this consent could potentially lead to an effectual transformation. Edwards refuted his teachings by claiming that not only did it undercut the doctrine of regeneration, but was indeed a mere rewording of the old Pelagian heresy! (crediting the unregenerate with the ability to be accepted by God). Edwards proceeded to write his famous work (Careful and Strict Inquiry into the Modern Prevailing Notions of that Freedom of Will which is supposed to be Essential to Moral Agency) in which he defended the scriptural doctrine of human responsibility and also attacked the idea that the human will was “self-determining” or possessed in and of itself the ability to determine itself (i.e. “choose”). We will end this discussion by noting Edwards answer to the doctrine of human responsibility, and discuss next week the details of his dichotomist view in relationship to free will. Edwards stated that Man is free in the sense that He possess the faculties of moral agency (i.e. the “affections”: mind, will, and emotions). Therefore, Man is a responsible agent. Man is however, unable of spiritual good because these faculties do not have the constitutional disposition inclined to good. Original sin has tainted the affections. Edwards correctly taught that the acts of Man’s will are dictated by moral necessity: Man’s choices, therefore, are determined by his nature. An unregenerate man has a fallen nature and so he will never “will” to please God or choose the things of God. Regeneration is then a divine act, an implantation of a new nature: Man’s acts (repentance and faith) are then contingent upon the first act of God. Needless to say, Edwards successfully defended the Calvinistic idea of Conversion.

Edwardsean Theology, Part 2: Original Sin and Imputation

As I was preparing this post, I realized that before discussing Edward’s view of depravity, it might be wise for me to first discuss his views on original sin and other closely related issues. There has been a great deal of disagreement among scholars as to whether or not Edwards held to a mediate or immediate view of imputation. Edwards did hold to the idea of original sin, and also to the idea of imputed sin. The reason for the controversy over Edward’s view is due to 1) some of his writings seem to indicate one or the other, and 2) some of Edward’s theological views relating to the nature of man have been interpreted to substantiate one or the other. Let us first define what Edwards meant by original sin. To Edwards, original sin was both the innate sinful depravity of the heart along with the imputation of Adam’s first sin (implied is the imputation to all of mankind). His view is widely accepted in reformed circles and is a standard view. Next, let us discuss Edward’s view of original sin as related to federal or representative headship. Edwards advocated a bit of a hybrid form of federalism, and it has been called the “principle (doctrine) of personal identity.” Edwards seems to indicate that Adam’s posterity actually consented to and participated in Adam’s original sin, hence their possession and guilt of that original sin. According to Edwards, Man’s constitution is an “oneness,” a “sameness” that places all men on the same level in sin of which Adam is simply the first. This principle of personal identity was merely Edward’s way of explaining Adam’s sin as a continuation within his posterity. Those advocating that Edwards held to a mediate view of imputation have accused him of saying that Adam’s sin was not imputed to them, only repeated by them. Now for the great debate: did Edwards hold to mediate imputation (inherited moral corruption as the cause of guilt/liability) or immediate imputation (Adam’s race is imputed with his sin and that is the legal basis for their depravity). I have followed the lead of my Church History professor who states that, “Edwards did teach a type of immediate imputation, combining in that doctrine both the imposition of guilt and the inheritance of a sinful disposition” (notes, “Theological Systems in American Church History,” Dr. Gerald Priest). Edwards taught that Adam was the head: that is federalism. As far as the two views are concerned, inherited moral corruption is a consequence of the imputation of guilt/liability, not the cause of it. Gerstner concisely states the Edwardsean view of imputation: “What Edwards is saying most clearly is that when Adam represented them he did more that that – he was identified with them – by a divine constitution, the very same constitution by which God identifies all of us with our separate selves” (Rational and Biblical Theology, II:333). We can say, however, that Edwards did confuse the issue a great deal (hence, the continued debate by interpreters of Edwards). We should endeavor to be less esoteric in our own writings: be clear, be precise, but be most of all biblical.