Edwardsean Theology, Part 6: Edwards on the Atonement

Now this friends, could get sticky… :). Let me preface this post by stating that my goal is to accurately communicate the position of Edwards in this regard, and that I in no way claim to be an Edwardsean expert. I am hoping that I may be more of the student in this post, and that fellow bloggers will provide some meaningful discussion on this topic. Edwards understood the atonement to be both propitious and vicarious. At the center of the atonement was the satisfaction of God, and Edwards emphasized this. The only way that sin could be pardoned was through a sacrificial giving that would adequately satisfy the justice of God. The atonement was successfully fulfilled through both the active and passive obedience of Christ. Personally, I understand Christ’s obedience better when explained as both “active” and “passive,” but Edwards preferred not to divide the two: they were undividable. Later New England theologians incorrectly attributed a governmental view of the atonement to Edwards, but his writings indicate that Edwards did believe and teach that the atonement was a satisfaction of God’s justice. Man’s offence was infinitely wicked: therefore, any sacrifice that was to be truly satisfactory must be, infinite in value. A sacrifice of lesser value would have been futile. Edwards taught that Christ’s motivation in going to the cross was love: “He was moved with pity towards his elect.” In Edwards view, the atonement was particular or limited in its extent. “Christ did not intend to save those he knew he would not save. If he intended to save any it was those he knew would be saved.” “Christ … died for them (the elect of the predestined) and not for the world.” “… however Christ in some sense may be said to die for all, and to redeem all visible Christians, yea, the whole world by his death; yet there must be something particular in the design of his death, with respect to such as he intended should actually be saved thereby” (“Freedom of the Will” Works, I:88). Finally, Edwards taught unconditional election, and was supralapsarian with regard to the elect, but sublapsarian with regard to the reprobate. I am a bit uniformed on this particular debate, knowing only the major lines of argument. The emphasis here is that Edwards taught unconditional election and that’s good Calvinism! I would like to further look into the ramifications of Edwards view: an exploration of the compatibility/incompatibility of these two positions will do me some good.