Watch the latest Q+A episode of White Horse Inn: https://youtu.be/cWKH7AfmSWY #short.
16 COMMENTS
I might be missing some nuance, but as far as I understand Hodge said Edwards tended toward pantheism because of his strong dependence/continuous creation language — not that Edwards actually held pantheism. Edwards keeps the creator–creature distinction pretty firmly.
I love Edwards and would certainly given him an A. That said, if he fails to maintain the ontological distinction-in-relation between the Triune God and God's creation (and I do not believe that this is actually the case), I think the fault lies with his view of the personal distinction-in-relation of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and this perhaps inadequate distinction flows less from his use of language derived from the Cambridge Platonists than from his material reliance on/continuity with Augustine's trinitarian model.
Why does panentheism make someone a C? Anyone who believes God is the maximally greatest being has to affirm that [God + Universe] is not greater than [God], just like [England + London] is not greater than [England] because London is in England.
I know this is mostly for fun. And Edwards has some significant philosophical errors, imo. But it comes across as ridiculous putting someone of that level of genius and contribution in C tier. And ridiculous for both the panel and commenters to sort of posture over him in judgement.
He was basically an idealist, like Berkeley. Denied the existence of matter. He didn’t deny the existence of everything but God as far as I can tell. Just that spirits have physical bodies. Anti-realist I suppose you could say.
Acts 17:28 (NKJV) “for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’
Nothing exists outside of God. It’s a mystery how God is still morally distinct from his creatures, but that does not make Jonathan Edwards a pantheist
Among the puritans, Edward’s work is brilliant and I recommend him for straight, and clear biblical reading.
I might be missing some nuance, but as far as I understand Hodge said Edwards tended toward pantheism because of his strong dependence/continuous creation language — not that Edwards actually held pantheism. Edwards keeps the creator–creature distinction pretty firmly.
The moment he said Neoplatonism I immediatly shouted: That's not pantheism, that's Panentheism!!
I love Edwards and would certainly given him an A. That said, if he fails to maintain the ontological distinction-in-relation between the Triune God and God's creation (and I do not believe that this is actually the case), I think the fault lies with his view of the personal distinction-in-relation of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and this perhaps inadequate distinction flows less from his use of language derived from the Cambridge Platonists than from his material reliance on/continuity with Augustine's trinitarian model.
Fyi…schizophrenia isn't the same as split personality. I think you were meaning kind of a split personality, Mike.
very interesting
Agreed 100% Edwards is overrated in reformed adjacent circles
"I think that that [idea] justifies a C". Why does the conclusion even bother you? Criticize Edwards' reasoning.
There is still no good excuse for putting Newman anywhere above F
Wow! Have to admit my ignorance of where this is coming from. Seems to be an Epistemological issue. What sources from Edwards could you point us to?
I know he was so close in properly defining 'human free will' in his book on the subject.
"History of the Work of Redemption" is fantastic, too.
I heard Dr. Clark speak about this, I appreciate the clarity and I no longer recommend Jonathan Edwards to others.
Why does panentheism make someone a C? Anyone who believes God is the maximally greatest being has to affirm that [God + Universe] is not greater than [God], just like [England + London] is not greater than [England] because London is in England.
You mean Jonathan Edwards was a Palamite Panentheist, or a full Panentheist like Buddhists are, for example?
I know this is mostly for fun. And Edwards has some significant philosophical errors, imo. But it comes across as ridiculous putting someone of that level of genius and contribution in C tier. And ridiculous for both the panel and commenters to sort of posture over him in judgement.
He was basically an idealist, like Berkeley. Denied the existence of matter. He didn’t deny the existence of everything but God as far as I can tell. Just that spirits have physical bodies. Anti-realist I suppose you could say.
What constitutes a "Calvanist"? Seriously, I was called a Calvanist before I knew about him. Or any of the isms.
I agree with Jonathan Edward’s
Acts 17:28 (NKJV) “for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’
Nothing exists outside of God.
It’s a mystery how God is still morally distinct from his creatures, but that does not make Jonathan Edwards a pantheist
Among the puritans, Edward’s work is brilliant and I recommend him for straight, and clear biblical reading.
His grasp on hell and judgment is terrifying