One more post on Edwards’s general introduction to A History of the Work of Redemption. First, I’ll make a comment on Edwards’s larger purpose for this work and, second, I’ll make some observations about Edwards’s theology revealed in his introduction.
This work (History of Redemption for short, or just Redemption if you’re really trying to save time), as mentioned in the last post, was actually a series of sermons. These sermons were preached in 1739 and were edited for posthumous publication in Scotland in 1774. Edwards’s plan for this, however, was much greater than a series of sermons. His vision was to use the history of redemption (from the fall to the end of the world) as a framework for his systematic theology. This notion of organizing a system of doctrine around the historical progress of divine revelation is really quite something. It’s a creative and ambitious project. Edwards was so intent on completing this specific project that he almost turned down the offer of the Presidency of the College of New Jersey (Princeton), as he thought that job might not allow him enough time to complete this project. As it turns out, it wasn’t the Presidency that sapped his time, but death. He died of complications from a small-pox inoculation just a handful of weeks after taking up his Presidency. Too bad for us that he didn’t live to complete this project, but I wasn’t God’s plan.
Now, a couple observations of Edwards’s theology: First, he lays down a thorough-going covenant theology, including the intra-trinitarian covenant of redemption. That’s the eternal covenant between the persons of the Trinity, on which all the works of God in history (ad extra) are based. Edwards makes me very happy. Second, like most Christian thinkers I know of (except classical dispensationalists), he sees the saving benefits of Christ’s redemptive work as the same in all ages/dispensations of the church. That is, for example, Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, the Apostle Paul, and my next door neighbor, Ian, all enjoy the same benefits of salvation purchased by Christ: calling, justification, adoption, sanctification, and eternal glorification. Classical Dispensationalism has done its utmost to confuse this, dividing, as it does, the people of God into different groups with different purposes and ends. Edwards shows himself, at this point, to be in the mainstream of Christian thought. Finally, I don’t know for certain, but it appears that Edwards is a supralapsarian. He sees (I think rightly) creation simply as a means to God’s redemptive work. Maybe better, Edwards speaks of God’s creation merely as theater in which the great work of redemption was to take place. The lapsarian debates are mind-numbing, but I figured I’d toss this last one in for those who like that debate. For the record, I’m friends with both supra- and infralapsarians. I got enough love to go around.
Hi Tim! I think I remember that Dr. J had some problems with supralapsarianism. What was the nature of his criticism?
You expect me to remember that?!
Seriously, though, as I recall, he had issues with some implications relative to the created order. Either way, SUPRALAPSARIANISM RULES!
Oh well. Anyhow, I think it might be fun to talk about lapsarian debates just a little tomorrow because I found Edwards’ comments suggestive as well. I think when it is kept in mind that both lapsarian positions conceive of a logical order of the decrees (not a historical order) the debate actually becomes Biblically instructive, not just scholastic obscurantism (as some are wont to paint the whole discussion).
Let’s chat. I found Robert Reymond’s discussion of it to be very persuasive in the supra- direction. Saw pastor Brett and a couple fellers yesterday. He said he’s see you today. I told him to kick you.