Persevering, Dispositional, and Reformed:
Jonathan Edwards and Faith that Justifies
Bryce Asberg
Religion 319: 18th Century Theology
April 26, 2021
Jonathan
Edwards’ doctrine of justification has come under much scrutiny in recent
decades as reformed scholars wrestle with his expression of the doctrine and
attempt to understand the implications of his view.[1] This
paper will look at Edwards’ doctrine of justification, especially as contained
in his discourse Justification by Faith Alone, and will examine whether
Edwards’ doctrine is a shift away from Reformation theology and toward an
Arminian or Roman Catholic understanding of justification.[2] A brief
look at the context of Edwards’ discourse will reaffirm the solidity of his
reformed credentials, as will an analysis of his actual doctrine itself. Ultimately,
Edwards’ formulation of the doctrine of justification, while different in some
respects from the Reformers, will be found to be anchored soundly in Protestant
orthodoxy.
The historical context for Edwards’
statements on justification is critical to understanding the doctrine he is
promoting. It ought to factor into an assessment of Edwards that his peers
considered him a standard-bearer for reformed orthodoxy. Fellow ministers of
the Hampshire Association would be shocked to hear that Edwards was promoting a
questionable doctrine of justification since they chose him to defend their
actions in the William Breck controversy, a minister opposed by the Association
over charges of Arminianism.[3] Furthermore,
when New England clergy were roiled by the “great ‘apostasy’” that occurred
when the rector at Yale, Timothy Cutler, converted to Anglicanism, Edwards
delivered his 1723 address at commencement on the topic of justification.[4] In this
address he “declar[ed] himself unmistakably in the
party of orthodoxy.”[5] In a Puritan
culture that has been (often unfairly) stereotyped as insular and legalistic,
it is significant that Edwards received such an endorsement of his orthodoxy
from his Puritan counterparts.
In fact, the discourse on
Justification that has generated so much controversy over Edwards’ doctrine was
originally written in response to Arminian criticisms of the reformed doctrine
of justification. There is some dispute about how clearly
we can know the doctrine that Edwards was arguing against. Anri
Morimoto alleges that we cannot know the specific doctrinal formulation that
Edwards was disagreeing with, although we can know “what Edwards took to
be the Arminian contentions.”[6] Michael McClenahan, on the other hand, claims to have identified
Archbishop of Canterbury John Tillotson as a specific interlocutor that Edwards
was refuting. Edwards quotes Tillotson in a footnote in his published discourse
and identifies him as “one of the greatest divines on the other side of the
question in hand.”[7]
Additionally, Edwards quotes from Tillotson as the sixth objection he refutes
in the fourth section of the discourse.[8] From
these references, McClenahan concludes that Edwards
at the very least considers Tillotson representative of the view of
justification he is refuting.[9] As McClenahan summarized, Tillotson’s view is a continuation
of an Anglican trend away from Reformed theology which rejects the imputation
of Christ’s positive righteousness and in turn exalts sincere obedience as an
“easy and reasonable” condition God places on man to achieve righteousness.[10] Tillotson
also defined faith generally as “the Christian life lived within the
dispensation of the new covenant,” and this definition allows him to make sense
of Paul’s statement that we are justified by faith.[11] Thus,
Edwards is writing in response to a view that says man is justified by sincere
obedience to a watered down law, apart from the imputation of Christ’s positive
righteousness.[12]
This
historical context ought to make the reader skeptical of claims that Edwards’
is introducing ambiguity and doctrinal perils when his intent behind writing is
the contrary. Nonetheless, it is possible for even a defense of orthodoxy to
veer into questionable territory, so it is necessary to review Edwards’
doctrine in his own words.
The
first two sections of Edwards’ Justification by Faith Alone read like a standard
reformed defense of the doctrine of believers being justified by the imputation
of Christ’s alien righteousness. Edwards clearly rebuts the assertions from
Tillotson that McClenahan identifies as the root of
the justification dispute. Rather than a watered-down law that is fulfilled by
sincere obedience, Edwards makes it clear that the requirement of God has
always been perfect righteousness, and that standard is never fulfilled by
obedience in either the old or new testament: “Therefore here is the argument:
if our own obedience be that by which men are justified, then under the Old
Testament, men were justified partly by obedience to the ceremonial law (as has
been proved). But the saints under the Old Testament were not justified partly
by the works of the ceremonial law. Therefore men’s
own obedience is not that by which they are justified.”[13] Therefore,
the believer is justified only by the imputation of Christ’s perfect
righteousness, both negative and positive.[14] And
Edwards explicitly rejects Tillotson’s redefinition of faith.
The
faith that Edwards speaks of is explicitly relational, indeed it is “the very
act of unition” on the part of the believer.[15] This conception
of faith is not the traditional reformed formulation of faith as an instrument
that receives justification from God. Rather, for Edwards, it is the equivalent
of coming to Christ, the way that the believer unites to Christ. When the
believer is united to Christ, God is pleased at this real union that is
established and rewards it with legal imputation. As the woman at the altar
takes the man to be her husband and is now legally entitled to his possessions,
so the union between the believer and Christ gives the believer possession of
all of Christ’s blessings. This is the meaning of Edwards’ controversial quote
“What is real in the union between Christ and his people, is the foundation of
what is legal.”[16]
It is fitting that this real union, achieved by the believer’s faith (and God’s
gracious willingness to unite with all who would unite with Him), leads to legal
change, for “the soul by it is suited as the socket for the jewel that is set
in it.”[17] Edwards
is careful to distinguish between two kinds of fittingness, what he calls moral
and natural fittingness:
A person has a moral fitness for a state, when his moral
excellency commends him to it, or when his being put into such a good state is
but a suitable testimony of regard to the moral excellency, or value, or
amiableness of any of his qualifications or acts. A person has a natural
fitness for a state, when it appears meet and condecent
that he should be in such a state or circumstances, only from the natural
concord or agreeableness there is between such qualifications and such
circumstances: not because the qualifications are lovely or unlovely, but only
because the qualifications and the circumstances are like one another, or do in
their nature suit and agree or unite one to another.[18]
By being
one with Christ, the believer has done nothing that commends him to a state of
perfect righteousness. Instead, God has graciously united with the believer and
“accept[s] the satisfaction and merits of the one for the other, as if these
were their own satisfaction and merits.”[19]
This
faith is not just a faith that seeks union with Christ, but it is one that
perseveres. In Edwards’ words, “God has respect to the believer’s continuance
in faith, and he is justified by that, as though it already were, because by
divine establishment it shall follow, and it being by divine constitution
connected with that first faith, as much as if it were a property in it, it is
then considered as such, and so justification is not suspended.” A persevering
faith is necessary for justification, and were it not “virtually contained” in
the first act of faith, “it would be needful that [justification] should be
suspended, till the sinner had actually persevered in faith.”[20] It
would be unfitting for God to begin the union and not bring it to completion,
so the union is assuredly an enduring union.
Therefore,
in one of his most controversial claims, Edwards speaks of later acts of faith,
or continued evangelical obedience, as playing a role in justification. The
requirement that faith perseveres until the end of life, made explicit in
passages like the warning sections of Hebrews, shows that later acts of
obedience have something to do with justification. This is how Edwards makes
sense of biblical data like the command to continue in confession and
repentance from sins, as well as David, in Psalm 32, where he finds
justification “long after he was first godly.”[21] Despite
this mention of evangelical obedience, Edwards is insistent that justification
can be said to be by faith alone, because these works are truly “an expression
of a persevering faith in the Son of God, the only Savior.”[22] Faith
is the defining motive of evangelical obedience, and as such it “gives a
congruity to justification, not merely as remaining a dormant principle in the
heart, but as being and appearing in its active expressions.”[23] In this
way, Edwards carves out a positive role for evangelical obedience, in contrast
both to the alleged antinomianism of the reformers and the works-based
soteriology of his Arminian interlocutors.
George Hunsinger, a Professor at Princeton Seminary is a prominent
critic of the reformed credentials of Edwards’ doctrine of justification. As
far as Hunsinger is concerned, Edwards “crosses the
fine line laid down by the Reformation” when he ties works to justification,
even “as the external expression of faith.”[24] It is
consistent with the Reformed tradition to speak of works as evidence of faith,
but to make them an essential component of faith is a betrayal of Reformed
convictions. Thomas Schafer echoes this
criticism but goes a step further and suggests that Edwards is espousing a
position more similar to Tillotson than to the Protestant reformers by tying
obedience to the very essence of faith.[25] When
Edwards says “that giving entertainment to the gospel, to Christ and his
salvation, implies holiness or a disposition to obedience and good works in the
very nature of it,” he is abandoning the reformed tradition for more Arminian
or even Catholic soteriology.[26] By
these words, according to Schafer, “the reader cannot help feeling that the
conception of “faith alone” has been considerably enlarged—and hence
practically eliminated.”[27]
These
are serious charges from Hunsinger and Schafer that
are worthy of a considered response. It is not immediately clear to this author
that Edwards’ conception of faith violates the Reformed standards, nor, as
mentioned above, was it clear to Edwards’ fellow Puritans. Hunsinger
seems to miss the significance of what Edwards accomplishes by defining faith
as union with Christ, and not just any union, but a dispositional union.[28] Faith
enduringly inclines toward love for Christ, and thus obedience must follow from
faith. But this relation is not simply one of cause and effect, but one of
motivation. Faith becomes the motive of works, and so evangelical obedience is
inseparable because it is itself defined by faith, the ongoing reliance on God.
Hunsinger does not clearly establish a substantial
difference between what Edwards defines as justifying faith and the Lutheran
notion of justification by faith alone, but not a faith that is alone.
Schafer’s
criticism is similar to Hunsinger’s, with the ironic
twist of linking Edwards with Tillotson, whom McClenahan
has convincingly showed to be Edwards’ chief opponent. It thus seems
implausible that Edwards’ supposed departure from Reformed orthodoxy would be
the same doctrine that his opponent holds. As McClenahan
quotes Tillotson, the fourth aspect in Tillotson’s definition faith is
“obedience to all his Laws and Commands.”[29] Edwards
never adds a fourth aspect to the definition of faith but is content with the
Reformed formulation of “knowledge…assent… and trust.”[30] Rather than add obedience as a fourth aspect,
as Schafer implies, Edwards clarifies that “justifying faith is a faith that
perseveres.[31]
Therefore, later acts of faith, or evangelical obedience, are assuredly present
at the first moment of faith, and justification is accomplished on the basis of
God’s guarantee that later acts will follow. In other words, “the obedience in
justifying faith is Christ’s faith, obedience, and perseverance and not some
meritorious act of faith or innate quality in the believer’s soul.”[32] Edwards
does not redefine faith as Tillotson does, but he does make explicit that faith
will persevere, and because of this good works will naturally follow.
With all
this controversy surrounding Edwards’ expression of justification by faith
alone, one might ask why not just stick to the traditional reformed formulation
of the doctrine? After all, if justification is an essential doctrine, then it
is crucial that theologians communicate the doctrine clearly. It seems likely
that Edwards would agree that it is critical to express this doctrine clearly,
after all, he wrote many words trying to do just that. But there are at least
three reasons that Edwards could muster in defense of the necessity of his
treatise.
First, a
risk of misinterpretation is not unique to Edwards’ writing. Every doctrine
carries a risk of being misinterpreted and taken to perverse ends. Just as an
overemphasis on the unity of the Trinity can lead to Sabellianism, so an
ill-explained doctrine of justification by faith alone can lead to
antinomianism. In fact, it is because of opponent’s allegations of
antinomianism that Edwards’ is re-expressing the traditional doctrine.
Even
more foundational, Edwards is convinced that his account of justification is
built on a consideration of Biblical data that has previously been overlooked. He
gives many examples in the third section of Justification by Faith Alone,
but the story of Abraham stands out as worthy of special mention.[33] Reformed
Christians are quick to point out that the justification credited to Abraham
according to Romans 4 occurred in Genesis 15, which is prior to the action of
Genesis 22, leading James 2 to refer to Abraham as justified. This chronology
is the basis of the argument for an equivocal use of justification in James 2
and Romans 4, where Romans 4 speaks of forensic justification, while James 2 is
a display of the righteousness that has already been credited to Abraham. While
this seems plausible, Edwards shows that Hebrews 11 makes it clear that Abraham
had faith when he left the land and followed God, an event that occurred in
Genesis 12, even prior to the events of Genesis 15. The Bible thus speaks of
three times when Abraham is justified, and the second time is the instance
traditionally associated with forensic justification. Edwards takes this as
evidence that later acts of faith play a justifying role in a similar way to
prior acts. Indeed, the only difference between the first and subsequent acts
of faith is “an accidental difference, arising from the circumstance of
time…and not from any peculiar respect that God has to it, or any influence it
has of a peculiar nature, in the affair of our salvation.”[34] For
Edwards, his expression of the doctrine of justification is faithful to
Biblical data that traditional explanations can overlook.
Lastly,
Edwards points to a pastoral concern: assurance of salvation. As far as Edwards
is concerned, “to suppose that no after acts of faith are concerned in the
business of justification, and so that it is not proper for any ever to seek justification
by such acts, would be forever to cut off those Christians that are doubtful
concerning their first act of faith, from the joy and peace of believing.”[35] Edwards
does not want the Christian stuck in a vain search for the “first act of faith,”
nor to be paralyzed if they fall into grave sin. Rather, the believer can look
over the whole course of their life as a continued process of justification,
albeit one that is virtually contained in the first act of faith, and this
means that they can continually “come to Christ for deliverance from the
deserved eternal punishment.”[36] This
enables the believer to find assurance from Christ and their union with Him,
even after sinning and needing to repent again.
While
Edwards’ doctrine of justification has generated much discussion in recent
decades, an historically-informed analysis rejects the notion that Edwards has
fallen for the very views that his doctrine was aimed at combatting. Instead,
Edwards communicated a nuanced doctrine of justification for the sake of
defending essential Reformed doctrines such as imputation and God’s standard of
perfect righteousness, while making sense of Biblical data and providing the
theological vocabulary to prevent slippage into antinomianism.
Bibliography
Clark, R. Scott “Why Caution About Jonathan Edwards is in
Order.” The Heidelblog, December 26, 2020.
https://heidelblog.net/2020/12/why-caution-about-jonathan-edwards-is-in-order/.
Edwards, Jonathan, Justification by Faith Alone,
Justification by Faith Alone - Jonathan Edwards. Accessed April 25, 2021.
https://www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/justification.htm.
Edwards, Jonathan, Miscellanies, “Jonathan Edwards
Center at Yale University.” Jonathan Edwards Center. Accessed April 24, 2021.
http://edwards.yale.edu/research/misc-index.
Hunsinger, George. “Dispositional Soteriology:
Jonathan Edwards On Justification By Faith Alone.” Westminster
Theological Journal 66, no. 1 (2001).
Marsden, George. Jonathan Edwards: A
Life. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003.
McClenahan,
Michael. Jonathan Edwards and Justification by Faith. London: Routledge,
2016.
McClymond, Michael J., and Gerald R. McDermott. The
Theology of Jonathan Edwards. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2012.
McDermott, Gerald R. “Jonathan Edwards on Justification by
Faith-More Protestant or Catholic?” VirtueOnline.
Accessed March 8, 2021.
https://virtueonline.org/jonathan-edwards-justification-faith-more-protestant-or-catholic.
Morimoto, Anri. Jonathan Edwards
and the Catholic Vision of Salvation. University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State
University Press, 1995. Schafer, Thomas A. “Jonathan Edwards and Justification
by Faith: Church History.” Cambridge Core. Cambridge University Press, July 28,
2009. https://doi.org/10.2307/3161877.
Schafer, Thomas A. “Jonathan Edwards and Justification by
Faith” Church History, Cambridge Core. Cambridge University Press, July
28, 2009. https://doi.org/10.2307/3161877.
Waddington,
Jeffrey C. “Jonathan Edwards’s ‘Ambiguous and Somewhat Precarious’ Doctrine of
Justification.” Westminster Theological Journal 66, no. 2 (2004).
[1] Thomas Schafer started this recent trend
in 1951 with his article in Journal of Church History alleging that
Edwards’ doctrine of justification was “ambiguous and somewhat precarious.” See
Thomas A. Schafer “Jonathan Edwards and Justification by Faith: Church
History.” Cambridge Core. (Cambridge University Press, July 28, 2009),
https://doi.org/10.2307/3161877.
[2] Edwards, Jonathan, Justification by
Faith Alone, Justification by Faith Alone - Jonathan Edwards. Accessed
April 25, 2021. https://www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/justification.htm.
[3] George Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A
Life, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 176-182.
[4] Ibid., 83.
[5] Ibid., 87.
[6] Anri Morimoto, Jonathan Edwards and
the Catholic Vision of Salvation (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State
University Press, 1995), 77.
[7] Michael McClenahan, Jonathan Edwards
and Justification by Faith (London: Routledge, 2016), 57.
[8] Ibid., 58.
[9] McClenahan expresses frustration at the
failure of scholarship to recognize the significance of Tillotson as Edwards’
theological opponent. While Miller references Edwards’ mention of Tillotson, he
“underestimates it,” while “Thuesen in Lee (ed.), Princeton Companion,
p. 26, refers to the footnote, but in the middle of his claim that Tillotson
influenced Edwards: ‘even an ideological antagonist can retain a certain
seductiveness.’” McClenahan, 57 n.162.
[10] Ibid., 86.
[11] Ibid., 82.
[12] This view has great overlap with the
general Arminian view that Morimoto identifies in Jonathan Edwards, 76.
The difference comes with the conclusions that Morimoto and McClenahan reach
about the significance of Edwards’ audience. “Morimoto assumes that Edwards
selects his opponents because they represent the greatest departure from
biblical religion. In fact, exactly the opposite is the reality: Edwards’ work
on justification concentrates on Tillotson and the new Arminianism because it
is the closest to the Reformed position – and therefore attractive to
many in New England.” McClenahan, 52 n 135.
[13] Jonathan Edwards, Justification by
Faith Alone, section ii.
[14] See Ibid., “If anything that Christ did
or suffered, merited or deserved anything, it was by virtue of the goodness, or
righteousness, or holiness of it. If Christ’s sufferings and death merited
heaven, it must be because there was an excellent righteousness and
transcendent moral goodness in that act of laying down his life. And if by that
excellent righteousness he merited heaven for us, then surely that
righteousness is reckoned to our account, that we have the benefit of it, or,
which is the same thing, it is imputed to us.”
[15] Jonathan Edwards, Justification by
Faith Alone, section ii.
[16] Ibid., section ii.
[17] Jonathan Edwards, Miscellanies 507.
[18] Edwards, Justification by Faith Alone,
section ii.
[19] Ibid., section ii.
[20] Ibid., section iii.
[21] Ibid., section iii.
[22] Ibid., section iii.
[23] Ibid., section iii.
[24] George Hunsinger, “Dispositional
Soteriology: Jonathan Edwards On Justification By Faith Alone.” Westminster
Theological Journal 66, no. 1 (2001), 118.
[25] Thomas Schafer, “Jonathan Edwards and
Justification by Faith,” Church History, Cambridge Core. (Cambridge
University Press, July 28, 2009), 59-60.
[26] Ibid., 60.
[27] Ibid., 60.
[28] Although the title of Hunsinger’s
critique is “Dispositional Soteriology,” he seems to underestimate the
significance of Edwards’ dispositional notion of faith as a method of avoiding
antinomianism while clinging to Reformed orthodoxy. Hunsinger seems unable to entertain
the nuanced conception of faith that Edwards formulates to defend Reformed
doctrines from the Arminian onslaught.
[29] McClenahan, Jonathan Edwards, 83.
[30] Jeffrey Waddington, “Jonathan Edwards’s
‘Ambiguous and Somewhat Precarious’ Doctrine of Justification.” Westminster
Theological Journal 66, no. 2 (2004), 369.
[31] Ibid., 370.
[32] Ibid., 371.
[33] Edwards, Justification by Faith Alone,
section iii.
[34] Ibid., section iii.
[35] Ibid., section iii.
[36] Ibid., section iii.