Here is a very good word from Mark Dever, the pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C.

My God,

Catal: Gravat del primer ter del s. XVI amb Sant Anselm de Canterbury (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I pray that I may so know you and love you

That I may rejoice in you.

And if I may not do so fully in this life,

let me go steadily on.

to the day when I come to that fullness.

Let the knowledge of you increase in me here,

and there let it come to its fullness.

Let your love grow in me here,

and there let it be fulfilled,

so that here my joy may be in a great hope,

and there in full reality.

Lord,

you have commanded, or rather advised us,

to ask by your Son,

and you have promised that we shall receive,

‘that our joy may be full’.

That which you counsel

through our ‘wonderful counsellor’

is what I am asking for, Lord.

Let me receive

that which you have promised through your truth,

‘that my joy may be full’.

God of truth,

I ask that I may receive,

so that my joy may be full.

Meanwhile, let my mind meditate on it,

let my tongue speak of it,

let my heart love it,

let my mouth preach it,

let my soul hunger for it,

my flesh thirst for it,

and my whole being desire it,

until I enter into the joy of my Lord,

who is God one and triune, blessed forever. Amen.

- Anselm of Canterbury, Proslogion 26, trans. Benedicta Ward

Bernard of Clairvaux’s On Loving God(X.28) describes what happens when our will is changed by the grace of God to finally desire God himself:

O pure and sacred love! O sweet and pleasant affection! O pure and sinless intention of the will, all the more sinless and pure since it frees us from the taint of selfish vanity, all the more sweet and pleasant , for all that is found in it is divine.

Religious Affections (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Is Jonathan Edwards a reliable teacher on the doctrine of justification?

Most people would probably quickly answer “yes.” And, as we learn more about the life of Edwards, we would tend to be satisfied with that answer. After all, his 1728Master’sQuaestioaffirmed the “assuredly central” doctrine of justification by faith alone, and in doing so, Edwards was making a public statement on the side of Reformed orthodoxy against an Anglican controversy at his college commencement the year earlier. In addition to this early statement, the first small waves of awakening in 1734in Northamptonthat eventually poured into the “Great Awakening” came as he preached his sermonsJustification by Faith Alone(published in 1738). In Edwards’s mind at least, this 1734 awakening began as he preached on the doctrine of justification by faith. His “Controversies” Notebook on justification (see volume 21 of the Yale Works of Jonathan Edwards), begun in the late 1740′s, defended the doctrine against the unorthodox writings of John Taylor and (to a much lesser extent) Jonathan Mayhew. (Incidentally, I’m presenting a paper at the Southeast Regional Meeting of the ETS this Saturday, March 24th, arguing that the views of Taylor and Mayhew in significant ways anticipate the so-called “New Perspective on Paul,” and showing how Edwards responded to their views.)

In these writings, it is clear that Edwards views himself within the Calvinist tradition. He affirms not only the doctrine but that it is, for example, “of very great importance” (WJE19:237). In fact, any other scheme “lays another foundation of man’s salvation than God hath laid” (WJE19:238) For those who oppose justification by faith, Christ is no longer their ground of salvation. As for those who opposed the Reformation understanding of the doctrine, their teaching was “fatal to the soul” (WJE19:241).

Having said all that, some scholars still propose that Edwards was not really that Reformed in his understanding of justification. Thomas Schafer famously argued this back in 1951 (seeChurch History20). George Hunsinger says Edwards was actually closer to Thomas Aquinas than the Reformers (seeWestminster Theological Journal66). Gerald McDermott says because of Edwards’s penchantfor narrative theology he would have agreed with N. T. Wright’s teachings today (seePro Ecclesia17). For a better perspective, I would recommend Jeffrey Waddington’s “Jonathan Edwards’s ‘Ambiguous and Somewhat Precarious’ Doctrine of Justification” (seeWestminster Theological Journal66). I agree with Waddington’s conclusion, that Edwards is not as far off as his critics surmise. And though there are times where Edwards’s statements on justification are difficult, I believe a careful reading shows him to affirm (repeatedly) that the Christian’s only ground of acceptance before God is the imputed and alien righteousness of Jesus Christ.

I say all of this to get to a bigger point. It is possible for top-notch scholars to misread Jonathan Edwards (and other historical persons). It is on this very point that Michael McClymond and Gerald McDermott’s massive new tome on TheTheology of Jonathan Edwardsgoes astray. Though their error is likely an anomaly, I think it is an unintentional but significant mistake.

McClymond and McDermott write,

Edwards does seem to base justification in part on what is in us. . . . We are given a title to salvation “not directly . . . as a reward of our obedience” since it is only by Christ’s righteousness, yet we gain an “interest in that satisfaction and righteousness . . . as a reward of our obedience” (Theology. 400).

This is an unfortunately misreading of Edwards. McClymond and McDermott are citing the publication of Edwards’s 1734 sermonJustification by Faith Alone. (They even add emphasis!)In the context, Edwards has finished arguing that the Bible teaches that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to believers. His next argument is to refute the idea that human beings are in any way justified by their “own virtue, or sincere obedience.” If this is true, then people save themselves. And it is at this point that Edwards raises a possible objection. This objection is what McClymond and McDermott cite.Here is the full paragraph of what Edwards says:

Here perhaps it may be said, that a title to salvation is not directly given as the reward of our obedience; for that is not by anything of ours, but only by Christ’s satisfaction and righteousness; but yet an interest in that satisfaction and righteousness is given as a reward of our obedience (WJE19:199).

Edwards clearly rejects this idea, that we are given Christ’s righteousness as a reward of our own obedience. Edwards’s thoughts on this proposal are made clear in the very next paragraph:

But this don’t help at all the case; for this is to ascribe as much to our obedience, as if we ascribed salvation to it directly, without the intervention of Christ’s righteousness: for it would be as great a thing for God to give us Christ, and his satisfaction and righteousness, in rewoard for our obedience, as to give us heaven immediately; it would be as great a reward, and as great a testimony of respect to our obedience. And if God gives as great a thing as salvation, for our obedience, why could he not as well give salvation itself directly? And then there would have been no need of Christ’s righteousness. . . . (WJE19:200).

My point here is not to deal with all that McClymond and McDermott say about Edwards and justification, but simply to show that at least one of their citations is a pretty unfortunate misreading. It is not always safe to accept the interpretation historians make of the theologians in Christian history, even when those interpretations are published in large books by some of the most respected publishing houses in the world. And we ourselves should be careful to read and understand the thought of other men and not misrepresent them, especially on the doctrines they consider to be “the truth of the Reformed religion,” and “the first foundation of the gospel” (WJE14:64).

Yes, it’s March 21st, and so the birthday of our dear friend Johann Sebastian. In honor of the birth of this great fellow, I hereby declare that we the household of Ryan Martin shall eat Reubens in our fair abode tonight, which for some strange reason seems more than appropriate (Reubens do have sauerkraut). (And maybe some ice cream when the kids go to bed?)

And here, at the blog where we try to dutifully remind our friends of his birthday each year, we shall honor this 327th birthday of Bach with a selection of performances of his great, impeccable, sublime Passacaglia and Fugue in C Minor, BWV 582. Scholars find all sorts of symbolic goodness in this piece, some even positing it’s in the shape of a cross. In the soundtrack of the drama that is my life, I fancifully imagine that it shall be played when upon my death my soul leaves this earthly temple and travels through the planetary and celestial spheres to his temporary rest in heaven until the resurrection. And, until that uneasy voyage, here it is for us to enjoy in a multitude of forms:

The c-minor passacagliaplayed by Hans-Andre Stam on the organ:

The c-minor passacagliaplayed by a chamber ensemble (Elaine Comparone on the harpsichord and the QCB):

The c-minor passacaglia played by trombone choir (!) from Columbus State University:

A piano transcription of the c-minor passacaglia composed and performed by Emile Naoumoff:

The c-minor passacagliatranscribed for orchestra by the great Leopold Stokowski, here conducting in a vintage recording:

My (current) favorite, the c-minor passacagliatranscribed for orchestra by Respighi, played by the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra conducted by Andrew Litton at the Proms:

And, one more time, the c-minor passacagliaon the organ, played by Andrea Marcon, where you can follow the score: