“The Religious Affections is an important book, but in my view it would be unwise to take its teaching on what true religion consists in very seriously. It is a book about the importance of emotion, expressed in a public, visible way, . . . Continue reading →
Religious Affections
Who Gets to Say What Counts as Religious Affections and On What Basis?
Darryl Hart writes: “The proponents of Edwards and the First Pretty Good Awakening (hereafter FPGA) are worried about nominal Christianity – that is, people who go through the motions of worship or Christian practice. Although this is an understandable concern – who . . . Continue reading →
Helm Replies to Lucas on the Nature of “Affections” in Edwards
Paul Helm wrote a very interesting critique of Edwards, one with which the HB has some sympathy. Sean Lucas replied by arguing that Helm had read too much into the noun “affections.” Helm has replied to Lucas by arguing that, in Edwards . . . Continue reading →
Why Caution About Jonathan Edwards Is In Order
Jonathan Edwards (1703–58) is America’s most famous theologian and perhaps its most famous philosopher too. He is an important and influential figure and worth seeking to understand for those reasons alone. We should think about Edwards for other reasons, however, He is . . . Continue reading →
Godfrey: Edwards Rejected The Reformed Definition Of Faith In The Act Of Justification
In one area, however, the treatise is problematic, namely his understanding of the nature of justifying faith. Gerstner acknowledged that Edwards did express the doctrine of justifying faith somewhat differently from his Calvinistic forbears, “…there can be little doubt that Calvinistic theologians . . . Continue reading →