Jonathan Edwards: Philosophical Theologian.

Evans, William B.

Jonathan Edwards: Philosophical Theologian. Edited by Paul Helm and Oliver D. Crisp. Burlington, Vt.: Ashgate, 2003. xvi + 165 pp. $69.95 cloth; $29.95 paper.

This collection of essays in honor of the tercentenary of Jonathan Edwards's birth brings together a distinguished group of philosophers and theologians from the United States and Great Britain to explore the nexus of philosophy and theology in Edwards's thought. The volume is particularly valuable in that it explores key interpretive questions in contemporary Edwards scholarship from both philosophical and theological angles. Moreover, the essays are notable for their engagement with Edwards as a thinker of contemporary significance, and they provide welcome evidence for the vibrant state of Edwards scholarship on both sides of the Atlantic.

The first two essays, by Jonathan L. Kvanvig and William J. Wainwright, examine Edwards's view of hell. Kvanvig explores Edwards's claim that all sin is an offense against an infinite God and thus worthy of eternal damnation, finding it philosophically impressive but ultimately unsuccessful because it does not take account of mitigating factors. Wainwright also engages Edwards's defense of the doctrine of hell, particularly his claim that eternal punishment is just, and concludes that annihilation, as opposed to eternal punishment, is consistent with Edwards's arguments. Both essays present useful interaction with Edwards's ethical theory.

Hugh J. McCann places Edwards's critique of libertarian freedom in his Freedom of the Will in theological and philosophical context. He suggests that Edwards missteps in equating choice with preponderant desire, in that desires are dispositional and may be strong or weak, while decisions of the will are something quite different. He then goes on to critique compatibilist views of freedom, such as that espoused by Edwards, as incoherent, and to defend a view of libertarian freedom that is, McCann believes, consistent with Edwards's concern for divine sovereignty. While intriguing, McCann's proposal is unlikely to satisfy either side in this perennial debate.

Paul Helm's essay focuses on the problem of personal identity as it is presented in Edwards's Original Sin. He finds that Edwards was initially influenced by Locke's location of personal identity, not in unity of substance, but in memory or consciousness. However, Helm contends that Edwards was diverted from this trajectory by his anti-Deist polemic with its emphasis upon divine immediacy in the form of continuous creation ex nihilo and by his concern to defend the doctrine of original sin, with its ascription of forensic responsibility for the actions of another. Helm ultimately finds Edwards's account of personal identity inadequate in that it has no immanent causal connection linking the moments of personal existence and grounding forensic responsibility.

In a careful and technical essay, Oliver Crisp explores Edwards's views of divine causation in light of recent discussions of Creation and Providence. He concludes that Edwards, in his work on Original Sin, was indeed an occasionalist in his affirmation of continuous creation ex nihilo and his denial of secondary causation. Crisp then engages the counterargument of Sang Hyun Lee, who contends, primarily on the basis of Miscellany 1263, that Edwards was not a thoroughgoing occasionalist, and that his "dispositional ontology" entails the persistence of created entities through time. Key here is the status of natural law--is it simply the result of God's occasional activity, or does it have more persistence? Crisp argues that Miscellany 1263 is plausibly read as affirming that "God recreates all things ex nihilo each moment, including the 'laws' themselves, which appear to be physical constants at each index merely because God 'arbitrarily' deigns that they operate in such fashion" (73), and that this reading is consistent with Edwards's arguments in Original Sin and Freedom of the Will.

Philip L. Quinn returns to Edwards's ethical theory with an examination of the argument in the first chapter of The Nature of True Virtue. Exploring the contours of Edwards's argument that true virtue consists in benevolence to Being in general, Quinn concludes, contra Paul Ramsey's influential interpretation, that by "Being in general" Edwards means "the whole or universal system of existence" (93) rather than God alone. Quinn also regards Edwards's more Platonizing theory of virtue as a "useful counterweight" (79) to the Thomistic and Aristotelian focus of much contemporary virtue theory.

Two essays, by Stephen R. Holmes and Amy Plantinga Pauw, focus on Edwards's theology proper. Holmes directly engages Sang Hyun Lee's influential thesis regarding Edwards's development of a "dispositional ontology," and particularly Lee's argument that this ontology entails a dynamic view of God as becoming. According to Holmes, Lee's contention that Edwards radically modified the doctrine of God at this point does not accord with Edwards's reverence for the classical Reformed tradition, and it stands in some tension with Edwards's appropriation of Augustinian Trinitarianism and his affirmation of the filioque. Taking a somewhat different tack is the essay by Pauw, which explores Edwards's treatment of divine simplicity. She notes that, for Edwards, God's excellency involves "a harmony or consent of diverse elements" (115), and she contends that Edwards moves away from the "simplicity tradition," which held that divine ontological perfection entails perfect simplicity, or the absence of constituent parts. Pauw views this move as evidence of Edwards's emancipation from the Reformed theological tradition. In fact, a subtheme running through a number of these essays is the complexity of Edwards's relationship to the received tradition of Puritan Reformed orthodoxy. Doubtless there is room for more work in this area.

The two final essays engage Edwards's thought in comparison with other religious traditions. Gerald R. McDermott compares Edwards and John Henry Newman on the status of non-Christian religions. He finds that Edwards viewed non-Christian faiths as bearers of some religious truth, and he finds in Edwards a "dispositional soteriology," which, in theory at least, would allow for salvation outside the boundaries of Christian faith. McDermott also finds remarkable parallels between Edwards and Newman on this larger issue. Finally, in an essay on "Salvation as Divinization," Michael J. McClymond finds significant affinities between the soteriologies of Edwards and Gregory of Palamas, and he suggests that these may provide a basis for fruitful dialogue between Reformed and Orthodox Christians. Of particular interest here is McClymond's exploration of Neoplatonic themes in Edwards.

The format of the book is quite usable. Endnotes appear at the conclusion of each chapter. While many undergraduate students will find portions of the volume difficult, it is heartily recommended for seminary and graduate collections in theology and philosophy.

William B. Evans

Erskine College