Jonathan Edwards
Helm on Edwards

This year is the 250th anniversary of the death of Jonathan Edwards. Many will be writing and talking about that great American philosopher and theologian. I intend to read some of Edward’s works again this year as well as works about Edwards. Almost everyone claims Edwards from Pentecostal to Reformed. And, I am sure you will be reading glowing accounts of him this year. I will be posting on Edwards myself in the coming year.

I was intrigued by the following from Paul Helm. Dr. Helm was being interviewed by Guy Davies at his blog Exiled Preacher. In answer to Davies on a question about Edwards, Helm offers this:

The strength is also the weakness: a confidence in human reason which is in some respects breathtaking (the relentlessness of his argumentation in Freedom of the Will), in other respects ridiculous (his view of the continuity of things and people through time, as expressed in his Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin). In many ways he is an archetypal 18thcentury figure. Interesting that the influence of the Enlightenment should reach so powerfully into the recesses of New England; there is irony here, an arch-conservative using the ‘latest thought’ (in Edwards’ case Newton and Locke), to assist ole’ time religion. Perhaps there’s a lesson for us.While one cannot but recognise his greatness Edwards has always seemed to me to have been a tiresome person, aristocratic, tactless and remote, and something of a know-all (justifiably perhaps!), but not someone I’d like to have had as a pastor. Sorry, I’m straying from your question.
[You can read the entire interview at http://exiledpreacher.blogspot.com/ ]

I doubt if you will see as frank and critical assessment about Edwards from any other card carrying Biblical and Reformed believer. I also find it interesting the Helm sees Edwards’ use of the Enlightenment “to assist ole’ time religion” as a possible lesson for us all. Is Helm saying we should use the “latest thought”, such as postmodernism, to make our case today? Or, is he saying we too should not abandon modernity in the face of post-modernity? Just wondering.