Lucy Beth: 3 Edwards: 0

It is of my humble opinion that Descartes was quite full of pride. Although I must respect the fact that he had the willingness to reevaluate his entire set of previous beliefs and foundations assumptions, he was quite sure of himself once he had done so. His idea that the leaders of the theology of Paris should present his writings to the members of the congregation with their full endorsement, to the security of right beliefs in the minds of each member of the church, was quite presumptuous. (This can be found in the first section, point six) On the other hand I must credit to him that he did ask the aforementioned leaders to critique and correct his writings before the public distribution of the works. I would also venture to say, seeing as he did “apply [himself] earnestly and freely to the general overthrow of all [his] former opinions” (and I do believe him to have been, for the most part, successful in this), that he does have, as much as can be given from a young student, the right to speak with any amount of authority. Many of his statements did appear to be in line with what I consider to be realistic, logical and true. But see here! I have already taken enough time to speak on the text about which this post is not. Let us move on…

…to Edwards! Oh, loathsome Edwards. I apologize in advance for anyone who, like Malory Green, has fallen in love with him and his writings. I do not mean to discourage your enthusiasm for the man. I however, find him quite…obnoxious. My first point of contention is this: that he speak much too often of the wrath of God and hardly at all of His love and grace. Now I know what you might be thinking. “She’s gotta be a flower child. Peace, love, happiness and prosperity gospel.” Let me correct you in that. The wrath of God, sin, hell and the devil are VERY REAL THINGS. However, so are the grace, mercy and love of God. I do not have an official count but if I had to estimate the ratio of John Edwards’ mentions the first set of things to the latter set it would be about 100 to 1. While I do not condone preaching that assumes to expel the concepts of hell and wrath from its messages, I also cannot support preaching which focuses all its words on such truths. The wrath and love of God come together, in one God, in one moment. He has not His wrath without His love, nor His love without His wrath. 1 John 4:17-18 says, “By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world. There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear”. In looking for the place where God’s just wrath and perfect love meet, look to the cross.

Ultimately my response to Edwards and “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” is best demonstrated by the words of Augustine: “God’s love is incomprehensible and unchangeable. For it was not after we were reconciled to him through the blood of his Son that he began to love us. Rather, he has loved us before the world was created, that we also might be his sons along with his only-begotten Son—before we became anything at all. The fact that we were reconciled through Christ’s death must not be understood as if his Son reconciled us to him that he might now begin to love those whom he had hated. Rather, we have already been reconciled to him who loves us, with whom we were enemies on account of sin. The apostle will testify whether I am speaking the truth: ‘God shows his love for us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us’ [Rom. 5:8]. Therefore, he loved us even when we practiced enmity toward him and committed wickedness. Thus in a marvelous and divine way he loved us even when he hated us. For he hated us for what we were that he had not made; yet because our wickedness had not entirely consumed his handiwork, he knew how, at the same time, to hate in each one of us what he had made, and to love what he had made.”

Lucy Beth: 1 Edwards: 0

Most of his doctrinal statements seemed correct to me, with the exception, as far as I can tell, of only one. Under DOCTRINE, point two he states, “The sword of divine justice is every moment brandished over their heads and ‘tis nothing but the hand of arbitrary mercy, and God’s mere will, that holds it back”. I bring to question this “arbitrary mercy”. First let us define the word arbitrary: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. I find every reason to contest this description of mercy. God does not act randomly or without reason. So either this mercy is not God’s, which makes the statement a heresy, or it is wrongly describe as “arbitrary”. Throughout the Old Testament it says that God was not quick to be angry with His people. One who is not quick to be angry also does not act outrageously upon a whim to punish. Psalm 51:1 describes not His random love, but His steadfast love. Isaiah 16:5 says that He “will rule with mercy and truth. He will always do what is just and be eager to do what is right” (NLT). This does not sound like arbitrary mercy to me.

Lucy Beth: 2 Edwards: 0

Furthermore, I did not like the emotions and ideas towards God that were stirred up inside of me upon the reading of “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”. At any given point during the reading I could find myself feeling fearful, disdainful, unappreciative, angry and defeated. It momentarily removed far from my mind the possibility of a loving, gracious God who wanted to have a personal relationship with me. I could not, within Edwards’ context, imagine a love so deep and so unfailing that it would send its one and only Son to die for me, a filthy sinner, that I would have eternal life in communion with my Creator. It caused me to want to hate God yet at the same time to fear Him, almost to an unhealthy extent. Although these teachings may have jumpstarted revival, I do not see how they could have taught Christians that a personal relationship with the Father was possible; that they shall no longer call Him “Master”, but “Husband” and “Friend” (Hosea 2:16, John 15:15).

Lucy Beth: 3 Edwards: 0