10.16.2004
According to Jonathan Edwards’ dissertation on The End for which God Created the World, God created the world for,
"The emanation or communication of the divine fullness, consisting in the knowledge of God, love to him, and joy in him, [which] has relation indeed both to God and the creature [273]…and God had regard to it in this manner, as he had a supreme regard to himself, and value for his own infinite, internal glory. It was this value for himself that caused him to value and seek that his internal glory should flow forth from himself. It was from his value for his glorious perfections of wisdom, righteousness, &c. that he valued the proper exercise and effect of these perfections, in wise and righteous acts and effects. It was from his infinite value for his internal glory and fullness, that he valued the thing itself communicated, which is something of the same extant in the creature. Thus, because infinitely values his own glory, consisting in the knowledge of himself, love to himself, and complacence and joy in himself; he therefore valued the image, communication, or participation of these in the creature. And it is because he values himself, that he delights in the knowledge, and love, and joy of the creature; as being himself the object of this knowledge, love, and complacence [276]."
To most contemporary “Evangelical” churches, this is a radical concept.1 The idea that the motive and ultimate purpose of God was Himself is an extreme divergence to the way most Christians think; namely, God acted for something outside of Himself that He saw as being valuable in and of itself. On the contrary, Edwards asserts that the very nature of who and what God is—a surging, perfectly-loving, triune community of fullness and power—caused Him to “overflow” and emanate His divine fullness.2 We Christians are not God’s ultimate concern (in and of ourselves) for His end in all of creation; rather, we have the enjoyment of sharing in the glory of God because we are whom He communicates and emanates His fullness. Since God is dedicated to Himself, it follows that God is as dedicated to us as He is Himself. This “radical” idea of Edwards is not just radical in the contemporary scene; it was radical in his own time as well.
Edwards had to struggle to get his contemporary’s attention, respect and commitment to this view, so he splits his argument into two Chapters. The first chapter is devoted to a deductive study of “what reason teaches concerning this affair,” and the second chapter is devoted to an inductive study of “what is to be learned from the Holy Scriptures.”3
In Chapter 1, Section 1 Edwards relies upon two premises on what reason must dictate. The first he states in paragraph 32, “Because it is evident, by both scripture and reason, that God is infinitely, eternally, unchangeably, and independently glorious and happy.” The second in paragraph 33: creation ex nihilo. Edwards concludes that God’s ultimate end in creation cannot entail a deficiency in God. For, “if the creature receives its all from God, entirely and perfectly, how is it possible that it should have anything to add to God to make him in any respect more than he was before, and so the Creator become dependent on the creature?” From these flow six dictates of reason.
The argument further develops in section one by examining the question: “What is God’s ultimate end in creation?” By the very definition of an ultimate end, it must be intrinsically valuable. If it truly is an end, then it must be capable of being achieved by God’s acting. If an ultimate end is intrinsically valued, regardless of any other consideration, and the creation of the world is a subordinate end, then the end must be intrinsically valuable before the world existed. Edwards then concludes from these premises that God’s ultimate end in creation must be originally, intrinsically valuable and able to be achieved. Since God existed prior to creation, and the end must be originally intrinsically valuable, then God Himself (in some sense) must be capable of being His own ultimate end in creation.
Section 2 is comprised of things that reason may let us suppose as to what God aimed at in creation of the world. Edwards switches from what reason dictates to what reason may lead us to suppose and infers four aspects of what God may have aimed at: 1) the exercise of God’s attributes [48-50], 2) Communication to other beings [51-52], 3) the delight of the content of knowledge in the communication [53], and 4) and emanation ad extra [54-56].
Exactly how God manifests a supreme and ultimate regard for Himself using these suppositions is the entirety of section 3. As an example and for brevity’s sake, we will concentrate upon four aspects of God’s end in creation: two on the nature of God and two upon humanity. 1) Edwards supposes in paragraph 55 that it was God’s motive or “disposition to communicate Himself… was what moved Him to create the world.” 2) In this communication of Himself, He intended to communicate the knowledge of Himself [70], His divine holiness [71], and joy [72]. The implications of Edward’s suppositions about God’s end for humanity are gratifying and uplifting, because it follows that if God does wish to communicate his knowledge, holiness, and joy, then 3) mankind is the most likely candidate to be the recipient of such knowledge. Edwards not only agrees to this conclusion, but he also affirms it with scripture (refer to Section 4 of Chapter 2). 4) It necessarily implies that if God is able to accomplish this task, through the communicated knowledge of Himself, His holiness and joy, to sentient creatures capable of ascertaining God’s knowledge, then it is evident that some of these creatures must experience the knowledge of God, the holiness of God, and the joy of God. Therefore, God is committed to the joy of some of His creatures as much as He is committed to His end in creation [276].
Edwards did anticipate four major objections to his assertions and answers those objections in the fourth section: 1) the Aseity of God is compromised [79-92], 2) God is selfish [94-98], 3) God seeking to make His glory known, esteemed and delighted in is unworthy of God [100-111], and 4) God’s acting for Himself removes all creaturely gratitude [113-124].
The second chapter bears the major brunt of the argument. Edwards brings the lofty ideas and conceptions of reason down to practical life. He states “revelation is the surest guide in these matters [124].” In this portion of his argument, Edwards uses Scripture as his guide in ascertaining the end to which God created the world. Chapter 2 is divided into seven sections that progressively build to conclude in the seventh section the one end in all of creation: the Glory of God.
In the first section, Edwards builds upon scriptures that indicate that God makes Himself His last end. He uses passages in the Old Testament such as Isaiah 44:6 and 48:12, and passages in the New Testament such as Revelation 1:8, 11, 17; 21:6 and 23:13.
The second section is devoted to Edwards’s twelve hermeneutical principles for ascertaining that God makes Himself His last End.
In sections 3 through 5, Edwards compiles five ends that his 12 hermeneutical principles suggest. Section 3 is devoted to the Glory of God being God’s ultimate end in creation. Section 4 is divided into three parts that scripture suggests that are also God’s end: 1) His name, 2) that His perfections be known, and 3) for His praise. Edwards’ final suggestion from scripture is located in section 5; which states: “communicating good to the creature is what is in itself pleasing to God [226].”
At this point in His argument, Edwards may be construed as going astray and invalidating his prior assumptions. However, he addresses that two terms especially clichéd in the Christian community need definition: Glory and Name. What exactly do these two things mean when Scripture talks about them? Edwards answers this question in the fifth section of chapter two. He defines Glory as—concisely as possible—an exhibition of internal wealth and the Name of God as a synonym for the Glory of God.
Section 6 was a precursor of the conclusion of Edwards’s dissertation in section 7. When he stated that the phrase the Name of God was a synonym for the Glory of God, he laid the foundation for the rest of the suppositions in sections 3 through 5 to be integrated into one final end in creation. Edwards declares,
That the design of the Spirit of God is not to represent God’s ultimate end as manifold, but as ONE. For though it be signified by various names, yet they appear not to be names of different things, but various names involving each other in their meaning; either different names of the same thing, or names of several parts of one whole; or of the same whole in viewed in various lights or in its different respects and relations. For it appears, that all that is ever spoken of in the Scripture as an ultimate end of God’s works, is included in one phrase, the glory of God [264].
The ultimate chief end of God’s purpose in creation is for His Glory.
There is a wide array of multi-faceted practical implications and applications for Edwards’s suppositions and conclusions. However, two in particular implications weigh heavily on me: 1) How do Christians grow spiritually, and 2) how should we do church? We reflect the Glory of God by growing in the knowledge of God, loving the content of that knowledge, and rejoicing in God Himself. Too often churches focus on one of these three and leave the other two out, or worse yet, they focus on good works apart from these things.4 Felt needs of the community and evangelism have taken major precedence over the knowledge of, love of and rejoicing in God. If churches were to base their framework of purpose and existence off the conclusions of Edwards then I believe major paradigm shifts would take place in the modern, western, Christian community, and the talk of a “needed revival” would take place.
However joyous Edwards’s conclusions of God’s purpose in creation, one large perplexity remains. This conundrum—made popular by David Hume a number of years later—is most commonly referred to as the “problem of evil.”5 In its simplest terms, the problem is described as: if God is good, omnipotent, and omniscient, yet evil exists, then how is God really good?
The most convincing defense that Edwards gives is found in Chapter 1; Section 2; Supposition 1. Briefly stated, the exercise of God’s attributes is greater than not being exercised.6 Edwards states in paragraph 48 that,
The power of God, which is a sufficiency in him to produce great effects, must for ever have been dormant and useless as to any effect. The divine wisdom and prudence would have had no exercise in any wise contrivance, any prudent proceeding, or disposal of things; for there would have been no objects of contrivance or disposal. The same might be observed of God’s justice, goodness, and truth.
Most would have no problem with the truth of God and the goodness of God being displayed, but the justice of God presupposes that an act of injustice must be committed before justice could be exercised. Evil must have a place in His divine providence (c.f. Romans 9:23, 11:32, Ecclesiastes 3:1-11, Isaiah 10:5-19). Yet, in Scripture, we find nowhere that God has created evil; conversely, it says He has created everything good (Genesis 1) and “For the LORD is good and his love endures” forever; his faithfulness continues through all generations (Psalm 100:5).
My current view of God’s ultimate purpose in creating the world mirrors Jonathan Edwards’ view.7 However, it would be helpful to expound on particular areas in which I believe God is glorified:8 namely, the “problem of evil,” otherwise known as the “problem of God’s goodness.” The area that I find most perplexing in Edwards’s works is the one area of my current view that I wish to divulge and make a firmer stance.9 The basis of my beliefs are formed on three premises: 1) the Augustinian model of sin, 2) the ethics of dispositions and 3) God’s ultimate regard for Himself.
1) The basic framework of the Augustinian model of sin is based on—using C.S. Lewis’s language—a “lesser good” positioning itself above a “greater good.” Augustine understood that God created all things good, and that sin is not an entity in and of itself; rather, it is a particular state of affairs that is determined when a person holds a thing of lesser value in higher regard than a thing that has greater value. For example: both cows and God are good, but cows are not of a greater good than God is. Thus, the sin of idolatry is committed when the cow is valued over God.
2) Edwards was right when thinking of God’s creation as a natural disposition within himself to do so. Likewise, when man was created in the image of God, part of those dispositions somehow must have been given to men. It is by God’s nature to worship Himself in perfect triune community. It follows that man (though the reflection is dark) may still have a disposition, implanted by God (Romans 11:32), to worship himself; although, a disposition does not imply moral fortitude. However, it is the conscientious decision of each man as to whether or not he decides to act upon those dispositions. This frees God from being culpable for the decision of man, yet allows man to be completely free in his decision, and God perfectly providential.
3) Using the words of John Piper, God has a passion for His glory. God is actively working out His sovereign plan to make his very nature communicated to all mankind—and succeeds to do so (Romans 1:18-20). Edwards shares this notion by stating that the exercises of God’s attributes are greater than the attributes lying dormant [48]. Therefore, God is actively displaying not only His perfect love, joy, mercy, compassion, and kindness, but also He displays His perfect wrath, jealousy, hatred, and justice. This, for most people, is at least difficult to apprehend. Nonetheless, scripture seems to support it (Isaiah 10:5-19, 29:16, 55:11, Romans 9:10-23, 11:32).
Therefore, I see no other alternative view (that is coherent) of God’s ultimate end in creation than God displaying His fullness in love, joy, peace, patience, power, and kindness to some He predestined to be objects of mercy, and to some He displays His fullness in perfect wrath, hatred, and justice to those objects predestined for destruction. In both of these cases, God’s attributes are exercised and the knowledge, however terrifying they may be, is known to His creation and in all things, God holds Himself in the highest regard. Everything is for the glory of God!
Jonathan Edwards has truly built upon a firm foundation that will not burn away like hay and stubble when tested with fire; rather, he has built upon years of God’s outpouring of love and knowledge of Himself to Edwards in order for God to be known, loved and rejoiced in more. Given that the Triune-God of the Bible is originally, intrinsically valuable—all things take their beginning from Him—and it is through the exercise of His attributes that all things have there being—it is through Him—and God makes Himself His own end because He is the only candidate worthy of being that end—it all comes back to Him. So, it becomes more powerful truly understanding Paul in Romans 11:36, “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen.” (NIV)
1 I use the term “Evangelical” because many churches accept the name but none of the basic doctrines that follow from the name. I also do not intend to imply that this is a concern to only Evangelical churches, but this is a concern to all mainline denominations.
2 God did this not because He had to or that creation was an unintentional side-effect of being God, rather it was God’s choice to do so because of an internal disposition in Himself that caused Him to act.
3 It should be noted that Edwards is responding to Enlightenment thinkers of his time, and he does not assume that reason is to be put in a higher place then what God has revealed—this is why he formats his dissertation as such. The coalescence of these two aspects (reason and scripture) allowed Enlightenment thinkers an easier way of grasping God’s acting in creation.
4 In no way do I mean to suggest that good works are against Scripture nor do they not go with a strong God-glorifying relationship with Christ. I simply mean to suggest that they cannot be the ultimate end but a consequential end or subordinate end therein.
5 What I do not understand from Edwards, I supplement with my own current thought of God’s ultimate purpose in creation and the two intermingle.
6 Greater is not meant to imply any deficiency in God before the manifestation and exercise of His attributes
7 My view mirrors Edwards as far as I have understood it to be in the time that I have spent in research on this subject.
8 Particular areas in which I believe God is glorified that Edwards did not take as much time as I would have liked
9 If Edwards has a stance that I have not yet fully understood or have not seen, then I apologize for my ignorance.
According to Jonathan Edwards’ dissertation on The End for which God Created the World, God created the world for,
"The emanation or communication of the divine fullness, consisting in the knowledge of God, love to him, and joy in him, [which] has relation indeed both to God and the creature [273]…and God had regard to it in this manner, as he had a supreme regard to himself, and value for his own infinite, internal glory. It was this value for himself that caused him to value and seek that his internal glory should flow forth from himself. It was from his value for his glorious perfections of wisdom, righteousness, &c. that he valued the proper exercise and effect of these perfections, in wise and righteous acts and effects. It was from his infinite value for his internal glory and fullness, that he valued the thing itself communicated, which is something of the same extant in the creature. Thus, because infinitely values his own glory, consisting in the knowledge of himself, love to himself, and complacence and joy in himself; he therefore valued the image, communication, or participation of these in the creature. And it is because he values himself, that he delights in the knowledge, and love, and joy of the creature; as being himself the object of this knowledge, love, and complacence [276]."
To most contemporary “Evangelical” churches, this is a radical concept.1 The idea that the motive and ultimate purpose of God was Himself is an extreme divergence to the way most Christians think; namely, God acted for something outside of Himself that He saw as being valuable in and of itself. On the contrary, Edwards asserts that the very nature of who and what God is—a surging, perfectly-loving, triune community of fullness and power—caused Him to “overflow” and emanate His divine fullness.2 We Christians are not God’s ultimate concern (in and of ourselves) for His end in all of creation; rather, we have the enjoyment of sharing in the glory of God because we are whom He communicates and emanates His fullness. Since God is dedicated to Himself, it follows that God is as dedicated to us as He is Himself. This “radical” idea of Edwards is not just radical in the contemporary scene; it was radical in his own time as well.
Edwards had to struggle to get his contemporary’s attention, respect and commitment to this view, so he splits his argument into two Chapters. The first chapter is devoted to a deductive study of “what reason teaches concerning this affair,” and the second chapter is devoted to an inductive study of “what is to be learned from the Holy Scriptures.”3
In Chapter 1, Section 1 Edwards relies upon two premises on what reason must dictate. The first he states in paragraph 32, “Because it is evident, by both scripture and reason, that God is infinitely, eternally, unchangeably, and independently glorious and happy.” The second in paragraph 33: creation ex nihilo. Edwards concludes that God’s ultimate end in creation cannot entail a deficiency in God. For, “if the creature receives its all from God, entirely and perfectly, how is it possible that it should have anything to add to God to make him in any respect more than he was before, and so the Creator become dependent on the creature?” From these flow six dictates of reason.
The argument further develops in section one by examining the question: “What is God’s ultimate end in creation?” By the very definition of an ultimate end, it must be intrinsically valuable. If it truly is an end, then it must be capable of being achieved by God’s acting. If an ultimate end is intrinsically valued, regardless of any other consideration, and the creation of the world is a subordinate end, then the end must be intrinsically valuable before the world existed. Edwards then concludes from these premises that God’s ultimate end in creation must be originally, intrinsically valuable and able to be achieved. Since God existed prior to creation, and the end must be originally intrinsically valuable, then God Himself (in some sense) must be capable of being His own ultimate end in creation.
Section 2 is comprised of things that reason may let us suppose as to what God aimed at in creation of the world. Edwards switches from what reason dictates to what reason may lead us to suppose and infers four aspects of what God may have aimed at: 1) the exercise of God’s attributes [48-50], 2) Communication to other beings [51-52], 3) the delight of the content of knowledge in the communication [53], and 4) and emanation ad extra [54-56].
Exactly how God manifests a supreme and ultimate regard for Himself using these suppositions is the entirety of section 3. As an example and for brevity’s sake, we will concentrate upon four aspects of God’s end in creation: two on the nature of God and two upon humanity. 1) Edwards supposes in paragraph 55 that it was God’s motive or “disposition to communicate Himself… was what moved Him to create the world.” 2) In this communication of Himself, He intended to communicate the knowledge of Himself [70], His divine holiness [71], and joy [72]. The implications of Edward’s suppositions about God’s end for humanity are gratifying and uplifting, because it follows that if God does wish to communicate his knowledge, holiness, and joy, then 3) mankind is the most likely candidate to be the recipient of such knowledge. Edwards not only agrees to this conclusion, but he also affirms it with scripture (refer to Section 4 of Chapter 2). 4) It necessarily implies that if God is able to accomplish this task, through the communicated knowledge of Himself, His holiness and joy, to sentient creatures capable of ascertaining God’s knowledge, then it is evident that some of these creatures must experience the knowledge of God, the holiness of God, and the joy of God. Therefore, God is committed to the joy of some of His creatures as much as He is committed to His end in creation [276].
Edwards did anticipate four major objections to his assertions and answers those objections in the fourth section: 1) the Aseity of God is compromised [79-92], 2) God is selfish [94-98], 3) God seeking to make His glory known, esteemed and delighted in is unworthy of God [100-111], and 4) God’s acting for Himself removes all creaturely gratitude [113-124].
The second chapter bears the major brunt of the argument. Edwards brings the lofty ideas and conceptions of reason down to practical life. He states “revelation is the surest guide in these matters [124].” In this portion of his argument, Edwards uses Scripture as his guide in ascertaining the end to which God created the world. Chapter 2 is divided into seven sections that progressively build to conclude in the seventh section the one end in all of creation: the Glory of God.
In the first section, Edwards builds upon scriptures that indicate that God makes Himself His last end. He uses passages in the Old Testament such as Isaiah 44:6 and 48:12, and passages in the New Testament such as Revelation 1:8, 11, 17; 21:6 and 23:13.
The second section is devoted to Edwards’s twelve hermeneutical principles for ascertaining that God makes Himself His last End.
In sections 3 through 5, Edwards compiles five ends that his 12 hermeneutical principles suggest. Section 3 is devoted to the Glory of God being God’s ultimate end in creation. Section 4 is divided into three parts that scripture suggests that are also God’s end: 1) His name, 2) that His perfections be known, and 3) for His praise. Edwards’ final suggestion from scripture is located in section 5; which states: “communicating good to the creature is what is in itself pleasing to God [226].”
At this point in His argument, Edwards may be construed as going astray and invalidating his prior assumptions. However, he addresses that two terms especially clichéd in the Christian community need definition: Glory and Name. What exactly do these two things mean when Scripture talks about them? Edwards answers this question in the fifth section of chapter two. He defines Glory as—concisely as possible—an exhibition of internal wealth and the Name of God as a synonym for the Glory of God.
Section 6 was a precursor of the conclusion of Edwards’s dissertation in section 7. When he stated that the phrase the Name of God was a synonym for the Glory of God, he laid the foundation for the rest of the suppositions in sections 3 through 5 to be integrated into one final end in creation. Edwards declares,
That the design of the Spirit of God is not to represent God’s ultimate end as manifold, but as ONE. For though it be signified by various names, yet they appear not to be names of different things, but various names involving each other in their meaning; either different names of the same thing, or names of several parts of one whole; or of the same whole in viewed in various lights or in its different respects and relations. For it appears, that all that is ever spoken of in the Scripture as an ultimate end of God’s works, is included in one phrase, the glory of God [264].
The ultimate chief end of God’s purpose in creation is for His Glory.
There is a wide array of multi-faceted practical implications and applications for Edwards’s suppositions and conclusions. However, two in particular implications weigh heavily on me: 1) How do Christians grow spiritually, and 2) how should we do church? We reflect the Glory of God by growing in the knowledge of God, loving the content of that knowledge, and rejoicing in God Himself. Too often churches focus on one of these three and leave the other two out, or worse yet, they focus on good works apart from these things.4 Felt needs of the community and evangelism have taken major precedence over the knowledge of, love of and rejoicing in God. If churches were to base their framework of purpose and existence off the conclusions of Edwards then I believe major paradigm shifts would take place in the modern, western, Christian community, and the talk of a “needed revival” would take place.
However joyous Edwards’s conclusions of God’s purpose in creation, one large perplexity remains. This conundrum—made popular by David Hume a number of years later—is most commonly referred to as the “problem of evil.”5 In its simplest terms, the problem is described as: if God is good, omnipotent, and omniscient, yet evil exists, then how is God really good?
The most convincing defense that Edwards gives is found in Chapter 1; Section 2; Supposition 1. Briefly stated, the exercise of God’s attributes is greater than not being exercised.6 Edwards states in paragraph 48 that,
The power of God, which is a sufficiency in him to produce great effects, must for ever have been dormant and useless as to any effect. The divine wisdom and prudence would have had no exercise in any wise contrivance, any prudent proceeding, or disposal of things; for there would have been no objects of contrivance or disposal. The same might be observed of God’s justice, goodness, and truth.
Most would have no problem with the truth of God and the goodness of God being displayed, but the justice of God presupposes that an act of injustice must be committed before justice could be exercised. Evil must have a place in His divine providence (c.f. Romans 9:23, 11:32, Ecclesiastes 3:1-11, Isaiah 10:5-19). Yet, in Scripture, we find nowhere that God has created evil; conversely, it says He has created everything good (Genesis 1) and “For the LORD is good and his love endures” forever; his faithfulness continues through all generations (Psalm 100:5).
My current view of God’s ultimate purpose in creating the world mirrors Jonathan Edwards’ view.7 However, it would be helpful to expound on particular areas in which I believe God is glorified:8 namely, the “problem of evil,” otherwise known as the “problem of God’s goodness.” The area that I find most perplexing in Edwards’s works is the one area of my current view that I wish to divulge and make a firmer stance.9 The basis of my beliefs are formed on three premises: 1) the Augustinian model of sin, 2) the ethics of dispositions and 3) God’s ultimate regard for Himself.
1) The basic framework of the Augustinian model of sin is based on—using C.S. Lewis’s language—a “lesser good” positioning itself above a “greater good.” Augustine understood that God created all things good, and that sin is not an entity in and of itself; rather, it is a particular state of affairs that is determined when a person holds a thing of lesser value in higher regard than a thing that has greater value. For example: both cows and God are good, but cows are not of a greater good than God is. Thus, the sin of idolatry is committed when the cow is valued over God.
2) Edwards was right when thinking of God’s creation as a natural disposition within himself to do so. Likewise, when man was created in the image of God, part of those dispositions somehow must have been given to men. It is by God’s nature to worship Himself in perfect triune community. It follows that man (though the reflection is dark) may still have a disposition, implanted by God (Romans 11:32), to worship himself; although, a disposition does not imply moral fortitude. However, it is the conscientious decision of each man as to whether or not he decides to act upon those dispositions. This frees God from being culpable for the decision of man, yet allows man to be completely free in his decision, and God perfectly providential.
3) Using the words of John Piper, God has a passion for His glory. God is actively working out His sovereign plan to make his very nature communicated to all mankind—and succeeds to do so (Romans 1:18-20). Edwards shares this notion by stating that the exercises of God’s attributes are greater than the attributes lying dormant [48]. Therefore, God is actively displaying not only His perfect love, joy, mercy, compassion, and kindness, but also He displays His perfect wrath, jealousy, hatred, and justice. This, for most people, is at least difficult to apprehend. Nonetheless, scripture seems to support it (Isaiah 10:5-19, 29:16, 55:11, Romans 9:10-23, 11:32).
Therefore, I see no other alternative view (that is coherent) of God’s ultimate end in creation than God displaying His fullness in love, joy, peace, patience, power, and kindness to some He predestined to be objects of mercy, and to some He displays His fullness in perfect wrath, hatred, and justice to those objects predestined for destruction. In both of these cases, God’s attributes are exercised and the knowledge, however terrifying they may be, is known to His creation and in all things, God holds Himself in the highest regard. Everything is for the glory of God!
Jonathan Edwards has truly built upon a firm foundation that will not burn away like hay and stubble when tested with fire; rather, he has built upon years of God’s outpouring of love and knowledge of Himself to Edwards in order for God to be known, loved and rejoiced in more. Given that the Triune-God of the Bible is originally, intrinsically valuable—all things take their beginning from Him—and it is through the exercise of His attributes that all things have there being—it is through Him—and God makes Himself His own end because He is the only candidate worthy of being that end—it all comes back to Him. So, it becomes more powerful truly understanding Paul in Romans 11:36, “For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen.” (NIV)
1 I use the term “Evangelical” because many churches accept the name but none of the basic doctrines that follow from the name. I also do not intend to imply that this is a concern to only Evangelical churches, but this is a concern to all mainline denominations.
2 God did this not because He had to or that creation was an unintentional side-effect of being God, rather it was God’s choice to do so because of an internal disposition in Himself that caused Him to act.
3 It should be noted that Edwards is responding to Enlightenment thinkers of his time, and he does not assume that reason is to be put in a higher place then what God has revealed—this is why he formats his dissertation as such. The coalescence of these two aspects (reason and scripture) allowed Enlightenment thinkers an easier way of grasping God’s acting in creation.
4 In no way do I mean to suggest that good works are against Scripture nor do they not go with a strong God-glorifying relationship with Christ. I simply mean to suggest that they cannot be the ultimate end but a consequential end or subordinate end therein.
5 What I do not understand from Edwards, I supplement with my own current thought of God’s ultimate purpose in creation and the two intermingle.
6 Greater is not meant to imply any deficiency in God before the manifestation and exercise of His attributes
7 My view mirrors Edwards as far as I have understood it to be in the time that I have spent in research on this subject.
8 Particular areas in which I believe God is glorified that Edwards did not take as much time as I would have liked
9 If Edwards has a stance that I have not yet fully understood or have not seen, then I apologize for my ignorance.
No comments:
Post a Comment