Interpretations II: Jonathan Edwards and the Reformed Tradition

Scripture focus

One generation shall praise thy works to another, and shall declare thy mighty acts.

Psalm 145:4 KJV

At a glance

Summary of the chapter

McClymond and McDermott open by noting a paradox: Edwards's first biographer said he "called no man father," yet Edwards himself insisted he would not mind "to be called a Calvinist, for distinction's sake" and could subscribe to "the substance of the Westminster Confession." The authors sort Reformed thinkers into "originalists" (who look back to Calvin), "confessionalists" (bound to the letter of the confessions), and "developmentalists" (who see the tradition unfolding). Edwards, they argue, was a developmentalist: he ranked Petrus van Mastricht's systematic theology above nearly every other book, Calvin's Institutes included.

The chapter catalogs deep affinities between Edwards and Calvin: both underwent sudden, reorienting conversions, both endured painful conflict with their own congregations, and both organized their theology around God's sovereignty, God's glory, and God working out his purposes across history. Drawing on John Leith's account of Reformed identity, the authors show Edwards embodying nearly every classic Reformed emphasis — theocentrism, holy living under the law, the life of the mind as service to God, plain-style preaching, and rigorous personal discipline, most visibly in his youthful 'Resolutions.'

Yet Edwards also revised what he inherited — adjusting Puritan federal theology to resist both Arminian self-confidence and, later, antinomian laxity. The chapter's second half, only partly excerpted here, goes on to compare Edwards with two later Reformed giants, Friedrich Schleiermacher and Karl Barth, testing how far his theology of experience and his account of divine sovereignty anticipate, or diverge from, later Reformed thought.

Key points

• Edwards accepted being called a Calvinist "for distinction's sake" even though the label had become, in his own words, a term of greater reproach than 'Arminian,' and he could affirm "the substance of the Westminster Confession."
• McClymond and McDermott classify Reformed thinkers as originalists, confessionalists, or developmentalists; Edwards was a developmentalist who believed the tradition could be improved without abandoning its core.
• Edwards ranked Petrus van Mastricht's theology above every other non-biblical book, revealing his preference for later, more developed Reformed exposition over strict return to Calvin.
• Using John Leith's seven marks of the Reformed ethos, the authors find Edwards embodying nearly all of them, from divine sovereignty to disciplined personal holiness.
• The chapter goes on to compare Edwards with Schleiermacher and Barth, probing how a single Reformed heritage could produce such divergent theological heirs.

A line worth remembering

I should not take it all amiss, to be called a Calvinist, for distinction's sake

McClymond & McDermott The Theology of Jonathan Edwards, ch. 41

Related Scripture

• Psalm 100:5
• Deuteronomy 6:7
• 2 Timothy 3:14
• Romans 11:36

For reflection and discussion

1. What is the difference between honoring a theological tradition and simply repeating it? Where do you see that difference at work in your own church background?
2. Edwards ranked a later theologian's work above Calvin's own writings — what does that say about how healthy traditions are meant to develop over time?
3. Which of John Leith's seven Reformed emphases (sovereignty, God's glory, providence, holiness, the life of the mind, plain preaching, discipline) most needs recovering in the church today?