JONATHAN EDWARDS AND JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH ALONE: A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT

INTRODUCTION

John Calvin (1509-1564) writes in his Institutes, “[justification] is the main hinge on which religion turns.”[1] A departure from the orthodox view of justification is detrimental. The Westminster Shorter Catechism expounds upon justification succinctly, “Justification is an act of God’s free grace, wherein he pardoneth all our sins, and accepteth us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us, and received by faith alone” (Q. 33, emphasis added). Faith is the instrumentum iustificationis.[2] Unfortunately, some Reformed theologians have strayed from the standard definition of justification. One such individual is the quintessential American Congregationalist Puritan pastor and theologian, Jonathan Edwards.

            Edwards writes in two separate places that love is intertwined with faith. In his own words, “love is included in the nature and essence of saving faith, yea, is the very life and soul of it, without which it is dead, as the body without the soul.”[3] Elsewhere, in his “Miscellanies,” he writes, “for love is of the essence of faith, yea, is the very life and soul of it, and the most essential thing in it.”[4] In an attempt to harmonize faith and works, Edwards errors in conflating the instrumental cause of justification being faith. Despite his attempt to nuance love as inclusion in that cause, Edwards buttresses too closely to the Roman Catholic doctrine on justification. He does this primarily by divergence from sola fide in the historical sense. Therefore, Jonathan Edwards’s view on justification should be rejected as it is a departure from post-Reformation dogma. This paper will reveal Edwards’ erroneous view in three main sections. Firstly, a historical overview of the post-Reformation development of justification by faith alone (sola fide) in terms of confessional treatments and theological developments. Secondly, allowing Edwards and pro-Edwardsian scholars to speak to the issue. Thirdly, a critical assessment of Edwards’s view on justification.

THE POST-REFORMATION DEVELOPMENT OF JUSTIFICATION

Confessional Documents on Justification

The Role of Faith in the Confessions

One of the earliest confessional formulations, the Augsburg Confession (1530), states that Christians are “freely justified for Christ’s sake, through faith” (Articles 4 and 24). Faith is the means by which God justifies the elect. The Belgic Confession (1561) also notes, “for faith is only the instrument by which we embrace Christ, our righteousness” (Article 22) and “for by faith in Christ we are justified” (Article 24).  Similarly, the Thirty-Nine Articles (1563) remark on the importance of justification being by faith in its formulation, as it states, “that we are justified by Faith only is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort” (Article 21). The earliest confessions highlighted not only the significance of justification but also emphasized an important distinction, namely, that it is through faith.

            One of the most important confessional formulations for justification is that of the Westminster Confession of Faith (1646-47). Although Jonathan Edwards was not Presbyterian, he held to a version of the WCF known as the Savoy Declaration (1658).[5] In SD 11.2, it says, “Faith thus receiving and resting on Christ, and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification.”[6] One of the chief aims of this direct statement on justification is the refutation against the Roman Catholic doctrine “who hold that hope, and love, and repentance, are included in faith as justifying, and concur with faith, strictly so called, to justification.”[7] Quite clearly, the Council of Trent argues, “faith, unless hope and charity be added to it, neither unites man perfectly with Christ nor makes him a living member of His body” (§7). Important to note are the clear demarcations between Rome and Protestantism regarding justification. For Rome, the instrumental cause of justification is the sacrament of baptism (§7), whereas the instrumental cause in the post-Reformation confessional documents is faith. Similarly, faith is an insufficient cause in justification according to Rome whereas faith is the necessary and sufficient condition in Protestantism.[8] This important distinction becomes critical in the assessment of Edwards later.

            The Westminster Confession of Faith provides no viable argument in defense of twofold justification, which Rome and Edwards permit. This is seen primarily in the fact that Christians can never fall away from the state of justification (11.5). This is inextricably nestled within the doctrine of adoption wherein those who are justified are “partakers of the grace of adoption,” which encompasses all the privileges of the sons of God and are effectually and definitively “sealed to the day of redemption” (12.1).[9] To summarize, the confessions teach that faith is the instrumental cause in justification, which is a definitive act as believers are declared righteous and united with Christ.  

The Role of Faith and Works in Protestant Confessionalism

The post-Reformation confessions did not shy away from the importance of works concerning faith. In contrast to Rome, however, these works sprang forth from a new obedience unto the Law of God. Regarding obedience and faith, the Augsburg Confession states, “they [the church] teach that this faith is bound to bring forth good fruits and that it is necessary to do good works commanded by God … but that we should not rely on those works to merit justification before God” (Article 6). The Belgic Confession also highlights the non-salvific manner of good works but maintaining their necessity in the life of a converted man. It states, “These works, proceeding from the good root of faith, are good and acceptable to God … yet they do not count toward our justification” (Article 24, emphasis added). The important aspect of this article is that works naturally proceed from conversion. The Thirty-Nine Articles on “Of Good Works” follow suit in remarking, “Good works, which are the fruits of Faith, and follow after justification … do spring out necessarily of a true and lively Faith.” The Westminster Divines expounded upon this rich confessional history. Good works are “the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith” (WCF 16.2). These fruits, of course, are “love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, [and] self-control” (Gal. 5.22).    

Systematic Theologians and Justification of the Post-Reformation Era

The Function of Faith in Justification

Three theologians stand out in the post-Reformation era for their distinct polemic against the various views of justification. Each theologian dealt with either the charges of Arminians, Socinians, or Roman Catholics (some dealt with all of them). Their works provide a supplement to the foundations established by the confessions and further elucidate the clear teachings found in Scripture.

Francis Turretin (1623-1687) is one of the prominent post-Reformation era systematicians who helped bring forth a clear doctrine of justification and the role of faith. Turretin writes at length concerning the multi-faceted role of justification in terms of faith, adoption, Christ’s active and passive obedience, and works, to name a few. Turretin states that faith “is said to justify relatively and organically: relatively because the object of faith is our true righteousness before God; organically because faith is the instrument for receiving on our part and for applying to ourselves, that righteousness.”[10] Christ is the object of the believer’s righteousness before God. He elaborates later, writing, “the action of faith justifies us, but not as an action simply (as if it were our righteousness with God), but in relation to its object inasmuch as it receives Christ.”[11] The purpose is to demonstrate the instrumentation of faith in justification.

Dutch theologian Herman Witsius (1636-1708) writes, “faith alone is adapted to receive and appropriate the righteousness of Christ, on account of which we are justified.”[12] Witsius does include faith and love into the two Christian virtues. Faith is the reception of God’s free gift to his elect, namely, eternal life bought by the blood of Jesus Christ, whose righteousness is imputed upon the believer. Love, on the other hand, represents the denial of self and offering oneself to God. Love is not instrumental in justification, rather, it is an effect of justification in the life of the converted.

Puritan pastor and theologian John Owen (1616-1683) also profoundly builds upon faith’s role in justification.[13] Owen remarks on the unanimity of faith as the instrumental cause of justification across the Reformed camp, writing, “Protestant divines, until of late, have unanimously affirmed faith to be the instrumental cause of our justification. So it is expressed to be in many of the public confessions of their churches.”[14] Exegetically, Owen points to various Pauline constructs of the Greek word πιστις which refers to the instrumental cause (cf. Rom. 1:17; 3:28, 30; 11:36; Gal. 3:2, 8; Eph. 2:8). Owen concludes that “faith, in some sense, may be said to be the instrument of God in our justification, both as it is the means and way ordained and appointed by him on our part whereby we shall be justified.”[15] In contrast to Arminius and Rome, justification is by faith alone.

What then do good works have to do regarding faith? Owen clearly articulates that “We are justified by faith alone; but we are not justified by that faith which can be alone.”[16] Not once does Owen leave out the necessity of good works after receiving Christ by faith alone. Faith is the means by which God justifies on the ground of Christ’s active and passive obedience. Therefore, it “purifieth the heart and worketh by love.”[17] Love flows forth as a result of one who has received Christ. Likewise, Witsius articulates that “the acts of hope and love, nay, all those which are required to a true and serious conversion, are included in justifying faith as justifying, and concur with faith, strictly so called, to justification.”[18] True conversion is demonstrated by fruits, yet fruits do not merit true conversion.

JONATHAN EDWARDS AND JUSTIFICATION

Faith Alone or Faith Working with Love?

Douglas Sweeney makes an important observation regarding Jonathan Edwards’ view of justification. He notes that it “has attracted more attention since Vatican II and the trend toward a ‘new perspective on Paul’ than ever before in the history of Edwards scholarship.”[19] For Sweeney and other pro-Edwardsian scholars, Jonathan Edwards is a misunderstood Calvinist who employed Catholic-like language in response to the ongoing spiritual revivals occurring during the Great Awakening.[20] Edwards was confronted with the issue of carnal Christianity and emphasized the necessity of good works in response to union with Christ. No Reformed theologian would argue with Edwards on this particular point.

However, Jonathan Edwards did indeed pen “love is included in the nature and essence of saving faith,” or a variation thereof, in his Blank Bible and Miscellanies entries. It is difficult to maneuver safely around those two statements. However, Edwards did write a lengthy doctrinal treatise on “Justification by Faith Alone” (1734). At first glance, Edwards appears to be right on par with the teachings of Scripture, confessions, and other Reformed theologians. He writes clearly, “We are justified only by faith in Christ, and not by any manner of virtue of goodness of our own.”[21] Justification, for Edwards, includes the imputed righteousness of Christ as surety who was indeed justified by God and declares those who believe in him as justified.

Where the ground becomes shaky is Edwards’ departure from Reformed categories regarding justification. Rather than the instrumental cause, Edwards labels faith as the “condition”[22] of justification.

            This is where trouble begins for Edwards and his categories. He writes,

“in this sense faith is not the only condition of salvation or justification, for there are many things that accompany and flow from faith, that are things with which justification shall be … And there are many other things besides faith, which are directly proposed to us, to be pursued or performed by us, in order to eternal life, as those which, if they are done or obtained, we shall have eternal life, and if not done or not obtained, we shall surely perish. And if it were so, that faith was the only condition of justification in this sense, yet I don’t apprehend that to say that faith was the condition of justification, would express the sense of that phrase of Scripture of being “justified by faith.”[23]

It is easy to see how Edwards can conflate love and faith when attempting to create categories of condition in terms of justification. Edwards then appeals to the fact that “faith being the instrument of our justification” has been misrepresented. Instead, “faith be an instrument, ‘tis more properly the instrument by which we receive Christ, than the instrument by which we receive justification.”[24] Michael McClenahan argues that Edwards was offering the same argument of Owen in substance albeit with different terminology as a way to sidestep the issue and bring the hearers to the core of the issue. McClenahan states, “Neither conditionality nor instrumentality are necessary concepts for Edwards’ anti-Arminian exposition of justification by faith.”[25] Edwards’ chief focus is union with Christ as established in the Covenant of Redemption and manifestly exhibited in the Covenant of Grace.

            Pro-Edwardsian scholars attempt to reconcile these issues of unclarity. Gerald McDermott claims that, according to Edwards, “faith is a ‘comprehensive’ term (M 669) for the disposition of consent to Christ that by virtue of union with Christ entails every other Christian fruit.”[26] Others state that Edwards is employing alternative categories to the traditional Reformed vernacular. S. Mark Hamilton answers, “Edwards went beyond his theological heritage to construct a rational defense for a doctrine which he thought required philosophical fortification.[27] Hyun-Jin Cho states, “Edwards employed the concept of ‘natural fitness’ to display that faith is not good work but ‘God justifies a sinner because of the natural fitness of union with Christ (brought about by faith) and justification.’”[28] This is due in part to an ontological change by the infusion of the Holy Spirit upon conversion as the believer is now “in Christ.” They are no longer ontologically a sinner but are declared righteous and have a “natural fitness” or “disposition” to act Christ-like. Cho summarizes Edwards’ view that “Faith emancipates the individual from a state of separated from God, and unites a saint with Christ in justification … Edwards saw faith as the instrument of receiving and uniting with Christ.”[29] To summarize, Edwards attempted to reformat the language of the confession(s) to simplify the understanding of justification by faith while producing good works as a disposition or natural fitness which is grounded in union with Christ due to the ontological change wrought by the Holy Spirit.

CRITICAL ASSESSMENT OF EDWARDS

Two questions need to be answered in assessing Jonathan Edwards’ articulation of justification and faith: (1) If Edwards was indeed confessional, why then did he stray from the language employed by the Westminster Confession of Faith? and (2) What did contemporaries of Edwards’ view say? Placing Edwards within these boundaries will help draw out the issue at hand.

            First, the idea of a “Confessional Edwards.” Edwards and his theology had a direct impact on colonial Presbyterianism. As Donald Fortson writes, “Presbyterians had great respect for Jonathan Edwards, at the same time, they recognized that Edwards’s theological progeny had produced a diluted form of Calvinism in New England.”[30] The Edwardsian Congregationalists deviated from the Westminster Confession of Faith. On paper they held to Westminster; however, in practice, they held to a loose form of subscription to the standards.

            Loose subscription to the Standards makes sense considering Edwards’s deviation from instrumentality regarding faith and his inclusion of love being included in the essence of saving faith. Turretin is helpful to this point. He writes, “The coexistence of love in him who is justified is not denied; but its coefficiency or cooperation in justification is denied.”[31] Love is a fruit, not a root of justification. The issue is that “when Edwards rejected the instrumentality of faith, it removed an important exegetical and theological guardrail that prevented faith from becoming foundational in justification” (emphasis added).[32] This foundational shift bled over into other areas of Edwards’s theology which was made manifest in the New Divinity.

            Secondly, what is the feedback from contemporaries of Edwards? Fortson reflects, “Old School historians would point back to Edwards as the father of New School ‘heresies.’”[33] This is seen manifest in Samuel Hopkins and Edwards’s grandson Timothy Dwight. The fruits of the New Divinity, sown by Edwards, would bear forth theological fruits irreconcilable with the Westminster Standards. According to Reverend Samuel J. Baird’s assessment of Edwardsianism, “Christ died – not as a legal substitute for us – a vicarious satisfaction for our sins – but as an exhibition of the love of God to sinners.”[34] The elevation of love as a priority over the instrumental cause, namely, faith – or at least in conjunction with faith – led to erroneous views on not only justification but atonement as well.

            Jonathan Edwards was not perceived favorably by Southern Presbyterianism. Sean Lucas writes, “Southern Presbyterians not only barred Edwardsian theology from their seminaries and their church councils, but they also subjected Edwards himself to thorough critique.”[35] Rev. Baird concluded that the faulty views of Edwards was entrenched due to his false philosophical principles.[36] Robert Lewis Dabney also attacked Edwards on several fronts. Dabney, unlike Edwards, had a superior and unwavering view of the Westminster Standards. Lucas summarizes, “Because the Standards were built upon the Bible alone and not upon ‘ever changing’ human philosophies, Dabney believed that the Westminster Confession was as relevant and correct in his day as it was when it was written.”[37]

CONCLUSION

Jonathan Edwards reinvigorated many Calvinistic and theological developments during his tenure at North Hampton. Many still benefit greatly from his works such as “Charity and its Fruits” and “Religious Affections,” dealing with the renewed mind, will, and affections wrought about by a changed life. Unfortunately, in an attempt to find common ground with rationalism on the heels of the Enlightenment, Edwards strays from confessional Reformed orthodoxy in his view on justification. Turretin, Witsius, and Owen rightly articulate the instrumental cause of justification as set forth in Scripture and supported by the Westminster Confession of Faith whereas Edwards takes a detour that led to the demise of the New Divinity theology. Robert Trail reminds Christians that “The plain old Protestant doctrine is that the place of faith in justification is only that of a hand or instrument, receiving the righteousness of Christ, for the sake of which alone we are justified.”[38] This doctrine requires attentiveness not novelty. Substituting faith as the instrumental cause of justification places a crack in the link of the Golden Chain of salvation. Therefore, Edwards’s Roman Catholic-esque spin on justification warrants rejection.

---

[1] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 1 & 2, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles, vol. 1, The Library of Christian Classics (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2011), 726.

[2] Richard Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2017), 174. Muller explains “Justification is accomplished by grace in an actus forensis on the basis of faith.” Reformers have also used the idea of the “instrumental cause” with reference to the means by which something has taken place.

[3] Jonathan Edwards, The “Blank Bible”: Part 1 & 2, ed. Stephen J. Stein and Harry S. Stout, vol. 24, The Works of Jonathn Edwards (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2006), 1173.

[4] Jonathan Edwards, The “Miscellanies”: (Entry Nos. 501-832), ed. Ava Chamberlain and Harry S. Stout, vol. 18, The Works of Jonathn Edwards (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2000), 532.

[5] Joel R. Beeke, Puritan Reformed Theology: Historical, Experiential, and Practical Studies for the Whole of Life (Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books, 2020), 218. Some scholars argue that Edwards was confessional in his theological developments. Douglas Sweeney makes this case twice. Jeffrey A. Stivason also writes, “both Edwards and Owen had ingeniously and tirelessly represented this new form of Calvinism that had been codified in the creeds of the Church, Specifically the Westminster Confession of Faith” (49) in Jeffrey A. Stivason, “McLeod Campbell, Edwards and Atonement,” The Confessional Presbyterian 10 (2014).

[6] Cf. WCF 11.2, verbatim. WLC Q. 73 also emphasizes the point that faith “is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness.”

[7] Robert Shaw, An Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith (Ross-shire, Great Britain: Christian Focus Publications, 1992), 132. Later theological developments along the similar vein of Roman Catholicism includes Arminianism and Socinianism. As John Fesko writes regarding Jacobus Arminius’ position, “justification occurs on the basis of faith and not by or through faith. For Arminius, faith is not purely instrumental” (219) in J. V. Fesko, The Theology of the Westminster Standards: Historical Context and Theological Insights (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2014).

[8]  R. C. Sproul, Truths We Confess: A Systematic Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith, Revised Edition. (Orlando, FL: Reformation Trust, 2019). Sproul provides a brief overview of the Aristotelian categories of causation from pp. 267-268.

[9] There are no substantive differences between WCF and the Savoy Declaration in terms of their language regarding justification, adoption, sanctification, and good works, hence, the interchangeable use of them.

[10] Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison, trans. George Musgrave Giger, vol. 2 (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1992), 670.

[11] Ibid., 2:674.

[12] Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man: Comprehending a Complete Body of Divinity, trans. William Crookshank, vol. 1 (London, England: T. Tegg & Son, 1837), 372.

[13] Stephen Myers mentions that Owen “openly engages with the Roman Catholic doctrine that justification is founded upon an inherent righteousness infused into believers. Just beneath this anti-Rome polemic, however, Owen also is engaging with both Arminian thought and Baxter’s Neonomian system” (72-73), see Stephen G Myers, “God, Owen, and Justification: Role of God’s Nature in John Owen’s Doctrine of Justification,” Puritan Reformed Journal 8, no. 2 (July 2016): 70–85. Owen, perhaps, dealt with a robustly polemic counter against the prevailing anti-Reformed doctrinal formulations in the post-Reformation era.

[14] John Owen, The Works of John Owen, ed. William H. Goold, vol. 5 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, n.d.), 108.

[15] Ibid., 5:110.

[16] Ibid., 5:73.

[17] Ibid., 5:71.

[18] Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man: Comprehending a Complete Body of Divinity, 1:375–376.

[19] Douglas A. Sweeney, Edwards the Exegete: Biblical Interpretation and Anglo-Protestant Culture on the Edge of the Enlightenment (New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2016), 203.

[20] Ibid., 212–218. Space does not allow for an in-depth look at the pastoral issues Edwards faced in Northampton. Essentially, the spiritual revivals that took place were stirred by emotionalism, although many have attributed legitimate conversions occurring during this point. Unfortunately, as a pastor, Edwards did not see come of the true manifestations of the fruits of the Spirit in the lives of his congregants and therefore harped upon the critical nature of good works upon conversion. For more on this topic see George M Marsden, A Short Life on Jonathan Edwards (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008), specifically pp. 27-59. Shortly following his encounter with itinerant preachers, Edwards preached his well-known sermon series “Charity and its Fruits.” Marsden summarizes, “True love or ‘charity,’ he affirmed, was the best evidence of genuine conversion and the opposite of envy, quarreling, and censoriousness that had reemerged in the town” (57).

[21] Jonathan Edwards, Sermons and Discourses, 1734-1738, ed. M. X. Lesser and Harry S. Stout, vol. 19, The Works of Jonathn Edwards (New Haven; London: Yale University Press, 2001), 150.

[22] Ibid., 19:152. Edwards defines condition as “anything that may have the place of a condition in a conditional proposition, and as such is truly connected with the consequent, especially if the proposition holds both in the affirmative and negative, as the condition is either affirmed or denied; if it be that with which, or which being supposed, a thing shall be, and without which, or it being denied, a thing shall not be, we in such a case call it a condition of that thing.”

[23] Ibid.

[24] Ibid., 19:153.

[25] Michael McClenahan, Jonathan Edwards and Justification By Faith (Farnham, Surrey, England ; Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing Limited, 2012), 113.

[26] Gerald R. McDermott, “Jonathan Edwards on Justification by Faith – More Protestant or Catholic?,” Pro Ecclesia 17, no. 1 (n.d.): 103. It is challenging to take McDermott’s arguments seriously considering his very high view of Edwards writ large. Later he speaks or Edwards as “the greatest Reformed theologian between Calvin and Barth, systematically integrates justification and sanctification, faith and works, election and perseverance, forensic righteousness and mystical participation” (111).

[27] Mark S Hamilton, “Jonathan Edwards on the Atonement,” International Journal of Systematic Theology 15, no. 4 (October 2013): 415.

[28] Hyun-Jin Cho, Jonathan Edwards on Justification: Reformed Development of the Doctrine in Eighteenth-Century New England (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2012), 102.

[29] Ibid., 95.

[30] S. Donald Fortson III, The Presbyterian Creed: A Confessional Tradition in America, 1729-1870, Studies in Christian History and Thought (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2008), 49.

[31] Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 2:677.

[32] J. V Fesko, “The Ground of Religion,” in The Doctrine on Which the Church Stands or Falls: Justification in Biblical, Theological, Historical, and Pastoral Perspective, ed. Matthew Barrett (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2019), 730.

[33] Fortson III, The Presbyterian Creed: A Confessional Tradition in America, 1729-1870, 45.

[34] Samuel J Baird, “Edwards and the Theology of New England,” The Southern Presbyterian Review 10 (1858): 590.

[35] D. G. Hart, Sean Michael Lucas, and Stephen J. Nichols, eds., The Legacy of Jonathan Edwards: American Religion and the Evangelical Tradition (Presented at the Reformed Bible Conference, Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2003), 203.

[36] Baird, “Edwards and the Theology of New England,” 574–92.

[37] Hart, Lucas, and Nichols, The Legacy of Jonathan Edwards, 213.

[38] Robert Traill, Justification Vindicated, Puritan Paperbacks (Carlisle, PA: Banner of Truth Trust, 2002), 15.