Jonathan Edwards caused quite a hubbub with his congregation around the year 1749 after the death of the previous pastor, his grandfather, Solomon Stoddard who was “so great and eminent a divine” in Northampton. Edwards as the new pastor felt convicted to tweak the qualifications for full membership (i.e., taking the Lord’s Supper). Stoddard had led the church to practice an open communion, believing that the unbeliever could be converted in receiving the elements as had been his conversion experience. Edwards disagreed with such an open view of communion and attempted to lead the congregation back to what he considered a more biblical reception of the elements. But seeing as his grandfather was so well respected in not only the church but also in the community, Edwards was met with staunch opposition. Who do you think you are, Jonathan, to try and change what your sagacious grandfather had taught? He would eventually be relieved of his duties.

Edwards didn’t give up without a theological fight however. In 1749 he penned An Humble Inquiry into the Rules of the Word of God, Concerning the Qualifications Requisite to a Complete Standing and Full Communion in the Visible Christian Church. This was meant as a sort of tract for his opponents to read and see if they be not swayed to his understanding. It wasn’t especially well-received. Only about ten copies sold after it had been published and printed. People complained it was too difficult to understand (Edwards? Difficult to understand? Ha!). What was meant to assuage the debate and ill-will toward the humble preacher was largely brushed to the side in favor of siding blindly with his grandfather.

In the preface to An Humble Inquiry, Edwards makes a point concerning the adoption of another’s theological views which I believe should be well-heeded because much wholesale theological adoption takes place today. For example, without a doubt one of John Piper’s main effects on evangelicalism is the resurgence of Calvinism among my generation. Books have been written on this so-called “New Calvinism” (e.g., Young, Restless, Reformed). With such a rise in popularity of a theological persuasion comes the risk of its unexamined wholesale adoption. Do you believe in a limited atonement because the scriptural evidence leads you in that direction or because it’s the view of your favorite preacher and you like everything else he has to offer? If it’s the latter, Edwards has the following words of corrective caution to offer:

“I [Edwards] ought not to look on his [Stoddard’s] principles as oracles, as though he could not miss it, as well as Nathan himself in his conjecture about building the house of God; nay, surely that I am, even to be commended, for examining his practice, and judging for myself; that it would ill become me, to do otherwise; that this would be no manifestation of humility, but rather show a baseness of spirit; that if I [be not] capable to judge for myself in these matters, I am by no means fit to open the mysteries of the gospel; that if I should believe his principles, because he advanced them, I should be guilty of making him an idol. Also he tells his and my flock, with all others, that it ill becomes them, so to indulge their ease, as to neglect examining of received principles and practices…”

Edwards in making a case for the reasonableness of differing with his grandfather over the proper recipients of the Lord’s Supper gives a word of caution that should find wider application.

John Piper is not God. His principles are not oracles. He can miss it. The budding theologian is to be commended for judging and examining a man’s theology and searching the Scriptures. Further, it’s not humble to say, “I believe in a limited atonement because that’s what Piper holds to”; it’s base, it’s stupid, Edwards says. (Of course, none would admit that they believe something simply because a favorite theologian believes or teaches it; but, trust me, that temptation is always there and it happens far too often.) The temptation exists because it’s easier to import wholesale someone’s theology whom you respect than to formulate your own based on a careful exegesis of Scripture. Edwards, however, warns against such indulgence of ease and neglect of examination. Moreover, great theologians will almost certainly be against such a wholesale adoption of their theology without prior examination..

Edwards concludes as much when he writes later in the same paragraph:

“Thus, I think, he [Stoddard] sufficiently vindicates my conduct in the present case, and warns all with whom I am concerned, not to be at all displeased with me, or to find the least fault with me, merely because I examine for myself, have a judgment of my own, and am for practicing in some particulars different from him, how positive soever he was that his judgment and practice were right.”

You would be confused if you took away from this post the idea that we needn’t bother with (eminent) theologians. Notice that in this post we are learning from Edwards, examining what he says, and finding that it makes sense. It would be backwards for me to say, “Because Edwards was the greatest theologian born on American soil, we should adopt what he has to say on such and such a subject” and not encourage the comparison of his thought with Scripture. Edwards would not want this, nor, if I may be allowed to speak for Piper, would John Piper. Guard against therefore blind acceptance of any particular minutia of theology because so-and-so believes it. That so-and-so believes it may be a good starting point, but don’t end there.

By the way, I love Piper and am very grateful to God for his introducing me to Calvinism (and Edwards!) through his sermons and books. I often here Piper bashing; that is, bashing of John Piper. I trust this post will not come across as such. It just so happens that he, however so unfortunate, immediately comes to mind as one from whom one may liberally adopt theology blindly, as has been my personal temptation. Other examples would be Paige Patterson (especially at SEBTS), Oprah (ha!), and Rob Bell.

The above quotations of An Humble Inquiry are from A Jonathan Edwards Reader (Yale University Press) page 180.