And I will ask Dr. Nettles to come back up here. I have a microphone so that we can get you, for those who are streaming this at home, on recording. And actually, as you all think of questions of your own, I've got one I'm going to throw out there. So Dr. Nettles, in your first presentation, In sketching out Edwards' life, you mentioned the bad book controversy in 1744, and then you went quickly to religious affections in 46, life of David Brainerd in 47, to Edwards' dismissal in 1750. And lest I missed it, you didn't make mention of the communion controversy. So my question is, in your view, was it the bad book controversy which eventually led to Edward's dismissal because prominent families were turned against him back in 1744 so that that communion issue was just a pretext? This guy was a great student. He learned a lot. And the communion controversy. was sort of the final thing that gave them justification for getting rid of him because he had taken issue with Solomon Stoddard. He did not agree with Solomon Stoddard's view of seeing the Lord's Supper as a converting ordinance. Stoddard invited everyone in the parish to come and take the Lord's Supper because it was in the context of taking the Lord's Supper, thinking about the body and blood of Christ, that God would perform a work of grace and bring them to salvation. Edwards began to see the supper as the point at which the church should be disciplined, in which those who did not have fruit of the Spirit, who were living outside of God's commands, and who did not give any kind of a witness of actually having been converted, that they were not to be brought to the Lord's Supper, but to be sort of frightened, as it were, by exclusion from the Lord's Supper, which is much more biblical than Stoddard's view, and much more in line with the whole Puritan concept. So that was the immediate controversy, and I'm glad you brought that up. I had a note on the side. I skipped right over it. So that's one of the differences that he had with Solomon. Stoddard. He wasn't as strong a preparationist as Solomon Stoddard was, and he differed with him on this idea of communion. The thing that began to sour the people on Edwards had happened six years before. And so there were people that began to be uncomfortable with him. They thought that his pastoral style was too stilted. They thought that he did not use wisdom in the way that he dealt with people. And so there were some leaders in the community, perhaps some of them just unconverted leaders because you have a parish system, right? And so that's one of the glories of Baptist life is we believe that the church is the church. The church is composed of regenerate people. So Edwards is having to deal with a whole parish community and he's dealing with all these power struggles in civil society that spill over into the church. And he preaches against that. He preaches about all these sinners of power. And then when he did the bad book controversy and he simply listed the families that he wanted to come forward to talk about it, it seemed that he had been terribly unwise pastorally. It seemed that everyone was being blamed for this when that wasn't it at all. But that's what started it. But the communion controversy was the thing that finally sealed it. Yeah, that's a very good question. I'm glad you asked that. What was his success with the Mohawks? There were conversions. How many years did he do that? He was there for six years in Stockbridge. The question was about the Mohawks and how long was he there. Then he went to Princeton. then soon after going to Princeton. He had had enough opportunity at Princeton, actually, to devise a series of questions. He was to teach the senior class, kind of the closing class, about doctrinal things. And there's a whole list of maybe 70 questions that they were going to discuss. And I mean, it's just amazing. I wish he had been able to teach that class, and people take notes, and we had access to it. But he never got to teach it. It must have been a cultural shock to go from the Mohawk to Princeton. Yeah, to Princeton. He didn't want to do it, but the people just kept hounding him and he finally felt like it was his duty to do it. Scotland wanted him to come. He said, no, it's too far. My large and chargeable family simply can't move over there. Virginia wanted him, but he didn't know about it soon enough. And they got someone else for the position that they were trying to reach him to come and take. And so Princeton was the place that he went. Yes sir? I think in section two you were describing preparationism. Yes. And you mentioned that one of the points would be for the center to pursue salvation, I think is the way you put it. Another one was for the preacher to preach about, I think, mostly hell. Am I right about that? Yeah, except I probably gave you that impression, I know that's what I focused on, but the preacher would preach the whole counsel of God. But hell was something that was so powerfully indicative of the danger of not having salvation and of God's justice that he did give much more attention to that than probably anyone does. nowadays, but that would be a part of provoking people to pursue those things that would prepare them to receive the gospel. Okay, well my question is about the center's responsibility to pursue. So you made a point of that, and then later on you talked about regeneration. So, my question is, because those are kind of, you know, I don't want to say opposites, but if you're an extreme Calvinist, I guess you would say that where does the first one belong? But my question is how did it find its way in in Edward's sermons or was it just some sort of theory that he had? You thought it was preparation of theory? The pursuit of the sermons. Preparationism was New England orthodoxy. There was a controversy over this in the 17th century over between those who were called the immediatists that were led by a man named John Cotton And then a man named Thomas Hooker, who believed that there was a necessary kind of rhythm to sinners coming to awareness of sin, and awareness of the gospel, and awareness of the wrath of God, to come to a desire to know God, to realize that his desire could be purely selfish, and then to abandon himself just to the sovereignty of God, which would be one of the elements of saving faith, according to Hooker. So there was this controversy, and New England, they had a whole conference devoted to it, and they voted, and preparationism was Orthodoxy. That's what they said, that's the way it had to happen. And so there were about five stages that Thomas Hooker set forth. And you see this in Solomon's Stoddard, and the little quote I gave was there's some ministers who pronounce people saved before they've gotten halfway to Christ. Well, Edwards was a modified preparationist. He did believe that there was a necessity for preparation, and part of it was that the sinner had to prepare himself. If a sinner doesn't want salvation, then he'll never be saved. And he has to be convinced, intellectually, and in his soul, this is a part of perhaps even the sensibility that comes to the natural person, he has to be convinced that he is in danger, and that there is a way of salvation. And then he seeks it. He sets apart everything else to seek it. That is his obligation. He can't blame God for not saving if he doesn't seek it. But he can't even blame God for not saving if he seeks it when he seeks it with a heart that is still in rebellion. So, that's what he's saying, but nevertheless, it is the obligation of all creatures to love God. This is the law. You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength. It's rational. Who else should we love? Who else should we be submitted to than the One who created us, the One who is excellent in everything? It is our sin that has taken us away from Him and that makes Him justly hold us accountable. But the creature still must pursue God. That is his duty. And if he willfully continues not pursuing God and not loving God, what can he expect? So the only way anyone will ever really be saved is in the course of pursuit. Now, we can point to exceptions in which salvation becomes so immediately, comes upon someone, like the Apostle Paul, Macedonian. But, I think that we, as we look at Paul's testimony, and we look at his description of things throughout, we understand that there was an operation. As God, as Jesus told him, said, it is hard for you to kick against the pricks. In other words, you, There's enough goading of you to move you toward me and you are going against the external pricks and the internal pricks of conscience. But anyway, so that is what prompted him then to say, Lord, who are you? But anyway, so that's the setting of that, is this whole New England aspect of preparationism that Edwards embraced, but he embraced it with revisions. He didn't think that it had to be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, just like Hooker said. And in that work that I mentioned, where he talks about the manner of conversion various, where he talks about all the different doctrines and the ways in which people come, yet bearing a great analogy. Eventually, all those things that have to do with preparation will be present in the person's experience. Yes? So perhaps I'm missing something. It sounds an awful lot like what you're describing there, that he's a little bit Arminianism. So when the unregenerate man is dead, it is trespasses and sin. And I think he even says in his sermon that the unregenerate man tendency will not come to God. So how is it that the unregenerate man must now do something to get to God? Well, it has to do with the relationship between duty and power. There are many things that we have the duty to do that we don't have the power to do. And it is always the duty to seek God. Sometimes I think the tension between what we ought to do and what we can't do becomes something that leads people to think, well, since we ought to do it, maybe that means we have a little power to do it. And that's where Arminianism comes in. since we ought to do it. God would not give us any duties, but that we have the power to do it. And that's what Pelagius taught against Augustine. If we have a moral obligation, then God gives us the power to do it. We have the power. Augustine says we have the moral obligation, we don't have the power. So the question is, what is the relationship between freedom and determinism? are things determined in such a way that you have to have the freedom in order to be able to do them. If you don't have the freedom, then it can't be your duty. But Edwards very clearly says, no, it's our duty to obey the law, it's our duty to believe the gospel, because as Fuller says in the Gospel Worthy of All Acceptation, and he got his ideas basically from Edwards, that the gospel is worthy of all acceptation because it is a way in which we see that the law has been perfectly honored by Christ. It is His death that by which we have forgiveness. So the curse of the law came upon Him. It is His righteousness by which we have the claim to eternal life because He has perfectly obeyed the law and when His righteousness is imputed to us, then we have the merit of eternal life placed upon us. And so it is, the gospel is worthy of all acceptation. Everyone should believe it. Because that is what honors the original law written in the heart and the law written on the tablets of stone that set forth our duty that was summarized by Christ. Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul and strength and love your neighbor as yourself. Is anyone exempt from that? Is any creature exempt from that? No, no creature is exempt from it. Why don't we keep it? Because we're depraved. Is God obligated to change your sinfulness in such a way that sort of to give you the ability to do it? That's what the Arminian says. And that's what Wesleyan Arminianism says, that we are depraved, we are all creatures that have a bondage of the will, but the death of Christ universally has given us free will, has set us free. And so basically what Wesley ends up saying is that every person who is born really never experiences total depravity because the blood of Jesus Christ has already freed our wills. So that the imputation of Adam's sin and corruption from Adam does not apply to those who are born, although technically and theologically that is what he affirms. Because the pressure is such that if God requires these things of us, surely He gives us the ability to respond to them on our own. Edwards denied that absolutely. He did say, yes, we have the obligation. We should worship God. We should believe the gospel. You should give yourself to it. If you just stay in rebellion against it, then you know that you're not going to be saved. You must give yourself to it. And God, in mercy, has an elect, and He's going to save some of them, and He will do it by changing their hearts and calling them effectually so that they believe. Now in his book, am I answering too long? I'm going on and on here. In his book, Dealing with the Freedom of the Will, The point that Edwards makes there is that if we look at the world, we look at the whole ethical structure of the world, we will know that there is no final contradiction between absolute determinism and absolute freedom. It seems contradictory the way we view it, but if God is the one who determines the moral structure of the world, then we know that God cannot sin and yet he is to be praised for His immutable virtue. He is not to be seen as, oh, well, if you cannot sin, then who's to praise your virtue? And there are some people who would talk about Jesus Christ this way. If He is God and man, and He was impeccable and could not sin, then why should we praise Him? That's an easy thing for the God-man not to sin. And so they talk about that he must be just purely human. That's the way we admire him because he went to such a level of holiness on the basis of being purely human. But when Edwards argues for God being the standard or the ethical kind of the ethical texture of the world, God is absolutely determined and yet he is absolutely free. God is absolutely determined but all of his righteous actions are to be praised because he is immutably holy. And so there is no final contradiction between being absolutely determined in a certain way morally and yet still being responsible and free in it. God is the one who establishes the paradigm for what true morality is. So therefore, if we are depraved, that is a moral judgment in itself. It's not just a natural thing that God has made us without wills and without affections. No, we have wills and we have affections. The problem is they're corrupt and they're hostile to God. So that our inability is not, as Edward says, as Fuller says, it's not a natural inability. It's a moral inability, and that's the very thing for which we're judged. I can certainly rationalize it each one of us before the beginning of the earth. And because of that, some of us will have that seeking for the Lord. Because there's many people that are saying, well, I am seeking for the Lord, and I found it in Buddha, and I'm seeking to the Lord, and I found it in Muhammad, and I'm seeking for the Lord, and I found it in... But they have not found the Lord. They have found the lie. But the seeking of for the higher being is a need of the human. But the seeking for the Lord Jesus Christ, I do remember seeking for him. But I do believe that the only reason... Why did you seek for him? Well, I was seeking for... I hated Christians because I thought they were a bunch of hypocrites. Some of them are, a lot of them are. And so I wanted to but I knew that Catholicism was crazier, and so I was seeking for somebody also that would change my lifestyle, because I thought that my lifestyle was not sustainable. So how did you find out that Jesus would do that? Well, he sent a Christian to me, and I didn't believe, I was really going with the Jehovah Witnesses, but I do believe that I was seeking But he, who has just me before I was in my mother's womb, allow me to seek for him. So what is your objection? I don't really understand why you think that that position that I set forth is sort of impossible. No, no, I'm not objecting. It sounds confusing. Well, that's due to the weakness of the person explaining it. No, I actually think that you're an incredible teacher, because I have heard some incredible things all this evening, but it just, it just, I can see this seeking, but I feel like this seeking... Well, doesn't the Bible say, if with all your heart you truly seek me, you shall never surely find me? Yes. Does it say, ask and you shall find, knock and the doors shall be opened to you? Seek and you shall find, knock and the doors shall be opened to you? And that's what I do believe, that there's a natural, like you say, there's a law that says... There's a natural seeking that is still filled with selfishness and pride. There is a seeking that is infused by the Holy Spirit. in which we see our sin, we see our rebellion, we lose all our excuses, and we unite with Christ because we see Him by the Spirit's opening in our eyes. As the scripture I read beforehand, 2 Corinthians 4, the light has shone into our hearts to give us the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ. And that's what's happened. That does not happen through natural seeking. It's what we should do, but that only happens when there is a divine and supernatural light that shines in our hearts. So I think that I could totally agree with what you say. I understood you're saying there is a natural seeking and we all have that because that's the law. The law is seek me with all your heart. So there is a natural law to seek the Lord, but it only takes you to the Lord Does God blame through Jeremiah? Does God blame the Israelites for their continued course of disobedience? Does He say, I'm going to take you into captivity, I'm going to kill your infants and your women are going to eat their children and all this because you have been unfaithful to me, you have not kept my covenant. Does He tell them that through Jeremiah? And then does He say, also through Jeremiah, that you have to have the law written in your heart. that I will make a covenant with you, not like the covenant that I made with Moses when I brought the children out of Israel, but I will make a covenant with you in which I will write my law in their hearts. And you will be my people and I will be your God. That is a sovereign action. But he does not say, oh, poor people, you just couldn't do any better because I had not yet regenerated you. He expected them to keep the covenant. That was their moral obligation, and they didn't. And even though they're corrupt and depraved and under condemnation because of their connection with Adam, that does not diminish the obligation of the person made in God's image to worship Him and to love Him and to obey every covenantal requirement that God places on us. That's a part of what God talks about and what Edwards talks about in all of God's methods most reasonable where he's dealing with the covenants. It's right, God can make any kind of covenant requirements he wants to of us. Even though he knows our hearts are hard and we will disobey the covenant and make ourselves more culpable before him, it is still his prerogative to do that. But the covenant of grace in which Outside of any merit of our own, He places loving favor on us and brings us to trust in Christ and promises us heaven and eternal life. But I do believe that even though the covenant is for everybody, like you said, he didn't give them the power to go to that, to him. Except when he does. Except when he chooses you. Except when he does, yeah. He does it on the basis of a choice before the foundation of the world. Well, the thing that is confusing is the way we think. And we think this way. We think that if we have a requirement, then we have the capability. And that if we are required to seek, then it must mean that there can be some fruit from our seeking. But that's not the way it is. We should seek even though there will be no fruit from our seeking unless it is infused with divine power. But that does not diminish the necessity because our inability is moral. Our inability is our refusal. God can still require us to seek, but he does not have to recognize our carnal seeking in any favorable way. So, there is a natural seeking because of fear. You've known people who get afraid of hell and they start saying, well, what can I do to escape hell? And they will hear the gospel and they will follow all the formulas it said, but they're not doing it for anything except self-interest. Because they have not come to the point of loving God with all their heart, mind, soul and strength. Right. Yes, sir. I've definitely been encouraged to see Edwards. And it seemed like he had profound insight. I have always heard he was America's premier pastor. My question is, I've heard, even from Piper, he was asked about slavery and Edwards. During that time in the colonies, I guess, What were the main issues that he tried to help his society with? Well, he bought a slave girl named Venus. And we have the transaction, the contract of who sold. And it says, she is yours to have and to hold. They use the language of marriage, even, to have and to hold, and to protect, and do all of this. It's just, I always feel bamboozled when I'm trying to talk about this. Margaret and I were reading 1 Chronicles and we come to the place where Joab goes out and he has defeated this city. David stayed home. And then it goes on and said, but David went up and he got the crown from the king of Moab and all this. It doesn't even mention Bathsheba in 1 Chronicles. It just completely overlooks it. Of course, 1 Kings does, makes a big thing of it. So the question is, and I've been dealing with this a long time. I'm from Mississippi. And so, I understand the dynamic. And the question is, can we appreciate the things that God does through sinful people, though they're still sinful. Can we even see glaring blind spots, but realize that their vision and other things was so far beyond ours that we still can appreciate what they did without embracing the error? That's what I see in him. Yeah. And like J.P. Boyce. J.P. Boyce founded Southern Seminary. J.P. Boyce inherited slaves from his father. Of course, after the Civil War, he freed them. And he gave them tools. Those who had certain skills, he bought tools for them and all this. And so, you know, we think it's a little condescending to say, oh, but they were kind to their slaves and all that. You know, that sounds like it's just condescending. But there was genuine kindness at times. But am I to throw away J.P. Boyce because he was a man of his times living in the 19th century, and am I to throw him away Even though he founded a theological seminary, he had the best theory about what theological education should be. He gave himself to that. He expended virtually his fortune on trying to support the school. And everything I read about him and his sermons and all is, this is a godly man. But he had an issue that made him adopt the cultural pressure of a day and did not see through it morally as much as he should. As you were talking, I just answered it myself. Knowing that there's more slaves today than there were then, and look at how it's handled today by us. Yeah. It's a fallen world, and so, anyway, thank you for the question, and I appreciate your spirit in it. Were there any other things in the colonies that he had to... Were there like moral faux pas that he embraced or something? No, that he had to address. Oh yes, well I mean he addressed a lot of these things, the issues of just treatment of Native Americans. He addressed that. He thought they were being mistreated there in Stockbridge and he opposed the guy who was there who was really just trying to use that as a means to get funds from other things. He opposed that. He saw through what was happening. these power struggles there in Northampton. He knew that they were built upon certain issues of economic concentration of wealth and all that kind of thing. He wasn't a Marxist by any means because Marx hadn't even met, but he realized there must be fairness and equity as well as industry and reward for virtue and reward for work, but all of those things have to work within a fabric of honesty and respect. So he was going against sort of the causal sway of the day in that. So yeah, I think that he was influenced enough by the power of the gospel and the discernment of evil in a fallen world that where it came to his mind and was clear, he had the courage to oppose it. Can I make a couple of comments? Is that all right? That's fine with me. You've got the mic. I needed that. I wouldn't want an Arminian on the bench then, because if you have a drunk driver, he could always claim, I didn't have the ability to drive, so don't hold me liable to the road laws. I hope he doesn't free him and say, well, you couldn't obey the law of driving, so you're free. The fact of his inability doesn't negate the law. It doesn't assuage the law. But also on your point about God's immutable holiness. Since God cannot lie, does that negate the glory of his truth? No. Of course, I can't imagine anybody saying that. What I really wanna know is this though, if you did have a church like this full of great intellects, let's pretend, let me use a guy I admire, all the Douglas Moos are here, and you had to give them one message, but I want liberal Douglas Moos, not him, not D.A. Carson, but liberal types in our day. What would you want to tell them to learn from Edwards? What would I tell Douglas Moo to learn? No, no, what would you tell people that had the intellectual abilities of a Carson or a Moo, but were liberal? Okay, okay, I was thinking to say, I don't remember Doug Moo being liberal, but I'm sorry. No, no, just their intellectual acumen. Yeah, sure. Well, I would say, Reed is miscellaneous. That's where he deals with so many things that he was just, he deals with the relationship between reason and revelation. He discusses philosophy and the failure of philosophy to deal, to produce any solid answers. He talks about the critical thinking of the philosophers and destroying each other's philosophy, but they never produce any sustainable answers to the big questions. And that's all miscellaneous. Yes, it is miscellaneous. And he has some really good things on the relationship between reason and revelation. He has, and of course he was probably a presuppositionalist in his apologetic, but he's got lots of stuff about evidences. He talks about the resurrection, and he talks about all the evidences, and if this is true, if what all this says is true, and there's no way to refute that these things actually happened, then what does this mean about who Christ is? So he has this strong evidentialist deal that he does also, but for the most part, he was a presuppositionalist, as far as his dealing philosophically. All other systems fail. The only system that actually works is a God-centered, biblical worldview. Can I ask one other question? When I was reading others that commented on Edwards, I didn't know that Jonathan Edwards dealt with things like mosaic authorship and, you know, really ahead of his time. What other things was he far ahead of his time in It circles that 20th century people think they're so advanced and he was already wrestling with them. What types of things did he actually wrestle with himself? Because I was shocked that he actually wrote about Moses. Yes, did he? Because there were some critical studies going on in Europe at the time. Deism was strong and deism was challenging the credibility of the historical record of scripture. And so he is interacting with deism when he does that. But, again, like you say, it's very insightful answers. He comes up with the way of working through those kinds of objections that the deist brought. But the things we've been dealing with here, what is more compelling a problem than the problem between, as philosophically they would say it, between freedom and determinism? Or between responsibility and the necessity of grace. The binding nature of the law and the inability of a person to keep it. So those are issues he gives himself to that. And he recognizes it in the doctrine of original sin. This is one thing, all of that is involved in the doctrine of original sin. He's got this big volume on original sin. because it was prompted by those kinds of discussions that were going on. So Edward delighted in being a controversialist for the sake of giving clarity and credibility from the standpoint of human argument to the propositions of scripture. Thank you. Let's give Dr. Nettles a round of applause. Thank you very much. What a blessing. It is a tremendous blessing, isn't it, that God has given us teachers that we stand on their shoulders. And it's amazing just the influence that Dr. Nettles has had on me, and on Jackson, and on this church, and Edwards has had. You know, we get to spend time with Jonathan Edwards as a teacher, and he has taught us. If you're a Dayspringer, you may never have even read Jonathan Edwards, but he has taught you. Yeah, I know, I was trying to get out of it. So I decided to stop. If you're a Day Springer, one of the things that you have heard Jackson say over and over and over again is that sure, you have a choice and you make choices, you make real choices and you choose things, but God has to change your chooser. And that's Jackson's distillation of freedom of the will from Jonathan Edwards just using his own language. And so you've been taught by Edwards, even through Jackson, taught by and through me and now through Dr. Nettleson. So we're just very thankful for the teachers, the leaders that God has given us to listen to and to learn from. And with that theme in mind, I want to read from Hebrews chapter 13, and then close us in a word of prayer before we sing one final hymn. So Hebrews 13 verse 7 says, remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith. Let us pray. Our Heavenly Father, we thank you for our leaders who have spoken to us the word of God, for Jonathan Edwards, for Jackson Boyette, for Tom Nettles, all that you have put into our lives. And we pray, Lord, that we would be faithful to consider the outcome of their way of life and to imitate their faith. By your grace, we pray, in Jesus' name. Amen. Well, I want to invite you to take your red hymnals and turn in the red to hymn number 115. I think this will be a fitting hymn for us to close out our time today, celebrating our 45th anniversary together. 115. all creatures of our God and King. Let us sing. All creatures of our God and King Lift up your voice and with us sing Alleluia, Alleluia Thou burning sun with golden beam Thou silver moon with softer gleam O praise Him, O praise Him Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia Thou rushing when thou art so strong, Yea, clouds the sail in heaven along, O praise Him, Alleluia! Thou rising morn, in praise rejoice, Yea, lights of evening find a voice, O praise Him, O praise Him, Alleluia! Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia Flowing water, pure and clear, Make music for thy Lord to hear. Alleluia! Alleluia! Thou far so masterful and bright, That givest man both warmth and light. O praise Him! O praise Him! Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia And all ye men of tender heart, Forgiving others, take your part. O sing ye Alleluia! Yea, who long maimed and sorrow bare, Praise God on Him and cast your care. O praise Him, O praise Him, Alleluia, Alleluia, Alleluia and worship Him in humbleness. O praise Him! Alleluia! Praise, praise the Father, praise the Son, and praise the Spirit, three in one. O praise Him! O praise Him! Alleluia! Alleluia! Alleluia! And now may the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of his Holy Spirit be with you all. Amen. I do want to encourage Dayspringers to let visitors talk to Dr. Nettles. You'll see Dr. Nettles again tomorrow.