I argue in my chapter that Edwards moves God’s declarative speech act to the effectual call, in keeping with Reformed High Orthodoxy.

Yes, that critique is made. Usually people don’t go so far as to call it unreformed, but a move away from what they see as the central tenant of Reformed theology (or, more narrowly, soteriology). Horton, for instance, thinks that a truly Reformed soteriology has Gods declarative speech act as its fountain. I argue in this chapter that Edwards does not lose this impulse, but, with the bulk of Reformed High Orthodoxy, move it over to the effectual call.

i’m a little late to the party here, but i’m just wondering if the legitimacy of Edward’s ‘reformedness’ is questioned because of his privileging of participation and union to justification so that, as you say, justification has its ground in participation and union rather than the other way round. In other words, i’m wondering if there are some who see that move as ‘unreformed’.

If that is the critiique, what is the defense of that ordering as a legitimate reformed position?

Geordie

Thank you. And I understand your point about the Holy Spirit in High Calvinist orthodoxy, indeed. I need to spend more time with Edwards, and you are motivating me to do so; thanks, again, Kyle.

In my analysis, I would say that Edwards basically follows Calvin here by focusing all of his attention on union and participation. The focal point of his soteriology is always Christ and the Spirit. He couldn’t really have used the lanugage of “double grace” as Calvin did, but he would have made the same kinds of moves. Ultimately, for Edwards, justification and sanctification are words that call out participation in Christ’s life (and therefore participation in Christ’s justification and Christ’s sanctification), as well as a particular kind of emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit that was standard fare for the high orthodox period of Reformed theology.

How would you say that Edwards’ theology correlates with Calvin’s ‘double grace’ and union with Christ theology (if)? From what you have said above, it sounds as if Edwards and Calvin are at least conversation partners. Did Edwards read Calvin at all?