Thread: Thoughts on Timothy Dwight?

SGCB is offering his works but I'm concerned about the quote from Joel Beeke, ""Dwight's theological sermons are worthy of careful study. Their clear, scriptural guidelines and experiential warmth promote practical Christianity. Read with discernment, they will still feed the soul today and challenge us to godly living in Christ Jesus." - Joel R. Beeke"

Notice the word "discernment"? That's usually code for doctrinal issues.

Can anyone comment?

I do know much about him. Hear he is a pretty good Football player...

All I know is that he had a wonderful grandpa.

The issue with Timothy Dwight is his relationship to New Divinity theology or (Samuel) Hopkinsianism. Not being well-read on Dwight, I couldn't say too much about it, but that, I believe, is the main area of doctrinal concern.

Trivia: Timothy Dwight was the first to coin the phrase "Cape Cod House" in his Travels in New England and New York (4 vols., 1821-1822).

Okay, I read the Wikipedia reference you cited and that was enough to cause me not to buy the set. That's a real fine collection of warped doctrine. Pass.

Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot

The issue with Timothy Dwight is his relationship to New Divinity theology or (Samuel) Hopkinsianism. Not being well-read on Dwight, I couldn't say too much about it, but that, I believe, is the main area of doctrinal concern.

Trivia: Timothy Dwight was the first to coin the phrase "Cape Cod House" in his Travels in New England and New York (4 vols., 1821-1822).

Originally Posted by BuddyOfDavidClarkson

Okay, I read the Wikipedia reference you cited and that was enough to cause me not to buy the set. That's a real fine collection of warped doctrine. Pass.

I wonder, though, who wrote that Wikipedia reference. Can anyone explain to me how ANY of those points in that list have their "roots in the published and unpublished writings of Jonathan Edwards"???? The fact, too, that the header of the article claims that ND is a "modification" of Calvinism, rather than a complete, 180 degree reversal of every tenet of Calvinism is beyond me.

Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot

The issue with Timothy Dwight is his relationship to New Divinity theology or (Samuel) Hopkinsianism. Not being well-read on Dwight, I couldn't say too much about it, but that, I believe, is the main area of doctrinal concern.

Iam sorry for my ignorance, but can someone explaine me how it difference from classical calvinisme and the 5 pionts, and were it has it error's ???
Any information would be welcome ?

Timothy Dwight did not fully embrace the New Divinity movement. He did receive training from Hopkins and Jonathan Edwards the Younger but was much closer to his grandfather in his theology. He agreed with Edwards's view on Adam's imputation and his view on the will which were taken a step further by Hopkins. Basically he believed that man had full ability but lacked only the will in matters of salvation, just like his grandfather. Dwight is sound in his doctrine, nothing heretical about him. His sermons are excellent. SGCB has republished his Theology Explained and Defended. I have republished his biography by Sprague and a two volume collection of his sermons. You can check them out at the link to my Amazon storefront below.

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by BuddyOfDavidClarkson

Okay, I read the Wikipedia reference you cited and that was enough to cause me not to buy the set. That's a real fine collection of warped doctrine. Pass.

I wonder, though, who wrote that Wikipedia reference. Can anyone explain to me how ANY of those points in that list have their "roots in the published and unpublished writings of Jonathan Edwards"???? The fact, too, that the header of the article claims that ND is a "modification" of Calvinism, rather than a complete, 180 degree reversal of every tenet of Calvinism is beyond me.

I don't believe that the New Divinity taught universal atonement. I could be wrong, but I have never heard that. I'm quite certain that Hopkins and Jonathan Edwards the Younger never taught that. There view on ability is quite close to Jonathan Edwards view. He taught that man has ability, just not the will.

Hugh Oliphant Old has a section on Dwight's preaching and theology in the most recent volume of his The Reading and Preaching of the Scriptures in the Worship of the Christian Church: The Modern Age. He always does a good job of showing the influence of a minister's theology upon his preaching, and especially here how the progressive and enlightenment based emphases of "New England Calvinism" created Calvinists who preaching was "ofter, but not always, as Arminian as it could be." (p.140)

His description and analysis of Dwight's preaching may be found on pp.140-163.

Greg,

H. O. Old has quite a bit on the "New Divinity" preachers and their deviation from classic Reformed theology in that volume. You may find it something you'd enjoy picking up for an informative (and well-written) read.

I know Dwight was opposed to Arminianism just like his grandfather.

Regarding the quote from Beeke. Reformation Heritage Books sells Theology Explained and Defended and they have ordered his Life and Sermons from me, so Beeke can't think his preaching to be that unorthodox.

An aside. Dwight had connections to several members of the New York Friendly Club, a intellectual improvement group that counted Samuel Miller amongst its members. A three part series on the publishers T & J Swords which intersects with the Friendly Club as well, wraps up in the forthcoming (now running late) 4 issue of The Confessional Presbyterian journal.

Originally Posted by Mayflower

Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot

The issue with Timothy Dwight is his relationship to New Divinity theology or (Samuel) Hopkinsianism. Not being well-read on Dwight, I couldn't say too much about it, but that, I believe, is the main area of doctrinal concern.

Iam sorry for my ignorance, but can someone explaine me how it difference from classical calvinisme and the 5 pionts, and were it has it error's ???
Any information would be welcome ?

Among the points listed on that page that are starkly in contrast to Calvinism...

#1 contradicts total depravity
#2 same
#4 Romans 8:28 does NOT say that sin is overruled for good for "the universe"
#6 contradicts the Biblical view of original sin
#8 obviously contradicts total depravity
#11 seems to say that God can be completely described in his moral attributes in terms of "general graces" to the world - hogwash.
#12 and #13 are totally out there and completely incorrect.

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by Mayflower

Originally Posted by VirginiaHuguenot

The issue with Timothy Dwight is his relationship to New Divinity theology or (Samuel) Hopkinsianism. Not being well-read on Dwight, I couldn't say too much about it, but that, I believe, is the main area of doctrinal concern.

Iam sorry for my ignorance, but can someone explaine me how it difference from classical calvinisme and the 5 pionts, and were it has it error's ???
Any information would be welcome ?

Among the points listed on that page that are starkly in contrast to Calvinism...

#1 contradicts total depravity
#2 same
#4 Romans 8:28 does NOT say that sin is overruled for good for "the universe"
#6 contradicts the Biblical view of original sin
#8 obviously contradicts total depravity
#11 seems to say that God can be completely described in his moral attributes in terms of "general graces" to the world - hogwash.
#12 and #13 are totally out there and completely incorrect.

Thansk brother for the information!
So does Jonathan Edwards in his treatise on original sin also depards from the calvinistic orthodox view of total depravity ?

Originally Posted by Mayflower

Originally Posted by toddpedlar

Originally Posted by Mayflower

Iam sorry for my ignorance, but can someone explaine me how it difference from classical calvinisme and the 5 pionts, and were it has it error's ???
Any information would be welcome ?

Among the points listed on that page that are starkly in contrast to Calvinism...

#1 contradicts total depravity
#2 same
#4 Romans 8:28 does NOT say that sin is overruled for good for "the universe"
#6 contradicts the Biblical view of original sin
#8 obviously contradicts total depravity
#11 seems to say that God can be completely described in his moral attributes in terms of "general graces" to the world - hogwash.
#12 and #13 are totally out there and completely incorrect.

Thansk brother for the information!
So does Jonathan Edwards in his treatise on original sin also depards from the calvinistic orthodox view of total depravity ?

Not in my reading of it, which is why I thought the way the article connected the "New Divinity" to Edwards was highly problematic.