A friend of mine claims that Jonathan Edwards was the Jack Van Impe of his day. He claimed that the majority of the works that we read by Edwards was pre-"prophecy Jack Van Impe-style", but wanted to fight the Catholics and stuff like that later in his life.

Has anyone heard or read anything suggesting this?

Thanks,
openairboy

I'll talk to DH and have him get back at ya on this one. We have a friend at Covenant Seminary that might know this one.

(off subject) Is Providence the in city church plant that Twin Oaks has going?

__________________
JC - PCA - PA...homesick for SC
A we n' de Ya, ho; I mak sikker; Deus juvat

Indicabo tibi o homo quid sit bonum, et quid Dominus requirat a te: Utique facere iudicium, et diligere, misericordiam, et sollicitum ambulare cum Deo tuo. Michaeas 6:8

"Who says you can't go back, been all around the world and as a matter of fact. There's only one place left I want to go, who says you can't go home" Bon Jovi

Ask him what he has specifically read. Jack Van Impe is a nut crazed Hyper Dipensationalist who keeps updating his outdated updates. Edwards wasn't like that. Ask him if he ever read 'Sinners in the hands' or 'Freedom of the will', or 'Discourses of the Savior' etc. He did do some writing on the Apocolypse during his early years.

[Edited on 1-6-2005 by puritancovenanter]

__________________

Norseman Moderator

R. Martin Snyder
1689er
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

Click to get:Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

__________________
Adam - Pennsylvania - Baptist

http://www.myspace.com/aleavelle

http://www.facebook.com/home.php?#/p...5655012&ref=nf

For clarity: not in the strictly dispy sense, but in the running to the "newspaper" sort of sense. I think this makes some sense considering he was an historicist and, to my knowledge, saw the millennium on the horizon, but acted like there were some less known sources from later in Edwards' life suggesting an highly apocolyptic outlook.

He would acknowledge those Edwards' works, but see it as being early in his life, which he claims most are familiar with.

One of the kickers is that he is repeating this stuff second hand, so he can't specifically point me to sources.

openairboy

Can't believe I used to watch this guy when I first married...waiting up for dh to get off of work.

Occasionally dh tries to turn it on to be funny...full well knowing that I WILL throw something!

Colleen, I used to not only watch him, but take notes!

Both Edwards and Van Impe have memorized a lot of Scripture. But only Edwards seems to understand it.

__________________
Ranger
SBC, but personally confess the 1689 LBCF
Yunnan, China

"If we regularly beheld the glory of Christ, our Christian walk with God would become more sweet and pleasant, our spiritual light and strength would grow daily stronger and our lives would more gloriously represent the glory of Christ. Death would be most welcome to us." - John Owen

Stop, you're killing me!

Roxella is quite the astute co-anchor though!:P

__________________
Sean Jones
Covenant Presbyterian Church OPC
Fort Worth Texas

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who does not need to be ashamed and who correctly handles the Word of Truth.
2Timothy 2:15

At least I was only cross-stitching! Had them on for noise...and between him and Roxella, they could sure make alot of it!

Can you imagine an episode of JVI with Edwards on it? I doubt he would make it through the entire thirty minutes without either exploding or just leaving.

Well, that note taking is what made me realize how silly he was being. I remained Premill, but when I looked up all those verses he quoted I was like "How does he come to that conclusion?"

I knew JVI was a little "out there" before I left dispensationalism.

Hmmm...Jack Van Impe...Jonathan Edwards...hmmm...which one to read....hmmm...let's see some guy on TV with a funny hairdo or the greatest American theologian EVER!! Hmmm...I'm so confused...I don't know who to choose.....

NOT!!!!!!!!

__________________
Ivan R. Schoen, B.A., M.A., M.L.I.S.
Pastor of Maranatha Baptist Church (SBC)
Poplar Grove, IL, USA
http://maranatha-sbc.org

Anyone have anything on the original question? I believe Jack is confused, but I don't think he is a charlatan like the TBN folk.

P.S. Flynt, who is DH?

DH is online lingo for darling husband
dc is dear children
dd dear daughter
ds dear son
mil and fil and sil and bil mother in law, father in law, and so on and so forth

My dh is seen on here as "street preacher"

My impression of Jack Van Impe:
**Seth Clears His Throat**

Jack: In today's news, we see that another bus was bombed in Israel, Daniel 14:23. Also, the UN today approved sanctions against Sudan, Jeremaiah 19:3.

Roxella: Well, Jack, that certainly is interesting.

Jack: The Dow closed up 15 points, Revelation 7:3.

Roxella: Amen.

------

Anyway, me and a couple of friends used to watch this show just for the pure comedic value. Have you ever tried to look up the verses he gives as "proof" texts? THEY HAVE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT, EVER!

That, too me, was the funniest part. I mean, I could have my own TV show where I read the paper and randomly threw out Scripture references, too, I suppose.

"Hmm, the Kings beat the Lakers today, John 9:16."

__________________
Seth Stark
Member, Communion Presbyterian Church (ARP), Irvine, CA
Biola University, Graduate Student, M.A. - Science and Religion
Seth's Blog

ROFLOL!!!!!!!!!

Oh, and to address the original question, has this friend of yours ever read Edwards? Comparing him to Van Impe is like comparing apples and really, really bad, rotten apples.

Edwards based his interpretations of prophecy on Scripture, not the "newspapers" of his day. Your friend needs to either provide specific examples of places he believes Edwards was acting like Van Impe, or he needs to stop making outlandish accusations like this. It's slanderous to a godly man (and I don't mean Van Impe).

Sorry Scott I can't Resist.

Seriously Keith,

I believe Edwards was taken by the Apocolypse early but Pastoral duties pulled him to the mature writings most of us appreciate him for.

When I see DH I think of one thing. The hated designated hitter rule.

The designated hitter is for wimps.

Boy this sure has a lot to do with Jonathon Edwards being an ancient JVI.

What is the designated hitter?

[Edited on 1-7-2005 by puritancovenanter]

I think every young man that gets interested in the Lord and even the curious is attracted to the apocolypse.

The DH is the designated hitter. Do you know what a designated drive is? It is sort of like that, but in baseball. A designated driver is the person who is set apart to drive, because other individuals are unable. The designated hitter is set apart to hit for those that are unable.

It's a baseball rule in the American League that allows you to substitute a field player for a player off the bench when it is the field player's turn to bat. A team usually sits their pitcher, because he is the worst hitter, and has some high percentage batter come off the bench to hit for him. Like a pitch hitter, but bats every time.

Wow. That is the most unclarifying way to explain the dh, but I know of no other way. I hope that helps.

openairboy

Does anybody want a real answer to the question? (We're studying this right now: Puritan eschatology.) I won't contribute if there's no serious interest...

Robin

__________________
Robin
Christ Reformed Church, Anaheim, CA
Laity, under the care of Pastor, Kim Riddlebarger
Heidelberg, Ursinus, Belgic Confessions; Canons of Dordt
Revelation 14:2

There is serious interest...but we just all HAD to have SOME fun with this one...the idea...the comparison...

Go ahead...It'll help the discussion side of things...

Thanks Colleen! (Gurlfriend!)

First off, I enjoy watching the blasphemous teachers I was once enthralled with, once upon a time --- hooboy - God is so merciful!

These days, we're studying the Antichrist - through the Redemptive Historical/Reformed grid...and it is fascinating.

Yes...Edwards was into date setting and all sorts of endtimes speculation. The Jack VI reference is not so funny when we also note that the Apostles were trying to do the SAME thing in Acts 1. (!) The Apostles were dispensationalists!! But....

Jesus yells at them for this....He apparently had a different agenda for them - to focus on the Gospel.

Now about Edwards, et al. These guys were hugely impacted by current events - the Papacy ran the world power system: Spanish Armada; English civil war raged; gold from the New World fueled Spain -- all of it governed by the Pope. The English queen was Spanish -- and 100's of thousands of Reformed Christians were killed by the Roman Catholic church. (Forgive this cryptic/brief history.) But the point is --- how could any literate Christian NOT correlate such scary times with what they read in Revelation? IF, they only thought Revelation - as literature, was only prophecy?

Anybody hearing this? Again - what IF Revelation is a different kind of literature than what most folks think -- that's going to change what it means.

Gotta go for now -- but if anyone wants to know more....I'll do another post.

Robin

I would think that a traditional Historicist interpretation (do we have any of those guys on this board, btw?) would require almost a newspaper theology type of understanding since history is constantly changing, and therefore must our understandings of the apocalypse.

First, I would question whether they interpreted it solely as prophecy in this manner. I don't have anywhere to look it up atm, but I would have to assume that the various interpretive methods of the book showed up throughout puritan eschatology as well.

Second, I'm in a Revelation class this week and posed a similar type of question concerning the modern persecutions/tribulations of the church, but in response to a different system. It strikes me as odd that so many people can look at the Revelation as solely Futurist whenever there are Christians in Rwanda who are currently "living through" the images in Revelation.

Talk about a brain fade. I know what that is. I just didn't put two an two together in the context of what we were talking about. That won't be the last time I get lost like that.

Robin ,
I would like to be told more about what you are saying. My question would be how much of his career did he spend on this? Was it a major theme in your evaluation or just a side item that came along side and shaped theological studies?

[Edited on 1-7-2005 by puritancovenanter]

You're on to something, Kyle.

One thing we miss - Jesus chastises the Apostles for sinning - by being more focused on "what is in it for them" when they ask Him about restoring the Kingdom. There's more to this of course....

There is a reason we are here at this point in Redemptive History -- with a closed Canon in hand. We have an OT/NT for a reason -- a progressive revelation of what God has done and is doing in history. We are bidden to deliver a Message - to preserve it, diligently - to watch but not be idle.

The book of Revelation - is a revelation of Christ -- but it is NOT merely a futurist view - Revelation looks back upon the entire Bible. There are at least 400 OT verses quoted in it.

It is full of references to Jewish idioms and the current Israelite nation and has been clinically removed from much of its original context. I don´t doubt that there are references to Jerusalem and the Israelite nation within the text but it´s only as we understand the reference in the context of the life and times of the first century in Asia Minor that we can possibly interpret it correctly (and that, of course, only through the revelation and illumination of the Holy Spirit!).

I think it certain, then, that the key to our understanding of what the seven letters meant to the individual churches must be settled by recourse to the events that were taking place within the respective fellowships and cities that they were addressed to. And, simply because we cannot possibly know the intricate details, neither can we speak with any great certainty on numerous passages unless historical pointers can be found from that time.

While this is impossible to determine in a great many places - there are some pointers from the archaeological and historical sources that seem to bear directly on the Book´s interpretation, especially when the seven personal letters to the churches are considered. But, as the reader makes his way through the text, the lack of a solid basis for interpretation may be opposed but the variety of interpretations which are offered by commentators shows that, if such a thing really did exist, it seems to have been totally ignored.

The bottom line is this - if we want to know what the Book of Revelation means, we have to be prepared to know what it meant to the people to whom it was written. The prophet Daniel was told (Dan 8:26) that he was to

"˜...seal up the vision, for it pertains to many days hence´

but John, differently, was commanded (Rev 22:10 - I will speak briefly about the expected imminency of the fulfilment of the prophecy when I deal with chapter 1).

"˜Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is near´

In other words, though the meaning of the prophetic visions that were given to Daniel were expected to remain concealed, those given to John were expected to be understood. It´s not right that we should find trouble in our understanding of Revelation and so consign the meaning to something which was to remain hidden until the days in which we now live.

Rather, it was to be understandable to the people to whom it was sent and, to be honest, our various interpretations of the text in the present day are almost certain pointers to the probability that it remains closed to us.

However, in the last century, scholars like G. Vos; Mendenhall; M. Kline, GK Beale picked-up on the eschatalogical nature in all of Scripture (Gen.-Rev.) - the KEY being: view eschatology and the entire Bible from a Covenantal stance. Forgetting the meanings of the Covenants will always put a wrong spin on understanding prophecy. EX. The Dispy interpretation of Daniel 9 mistakes Jesus for the Antichrist! Fortunately, some of these scholar's students are now taking time to communicate to the field. Kim Riddlebarger is one, for example.

Again, the KEY is connecting eschatology with the Covenants - progressively - keeping the order of Genesis - Revelation - considering Covenantal History.

Robin

I just noticed your question, Randy. I'll get to it tomorrow. I want to check for the other Puritans involved as well. For now, I can say it was never a "side" issue for any of them. One reason they became "Puritans" was part of their reaction to the Church's position at the time. Eschatology drives theology - just like a world view drives behavior - self-conscious or no - it IS there. The same for us.

To someone saying "I don't have an eschatological stance" I say they DO -- whether they recognize it or not. And it does affect their theological place. As for the Puritans, not everyone wrote about it. Some were much more bugged than others.

Again - eschatology drives theology - they are connected and all part of person's world view.

Robin