7

The point Edwards makes here is that since God accomplishes his purposes in all things, even evil things, he cannot be said to be carried away by emotions and thus experience involuntary ecstasy or distress. But Edwards clearly admits that God can feel pleasure – the crucial point being that God, not the creature, is its ultimate source: Though he has real ...


5

Some do, some don't. Dividing lines aren't completely cut-and-dry, but it is a controversial question among reformed folk. Generally, you'll find "yeses" among cage-stage Calvinists, and also among more confessional Presbyterians, such as those in the ARP or RPCNA, thought it's probably a minority view even in those churches. You'll find more "nos" in ...


3

A refutation of Dr. Whitby's: Discourses on the 5 Points (1710). Calvinist/Arminian Debate: "Dr. Whitby asserts freedom, not only from coaction, but Necessity, to be essential to any thing deserving the name of sin, and to an action being culpable; in these words, (Discourse on Five Points, edit. 3. p. 348.) “If they be thus necessitated, then neither ...


1

The themes are actually handled no different by Edwards or Reformed Theologians then they are by other Christian denominantions. Theologians generally do not mean that God has no feelings when saying that he is 'unchanging in his perfect boundless joy'. From the standpoint of impassibility, Edwards is not opposing the same concept detailed by Thomas Aquinas (...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible