Skip to content

podcast 54 – John Edwards vs. John Locke’s Reasonableness of Christianity

Yosemite SamJohn Edwards (1637-1726) was an Anglican Calvinist and would-be defender of Christian orthodoxy. Seemingly at the last minute, he tacked on to his Some Thoughts Concerning the Several Causes and Occasions of Atheism (1695) a critique of Locke’s Reasonableness. Guns blazing, he charged Locke (among other things) with promoting “Socinianism” (aka “Racovian” theology, i.e. the type of unitarian theology famously expounded by the Polish Brethren, aka the Minor Reformed Church of Poland in the 17th c.), with despising the epistles of the New Testament, and so promoting biblical ignorance, perhaps, speculated Edwards, in service to Roman Catholicism! After a somewhat unsatisfying reply by Locke, Edwards followed with Socinianism Unmask’d (1696), in which he objects that if Locke is right, every Muslim is automatically a Christian – which, of course, is absurd.

In this episode, we hear from Edwards’s books, and I point out some shortcomings of Edwards’s arguments. He can’t seem to stop himself from arguing ad hominem – against the man, criticizing Locke’s character – rather than sticking to the topic of dispute. And Edwards assumes that because Locke doesn’t mention all the things Edwards would put into a summary of Christian belief, then Locke either denies or simply doesn’t value them.

In truth, probably Locke did deny some, and consider others as speculations, while believing others as firmly as Edwards. But what’s important is that Edwards is missing the point. Of course, Locke agrees that Christians must believe whatever is divinely revealed (and he’s far more concerned than Edwards about Christian disputes about the contents of revelation).But Locke is not listing what Christians should believe, but rather, what one must believe (or as I suggested in episode 53, must confess) in order to join the club. This latter list should be a lot shorter than the former list, lest there be a high barrier to entry into God’s kingdom; it would be unwise for God to want to save many, and then to require beliefs which only a few are capable of. This is one of Locke’s main points (and he thinks God has acted exceedingly wisely), but Edwards doesn’t grapple with it.

You can also listen to this episode (and all others) on youtube (scroll down), stitcher, or itunes (please rate us there).  If you would like to upload audio feedback for possible inclusion in a future episode of this podcast, put the audio file here.

Next week, in episode 55, we’ll hear some of Locke’s A Second Vindication of the Reasonableness of Christianity, & etc., where Locke calls out some shortcomings of Edwards’s case, and makes some important points the ethics of belief, and about disagreements between informed, sincere, humble, and biblically literate Christians. We’ll also discuss some shortcomings of Locke’s responses.

Links for this episode:

2 thoughts on “podcast 54 – John Edwards vs. John Locke’s Reasonableness of Christianity”

  1. Edwards comes across as an eloquent but ignorant bigot. He spends his time criticizing the person and motives of Locke rather than searching the Scriptures for enlightenment on the points at issue.
    In many ways he fore-shadows the kind of narrow bigotry we now often see asserting the Trinity doctrine on many internet forums.

  2. “After a somewhat unsatisfying reply by Locke, Edwards followed with Socinianism Unmask’d (1696), in which he objects that if Locke is right, every Muslim is automatically a Christian – which, of course, is absurd.”

    Yes, and sadly, when the “Jesus is God” becomes the main focus, people lose focus of what is actually stated. If they do concede to it, it seems as though they do so secondarily or as a “yeah, that’s ok too I guess” point of view.

    As such, the BIG THING that divides us from Muslims is apparently whether or not Jesus is God. Ask the Muslims how they feel about Jesus being given authority over every nation and every believer from those nations, including Muhammad. They, at that time, would rather fit Psalm 2:2,3 than a Christian. Jesus speaks the same way in Luke 19:27 about the rebellious being slaughtered.

    Certainly, Jesus being “the Son of God” and “Lord” and ruling the nations is contrary to their understanding, seeing as how they do not find these things in the Bible, where they should, but instead believe that the Apostles, and even Jesus, just kind of pull them out of thin air by “Revelation” that isn’t spoken about.

    Such ideas split similar meanings with different words into different meanings, such as is the case in these terms:
    – Born from above / Created anew / born of God / from heaven (John 3) / from above
    – Son of God / Messiah / Son of Man / Lord / firstborn / heir / ruler / prince
    – only-begotten / beloved
    The list goes on…

Comments are closed.