Talk:Jonathan Edwards

better
Much better placement of images. Thanks KHM03. Mkmcconn (Talk) 15:52, 15 July 2005 (UTC) imaweiner

"... born after his time."
It's not our job to assert that; saying that he was born after his time asserts a non-neutral point of view, and that is forbidden by Wikipedia policy. Is there a better way to say this? --Idont Havaname (Talk) 21:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

How about saying that attempted to reinterpret and revivify the New England Puritan theology of the seventeenth century?


 * I wouldn't say he was reinterpreting the theology. Puritanism was still very strong in the New England area, and the Great Awakening lead to a spread of the more "conservative" (as opposed to the other Protestant denominations of the area [Presbyterians, etc.]).  Tristangreer 15:44, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Permanent Link for Wikipedia research project
Hello, editors of ! I am currently working on an essay on Wikipedia, part of which will feature a comparison of articles of Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Brittanica. To ensure that I send reviewers articles that have not been recently vandimaweineralized or have not been involved in an edit war, I would like, by December 31st, a revision of this article to be listed at User:Chrisisme/Research-permalinks that is not vandalized and/or is generally at peak quality. Thank you! Chrisisme 20:03, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Dates must be wrong
I presume that the first name heading this page must be the preacher and theologian of eighteenth century America, the Great Awakening (or Great Revivalist) preacher ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Chauncy
I may need someone to enlighten me here. I find abundant references that Chauncy wrote the "old light" classic Seasonable Thoughts on the State of Religion in New England in 1743 (I've read it too), but I am unable to find any non-Wikipedia reference to The Late Religious Commotions in New England Considered,published in 1743. Are these the same work under different titles. Or may it be that the latter is a sermon title mistakenly attributed as a title of the book?Will3935 09:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I am going to change the name of the work. At the very least, Seasonable Thoughts was indeed published in 1743 and addressed revival enthusiasm. If the other title is valid someone else can add it.Will3935 08:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Did not change the name after all. I must be ignorant (would appreciate a link to this work as it must be in the public domain). I simply added Chauncy's Seasonable Thoughts.Will3935 08:44, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Two More Things
First, some of the wording and punctuation seem quite old in style. I haven't done an extensive comparison between the exact wording in the article and that found in Serono Dwight's biography of Edwards but the style seems reminiscent. English has changed considerably since Dwight's time and thus the old style seems antiquated and the wording at times does not follow modern conventions regarding punctuation. Most obvious is the way the semicolon is used at times.

Second, if no one objects I will remove the page limitations found in the "further reading" section. These are not citations so they don't require the specific limitations. One would hope readers will take in the works as a whole. Also, I am putting in a reference to Gerald McDermott's book which I believe is a good commentary on Edwards' approach to religious affections.Will3935 13:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Never mind the page limitations issue. Someone put them in the citation format even though they are not citations. I'm too lazy to change the whole thing and will thus not add McDermott's book.Will3935 13:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Questionable Introduction
The introduction of the entire article has a questionable assertion. The sentence reads, "His fire-and-brimstone sermons, such as 'Sinners in the hands of an angry God,' emphasized the unworthiness of man in God's eyes, and the swooning and other behaviors in his audience caught him up in a controversy over 'bodily effects' of the Holy Spirit's presence." It seems both out of place in the introduction and also inaccurate. Readers of Jonathan Edwards tend to see "Sinners In the Hands of an Angry God" as a sort of anomaly. Surely, he could be called a "fire-and-brimstone" preacher in the context of such a sermon, but it's a large leap to characterize him as exclusively such in the introduction of this article, because his other sermons are not all thematically similar to this most famous one, as the sentence immediately before states. Also, the reference to controversy over the Holy Spirit does not belong in the introduction of this article.

A possible change, instead of the line quoted above: "Among his most famous sermons is 'Sinner in the Hands of an Angry God,' which emphasized the unworthiness of man in God's eyes."

Piponline 21:28, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Needs a lot of work
This article has a lot of potential, but that's also a way to say it needs a lot of work. I would like to see a section on Edwards' theology, which would sum up his core teachings, such as God's infinite regard for Himself (see The End for Which God Created the World). Maybe if I get the time I will begin working on it myself. I confess I have not read this article in its entirety, but I think that a lot of readers who only want to discover the main thrust of his teaching (and not so much the story of his life) would benefit from a theology section.

Furthermore, I would like to see the second paragraph under the "Legacy" section grow into a section titled "Continuing Influence", as Edwards is enjoying a resurgence among youth today, due largely in part to the work of Desiring God. The second paragraph under the "Legacy" section begins quite awkwardly and I don't know what to do with it yet. It says that Edwards' writings influence people to this day, but then moves on to talk about pre-WWII influence. I thought we were talking about "this day"?

--Wikitonic 04:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Joseph Hawkley
It greatly troubles me that there is no mention of Joseph Hawkley in this article, which was obviously a huge controversy of his life that deserved to be mentioned...Why is this not in here? It is 100% relevant to his life and his ministry and was important to his dismissal in Northampton. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.190.255 (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion explaining why J.Edwards the theologian and J.Edwards the athlete belong at the top of this disambiguaton page
We had a discussion of the relative prominence or importance of the JEs listed on this page. See the consensus here. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 02:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Though I don't actually consider the "consensus" supposedly reached here to actually rise to the level usually needed on Wikipedia to be called consensus (at least not on the pages I visit), and though I don't agree with the conclusion of the "consensus", I do recognize that it constitutes a significant precedent worked out by other editors, and I've not attempted to fight the current state of the page, regardless of my own personal feelings.


 * But I must take issue with User:Flex's removal of the discussion that I placed here earlier. Regardless of where that discussion took place, it is absolutely undeniable that this discussion has at least as much to do with this page, if not more, than the page at which it originally took place.  Reading this discussion is completely necessary in order to understand why this page is organized the way it is, and it belongs here.  I will not accept its removal and replacement with a mere link, and if it is removed again I will seek administrative intervention.  Regardless of the technical argument that it belongs elsewhere, I think the spirit of WP:IAR applies here, and this discussion must not be moved. 74.234.39.218 (talk) 04:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The discussion appears under Jonathan Edwards (theologian) because that article was named Jonathan Edwards (no parenthetical) when the discussion took place. When the discussion reached resolution, we took appropriate actions in renaming pages. There is no WP policy dealing with this, AFAIK. I agree with you that giving context here is helpful (though not entirely necessary), but there is no need to duplicate the (long) discussion here, which serves mainly to crowd this talk page and lacks the edit history of the original. Anyone interested in this discussion has a link and is only a click away from it. I have removed the discussion again for these reasons. If there is a consensus that it is better to have partial redundancy (lacking edit history), I will cheerfully submit to it. You may seek admin intervention if you wish (note that I don't think your incivility and lack of good faith in this matter will help your case, as those are not rules you may ignore), but you'll likely need to go through at least WP:3O first. --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 13:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Because I assume good faith, I won't presume that you're trying to cover something up by deleting the aforementioned discussion from this page. But that discussion is more relevant here than where you have it.  I am not proposing removing it from where it is, but you have presented no convincing reason for it to not be placed here as well.  As you said, there is no policy on such matters, and in the interest of keeping everyone informed, it makes 100% sense for it to be here.  But even if you disagree with the utility of locating it here, there is no harm in presenting it here (other than your statement that it "serves mainly to crowd this talk page".  Omigod, that is one of the lamest things I have ever read on a talk page.  There are talk pages that would print up to dozens of pages; I hardly think that one discussion—which I remind you that YOU are making use of—is somehow going to "crowd" this talk page.  Or do extensive talk pages frighten you somehow?  I myself believe in extensive freedom of expression, and am not scared to take my lumps.  You seem like an intelligent fellow.  Of what are you afraid? I'm placing it back here.74.234.39.218 (talk) 19:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * We can leave it here, but then I will simply archive it per WP:TPG. Instead, I propose we delete the duplication (which, again, isn't a complete duplication since it doesn't include the edit history). Then the information is more accessible than if it is stuffed in the archives of this talk page. If you are strongly against this, I think we need a third opinion. (PS, if I were trying to "cover something up," I would be trying to get rid of the discussion where it originally took place, not this needless, screen space-hogging copy of it.) --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 20:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Your point on edit history, while technically appearing to possess merit, is disingenuous. Edit histories have value, but their value is of far greater significance in the article mainspace where the editor's intent is otherwise opaque.  On a talk page, the editor's intent is just as clear without an edit summary as it is with one, since he or she  is expressing their opinion outright.  I'm not saying that they are without value, merely that while I would horrified to lose the edit summary history in mainspace, it troubles me very little here.  And I never said that I thought you were trying to cover something up.  I assume good faith, amigo.  As to archiving, I tend to have no objection, unless I see that the page is being archived prematurely.  I've seen many a talk page many times the length of this one before they get archived.  I'm not sure that this one will ever need archiving.  Why do you appear to be chomping at the bit? 74.234.39.218 (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * First, this is all blown way out of proportion. Second, calling my argument disingenuous (rather than flawed or weak or whatever) does not seem like good faith to me. Third, my points remain the same: I see this duplication as an unnecessary overcrowding of this page when a simple link to the real discussion will do, and it lacks the edit history of the original, which as you say is less important but not unimportant on a talk page (such things come into play sometimes when someone is running for admin, is in a dispute, etc.). --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 02:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Since I haven't heard from you in a good while, I will go ahead and delete the unnecessary "duplication". --Fl e x (talk/contribs) 21:05, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Dates are wrong
I presume the first "Jonathan Edwards" mentioned here is the Great Revivalist preacher and theologian. He did not actually live from 1703 to 2009 - after all, did any one really believe he lived to be 2006? I think his dates were 1703 to 1758. If any one knows them off by heart, s/he could change them, but I have some reference books in my house where I could check his dates. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC) I have just looked in Chambers Compact Reference Dictionary of Religious Leaders and it did not have an entry for Jonathan Edwards. I shall have to look in my general biographical dictionary to check his dates. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Jonathan Edwards (theologian) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:00, 22 August 2016 (UTC)