I wrote this in the combox, but I thought I’d answer my own questions by posting them here.  If you haven’t checked out the combox, please read Jonathan’s analysis which is spot on concerning Edwards’ sacramental defections from early Reformed theology, and its logical consequences seen in the second great awakening with Finney’s new measures.  

“I agree that Edwards does address this problem in an original way which seems to depart from the soteriological thrust of the Reformed scholastics, particularly Turretin. And I think you’ve brought out a good point. Edwards seems philosophically inconsistent with his own tradition at times. Maybe I don’t understand Edwards well enough or maybe I’m missing something. But to argue that all men possess the innate capacity to “plainly discover” God’s “immense superiority” strikes me as less than Calvinistic in two respects: 1.) it seems inconistent with the dogmatical consensus of Edwards’ tradition (Savoy) on total depravity, and for that matter, with the entire Reformed tradition. 2.) It effectively dismantles the archetypal/ectypal distinction by asserting that man’s knowledge is ontologically univocal with that of God’s himself. Concerning the first point, I think it’s safe to conclude that Edwards was most certainly not a semi-Pelagian in light of his larger body of work, specifically his treatise on the will. Perhaps Edwards is limiting his epistemological claims to general revelation and natural conscience. But even if this is the case, I still think his language is confusing. Within the context of this quote, Edwards is addressing the glory of God manifested primarily through his beauty. In Edwards’ ethical schema, virtue=beauty, therefore God’s virtue primarily consists in His beauty. If the quote I posted has anything at all to do with Edwards’ prior arguments, then it would seem that the “plain discovery of God’s immense superiority” would be linked to an aesthetic apprehension of God’s beauty derived indirectly through the use of our natural faculties. In fact, I know that Edwards probably is getting at this because I’ve read the entire disssertation, and he gets more explicit as he develops the argument. Maybe this is an inconsistency in Edwards or a personal oversight of mine. Concerning the latter point, I think most Reformed scholars have concluded that Edwards departs from the larger consensus of Reformed Christendom in his neo-platonic/idealistic epistemology and its relationship to our knowledge of God.

 

But I don’t want to be too hard on Edwards because his theological treatises strike me as much more consistent with the Reformed tradition than his philosophical treatises. Edwards was a full-bodied covenant theologian whose views, on a basic theological level, seem perfectly compatible with Savoy. It’s Edwards’ epistemology and pietism (that’s another discussion) which particularly trouble me.”