Is the Holy Spirit You Believe in Divine?

Often our claimed "orthodox" pneumatology (doctrine of the Holy Spirit) finds itself subordinating the Holy Spirit into a lesser being (we'll still call Him divine though - and please don't use the pronoun "it" for the Spirit) who functions as a helper to the greatest beings, the Father and the Son. Now, we're quick to claim that the Holy Spirit is God, but functionally worked out, His divinity comes up lacking.

Have you ever thought of the Holy Spirit as "the sum of all that Christ purchased for man" (Edwards, Discourse on the Trinity, Yale: 136)? If you, like myself, have found yourself struggling over how to begin appropriately thinking of the personhood and the role of the Holy Spirit, let Jonathan Edwards pour affection and worship for the Holy Spirit over your heart and mind.

Just a quick note...neither Jonathan Edwards nor anyone else will exhaust the mystery of the Trinity, but this doesn't mean we can't think right thoughts about Him and rightly worship Him.

Our dependence is equally upon each in this affair: the Father appoints and provides the Redeemer; and himself accepts the price and grant the thing purchased; the Son is the Redeemer by offering up himself, and is the price; the Holy Ghost immediately communicates to us the thing purchased by communicating himself, and he is the thing purchased. The sum of all that Christ purchased for man was the Holy Ghost. Gal 3:13-14, he was "made a curse for us...that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." What Christ purchased for us, was that we have communion with God in his God, which consists in partaking of the Holy Ghost as we have shown. All the blessedness of the redeemed consists in their partaking of Christ's fullness , which consists in partaking of that Spirit which is given not by measure unto him. The oil that is poured on the head of the church runs down to the members of his body and tho the skirts of his garment (Ps. 133:2). Christ purchased for us that we should have the favor of God and might enjoy his love; but this love is the Holy Ghost. Christ purchased for us true spiritual excellency, grace and holiness, the sum of which is love to God, which is but only the indwelling of the Holy Ghost in the heart. Christ purchased for us spiritual joy and comfort, which is in a participation of God's joy and happiness; which joy and happiness is the Holy Ghost, as we have shown. The Holy Ghost is the sum of all good things. Good things and the Holy Spirit are synonymous expressions in Scripture. Matt. 7:11, "How much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?" The sum of all spiritual good which the saints have in this world is that spring of living water within them, which we read of, John 4:10-15; and those rivers of living water flowing out of them, which we read of, John 7:38-39; which we are there told means the Holy Ghost. And the sum of all happiness in the other world is that river of water of life which proceeds out of the throne of God and the Lamb, which we read of, Rev. 22:1; which is the river of God's pleasures and is the Holy Ghost; and therefore the sum of the gospel invitation is to come and take the water of life (v. 17). The Holy Ghost is the purchased possession and inheritance of the saints, as appears, because that little of it which the saints have in this world is said to be the earnest of that purchased inheritance (Eph. 1:14, II Cor. 1:22 and 5:5). 'Tis an earnest of that which we are to have a fullness of hereafter. The Holy Ghost is the great subject of all gospel promises, and therefore is the Spirit of promise (Eph. 1:13)....All our good is of God the Father; 'tis all through God the Son; and all is in the Holy Ghost, as he is himself all our good. God is himself the portion and purchased inheritance of his people. Thus God is the Alpha and the Omega in this affair of redemption.

Thank you Holy Spirit for binding my heart to the Triune God.

Was Jonathan Edwards Promoting an Emergent Culture?

Though there may be some ends of particular works of providence that were not the last end of the creation, which are in themselves grateful (read, pleasing) to God in such particular emergent circumstances, and so are last ends in an inferior sense; yet this is only in certain cases or particular occasions.

This is an excerpt from Jonathan Edwards's Dissertation Concerning the End for Which God Created the World, Introduction, eighth general position.

In the eighth position Edwards is arguing that the "ultimate end...of [God's] works of providence must be the ultimate end of...creation." Edwards' definition of providence is God's putting His creation, especially the "moral world" (read, humans) to use toward His highest end in the world, that end being the "emanation and remanation" or, knowing and delighting (not two things) God and expressing it back to God praise.

"The end of God's main works of Providence towards moral beings, or the main use to which he puts them, shews the main end for which he has made the whole world" (Section II, Chapter II, Position 6).

Edwards's metanarrative for the End for Which God Created the World is,

God's respect to the creature's good, and his respect to himself, is not a divided respect; but both are united in one, as the happiness of the creature aimed at is happiness in union with himself. The creature is no further happy with this happiness which God makes his ultimate end, that he becomes one with God. The more happiness the greater union: when happiness is perfect, the union is perfect (Section 7).

Or, in an abbreviated form, GOD aims that His children glorify Him by delighting in Him as He delights in Himself. "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in Him" (John Piper).

?Where does the Emergent Church come into this? (Note: I am not addressing the Emerging Church or Missional movement in this post. There are differences in the three, especially Missional from the other two.)

The postmodern* mindset, to which the Emergent Church movement tailor their propositionless "conversation", is incredulous to metanarrative (i.e. an overarching story to explain all knowledge and experience). Postmoderns* along with the Emergent Church deconstruct propositions, beliefs, overarching stories, etc. into more palpable minor narratives that aren't so "restrictive and suppressive".

Clearly, incredulity to metanarrative is incredulous to Jonathan Edwards. The story of God's glory is the bettametanarrative (read, better - should be "best" but it wasn't as phonetically pleasing) by which all other minanarratives (minor) should be understood and held in place.

Edwards, Emergent? No!

*if there is such a thing as "postmodern". See here and here.