Abstract

It is the common consent of historians that Nathaniel William Taylor was the real architect of the New Haven Theology. His modifications of Edwardsean Calvinism, rendering it compatible with revivalism, gave a distinctive flavor to the New England Theology. Numerous historians have noted the influence of Scottish Common Sense Realism in the development of Taylor's theological innovations. However, it is the contention of this work that the Scottish philosophy has been prevailed upon to carry too much of the explanation for Taylor's theological formulations. Those single explanation approaches, characterized by so many interpreters, do not take into account the complex factors which shaped Taylor's theology, nor do they address how Common Sense functions in his theology. ;Most interpreters note Taylor's concern for revivalism, conflicts with Unitarianism, and concerns about Old Calvinists like Charles Hodge. But no interpreter has given adequate attention to the influence of Taylor's theological heritage on his theology. Both his content and methodology show a decided influence from his Reformed theological heritage. Nor has anyone examined Taylor's use of Scripture in the development of his theology. I contend that the Bible played a much more central role in the development of the New Haven Theology than most historical accounts have portrayed. How did the Bible function when Taylor was engaged in an apologetic task? How he says the Bible functions and how it actually functions are often very different matters. ;This study examines Taylor's use of Scripture in the revised doctrines of revelation, human depravity, God's sovereignty, Christ's atonement, and justification. All of Taylor's interpreters have made the observation that he made a radical change in the doctrine of original sin. But I contend that his modification of justification is even more radical than his modification of original sin. ;Taylor's revisions of Edwardsean Calvinism which resulted from his attempts to make it compatible with revivalism, produced a theology which Edwards and Calvin would not recognize. While Taylor considered himself a Calvinist, the character of his new theology looked more like the old Arminianism than the Calvinism from which it sprang