I'll just leave it at the question.

Hmmmmm, that's quite a wide open question, don't ya think? Generally speaking, I agree with the late Dr. John Gerstner who believed that Jonathan Edwards was the greatest American theologian who ever lived. Now, did he/I mean that Edwards was infallible? I do have some disagreements with some of his views, e.g., Postmillennialism and his changing from being a true Congregationalist (Savoy Declaration 1658) to Presbyterianism.

I suspect you have a reason for asking the question, perhaps pertaining to something specific?

I came across this article. Before reading it, I thought that Edwards had practically none detractors in the Reformed community.

https://heidelblog.net/2020/12/why-...osicqwCabByiF5mhOJV6jabFuc7zTAHrIFxe9DB8

1. Consider the source.
2. The Dutch Reformed Churches, at least the majority of them for there are exceptions, e.g., Joel Beeke (Heritage Reformed Church), have little love for the Puritans due to their emphasis on the "soul", i.e., sanctification of the believer and their assurance.
3. The "New Calvinist Movement" is not to be taken as a source of an expression of Edwardianism. The entire movement is bankrupt in too many areas of both doctrine and especially life. And John Piper is doubly guilty of distorting Edwards when he claims that his "Christian Hedonism" is Edwardian.
4. Admittedly, I am no "scholar" on Jonathan Edwards, but I'm no imbecile either. I've read enough to know that Edwards' doctrine of God and justification is biblically sound and consistent with the Westminster Standards. This type of scandalous rhetoric is not a rare thing, unfortunately. A good example of this type of attack on the orthodoxy of notable people is Dr. R.T. Kendall's Calvin and English Calvinism in which he claims that John Calvin did not believe in a Limited/Definite Atonement. Fortunately, many took Kendall to task and in particular Paul Helm did this most thoroughly in his counter book Calvin and The Calvinists.
5. IMO, what is needed today is MORE Jonathan Edwards to combat the heresy, immorality and worldliness which the majority of evangelical and Reformed churches are guilty of embracing in so many areas. Edwards was spot on in his Religious Affections which is an antidote for today's "Easy Believism" and openly sinfulness of the modern church.
6. To accuse Edwards of "Pietism" is not only unwarranted by inaccurate. Was Edwards a "Pietist"... yep. He took James 2:26 most seriously and thus, one's profession of justification is justified by one's sanctification; faith without works is dead. R. Scott Clark uses the word Pietist in a pejorative way, albeit he does admit that pietism is not uniformly a bad thing. The hyper-Pietists, e.g., J.C. Philpot, Brother Andrew, Harrington, et al killed one's soul by demanding that one have a constant spiritual experience that measured up to their own fabricated example of true piety. The result was and continues to be a morbid introspection which in too many cases leads to spiritual depression (see Martyn Lloyd-Jones' book of the same title) and a total lack of assurance because no one could possibly measure up.

Bottom line for me..... I will continue to read and enjoy the writings of Jonathan Edwards despite what some Acadamiac thinks. Remember what I have written here myriad times over... The vast majority of heresies which have assaulted the Church have come from so-called scholars, professors, teachers and pastors. Yes, heresy most always originates from within the Church, not from without. And please, do not misconstrue this to mean that I am labelling R. Scott Clark as a heretic. But I am saying he is in error concerning Jonathan Edwards' beliefs and theology.