Latest / Reformed Thinking / A Difference of Nature, Not Degree: True Grace Explained | Jonathan Edwards

Transcript

A Difference of Nature, Not Degree: True Grace Explained | Jonathan Edwards · Reformed Thinking

• 0:00
  Short audio sting, reformed thinking.
• 0:06
  Welcome back to the Deep Dive. Our whole task here is to take
• 0:10
  material that can be, well, pretty dense and sometimes
• 0:13
  challenging and really just distill the most critical
• 0:16
  insights. We want to give you the context
• 0:18
  and the depth you need to, you know, really get a grip on the
• 0:21
  argument being made. And today we're doing a very,
• 0:26
  very focused deep dive. We're looking at one of the most
• 0:30
  precise, and I think it's fair to say one of the most radical
• 0:33
  theological claims ever made about the very nature of human
• 0:37
  goodness and divine action. We are indeed, and the source
• 0:41
  material for this is a real classic of American religious
• 0:43
  thought. It's Jonathan Edwards's work
• 0:45
  Treatise on Grace, showing that common and saving grace differ
• 0:48
  not only in degree, but in nature and kind.
• 0:50
  Right, that Tuggle says it all. It really does.
• 0:52
  And our mission today is pretty straightforward.
• 0:54
  We want to meticulously pull apart and understand Edwards's
• 0:57
  central and you could say revolutionary claim.
• 1:00
  And that claim is that the spiritual life and virtue you
• 1:02
  find in a converted person is not just an improvement on their
• 1:04
  natural morality, but that it is fundamentally, inherently, and
• 1:07
  categorically different from anything a natural unconverted
• 1:11
  person has. OK, let's unpack this, because
• 1:13
  the stakes here are just colossal.
• 1:15
  I mean, if you look at someone out in the world, maybe they're
• 1:19
  a good neighbor, a loving parent, an honest person in
• 1:22
  their business. Sure, we would naturally assume
• 1:24
  that their goodness is on the same moral spectrum as, say, the
• 1:29
  goodness of a St. It's just, you know, maybe less
• 1:33
  sanctified or maybe not focused on God.
• 1:35
  Right, that's the common assumption that it's all in a
• 1:38
  sliding scale. And Edwards comes along and
• 1:40
  tells us that assumption is completely wrong.
• 1:42
  We are not talking about, say, 20° of virtue versus 10° of
• 1:46
  virtue. He's saying we are comparing 2
• 1:48
  entirely different substances. That is the absolute crux of it.
• 1:52
  When we talk about grace, Edwards is arguing that we have
• 1:54
  to move beyond quantity. You know, more or less, and we
• 1:58
  have to focus entirely on the quality.
• 1:59
  What kind of thing is it? Right?
• 2:01
  Because if the difference is in kind, then the natural man, it
• 2:04
  doesn't matter how morally advanced he is, is at 0 on the
• 2:08
  scale of saving grace. He isn't just low on the scale.
• 2:11
  He's not even on the scale. He's not on the scale.
• 2:13
  He is utterly devoid of that specific spiritual quality.
• 2:17
  And you know, that distinction changes everything.
• 2:19
  It changes how we understand human potential and the absolute
• 2:23
  necessity of divine action. So before we can really jump
• 2:27
  into his proofs, we have to get his definition straight.
• 2:30
  He uses these terms common grace and special or saving grace in a
• 2:35
  well, it's a dual way. It can be a little confusing if
• 2:38
  we don't slow down and separate those two meanings.
• 2:41
  Absolutely. It's the first hurdle you have
• 2:43
  to clear with this text. So the first usage is the, let's
• 2:47
  call it the technical or operational one.
• 2:48
  It's referring to God's activity or assistance.
• 2:51
  OK, so when we use common grace in that first sense, we mean the
• 2:55
  influence or the assistance of God's spirit on non Christians.
• 2:59
  It's that general restraining influence, or the prompting that
• 3:02
  might lead them to acts of civic virtue or generosity, or even
• 3:05
  religious seriousness. But without any true spiritual
• 3:08
  transformation. Right, it affects their actions
• 3:10
  but not their nature. And so the corresponding term
• 3:14
  special or saving grace in that first sense, would then be the
• 3:18
  peculiar unique influence, the operation of God's Spirit that
• 3:22
  actually succeeds in causing saving acts and producing new
• 3:25
  spiritual life in the elect. Yes, that's the divine act
• 3:28
  itself, the external operation. However, our deep dive today,
• 3:32
  and this follows the main line of Edwards's argument, is really
• 3:35
  going to focus on the second usage of those terms.
• 3:38
  Which is grace as a result. The result or the moral
• 3:41
  attainment itself? And this is where the
• 3:42
  distinction becomes so critical for anyone trying to understand
• 3:46
  this. OK, so we're shifting from the
• 3:47
  'cause God Spirit assisting to the effect, which is the virtue
• 3:51
  that gets produced. So when we talk about common
• 3:55
  grace as a virtue, what does that actually look like in the
• 3:58
  real world? Well, common grace, when you see
• 4:00
  it as a virtue, it refers to those moral or religious
• 4:03
  attainments that are, well, common to both Saints and
• 4:05
  sinners. So think of someone who shows
• 4:07
  great honesty or has a powerful sense of duty, or maybe a
• 4:11
  religious zeal that's focused on outward forms, the ability to
• 4:14
  feel conviction, to pray, to fast.
• 4:17
  These are high level moral actions, but they're rooted in
• 4:20
  natural principles. What?
• 4:22
  Do you mean by natural principles?
• 4:23
  Things like self love, fear of punishment, the natural
• 4:27
  conscience that everyone has, human affections, and even just
• 4:31
  self-interest in trying to secure some future happiness.
• 4:35
  These virtues can exist completely separate from a
• 4:37
  saving union with Christ. So a Pagan philosopher in
• 4:40
  ancient Rome who displayed incredible integrity, That would
• 4:44
  be an exhibition of common grace, virtue.
• 4:46
  Yes, a perfect example. Or a modern secular
• 4:49
  philanthropist who donates billions of dollars to fight
• 4:51
  disease is in this framework showing common grace, virtue.
• 4:56
  It's morality that's based on natural endowment and
• 4:59
  refinement, not on a supernatural principle.
• 5:02
  Precisely. Now, on the other hand, special
• 5:04
  or saving grace, when you look at it as a virtue, signifies the
• 5:07
  distinguishing spiritual virtue itself, the new life, the new
• 5:10
  moral taste, the holiness that is peculiar only to true Saints.
• 5:14
  This is where the fruits of the Spirit come in.
• 5:16
  This is where they're born. Love for God, for his own
• 5:19
  holiness, spiritual humility, repentance unto life, all of
• 5:22
  those things. And the central assertion we're
• 5:24
  really digging into, the hinge point of this whole cretus, is
• 5:27
  that saving grace, this spiritual virtue, is entirely
• 5:32
  diverse in nature and kind from common grace, no matter how
• 5:35
  highly developed that common grace might be.
• 5:37
  That's the claim. So this means a natural man
• 5:40
  doesn't just need AI don't know a bigger dose of his current
• 5:44
  goodness, he needs the ingredient that he completely
• 5:47
  lacks. It's an assertion that defines
• 5:49
  the absolute chasm between the regenerated and the
• 5:51
  unregenerated state. The natural man has 0° of that
• 5:56
  spiritual principle that you find in the godly.
• 5:58
  And to show this radical discontinuity, Edwards just
• 6:01
  systematically lines up scriptural support.
• 6:04
  He argues that any view that suggests it's just a difference
• 6:07
  in degree actually undermines the whole biblical count of
• 6:10
  conversion and the Spirit's exclusive role.
• 6:12
  OK, so we have to turn to those proofs now.
• 6:14
  We do. Edwards's first proof, it seems,
• 6:17
  goes straight to the very foundation of Christian
• 6:19
  salvation doctrine, the absolute necessity of the new birth.
• 6:23
  I mean, if common grace were just a low degree of saving
• 6:26
  grace, why would Christ insist so strongly that a new birth is
• 6:29
  non negotiable? This comes directly from
• 6:32
  Christ's conversation with Nicodemus.
• 6:33
  It's John 3.6. That which is born of the flesh
• 6:37
  is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is Spirit.
• 6:41
  And Edwards looks at this as Christ, demonstrating the
• 6:44
  complete inadequacy of the first natural birth.
• 6:47
  The natural man is born with flesh, and according to Christ
• 6:51
  here, that is all he gets from that first birth.
• 6:54
  And if flesh is all he has, then he must utterly lack the quality
• 6:57
  that's called spirit, which Christ says is necessary to even
• 7:00
  see, let alone enter the Kingdom of God.
• 7:03
  That's the direct implication. Edwards is very, very insistent
• 7:06
  that flesh and spirit are meant to be understood as not just
• 7:10
  different, but it's two things that are entirely opposite in
• 7:13
  their moral nature. So you can't just improve 1 into
• 7:15
  the other. No, you cannot take the
• 7:17
  principle of the flesh and through refinement or education
• 7:21
  or just sheer effort, exalted high enough that it becomes the
• 7:25
  principle of the Spirit. They are, for him, mutually
• 7:27
  exclusive categories of moral existence.
• 7:30
  And to really solidify this idea that they're opposing
• 7:33
  principles, the source goes to Paul's letters, right?
• 7:36
  To show that this conflict is just part of the spiritual
• 7:39
  state. Galatians 5.17 is a key example
• 7:42
  describing them as contrary the one to the other.
• 7:44
  It is, and Paul follows that up by showing that they lead to
• 7:47
  diametrically opposed results. You have the works of the flesh,
• 7:51
  sensual, immoral, idolatrous things, and you have the fruit
• 7:54
  of the Spirit, love, joy, joy, peace, goodness.
• 7:58
  They produce different actions because they come from opposing
• 8:00
  moral roots. Exactly, and Romans 8 just
• 8:02
  reinforces the same existential conflict.
• 8:05
  To be carnally minded as death, but to be spiritually minded as
• 8:08
  life and peace, life versus death.
• 8:10
  I mean, you can't get a more binary distinction than that.
• 8:12
  No, you can't. So, Edwards argues, if the
• 8:15
  unregenerate person had any spirit, even a little bit, then
• 8:18
  Christ's whole reasoning with Nicodemus would fail.
• 8:20
  So, well, if Nicodemus already had a small spark of the spirit,
• 8:24
  however small, then his first birth would have produced
• 8:27
  something superior to just flesh.
• 8:30
  And if that were the case, the total necessity of a new birth
• 8:32
  would be lessened or maybe even eliminated.
• 8:35
  I see. So the argument only works if
• 8:37
  the first birth produces only flesh.
• 8:39
  Yes. Edward's conclusion is that the
• 8:42
  unconverted state is defined by having flesh only.
• 8:45
  The existence of Spirit is purely and only a result of the
• 8:49
  new creation. That right there immediately
• 8:51
  establishes the difference as one of nature.
• 8:53
  I mean, if you were comparing 2 substances that are inherently
• 8:56
  contrary, you can't possibly say 1 is just a diluted version of
• 9:00
  the other. No, you can't.
• 9:01
  And this leads perfectly into his second proof, which uses the
• 9:04
  Spirit of Christ as an exclusive, proprietary mark of
• 9:08
  salvation. If the Spirit is the identifier,
• 9:11
  than having the Spirit must mean something absolute.
• 9:14
  And this is where the absolute exclusion comes in.
• 9:16
  It's from Romans 8.9, which asserts negatively that those
• 9:19
  without the Spirit are none of his.
• 9:21
  That's a statement of ownership, of existential standing.
• 9:24
  It is a very strong negative declaration.
• 9:27
  If you lack the Spirit of Christ, you do not belong to
• 9:29
  Christ. There's no middle ground there.
• 9:31
  There's no Gray area where you possess some minor degree of the
• 9:35
  Spirit but are still counted as not belonging to Him.
• 9:38
  And on the flip side. On the flip side, Edwards points
• 9:41
  to 1st John 3.24, which uses the possession of the Spirit
• 9:45
  positively as the certain and confirming sign of dwelling in
• 9:49
  Christ. It says, hereby we know that he
• 9:52
  abideth in us by the spirit which he hath given us.
• 9:55
  So if it's the certain sign, it can't be something that's also
• 9:58
  shared with people who are not saved.
• 10:00
  But I imagine some might argue, doesn't God give certain prompts
• 10:05
  or influences to everyone? How does Edward square that
• 10:08
  general influence? Common grace with this exclusive
• 10:11
  ownership saving grace. That's a good question.
• 10:14
  Edwards maintains that the promptings of common grace,
• 10:16
  while they're real, they are never the principle of spiritual
• 10:19
  life itself. They are external assistance, or
• 10:22
  they're internal modifications of the natural conscience.
• 10:25
  They are not the Spirit of Christ dwelling in the person as
• 10:27
  an earnest of salvation. And that earnest metaphor is his
• 10:31
  key move here. It's his key move.
• 10:33
  The Spirit is called the earnest of the future inheritance in
• 10:37
  Second Corinthians and in Ephesians.
• 10:39
  Unpack that metaphor for us. What does Earnest mean here?
• 10:43
  An earnest in the biblical world is a down payment.
• 10:46
  It's a guarantee that the full inheritance is going to follow.
• 10:49
  It confirms the purchase. OK, so if a person who has no
• 10:53
  saving title to heaven, someone who is not justified, could
• 10:56
  possess some degree or some portion of this earnest, then
• 11:00
  the Spirit is no longer a guarantee.
• 11:02
  The down payment would be meaningless if the full
• 11:04
  ownership wasn't assured. So if an unregenerate person had
• 11:08
  even a tiny fraction of the Spirit, it would suggest they
• 11:10
  have a down payment on heaven even while they're outside of
• 11:13
  that covenant union. And that just collapses the
• 11:16
  metaphor entirely. It validates the Spirit as a
• 11:18
  sure sign of salvation, which is what First John 4 says it is.
• 11:21
  That is the consequence, So Edwards concludes, that anyone
• 11:24
  lacking a saving interest has nothing, no degree, no portion
• 11:29
  of the spiritual life principle itself, and therefore they have
• 11:32
  no degree of the graces that are listed as the fruit of the
• 11:34
  Spirit, Lovejoy, peace, long-suffering, because those
• 11:39
  fruits can only grow from that specific exclusive principle.
• 11:42
  So any similar looking morality they show?
• 11:45
  Is just a modification of flesh. A very refined modification,
• 11:48
  perhaps, but still flesh. That sets up a very high
• 11:52
  standard. Then for the third proof,
• 11:53
  partaking of the divine nature, this one's drawn from second
• 11:56
  Peter 1.4. This suggests a participation in
• 11:59
  God's own essence, which seems reserved for, well, the highest
• 12:03
  speed of privilege imaginable. It is a very high claim, and
• 12:06
  Edwards highlights that Scripture speaks of sharing the
• 12:09
  divine nature as the peculiar privilege of true Saints, and
• 12:12
  you have to look at the context. Peter links this nature directly
• 12:15
  to God, calling the Saints to glory and virtue and giving them
• 12:18
  exceeding great and precious promises.
• 12:20
  And this nature is specifically contrasted with the corruption
• 12:24
  that is in the world through lust.
• 12:26
  The contrast is deliberate, and it's total.
• 12:29
  The men of the world are defined by that principle of corruption,
• 12:32
  which is driven by lust and natural depravity.
• 12:35
  The partaking of the divine nature is the antidote to that,
• 12:38
  and it's reserved exclusively for those who are separated from
• 12:41
  the world by God's sovereign distinguishing grace.
• 12:44
  So the logic is if the unregenerate had any degree of
• 12:48
  this divine nature, however small.
• 12:50
  It simply could not be described as the unique and highest
• 12:53
  privilege that's granted only to the Saints.
• 12:56
  It's very description confirms its exclusivity.
• 12:59
  It really seems like Edwards is building an argument of
• 13:02
  cumulative exclusion step by step.
• 13:05
  First, flesh is contrary to spirit.
• 13:07
  Second, the spirit is an earnest that only the saved can possess.
• 13:11
  And 3rd, the spiritual nature is a divine nature that serves as
• 13:15
  the highest distinguishing privilege of the Saint.
• 13:18
  It seems like all roads are leading to a conclusion of 0
• 13:21
  spiritual content in the natural man.
• 13:23
  That's the direction of the argument.
• 13:25
  And if the natural man lacks the spiritual nature, the logical
• 13:27
  consequence is that he also lacks the spiritual sense.
• 13:30
  The ability to perceive spiritual things.
• 13:32
  Exactly. And that brings us to the 4th
• 13:35
  proof, which deals with spiritual blindness.
• 13:38
  It cites First Corinthians 2.14. This is a famous text, the one
• 13:43
  arguing that the natural man is in total opposition to the
• 13:46
  spiritual man. The text says he receiveth not
• 13:49
  the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto
• 13:52
  him. And that sounds like more than
• 13:54
  just a lack of interest. It sounds like a complete
• 13:56
  inability. It is explicit inability.
• 13:59
  Edwards really focuses on the Stark language there.
• 14:02
  The natural man neither does nor can know or discern them.
• 14:06
  He cannot grasp them because he lacks the necessary faculty.
• 14:09
  He's described as a perfect stranger, knowing nothing of the
• 14:12
  matter any more than a blind man of colors.
• 14:15
  That analogy is what makes the claim so memorable.
• 14:18
  A person who is partially sighted might have a low degree
• 14:21
  of sight, but a blind man has a complete and total absence of
• 14:25
  it. Right.
• 14:25
  If the natural person possessed even a small degree of the
• 14:28
  spiritual principle, they would have some rudimentary experience
• 14:31
  of the things of the spirit. They'd have some internal
• 14:34
  awareness of spiritual reality. But they don't.
• 14:36
  But because they're described as total strangers to these things,
• 14:39
  and because these things are foolishness to them, that means
• 14:42
  they have no degree of the spiritual nature whatsoever.
• 14:45
  To the religious sense that a natural man might possess, you
• 14:48
  know, a fear of God, a dedication to some ritual is
• 14:51
  just not the same nature as the Saints spiritual discernment,
• 14:55
  not even in its smallest possible measure.
• 14:57
  No, that religious sense stems from a natural conscience or
• 15:00
  fear, or a desire for self preservation.
• 15:04
  But the reason for the absolute blindness, the inability to
• 15:06
  receive the spirit of truth, is its absence.
• 15:10
  John 14.17 confirms this. The world cannot receive the
• 15:14
  Spirit because it knoweth him. Not so.
• 15:16
  Edwards challenges the notion that if natural men had some
• 15:19
  measure of the Spirit, they would be taught spiritual things
• 15:21
  in proportion to that measure. If the difference were only
• 15:24
  quantitative, some discernment would exist, but because of the
• 15:28
  scriptural picture is one of total blindness, the difference
• 15:31
  has to be qualitative. This leads to the fifth proof,
• 15:34
  which focuses on the absence of charity using First Corinthians
• 15:37
  13. I mean, that chapter is famous
• 15:39
  for defining love, but Edwards uses it as an exclusionary test.
• 15:43
  It's a very elegant use of the text.
• 15:45
  Paul insists that if he has all these other gifts, prophecy,
• 15:48
  knowledge, faith that can move mountains, but has no charity,
• 15:52
  he is nothing and he profits nothing.
• 15:55
  So Edwards interprets charity here as the specific spiritual
• 15:59
  love or affection that defines saving grace.
• 16:02
  If non Saints have no charity, then they have no degree of that
• 16:06
  specific kind of grace. And this becomes especially
• 16:09
  powerful when he applies it to people who are outwardly very
• 16:12
  religious. Edward cites Christ's rebuke of
• 16:15
  the Pharisees in John 5.42. These were men who were highly
• 16:18
  moral, very pious, outwardly observant in every detail, and
• 16:22
  yet yet Christ said they had not the love of God in them.
• 16:25
  That is the critical distinction.
• 16:26
  The Pharisees had many common grace virtues, religious fervor,
• 16:30
  financial generosity, and incredible attention to legal
• 16:32
  detail, but they lacked the specific spiritually rooted,
• 16:35
  self denying love of God, the love which is the sum of saving
• 16:38
  grace. So natural affection is
• 16:40
  possible. Natural affection is possible,
• 16:43
  but this spiritual charity is exclusive.
• 16:46
  If they lacked the love of God, they lacked the spiritual
• 16:49
  essence that is charity. And if they lack that spiritual
• 16:51
  essence, then they lack the basis for the 6th proof, which
• 16:55
  is maybe the most practical one. No union, no communion.
• 16:58
  Yes, and this is a matter of logical necessity within a
• 17:02
  Reformed framework. Edwards argues that unbelievers
• 17:05
  lack communion or fellowship with Christ for one very simple
• 17:08
  reason. They are not united to him.
• 17:11
  OK, if they had any degree of saving grace, that grace would
• 17:15
  necessitate communion. And communion, in turn,
• 17:18
  necessitates union. You can't have one without the
• 17:20
  other. In Scripture, it's clear that
• 17:22
  those who are in Christ are justified.
• 17:24
  They're sanctified. They are new creatures.
• 17:27
  To be in Him is a state of salvation, and unbelievers are
• 17:30
  simply not in that state. And this is where the analogy
• 17:33
  becomes so helpful, because it roots a theological truth in
• 17:36
  everyday reality. Edwards uses 3 specific examples
• 17:39
  to illustrate this point. That Communion requires a
• 17:41
  preceding established union. OK, what's the first one?
• 17:44
  The first is the vine in the branch.
• 17:46
  The branch cannot partake of the SAP, the lifeblood of the vine,
• 17:49
  unless it is united to the vine. The SAP is shared life.
• 17:53
  Without that union, the branch is just Deadwood.
• 17:55
  Simple enough? What's the second?
• 17:57
  The second is the body and the head, the member and arm a foot.
• 18:01
  It can't have life or sensation or coordination from the head
• 18:04
  unless it is organically united. You sever the union and the life
• 18:08
  stops flowing. OK.
• 18:09
  And the third is the relationship of marriage.
• 18:11
  Right. The wife cannot have communion
• 18:14
  in the husband's goods or his estate without the established
• 18:17
  union of marriage. Property rights and shared
• 18:19
  resources flow directly from the covenant of Union.
• 18:22
  O in all three cases, organic life, physiological function and
• 18:27
  legal right. Sharing anything is impossible
• 18:29
  without a prior defined union. It is so.
• 18:32
  If the unregenerate had any portion of Christ's grace, they
• 18:35
  would have communion with Him. But since the Scriptures reserve
• 18:38
  this Communion for those who are called to fellowship, the
• 18:41
  unbeliever must have none. Edwards uses this to show that
• 18:44
  spiritual communion with the Father and the Son, which
• 18:47
  consists mainly in partaking of the Holy Ghost and receiving
• 18:49
  Christ's fullness, is a privilege that is exclusively
• 18:53
  reserved for the Saints. The natural man remains outside
• 18:56
  of the Union and therefore outside of the Communion, and
• 18:58
  therefore totally devoid of the specific spiritual grace that
• 19:01
  flows from that union. So having established this
• 19:04
  really radical discontinuity 0 spiritual life in the
• 19:07
  unregenerate, we have to now look at what that implies for
• 19:11
  the moment of salvation itself. And this brings us to the 7th
• 19:15
  proof, which is about the incompatibility of true holiness
• 19:18
  with a state of sin drawn from first John 3.9.
• 19:21
  The principle here is that a truly holy principle and the
• 19:24
  state of being a Sinner or a wicked man cannot coexist in the
• 19:28
  same person. At the same time, the verse
• 19:30
  says, Whosoever is born of God does not commit sin, for his
• 19:34
  seed remaineth in him. And whether that seed refers to
• 19:37
  the Word of God or to the implanted holy nature, the
• 19:40
  meaning is that the smallest degree of this divine principle
• 19:43
  cannot endure a state of total unregenerate sin.
• 19:46
  That's right, that seed is a divine principle, however small
• 19:50
  it might be at first, like a literal seed that grows into a
• 19:53
  big tree. Edwards concludes that the
• 19:55
  smallest degrees and the first principles of a divine nature
• 19:59
  are inherently incompatible with a continuing state of
• 20:03
  sinfulness. So the nature of this heavenly
• 20:05
  principle is holiness. It is, and it cannot reside in
• 20:08
  the heart of someone who is defined by the state of sin.
• 20:11
  If a man is still, spiritually speaking, just a Sinner, then he
• 20:15
  is utterly destitute of this spiritual seed.
• 20:18
  This foundation then allows Edwards to move into his eighth
• 20:21
  proof, which is, I think, probably the most rhetorically
• 20:24
  powerful part of the whole treatise, the various scriptural
• 20:27
  representations of conversion itself.
• 20:30
  The nature of the change proves the difference is in kind.
• 20:32
  This is where it becomes very vivid.
• 20:34
  Edwards shows that the metaphors used in Scripture consistently
• 20:37
  describe conversion as a radical discontinuity, not some kind of
• 20:40
  ethical upgrade. If saving grace were only a
• 20:43
  difference in degree, conversion would just be renovation.
• 20:47
  The man might have had the same moral quality the year before,
• 20:49
  just less refined. But the Bible doesn't use the
• 20:52
  language of renovation, it uses the language of creation.
• 20:56
  Conversion is called the new man or a new creature, and when God
• 20:59
  creates, he makes something entirely new out of nothing or
• 21:02
  out of that which was perfectly void of any such nature.
• 21:06
  There's no gradual accumulation of the new creature.
• 21:08
  It's a creative act. Exactly.
• 21:10
  And likewise the metaphor of resurrection.
• 21:13
  Wicked men are described as spiritually dead.
• 21:15
  And Edwards? Well, he rightly points out,
• 21:18
  there's no medium between being dead and being alive.
• 21:21
  Right, there's no mostly dead. No, the dead man possesses no
• 21:24
  degree of life. 0 Conversion raises them from the dead.
• 21:28
  Life is not only in a greater degree, it is all new since it
• 21:31
  began from a state of nothingness.
• 21:33
  And the same logic applies to the new birth or regeneration.
• 21:36
  Generation is a begetting from the new.
• 21:38
  The nature and the life that are received have their beginning at
• 21:41
  that moment. It cannot be the gradual
• 21:43
  perfecting of the old self or the old flesh.
• 21:45
  And he drives us home with these specific, very visceral
• 21:49
  illustrations. The opening, the eyes of the
• 21:51
  blind. The blind person was absolutely
• 21:53
  destitute of light before that moment.
• 21:56
  Or even more dramatically, raising children from stones.
• 22:00
  Stones are utterly destitute of the qualities needed for life.
• 22:04
  And the most evocative analogy for the change in the heart,
• 22:07
  taking away a heart of stone and giving a heart of flesh.
• 22:10
  That's the one. The heart of stone, as long as
• 22:12
  it remains unconverted, has no degree of life or sense that the
• 22:16
  heart of flesh has. The stone cannot be educated or
• 22:19
  refined into living tissue. It has to be replaced.
• 22:22
  And this whole set of powerful scriptural metaphors solidifies
• 22:25
  the thesis. What's imparted in conversion is
• 22:28
  a spiritual nature of a wholly different kind.
• 22:30
  This radical conclusion that grace is entirely different in
• 22:34
  nature was utterly absent before.
• 22:36
  This leads directly to Edwards 1st and it's a massive
• 22:39
  inference. Conversion must be
• 22:40
  instantaneous. It's a necessary logical
• 22:43
  corollary. It has to be, since the
• 22:45
  spiritual grace being introduced is entirely different in nature
• 22:49
  from everything that came before it.
• 22:50
  The transition from total spiritual depravity, the zero
• 22:53
  life, the stone heart, to a state of grace life, a heart of
• 22:57
  flesh. It cannot be a smooth gradual
• 23:01
  transition it. Can't be a dimmer switch.
• 23:02
  And it has to be a light switch. It must happen in a moment.
• 23:05
  And this is a really crucial distinction we have to make for
• 23:07
  you, the listener. Edwards is not saying the
• 23:09
  process leading up to conversion is instantaneous.
• 23:12
  No preparatory conviction, the feeling of sin, the study of
• 23:16
  Scripture, that can be a gradual and very long process.
• 23:19
  Yeah. But the actual work of
• 23:20
  implantation, the moment the person moves from death to life,
• 23:24
  that has to be sudden. Exactly.
• 23:26
  And Edward sees this instantaneousness beautifully
• 23:29
  symbolized all through scripture.
• 23:31
  I mean, think of the creation account.
• 23:32
  God speaks and it is done in an instant.
• 23:36
  The movement from chaos to order, from nothing to being is
• 23:39
  immediate upon the command. And resurrection provides that
• 23:43
  same powerful image. When Christ calls Lazarus from
• 23:46
  the grave, life goes with the call immediately.
• 23:50
  John 5.25 confirms this is a type of spiritual conversion.
• 23:54
  The dead hear the voice of the Son of God and they they hear
• 23:56
  live immediately. There's no slow recovery period.
• 24:01
  And conversion is often called calling in the Bible.
• 24:03
  Romans 8, Acts 2. It implies a powerful, effective
• 24:07
  word spoken by Christ which causes the sinner's heart to
• 24:10
  come immediately. If the change were gradual, the
• 24:13
  terminology of calling would be less fitting than, say,
• 24:16
  persuading or assisting a long process.
• 24:18
  The sudden calling of the disciples Peter, Andrew, James,
• 24:21
  John, Matthew, that serves as this kind of picture.
• 24:23
  Too right? They were busy, they were
• 24:24
  occupied with their livelihood, and Christ says follow me and
• 24:27
  they immediately followed. That immediacy symbolizes the
• 24:30
  instantaneous operation of the Spirit.
• 24:32
  It shows that something was instantaneously put into their
• 24:35
  hearts that effectually dispose them to obey something they had
• 24:38
  absolutely nothing of before that moment.
• 24:41
  It was an immediate creation of the will to follow.
• 24:43
  Edwards then reinforces this whole idea by looking at
• 24:46
  Christ's physical miracles. He argues they are types of the
• 24:50
  great work of converting sinners, and the manner in which
• 24:53
  the miracles happen speaks volumes.
• 24:56
  The consistency is really striking when you look at it,
• 24:58
  the healing of the leper, which represents the cleansing of
• 25:01
  spiritual impurity. Christ says, I will be thou
• 25:04
  clean. And immediately his leprosy was
• 25:07
  cleansed. There was no gradual fading away
• 25:09
  of the disease. The opening of blind eyes.
• 25:12
  He touched their eyes, and immediately they received their
• 25:15
  sight. The woman with the issue of
• 25:17
  blood. She touched the hem of his
• 25:19
  garment and was immediately stanched.
• 25:21
  The man at the pool of Bethesda was immediately made whole.
• 25:24
  This continuity suggests that the spiritual healing is equally
• 25:28
  decisive and instantaneous. The immediate effect symbolizes
• 25:31
  Christ's subduing of the wicked heart and the dispossession of
• 25:34
  the evil principle, all done at once at a word speaking.
• 25:38
  The change is not measured in hours or days, it is measured in
• 25:40
  a moment. And this reinforces the
• 25:42
  difference in kind. It has to If it were a gradual
• 25:45
  process, it would imply that the new principle was being slowly
• 25:48
  built out of the old flesh, which Edwards has already argued
• 25:52
  is impossible because the two natures are contrary to one
• 25:54
  another. O The instantaneous creation is
• 25:57
  logically necessary because the principle of life being imparted
• 26:00
  is entirely new. This absolute discontinuity
• 26:04
  therefore eliminates any possibility of man initiating or
• 26:08
  completing the work through his own effort.
• 26:10
  And this leads us to the second major inference, which is I
• 26:13
  think maybe the most humbling aspect of the whole treatise for
• 26:16
  the natural man, man's inability to convert himself.
• 26:19
  Right. If the change is one of kind,
• 26:21
  and it must be instantaneous, then man cannot affect his own
• 26:25
  conversion by his own strength or industry, or even by his
• 26:28
  religious practices, even if God offers concurrent assistance
• 26:32
  that just helps the exercise of his natural abilities.
• 26:35
  This is a direct confrontation with any view, historical or
• 26:38
  modern, that posits a kind of synergism, A cooperation where
• 26:42
  man provides some spiritual ingredient or completes the
• 26:45
  spiritual leap on his own. Edwards insists that what is
• 26:48
  gained by self improvement or moral suasion is only a gradual
• 26:52
  acquisition and a new modification of qualities that
• 26:55
  were already present in nature. So the natural man, when he's
• 26:58
  trying to convert himself, only has his existing qualities,
• 27:01
  powers, and imperfections to work with and to work upon.
• 27:04
  He can make his natural conscience more sensitive.
• 27:06
  He can make his religious fervor more intense and his moral
• 27:10
  effort more consistent, but these are all still just
• 27:12
  modifications of flesh. You can't create spirit out of
• 27:15
  flesh and to. Solidify this Edwards uses a
• 27:18
  pretty robust philosophical rule which he draws from thinkers
• 27:21
  like Doctor Clark, and this rule is really key to understanding
• 27:25
  why this is a logical impossibility, not just a
• 27:28
  theological preference. OK, let's slow down here and
• 27:30
  dissect this philosophical rule. It states that it is impossible
• 27:34
  that any effect should have any perfection that was not in the
• 27:36
  cause, for if it had, then that perfection would be caused by
• 27:41
  nothing. This is the ancient principle of
• 27:43
  causality. The effect cannot be greater in
• 27:45
  substance or in quality than its cause.
• 27:48
  So if the natural man's abilities, that's the cause
• 27:51
  contains 0° of the spiritual principle.
• 27:54
  Then any improvement or action that's derived from those
• 27:56
  abilities, the effect cannot possibly contain spiritual.
• 28:01
  Life. It can't.
• 28:02
  If it did that new superior perfection, the spiritual life
• 28:06
  would have just arisen out of non existence, which is
• 28:08
  philosophically absurd. Something can't come from
• 28:11
  nothing. This essentially locks the
• 28:12
  natural man into the prison of his own nature.
• 28:15
  His most fervent prayer, his greatest act of kindness, his
• 28:18
  most intense conviction of sin. These are all natural qualities,
• 28:22
  however much they might be assisted.
• 28:24
  They can never produce something entirely different and superior
• 28:27
  to themselves, which is what saving grace is.
• 28:30
  Natural qualities like figure or motion can only repeat or modify
• 28:34
  themselves. I mean, if you take the finest
• 28:36
  piece of natural metal and you Polish it and you assist it with
• 28:39
  great tools and you work on it for years, it just remains
• 28:42
  metal. It doesn't spontaneously become
• 28:44
  living tissue. Good analogy.
• 28:46
  And in the same way, natural abilities, however they're
• 28:49
  assisted by moral suasion or industry, cannot jump the gap to
• 28:53
  become a spiritual principle. So even if God were to assist a
• 28:58
  person's natural effort, say, by increasing their memory so they
• 29:02
  could better recall Scripture, or sharpening their natural
• 29:05
  conscience so they could feel guilt more acutely, unless that
• 29:09
  assistance actually produces the new spiritual principle, the
• 29:12
  result is still only a modification of the unsaved
• 29:15
  soul. It is still a refined, polished
• 29:18
  heart of stone. And the conclusion is
• 29:19
  inescapable within Edwards framework.
• 29:22
  Saving grace requires something more than all this.
• 29:25
  It demands an immediate infusion or operation of the divine being
• 29:29
  upon the soul. It's not an assisted
• 29:31
  reformation. It must be an act of sovereign
• 29:33
  creation, a production of His almighty power on the soul.
• 29:36
  And that brings the entire treatise full circle.
• 29:38
  The radical distinction between common and saving grace is not
• 29:41
  just a matter of spiritual status.
• 29:43
  It is a defense of the absolute sovereignty of God in salvation.
• 29:47
  Because saving virtue is distinct in nature and kind.
• 29:50
  And because the effect cannot exceed the natural cause.
• 29:52
  The introduction of this spiritual principle must be both
• 29:57
  instantaneous and an exclusive work of God's creative ability.
• 30:01
  There is no human cooperation in the creation of the spiritual
• 30:05
  life principle itself. That is the ultimate take away.
• 30:08
  Edwards has, I think, meticulously argued, through
• 30:11
  consistent scriptural interpretation and some rigorous
• 30:14
  philosophical logic, that the life of the believer is not on a
• 30:18
  continuum with the life of the world.
• 30:20
  It is a new start, defined by the immediate creative insertion
• 30:24
  of a wholly distinct divine nature.
• 30:26
  The significant implication for you, the learner, is
• 30:29
  understanding that the new creature is not a renovation of
• 30:32
  the old, but an instantaneous creation of a spiritual life
• 30:35
  principle that was entirely absent.
• 30:37
  It was at 0 before, and this structure absolutely validates
• 30:41
  the doctrine of sovereign grace and the exclusive operation of
• 30:43
  the Holy Spirit. And if conversion is defined as
• 30:46
  this instantaneous infusion of a life principle that was entirely
• 30:49
  absent before, then what implications does this hold for
• 30:52
  how we ought to view all the preparatory religious works or
• 30:55
  moral endeavors that are made before that moment?
• 30:57
  If they are simply flesh being polished and not spirit being
• 31:01
  grown, how do we correctly evaluate their utility and their
• 31:05
  theological standing in relation to the new birth?
• 31:08
  That is the question we'll leave with you to consider as you
• 31:10
  reflect on this deep dive into Edwards treatise.
• 31:13
  Until our next deep dive.