Latest / Reformed Thinking / Is Adam’s Sin Justly Imputed to Us? Edwards Responds | Jonathan Edwards

Transcript

Is Adam’s Sin Justly Imputed to Us? Edwards Responds | Jonathan Edwards · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Welcome to reformed thinking. Hello.
0:02
OK, let's unpack this. We've been given a challenging,
0:06
yet I think absolutely vital stack of material today.
0:10
It focuses on one of the most intellectually rigorous defenses
0:14
in all of theological literature.
0:16
That's not an overstatement. Jonathan Edwards is Systematic
0:19
argument for original sin and specifically the imputation of
0:23
Adam's guilt. Right.
0:25
And to be clear, this deep dive isn't really about whether the
0:28
doctrine is true. No, for our purposes, that's
0:31
understood to be consistent with the Orthodox Reformed tradition,
0:34
you know, particularly the Westminster Confessions view on
0:37
the Covenant of Works. Our mission is much more
0:39
precise. It's to understand Edwards's
0:42
unique defense of its well, it's reasonableness and justice.
0:47
Yes, especially against its most vehement critics.
0:50
The ones who just cry foul on the basis of individual
0:52
identity. That's the heart of it.
0:54
And that's what's so fascinating.
0:55
The sources show Edwards making this just breathtaking move.
0:58
He doesn't just rest on God's sovereignty or decree.
1:01
That would be the easy way out in a sense.
1:03
Right. He doesn't just say because God
1:05
said so, no. Instead, he defends imputation
1:08
by rooting it in metaphysics, the very nature of existence
1:12
itself. And he argues that this concept,
1:15
this divine constitution that God establishes, makes the moral
1:19
oneness of Adam and his descendants a real truth.
1:23
Not just a legal fiction. That's a key distinction.
1:25
It is so we're going to examine how Edwards confronts what he
1:28
calls the grand objection head on right.
1:31
He asserts that the critics assumptions about identity and
1:34
moral accountability are frankly flawed and.
1:37
Why are they flawed? Because they assume created
1:39
beings possess and entrench self-sustaining identity, which.
1:43
Only God has. Only God has.
1:45
So if we accept His view of divine Constitution, the
1:48
imputation of guilt becomes perfectly consistent with divine
1:51
justice. Because that link, that
1:53
constituted link, makes the whole species, morally speaking,
1:58
one unified agent in that first act.
2:00
That's his argument. So we are taking a very
2:02
abstract, often emotionally charged theological concept, and
2:06
we're grounding it in a radical view of physics and philosophy.
2:09
It is a tall order, even for a well informed listener.
2:13
It is. So let's make sure we ground the
2:15
conflict first. Let's do it.
2:16
What are we actually talking about here?
2:17
We have to start by clearly defining the doctrine under
2:20
scrutiny. OK?
2:21
And that is the imputation of the guilt of Adam's first sin to
2:26
his posterity. All of us, All of us.
2:28
The theological mechanism that makes this possible is the
2:31
covenant of works, right? God established Adam not just as
2:35
the first human, but as a public person, a representative, yes,
2:39
the head of the whole body, and I think more vividly, the root
2:43
of the whole tree. So Adam's actions had a kind of
2:46
dual nature then? How so?
2:48
Well, he was acting as Adam the individual, but at the same time
2:51
he was acting as Adam the federal representative.
2:53
Carrying the fate of the entire species on his shoulders
2:57
precisely, and heavyweight immense.
2:59
And the core belief is that in God's proceedings concerning
3:03
that covenant, He treated all descendants as if they had been
3:06
then existing in their root. As if so it established as a
3:10
kind of reality. It does.
3:12
When Adam transgressed, the species transgressed in him.
3:15
And the consequence of this, this constituted oneness.
3:19
Is that the guilt and the subsequent depravity came upon
3:21
the posterity at their first existence, just as they came
3:25
upon Adam instantly after his transgression.
3:28
The sources make it really clear that the fall wasn't just some
3:31
legal change of status. No, it was a fundamental
3:34
alteration of the state of the being itself.
3:36
Absolutely. The doctrine insists that the
3:40
alteration in the route that moral apostasy was attended at
3:44
the very same instant, with the corresponding alteration
3:47
throughout the whole species, the whole tree, the whole tree.
3:50
Which means that the sin being the original act of rebellion,
3:54
immediately and truly characterizes the entire race.
3:57
OK, and this is where we run straight into the brick wall of
4:00
what's call it common human intuition.
4:02
Yes, Edwards called the reaction against this doctrine the grand
4:06
objection. He did, and he said it was
4:08
accompanied by a mighty outcry and vehement exclamations.
4:11
We need to spend some time here because this objection, I think,
4:15
fuels most of the popular resistance to reformed theology
4:18
today. I agree the outcry is powerful
4:22
because it hinges on our intuitive sense of justice and
4:24
individualism. Right.
4:26
The core of the objection is that imputation is fundamentally
4:29
unjust and unreasonable because Adam and his prosperity are
4:34
entirely distinct agents. They're.
4:36
Physically separate, born centuries apart, they have their
4:39
own individual consciousness. Right, the argument is I am not
4:43
Adam, therefore you cannot hold me responsible for his actions.
4:46
It feels like a fundamental violation of personal
4:49
accountability. Of course it does, and the
4:51
critics argue that no arbitrary constitution, no external decree
4:55
or legal arrangement from God, can possibly make 2 entirely
4:58
distinct moral agents one. So for God to treat separate
5:02
people as if they were the single author of the same crime
5:05
implies what a falsehood, a legal fiction.
5:08
In their view, yes, and the consequence of this perceived
5:11
falsehood in the eyes of the critics is profound injustice.
5:14
They see God as punishing innocent creatures for a
5:17
transgression they never personally committed.
5:19
Which they would call capricious and unfair.
5:22
And this is the intellectual and emotional mountain that Edwards
5:25
has to climb. It is, and to climb it, he first
5:28
has to clarify what is actually being imputed.
5:30
OK, he explicitly rejects this misunderstanding, this idea of
5:34
double guilt. What's double guilt?
5:36
It's the idea that a person is charged with two separate sins.
5:40
First, guilt for Adam's outward act of eating the fruit, and
5:44
then a second, separate guilt for having a corrupt, depraved
5:48
heart. That seems like a really vital
5:50
clarification. It is.
5:51
Because if it were double guilt, it would just make the objection
5:54
even louder. So what is the single reality of
5:57
guilt? Edwards insists that the guilt a
5:59
person possesses at the very moment of their first existence
6:03
is 1 and simple. One and simple.
6:05
It is the guilt of the original apostasy, the single
6:09
foundational sin by which the species turned away from God.
6:13
So the depravity that comes with.
6:14
It the first existing of a corrupt disposition in the
6:18
descendant is not to be looked upon as sin, distinct from their
6:21
participation of Adam's first sin.
6:24
So the moral corruption we inherit isn't a separate piece
6:27
of evidence against us? Yeah, it's the inherence or the
6:30
manifestation of the original rebellion within the individual
6:33
member of the species. You've got it.
6:35
It's the consequence, but it's also the continuation, right?
6:38
Edwards calls it the extended pollution of Adam's first sin
6:41
through the whole constituted tree.
6:43
It's critical to understand that even Adam's original sin
6:46
involved his inner disposition, right?
6:48
The outward act was just the expression of the wickedness of
6:52
His will. That's right.
6:53
So the descendants corrupt disposition is simply the
6:55
sharing of that original wicked character made possible by the
7:00
union God established. Let's lean into the analogy
7:03
provided in the material because I think it helps visualize this
7:07
unity, the poison spring. It's a great analogy.
7:10
Imagine the spring is atom. Yeah, when it is poisoned,
7:13
that's the act of apostasy. Every stream flowing from it and
7:16
every cup filled from that stream contains that poison.
7:19
Right, it's all from the same source.
7:21
So when you analyze the water in the cup, you don't say the
7:24
spring was poisoned and this cup is now separately poisoned.
7:27
No, it's the same poison. The poison in the cup is the
7:30
poison of the spring extended. The guilt is a single moral
7:34
reality of rebellion against God flowing from the Constitution
7:37
root to all the branches. That helps clarify the unity of
7:40
the initial offense, but what about the actual conscious sins
7:45
a person commits throughout their life?
7:46
A very important question. When do we stop talking about
7:49
Adam's sin and start talking about my sin?
7:52
Edwards is careful to draw that line.
7:54
He clarifies that while the initial evil disposition, the
7:59
participation in the original apostasy, is the source of the
8:02
initial guilt, the continuance of that depravity as a confirmed
8:06
act of principle resulting in subsequent operations.
8:09
So actual conscious sin. Yes, those do bring new guilt
8:13
and additional guilt. So the initial inheritance is
8:16
the one and simple guilt of the species fall.
8:19
But my conscious acts later in life, the lying, the cheating,
8:22
the rebellion, those are new, distinct layers of guilt built
8:26
on that foundation. That's it.
8:28
The initial corruption is the inherited illness.
8:31
The subsequent acts are the symptoms that further confirm
8:34
the illness. And Edwards also frames the
8:36
continuance of that inherited corruption as a punishment
8:39
right. He does.
8:41
The continued existence of a soul forsaken by God's
8:44
preventing grace is itself a consequence of the first
8:47
transgression. God withdraws and the corruption
8:50
persists. And it brings added guilt
8:52
through the individual's new sins.
8:54
OK, so we've established the doctrine and the force of the
8:57
objection. Now we come to the part of
8:59
Edwards's argument that just shifts the entire playing field.
9:02
This is where it gets really interesting.
9:04
He says the grand objection that Adam and his descendants are
9:08
distinct agents is founded on a false hypothesis.
9:11
Help me trace the logic here. What exactly is this widely held
9:15
but in his view false assumption?
9:18
The false hypothesis is the assumption that created things
9:21
possess an absolute independent identity or permanent.
9:24
An independent identity. The critics just assume that
9:27
when God creates a chair or a tree or a soul, it is given an
9:31
inherent, self-sustaining existence that just persists
9:34
naturally over time, independent of any ongoing divine
9:37
involvement. Sort of like how God's own
9:39
existence is intrinsic. Exactly.
9:41
But everything feels like it has that intrinsic permanence,
9:44
doesn't it? Of course.
9:46
I look at this table and I assume its identity persists
9:49
unless I come along and break it.
9:51
And Edwards is challenging the very stability of the created
9:55
order as we perceive it. It's a radical challenge.
9:57
It is, he argues, that if we look closely at the relationship
10:01
between God and creation, we realized that created existence
10:06
is in a constant flux. And it's stability isn't
10:08
intrinsic. It's dependent.
10:10
He establishes this radical claim through the doctrine that
10:13
God's preservation is perfectly equivalent to a continued
10:16
creation. OK, that is a staggering
10:19
concept. I wanted to isolate that point.
10:20
Go ahead. Preservation is not just God
10:22
holding existing matter together.
10:24
It is God recreating it moment by moment.
10:27
What's the philosophical necessity that drives Edwards to
10:31
this this incredibly counterintuitive conclusion?
10:35
The necessity rests entirely on the discontinuity of time and
10:39
existence. OK, break that down.
10:40
The reasoning is that the past moment, the past existence of
10:44
any substance, entirely ceases when the present moment begins.
10:48
What is past is, strictly speaking, gone.
10:51
It does not continue to exist alongside the present, so when a
10:54
moment ends, the existence contained within that moment
10:57
ceases. And because the past existence
11:00
is truly gone, it cannot be the active cause of the present
11:04
moment's existence. Precisely think about causation.
11:07
For something to cause an effect, it must have some proper
11:10
influence or assistance in producing that effect.
11:12
But the past can't influence the present.
11:14
Because the past is nothing in the realm of present existence.
11:17
Wait, help me trace this. If the past existence of my body
11:21
cannot cause the present existence of my body, then what
11:25
is causing my current existence? Since existence is inherently
11:28
dependent, it can't sustain itself, and since the past
11:31
existence can't 'cause the present, then what?
11:34
The present existence of every created substance must be a new
11:38
effect. A new effect?
11:39
An effect produced immediately out of nothing by God's
11:42
immediate agency, will, and power.
11:45
It requires the same divine Fiat that brought existence into
11:49
being at the very start. That is truly radical.
11:51
It is. It means that what exists right
11:53
now in this single instantaneous moment is simply and absolutely
11:58
considered not the same substance as what existed just
12:01
an instant before. The objects are only different
12:04
from the first creation in the circumstantial way.
12:06
Because they appear to follow a predictable established
12:09
sequence. Right, it shatters the common
12:11
sense notion of intrinsic identity.
12:13
So the difference between the first creation and every
12:16
subsequent moment of preservation is only the
12:18
relation it holds to prior effects.
12:20
That's it. Edwards says that if God were to
12:22
suddenly stop preserving the universe, it wouldn't just
12:25
vanish. Oh, it happened.
12:26
It would simply fail to be created in the next instant.
12:29
Let's develop the movie analogy from the source material,
12:32
because it's the best way to visualize this.
12:34
It gives you something tangible to hold onto.
12:36
It's a great way to think about it.
12:38
Think of a piece of film running through a projector.
12:40
OK, to the audience, the character on the screen appears
12:43
continuous, solid, moving seamlessly through time.
12:47
But in reality the character is just a rapid succession of
12:50
static distinct images or veins. And frame 1 does not physically
12:54
cause frame 2. In fact, frame 1 vanishes
12:57
entirely before frame 2 is even projected.
12:59
So the characters continuity, their apparent identity and
13:02
substance isn't intriguing forensic to the frames
13:05
themselves. That at all?
13:07
The continuity is entirely dependent on the divine
13:09
projector God actively creating each new frame and maintaining
13:14
the rate and order of projection.
13:16
And that is the metaphysical point.
13:18
If we stop the film, the existence of the character would
13:21
cease. And if we started the film again
13:23
10 seconds later with a new frame.
13:24
That new frame would appear to the audience as the same
13:27
character continuing purely because of the sequence
13:30
established by the external projectionist.
13:32
So if the entire universe operates this way as a rapid
13:36
succession of distinct new effects, then there is
13:41
absolutely no natural oneness or necessary link connecting the
13:45
past moment to the present moment.
13:47
None. So identity must be established
13:49
externally. That's the pivot, the only thing
13:52
connecting these successive distinct existences.
13:54
What makes you the same person today as you were yesterday?
13:57
Or what makes this chair a chair, rather than a rapidly
14:01
appearing and disappearing cloud of nothing?
14:03
Is God's arbitrary constitution. Now we have to clarify that word
14:07
arbitrary. In common language.
14:09
It suggests randomness, Caprice, or, you know, a thoughtless
14:13
decree. Right.
14:14
And that's not what Edwards means.
14:16
So how does he define arbitrary constitution in this rigorous
14:19
philosophical context? He's very careful to distinguish
14:22
it from randomness. When he says a constitution is
14:24
arbitrary, he means it is dependent on nothing but the
14:28
divine will. OK.
14:29
The connection between the past and present is not physically
14:32
necessitated by the objects involved, nor can you derive it
14:35
from them. It flows entirely from God's
14:37
sovereign decision to establish that link.
14:39
But that sovereign decision isn't capricious.
14:42
It's supremely ordered. Exactly.
14:44
The divine will is regulated by divine wisdom.
14:47
God's constitution is designed to appear in a beautiful
14:50
analogy, in harmony with all other laws He establishes.
14:53
So it guarantees stability and usefulness.
14:55
It does. It is arbitrary only in the
14:57
sense that God could have chosen a different constitution, but it
15:01
is wise in that He chose the best constitution for the
15:04
established ends. So the conclusion of this
15:07
complex metaphysical argument is that identity, oneness,
15:11
continuity, and creation, they aren't inherent facts we
15:15
observe. They are truths God imposes upon
15:18
a constantly renewed reality. That is the essential insight,
15:21
Edwards is saying. Divine Constitution is what
15:24
makes truth in affairs of this nature.
15:25
So the critics objection that Adam and his descendants are
15:29
distinct and therefore cannot be 1 is just invalid from the
15:32
start. Because all created identity,
15:34
even the simplest physical continuity, is simply a result
15:36
of this divine constitution. It's not some self existing
15:40
intrinsic reality independent of God's constant work.
15:43
This moves the argument from the realm of justice to the realm of
15:48
ontology, the study of being. It does.
15:50
If we accept this radical view of existence, the idea of an
15:53
individual, separate, distinct agent who exists outside of
15:58
God's constituted system, just it falls apart.
16:02
And Edwards uses incredibly powerful, relatable examples to
16:06
show we accept this principle every single day without
16:08
realizing its metaphysical implications.
16:11
Let's start with physical identity, the tree example.
16:14
OK, consider a towering oak that has stood for 100 years.
16:18
We see it as one plant. We regard it as one plant with
16:21
the tiny sprout it grew from decades ago.
16:24
Yet structurally, visually, chemically, the tree has changed
16:27
entirely. Not a single atom of the
16:30
original substance that composed the sprout remains in the
16:33
current tree. Not one.
16:34
The unity, the designation of one plant, exists solely because
16:38
of the established law of nature, which is the mechanism
16:41
of God's constitution communicating successive
16:43
properties. So the tree's identity is a
16:45
constituted truth, not a material truth.
16:47
The material is different, but the constitutional linkage is
16:50
maintained. Exactly.
16:51
And the same principle applies, maybe more alarmingly, to her
16:55
own physical selves. It does.
16:57
The body of an adult at 50 is one with the infant body, even
17:02
though the substance has changed scores, if not hundreds of times
17:05
through metabolism and replacement.
17:07
And this continuity is maintained purely by God's
17:10
constitution establishing the sequence of life features and
17:14
form. Yes.
17:15
So if the substance itself is entirely new every moment, and
17:19
the material components have been fully replaced multiple
17:21
times, and yet we still call it one body.
17:24
Then we have already admitted that continuity is
17:26
constitutional. Right, and Edwards reserves his
17:29
most compelling illustration for personal identity and moral
17:32
accountability. He does.
17:33
He directly challenges those who are argue that personal identity
17:36
consists in same consciousness like memory or self-awareness.
17:40
This connects directly back to the objection.
17:42
If memory is what makes me me, then I certainly don't remember
17:46
eating the forbidden fruit. Exactly.
17:48
But Edwards argues that even the continuance of consciousness and
17:52
the responsibility for past sins, say the guilt for a crime
17:55
you committed 20 years ago, depends wholly on God's
17:58
arbitrary establishment. So why should the current moment
18:01
of consciousness be held accountable for the distinct
18:04
moment of consciousness 20 years ago?
18:06
We assume a psychological continuity connects them, of
18:10
course, but metaphysically those are two distinct effects, 2
18:13
separate creations in time. So there's no inherent necessity
18:17
for the remembrance and ideas of what is past to continue.
18:21
It relies entirely on the sovereign will of the Creator to
18:23
link those distinct moments of consciousness together and treat
18:27
them as one responsible agent. If God chose, he could separate
18:31
those moments entirely. Yes, this is a devastating
18:34
rhetorical move. It is if the only thing
18:37
connecting my 20 year old sinful self and my present self is a
18:40
constitutional link established by God.
18:42
Meaning, if I am not intrinsically continuous, then
18:46
the grand objection that Adam and I are too distinct to be
18:49
connected just loses all its intellectual grounding.
18:51
We are all only continuous by decree.
18:54
The critics assume Adam and his posterity are more separated
18:57
than I am from my past self. But Edwards demonstrates that
19:01
neither separation is absolute. Exactly, If God can justly
19:04
constitute the distinct, not continuous, moments of one
19:07
person's life into a single moral agent, who are we to say
19:12
he cannot justly constitute the distinct generations of humanity
19:16
as a single moral entity? Now we make the pivot from
19:19
metaphysics to theology, right? We have established that
19:22
identity is dependent on God's constitution.
19:25
This allows Edwards to transition the argument and
19:28
justify the moral union that binds the root and the branches
19:31
together. And since all identity, whether
19:33
it's temporal, one person over time, or corporate, Adam and his
19:36
race, relies on God's sovereign constitution.
19:39
The justice is found in the Constitution itself.
19:41
That's right. If God can justly constitute the
19:44
distinct moments of one person's life as one, making them
19:47
responsible for a decades old sin, then he can just as validly
19:50
establish a constitution uniting Adam and his descendants as a
19:53
single entity. And this is important.
19:55
Edwards is stressing that this oneness is not some polite legal
19:59
fiction where God simply pretends a connection exists for
20:02
convenience. Absolutely not.
20:04
Because the Constitution makes truth in these matters, the sin
20:06
is considered truly and properly theirs.
20:09
It's not just a charge on a. No, it is the reality of
20:13
participation in the fall established by this divine
20:15
union. The guilt is real because the
20:18
species in God's eyes and by His established nature, acted as one
20:22
moral agent in the initial apostasy.
20:25
This brings us to the sensitive issue that always follows the
20:28
doctrine of original sin. God's active role.
20:30
Yes. If God's constitution makes the
20:32
depravity real in the descendants, does that make God
20:36
the positive author of that original evil?
20:38
A. Critical question and Edwards is
20:40
careful to align himself with the classical Reformed position
20:43
that God is not the author of evil.
20:46
He explains God's relationship to the first evil inclination in
20:49
Adam as an act of sovereign permission, not positive agency
20:53
or infusion. How does he define that
20:55
distinction? Permission versus positive
20:57
agency in a moment as crucial as the fall.
21:00
Well, God possesses the power to prevent any evil He could have,
21:04
provided, as Edwards says, such influences of his Spirit as
21:07
would have been absolutely effectual to hinder it.
21:10
But he didn't. The first evil arose in Adam's
21:13
heart because God sovereignly chose to withhold or withdraw
21:18
that preventing influence. So the absence of God's
21:21
preventing grace allowed Adam's inherent creaturely weakness to
21:25
express itself in a wicked choice.
21:28
But God did not inject the wickedness.
21:30
Exactly. The initial evil sprang from
21:32
Adam's own will. God merely chose not to exert
21:35
the countervailing force. By limiting his involvement to
21:38
merely withholding influence, God allowed the sin to occur
21:42
without being the positive author of that evil disposition.
21:45
The. Responsibility for the choice
21:46
remains entirely Adam's. Right.
21:48
Now how does that original sovereign withholding extend to
21:51
the posterity? Because of the constituted
21:54
oneness between Adam and his race.
21:55
The same constitutional link. It ensures that the branches
21:59
share the same altered moral state as the root.
22:02
Since Adam, the root was abandoned by preventing grace.
22:06
The withholding of that influence naturally extends to
22:09
the posterity. God acts or refrains from acting
22:12
toward the descendants as He did toward the root.
22:15
That's right. So when a descendant comes into
22:17
existence, they are a new effect created by God, but they are
22:21
created within a constituted system where God is already
22:24
withholding the preventing influence due to the prior
22:27
apostasy. And that's the consequence of
22:28
the Union. A corrupt disposition exists in
22:31
the descendants heart equivalent to that which was exerted in his
22:34
own heart, and God has no hand in that depravity other than in
22:39
not exerting such an influence as might be effectual to prevent
22:42
it. So the initial evil disposition
22:45
is participation in the apostasy itself, which is what brings
22:48
that one in simple guilt. Correct.
22:50
And just to reiterate the distinction he made earlier, the
22:53
continued existence of this confirmed corruption, the daily
22:57
reality of a soul alienated from God, is the punishment for that
23:00
first transgression. Which God administers by
23:03
forsaking the soul and leaving it to its own fallen devices.
23:07
Yes, and having established his metaphysical framework, Edwards
23:12
turns back to demolish the critics final arguments on
23:15
justice Right. The first difficulty the critics
23:18
pressed was that the very act of establishing the Constitution
23:21
was injurious. They argued that appointing Adam
23:24
as a federal head was unfair or harmful to mankind's collective
23:28
interests. The argument is why should God
23:31
risk everyone on the choices of one person?
23:33
It would have been far safer if everyone stood trial for
23:36
themselves. Or so they say.
23:38
Edwards counters this immediately.
23:40
He argues that the arrangement offered a more eligible
23:43
probability of a happy issue than if everyone stood trial for
23:46
themselves. So he completely flips it.
23:49
He does. He transforms the critics claim
23:51
of injury into an argument for God's benevolence in the
23:54
arrangement. What were his specific reasons
23:56
for believing Adam was a better representative than the
23:59
individuals would have been? This is a strong point for you,
24:01
the listener. He provides 2 powerful reasons.
24:04
First, Adam was created and stood trial as a mature adult,
24:09
perfected in nature with all his faculties fully developed.
24:12
He was capable of rational perseverance.
24:14
Yes. Descendants, on the other hand,
24:16
enter the world through propagation as infants, who
24:20
remain for a great while in a state of comparative
24:22
imperfection after becoming moral agents.
24:25
So an individual who starts life in a state of intellectual and
24:28
moral infancy is objectively less prepared to stand a perfect
24:32
life or death moral trial. Much less prepared than a mature
24:36
adult who started in a state of perfection.
24:38
Exactly the odds if every person had to achieve perfect obedience
24:42
from birth would be dramatically.
24:44
Worse, it's far wiser to risk the species fate on a fully
24:47
prepared, pristine representative.
24:49
That's his point. And the second reason relates to
24:51
motive. OK, Adam had a far greater
24:53
motivation to persevere than any individual descendant would
24:56
have. How so?
24:57
He had stronger motives to watchfulness, not only his own
25:01
eternal welfare, but the eternal fate of the whole race.
25:03
All unborn generations lay at stake.
25:06
That immense weight of consequence provided a vastly
25:10
stronger incentive to persevere. Much stronger than any
25:13
individual could have had if they were standing trial just
25:16
for themselves. So even on the critics own terms
25:20
of maximizing positive probability, the federal
25:23
arrangement was the more benevolent and rational choice.
25:26
Yes, and if a critic still insist that they personally
25:29
would have chosen to stand for themselves.
25:31
What does Edward say? He dismisses that as mere vain
25:35
opinion of himself. It's the demonstrably superior
25:38
structure in terms of probability for success for the
25:41
whole species that matters, not human pride.
25:44
Now let's discuss the second hurdle.
25:46
Edwards tackles this attempt by some theologians to find a
25:49
middle ground. Yes, the idea of partial
25:51
imputation. Right, they try to soften the
25:54
doctrine. This was a common theological
25:56
compromise in Edwards's time. These critics tried to hold onto
25:59
the idea of God's reasonableness by agreeing that Adam's sin
26:02
causes only temporal death and natural corruption.
26:04
But not eternal ruin. But not eternal ruin.
26:08
This modification was designed to avoid the harshest charge of
26:11
injustice while still retaining some degree of connection
26:15
between Adam and the race. So they were trying to say we
26:18
share the consequence of temporal suffering, but we are
26:21
distinct agents when it comes to eternal damnation.
26:24
And Edwards rejects this modification completely.
26:27
He calls it logically inconsistent and intellectual
26:30
dishonest. Why?
26:32
He argues that if the grand objection that we are entirely
26:35
distinct agents and cannot justly be punished holds true,
26:39
then imputing any penalty, even temporal suffering, illness or
26:43
physical death, is unjust. This is the critical juncture.
26:47
If the principle of distinct agency is violated by taking the
26:50
whole eternal penalty, it is also violated by taking the
26:54
partial temporal penalty. It's his debt analogy again.
26:57
He states that if someone tries to take the whole debt from a
27:00
neighbor who doesn't owe it, that is a greater act of
27:02
injustice in terms of magnitude. But taking only a part of that
27:06
debt is not more truly an act of injustice than taking only a
27:10
part. An unjust act remains unjust
27:13
regardless of the size of the punishment.
27:15
So by trying to soften the consequences and arguing for
27:18
partial imputation, those theologians are actually
27:21
validating the premise of the objection.
27:24
The very premise that distinct agents cannot be punished, it
27:28
undermines their entire acceptance of even temporal
27:30
suffering. They can't logically have it
27:32
both ways. No, there is no middle ground of
27:35
reasonableness that allows for partial punishment of distinct
27:38
agents. One must accept the full
27:40
imputation based on the constituted oneness and the
27:43
truth it creates, or reject the concept entirely and thereby
27:46
reject the biblical and observable reality of universal
27:49
suffering. Which brings us to Edwards's
27:51
final and most practical proof, the justice of fact.
27:55
Yes, he essentially turns the tables on the critics using the
27:58
undeniable reality of human experience.
28:00
The plain fact is that every individual of mankind comes into
28:03
the world in such circumstances that they are justly exposed to
28:06
sorrow, universal temporal death, and eternal ruin, unless
28:10
saved by grace. This universal suffering, sin
28:14
and mortality is an observable empirical phenomenon.
28:17
It demands an explanation. And the explanation cannot be
28:21
that God is punishing them for their own actual sins.
28:23
Why not? Because the suffering begins at
28:25
birth, before any conscious transgression.
28:27
Right. The existence of misery and
28:30
death in infants and small children is a massive, silent
28:33
contradiction to the idea that humanity starts in a state of
28:37
intrinsic innocence wholly distinct from Adam.
28:39
It is. So what is the ultimate dilemma
28:41
Edwards forces the critics to confront?
28:44
If God views humanity as innocent, distinct and
28:47
individual agents, as the critics claim, then subjecting
28:51
these innocent creatures to this infinitely dreadful calamity.
28:54
Suffering physical death. The certainty of moral ruin.
28:58
Would make God appear truly unjust.
29:01
It would be a genuine, monstrous injustice to punish the innocent
29:04
without cause. In other words, the imputation
29:06
of guilt based on the constituted oneness is the only
29:09
coherent explanation that clears God of the charge of injustice
29:13
in the face of universal human suffering and death.
29:15
That's the argument. If you deny the cause, which is
29:18
the guilt and the oneness, you are left with a world governed
29:21
by a Creator who senselessly punishes the innocent.
29:25
So Edwards concludes that the fact that God does subject all
29:29
individuals to the consequences of the fall proves that he does
29:33
treat them as one with Adam. Yes, whether the critics like
29:37
the philosophy of dependent identity or not, the undeniable
29:41
facts of mortality and sin oblige us to accept the
29:44
solution. Or acknowledge the limits of our
29:46
own understanding regarding the sovereign constitutions of God.
29:49
That's it. He takes the primary evidence
29:51
used against the doctrine universal suffering, and
29:54
redeploys it as the ultimate proof for the doctrine.
29:58
It's a powerful rhetorical and theological move.
30:00
So what does this all mean for us?
30:02
We've spent a good amount of time delving into some of the
30:04
most complex concepts Edwards ever tackled.
30:06
We have. We've shifted the discussion of
30:08
original sin from a simple legal decree to a philosophical
30:11
reality that governs every moment of our existence.
30:14
And I think the key insights we've uncovered are, first, that
30:17
Edwards's refutation of distinct agency hinges entirely on this
30:21
idea that all created identity is dependent on God's sovereign
30:24
constitution. It's not intrinsic.
30:26
It's not self-sustaining. Second, this dependency is
30:29
rooted in the radical metaphysical concept that
30:32
preservation is continuous creation.
30:35
Every moment of existence is a new effect. 3rd This means that
30:39
the divine Constitution is what makes truth in affairs of
30:42
identity. That allows for the moral union
30:45
between Adam and his descendants to be truly real, not a legal
30:49
fiction. And finally, that guilt and
30:51
depravity are a single unified reality, the extended pollution
30:55
of the original apostasy, made manifest in the branches but
30:59
traceable back to the root. This detailed structure really
31:02
shows us that Edwards viewed God's governance is deeply
31:05
coherent. Yes, his action regarding
31:07
original sin isn't some harsh, isolated decree.
31:09
No, it's an instance of the exact same law of constitutional
31:13
oneness that upholds the rest of the created order.
31:16
So the metaphysical structure of existence coheres perfectly with
31:19
the moral structure of existence.
31:21
Which leaves us with this final provocative thought for you to
31:23
contemplate. Building on this idea of
31:26
dependent existence. If all created identity, from
31:30
the continuity of a tree to your personal consciousness that
31:33
links your past sins to your present self, to the moral unity
31:36
of the human race, is entirely dependent on God's sovereign
31:39
constitution and recreation moment by moment, how does that
31:43
shift the way you perceive the stability of the created order
31:46
and consequently your own sense of self ownership and moral
31:49
responsibility within that constantly renewed existence?
31:53
Until the next deep dive.