Latest / Reformed Thinking / Answers the Remaining Objections to Original Sin | Jonathan Edwards

Transcript

Answers the Remaining Objections to Original Sin | Jonathan Edwards · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Welcome back to reformed thinking.
0:01
It's good to be here. We're undertaking a deep dive
0:04
today into the the theological battleground of the 18th
0:08
century, specifically the incredibly sophisticated and
0:12
detailed defense of the doctrine of original sin laid out by
0:15
Jonathan Edwards. That's right.
0:17
And when you look at Edwards treatise on original sin, it's
0:20
important to see it for what it is.
0:22
You're not just reading abstract theology, No, you're really
0:25
seeing a master jurist respond to what he saw as an existential
0:29
threat to Reformed thought. His work was a forensic defense
0:32
against critics, often personified in the sources as a
0:36
Doctor T who is sort of a composite of early modern
0:39
liberal theologian. And their goal was what exactly?
0:42
They were attempting to dismantle the very idea that
0:45
Adam's sin corrupted human nature and placed his posterity
0:48
under divine curse and forfeiture.
0:50
OK, so let's unpack this for you the listener.
0:52
Our mission is to get really clearview of Edwards core
0:55
strategies because this wasn't a piece meal defense.
0:58
Not at all. It was systematically ear tight
1:00
we're. Going to focus on how he manages
1:01
the central tension. First, how he distinguishes
1:04
between the types of blessings God grants, which lets him
1:07
maintain that the curse is real even if temporal life continues,
1:11
and 2nd, his brilliant, almost judicial explanation of the
1:15
final judgement. And that second point is key, he
1:18
shows. Its purpose is not to
1:19
investigate guilt, but to declare it publicly.
1:22
The core objection raised by the critics always seem to circle
1:25
back to divine justice, right always.
1:27
If God is just, how can humanity be born guilty for sin committed
1:32
by someone else? And if we are under a curse,
1:35
this sentence of forfeiture, why do we still see temporal
1:38
blessings? Like the ability to have
1:40
children, to farm, to exercise some dominion.
1:43
All of it. Why do those things continue
1:45
across generations? Edward set out to prove that
1:48
these two realities, universal condemnation and sustaining
1:51
temporal grace, are not contradictory.
1:54
And that brings us directly to the first major hurdle Doctor T
1:57
throws up the persistence of temporal blessings.
2:00
He uses the narrative of Noah as his primary evidence.
2:03
A very clever place to start from his perspective.
2:06
Doctor TS argument against a standing curse feels quite
2:09
intuitive. I mean, he looks at the world
2:11
after the great flood. God gave Noah and his sons
2:14
explicit blessings. The command to be fruitful and
2:17
multiply the renewal of dominion over creatures.
2:20
Exactly. And Doctor T suggested these
2:23
blessings were equivalent to or even greater than the blessings
2:26
given to Adam at his first creation.
2:28
So his conclusion is simple. If God is restoring humanity to
2:32
its original state of fruitfulness and power, how can
2:35
humanity still be under a standing curse or forfeiture?
2:39
It's a compelling piece of evidence if you view all
2:41
blessings as, you know, monolithic.
2:43
If a blessing is just a blessing, right?
2:45
But here is where Edwards introduces the surgical
2:47
precision that's so necessary for good theology.
2:50
He argues that Doctor T completely misses which
2:53
blessings were conditional. Edwards drew a critical
2:56
structural distinction between two categories of blessings that
3:00
Adam possessed. OK, let's call the first
3:01
category the temporal blessings. Yes, that's a good way to put
3:05
it. These are the aspects of Adam's
3:07
existence that belong to the the natural constitution of
3:11
creation. This includes existence itself,
3:14
the capacitor to propagate life, and the basic grant of dominion
3:18
over the physical world. The day-to-day stuff of being
3:21
human in the world God made right.
3:24
Edwards notes that these were given to Adam at his first
3:26
creation and before the trial. They were essentially the
3:29
necessary prerequisites, the equipment Adam received to live
3:32
in Eden and participate in the Covenant of Works.
3:35
But not the prize. They were not the reward for
3:38
success. So if we use that athlete
3:40
analogy, we sometimes talk about these temporal blessings are the
3:44
uniform, the training regimen, the signing bonus.
3:46
They're what allows you to be in the stadium and play the game.
3:49
Precisely, they enable the competition, but they are not
3:51
the trophy. Now that you have to contrast
3:53
that with the second category, the suspended blessings.
3:56
These are the ones that were truly at stake.
3:58
Absolutely. These are strictly the blessings
4:01
of eternal life. Edwards emphasizes that these
4:03
blessings were reserved until the issue of Adam's trial was
4:06
known. So they were conditional.
4:08
Entirely conditional, dependent upon Adam maintaining his
4:11
integrity through his trial. This reward, this eternal life
4:15
in perfect communion with God, was intended to be pronounced by
4:19
God acting as a judge. They would come in a blessed
4:22
sentence after Adams successfully completed his
4:25
period of probation. That shift in timing is just
4:28
crucial. The temporal blessings were
4:30
given before the contract even started.
4:33
The eternal blessing was the wage promised after the contract
4:36
was fulfilled. That's it.
4:38
And by establishing this judicial context, Edwards
4:40
instantly neutralizes Dr. T's objection about the curse being
4:44
lifted. How so?
4:45
Well, if the blessings of existence and propagation were
4:48
never conditional in the 1st place, if they belong to this
4:51
structure of creation, not the terms of the specific probation,
4:55
then their continuance after the fall is entirely consistent with
4:58
the curse. I see the curse was the
5:00
forfeiture of the prize, the eternal relationship, not the
5:03
immediate destruction of the created world.
5:05
Yes, it creates a really powerful consistency argument.
5:08
I mean, think about it, if the curse had entailed the immediate
5:11
cessation of all temporal blessings.
5:13
Then Adam himself would have been annihilated instantly upon
5:17
transgression. Right.
5:18
He wouldn't have lived another second.
5:20
Edwards forces the critics to recognize that Adam himself,
5:23
after the fall, still existed, he's still propagated, and he
5:27
retains some measure of dominion over his immediate surroundings,
5:30
albeit now with great toil and death.
5:33
So the continuance of these very same temporal blessings for
5:36
Adam's posterity is therefore no more inconsistent with the
5:40
judicial sentence and curse than Adams own continued survival in
5:44
parenthood was. So the fall violated the
5:46
pathway, the constitution that was established for obtaining
5:49
eternal life, the moral constitution, but it did not
5:53
immediately revoke the structural basic gift of
5:56
temporal existence. A gift which is sustained by
5:58
God's general Providence. It's an exercise in separating
6:02
God's moral governance from his natural governance.
6:05
Say a bit more about that separation.
6:06
God as sovereign continues to sustain the world, which is His
6:10
natural governance. This includes the operation of
6:13
creation ordinances like fruitfulness.
6:15
But at the same time, God as Judge has pronounced a sentence
6:19
of forfeiture and spiritual death upon the race.
6:22
That's his moral governance. And the two can operate at the
6:24
same time. Edwards makes the point that had
6:27
God chosen to inflict the full penalty immediately, he could
6:31
have justly revoked even the natural gifts.
6:34
But He chose, in his mercy and in view of the coming mediator,
6:37
to sustain life. So this moves the whole
6:40
discussion from a physical observable reality.
6:42
You know, we are still here, we can still have families to a
6:45
hidden judicial. Reality.
6:47
A spiritual reality. Right.
6:49
A reality where we have forfeited the higher spiritual
6:51
standing. This separation makes the whole
6:53
system logical again. It absolutely does.
6:56
The great threatening was the loss of the higher suspended
6:59
blessing, that perfect and immediate favor of God leading
7:02
to eternal life. OK, that establishes the
7:04
distinction, but we still have to return to Noah.
7:07
Doctor T saw the post flood grant as a simple continuation
7:11
of the original state. How does Edwards argue that the
7:14
blessings given to Noah were not just a maintenance of that
7:17
state, but something radically different?
7:19
And this is where Edwards transitions from, you could say
7:22
legal definition to redemptive theology.
7:26
He argues the blessings given to Noah were not a simple
7:29
restoration of Adam's pre fall condition.
7:32
They were granted on a new foundation.
7:34
And that new foundation is. The covenant of grace
7:37
established in Christ Jesus. So the outward manifestation of
7:40
the blessing, you know, be fruitful, have dominion, it may
7:44
look the same on the surface, but the underlying
7:46
jurisprudence, the source of that blessing, has been
7:49
completely reset. Precisely, and Edwards offers 3
7:52
lines of specific scriptural evidence from Genesis to confirm
7:55
this new foundation of grace. The 1st is the prophetic naming
7:59
of Noah. Right.
7:59
Tell us about that. The sources mention his father
8:02
Lamech named him Noah, which means rest.
8:05
Yes, and Lamech named him with his very specific prophecy.
8:09
This same shall comfort us concerning our work and toil of
8:13
our hands, because of the ground which the Lord hath cursed.
8:17
Because of the ground which the Lord hath cursed, he names it
8:20
explicitly. He names it.
8:22
Edwards argues that this name itself is a perpetual testimony
8:26
to the curse. The naming doesn't deny the
8:28
curse. It names the curse and signals
8:30
that the purpose of Noah's life is to bring some measure of
8:33
deliverance from its toil. So if the curse had been lifted
8:37
after the fall, that prophecy from Lamech would be totally
8:39
meaningless. He's explicitly naming the
8:41
ongoing hardship caused by the curse on the ground.
8:44
Exactly. The blessings given to Noah
8:46
after the flood, therefore, are granted pursuant to the scope of
8:49
that prophecy. They represent a measure of rest
8:52
and relief, a temporary mitigation of the effects of
8:55
Adam's sin. But this mitigation is
8:57
conditional upon God's mercy, not humanity's innocence.
9:00
It's a clear theological proof that the curse remains in effect
9:04
even if the severity of the toil is eased.
9:07
It is now the second piece of evidence.
9:09
The context of the blessing is perhaps even stronger.
9:12
It ties the grant directly to Christ.
9:14
You're talking about the role of sacrifice.
9:16
I am. The blessings given to Noah
9:19
followed the sacrifice he offered immediately after
9:21
leaving the ark, which God smelled as a sweet savor.
9:26
Now Edwards, who is so steeped in the New Testament, makes a
9:29
critical connection here. To the Epistle to the Hebrews.
9:32
Right, which teaches that ancient sacrifices only obtained
9:35
divine favor by virtue of the relation they had to the
9:38
sacrifice of Christ. That moves the Post Flood grant
9:41
entirely out of the realm of natural law and straight into
9:45
redemptive history. It's a different legal system
9:47
altogether. It does.
9:49
It shows that God's renewed favor toward mankind, the basis
9:52
for the blessings of fruitfulness and dominion, is
9:55
not granted because humanity somehow restored its original,
9:58
innocent relationship with God. It's because Noah, acting as the
10:02
head of the new family of man, acted in faith, offering a
10:06
representative sacrifice that pointed to the coming great
10:09
sacrifice. The blessing is a gift of
10:11
redemption procured by the Mediator.
10:14
God deals with mankind under a different principle now.
10:17
Not the rigorous justice of the Covenant of Works.
10:19
But through the mercy of the covenant of grace.
10:22
And so if God's dealings with the world after Noah are
10:25
predicated upon a sacrifice pointing to Christ, then the
10:29
original curse must still be in place.
10:31
It requires that substitute. It proves the rule by the
10:34
exception, and the third line of argument reinforces this.
10:38
The necessity of grace itself OK, If humanity were not justly
10:41
exposed to the curse, they would not require a system of grace or
10:45
redemption to receive God's favor, even temporally.
10:49
The very fact that humanity needs to depend on grace and
10:52
redemption for these benefits proves they are naturally under
10:56
condemnation. The necessity of the physician
10:58
proves the disease. It is the spiritual equivalent,
11:01
saying the fact that the entire town is dependent on a doctor's
11:04
charity clinic proves the town is suffering from a widespread
11:07
epidemic. It's simple but so often
11:09
overlooked. And this leads to a fascinating
11:12
expansion Edwards makes regarding the quality of the
11:14
blessings themselves. He argues that for believers,
11:17
those who actually adhere to the covenant of grace and
11:19
participate in redemption, their dominion over creation is of a
11:23
more excellent sense than Adam's was in Innocence.
11:27
Which is an amazing thought. How is it superior to Adam's
11:30
original perfect dominion? That seems counterintuitive.
11:33
Because the believers dominion is not fragile like Adam's was,
11:37
it wasn't conditional on his own faithfulness.
11:40
It is rooted in their union with Christ.
11:43
Edwards refers to the redeemed as kings and priests unto God,
11:47
participants in Christ's own royal authority, which is
11:50
universal and indestructible. Christ, as the last Adam, has
11:55
regained and surpassed the original dominion.
11:57
So the blessings believers receive reflect this
12:00
participation in Christ's authority.
12:02
Yes, this shows that what was lost in Adam was indeed
12:06
superseded by something infinitely better in Christ,
12:09
which cements the fact that the original state was definitively
12:11
forfeited. That is a critical point.
12:13
The blessings that look similar on the outside.
12:15
Dominion, fruitfulness are received in a fundamentally
12:19
different and theologically safer way through Christ.
12:22
Doctor T saw Noah's blessings as a denial of the curse.
12:25
Well, Edward saw them as evidence of God's redemptive
12:27
mercy overriding the effects of the curse.
12:29
Exactly. Edwards has managed to defend
12:32
the existence of the curse without denying the goodness of
12:34
God's Providence, all by rooting that Providence in Christ.
12:38
A masterful argument. So we've covered the temporal
12:40
issue, but what about the heart of the judicial problem?
12:44
Imputation. The critics, including Doctor T,
12:48
Just found the idea that Adam's sin is legally charged to people
12:51
born centuries later to be unjust and frankly foreign to
12:55
Scripture. The linguistic objection was
12:58
their primary attack point. This is where they thought they
13:00
had them. Doctor T argued against the
13:02
imputation of Adam's sin because the word impute is frequently
13:06
used for personal voluntary sin in the Bible, but it is never
13:09
once explicitly applied to God's reckoning of Adam's sin to his
13:13
descendants. The implication being, if this
13:16
doctrine is so central, where is the specific unambiguous
13:19
language? This feels like a trap set by
13:21
relying purely on linguistics on a single word.
13:24
Edward's semantic defense must be strong here.
13:27
It is. Edward's first challenges the
13:29
premise itself that the word impute is frequently used for
13:33
personal sin. He points out, upon close
13:35
examination of the text cited by Doctor T, that the word is
13:38
actually quite rare, even in the context of personal guilt.
13:42
Really. Yes, major personal sins like
13:44
pride, idolatry, theft, profanity, they're all described
13:47
as deserving punishment, but rarely is the specific word
13:50
impute attached to them. Yet no one debates that they are
13:54
reckoned against the Sinner. So focusing on the literal word
13:57
is just a distraction. It's designed to divert
13:59
attention from the actual concept being taught.
14:01
Edwards shifts the focus to the concept.
14:03
He argues that the Holy Spirit uses phrases that are far fuller
14:07
and more precise explanations of imputation than the single word
14:11
itself could ever be. And he points to Romans 5.
14:14
Specifically to Romans 5.100. By his disobedience many were
14:18
made sinners, and verse 18. Condemnation came upon all by
14:21
that sin. These declarations, he asserts,
14:24
describe the thing meant by imputation, the actual
14:27
consequence of being judicially reckoned guilty.
14:30
So they more certainly determine the point than merely finding
14:33
the word impute applied to Adam's transgression.
14:36
The results, condemnation and being made sinners, prove the
14:41
legal reckoning occurred. It's the effect that
14:43
demonstrates the cause. So Edwards is arguing that the
14:47
proof of the legal state isn't found in a single word, but in
14:51
the chain of consequences that flow from Adam.
14:54
Absolutely. And to demonstrate that God uses
14:57
legal reckoning mechanisms that are not purely based on
14:59
individual physical action, Edwards pulls out this
15:02
incredibly detailed Levitical president.
15:05
This is the passage from Leviticus 17 concerning
15:07
sacrificial animals. I have to admit this seems like
15:10
a strange place to find proof of original sin.
15:12
This. Is a brilliant forensic move.
15:14
The law describes a man who kills a sacrificial animal
15:17
outside the prescribed place which was the Tabernacle door,
15:21
and scripture says blood imputed into that man.
15:24
He hath shed blood. Edwards analyzes this.
15:26
The man physically killed an animal, yes, but the consequence
15:29
is that he is legally reckoned as a murderer, guilty of
15:32
shedding blood. Wait, isn't that equating a
15:34
covenant violation? This procedural mistake of not
15:37
bringing the animal to the Tabernacle with moral guilt
15:40
effectively murder. That is precisely what Edwards
15:43
is highlighting. It demonstrates A precedent
15:45
where God legally reckons a specific severe type of guilt,
15:49
murder for an action that was not literally murder.
15:53
All based on a violation of the established covenantal order
15:56
concerning sacrifice, yes. The man is charged with a
15:59
constructive guilt, a legal reckoning based on his
16:02
relationship to a violated ordinance.
16:05
If God can impute the guilt of shedding blood for a breach of
16:08
ritual order, Edwards asks, why can he not justly impute the
16:12
Guild of Adam's transgression a breach of the most important
16:15
covenantal order to his posterity, who are united to him
16:19
as their federal head? That clearly bridges the gap
16:21
between ritual law and universal moral responsibility.
16:25
It establishes the mechanism of constructive legal reckoning in
16:28
the Scriptures. It shows that God's judicial
16:30
practice stands beyond just the literal physical act.
16:33
It solidifies the point that imputation in God's economy is a
16:37
legal device used to account for breaches in covenant structures,
16:41
regardless of whether the physical action was performed by
16:43
the person being charged. OK, moving to the New Testament,
16:46
Dr. T raised another substantial objection.
16:49
Christ himself says not one word about original sin in the
16:53
Gospels. Why would the Savior be silent
16:56
on the doctrine that supposedly necessitates his own sacrifice?
17:00
That's a fair question on the surface, and Edwards provides 4
17:04
layered rebuttals to this charge of silence, demonstrating
17:08
Christ's wisdom and pedagogy and timing.
17:11
The 1st is what we could call implicit teaching.
17:14
Christ was continually saying those things which plainly
17:16
implied the universal sinfulness and misery of man.
17:20
He didn't need to give a sermon defining inherited corruption
17:23
when his actions and parables screamed the diagnosis.
17:26
Such as the need to be born again in John three.
17:28
I mean, that statement alone presupposes that the current
17:31
state of nature is defective or dead.
17:33
You don't need to be born again if you were born right the first
17:35
time. Absolutely, and Christ often
17:38
spoke of Himself as the Physician, and humanity is sick
17:41
and lost. The act of seeking and saving
17:45
that which was lost is the constant application of the
17:48
doctrine of original corruption. The very mission of Christ is
17:52
the proof of the disease. The second rebuttal deals with
17:55
the practical method of Christ preaching.
17:57
Right. This is the practical conviction
17:58
argument which which I think speaks volumes about Edward's
18:01
pastoral heart. Christ primarily preached the
18:04
strict, uncompromising holy law of God, the Sermon on the Mount
18:08
being the peak example He. Raised the bar incredibly high.
18:12
Incredibly, Edwards argues, this method was designed to search
18:16
the hearts of men and force a proper conviction of conscience
18:19
regarding their own deep, pervasive sinfulness.
18:22
This conviction of the inability to meet God's standard is the
18:25
necessary preparation for receiving the redemption Christ
18:28
offered. So Christ needed them to feel
18:30
the weight of the law, the mirror showing their impossible
18:32
requirement before they could appreciate the cure.
18:35
He focused on the symptoms to lead them to the 'cause.
18:38
He did. Now the Third Point is related
18:40
to cultural context. Edward suggests that Christ did
18:44
not dwell on original sin because it was already allowed
18:47
in the open profession of the Jewish people.
18:49
It was a shared assumption. It was a generally accepted, if
18:52
often misunderstood, concept in ancient Jewish theology.
18:56
It was part of their theological bedrock, much like the doctrine
18:59
of creation or the existence of angels.
19:02
If it was already foundational, Christ could spend his limited
19:06
time on earth addressing other heresies and applying the
19:09
solution. So constant reiteration wasn't
19:11
necessary for his initial ministry.
19:13
It wasn't the point of contention.
19:15
He needed to hammer home with that.
19:16
Audience and the final rebuttal addresses the timing of
19:20
revelation, which is progressive revelation.
19:23
Edwards notes that Christ often spoke sparingly and obscurely of
19:27
the most complex theological doctrines while in the.
19:29
Flesh things like justification by faith alone or the Trinity.
19:32
Exactly these difficult systematic doctrines were
19:36
reserved to be more plainly and fully opened and inculcated by
19:39
the Holy Spirit through the apostles, particularly Paul
19:42
after the Ascension. And this explains why Paul, the
19:45
apostle to the Gentiles, dedicates significant space in
19:49
Romans 5 to the Adam Christ typology.
19:52
He's explaining the legal mechanism of imputation that
19:54
Christ only implied in his public teaching.
19:57
It fits perfectly into the pattern of God gradually
19:59
revealing truth. The full systematic explanation
20:03
waited until the establishment of the Church and the Apostolic
20:06
age. So now we shift from legal and
20:08
scriptural arguments to arguments about human nature
20:11
itself. Doctor T and others strongly
20:14
objected that the doctrine pours contempt upon the human nature.
20:17
A classic Enlightenment objection.
20:19
They argued that observation shows mankind is born with
20:22
principles of virtue and a native bent toward benevolence.
20:26
Right, the idea of the noble savage or the innate goodness of
20:29
humanity. Edwards had to concede the
20:31
superficial observation. Infants do not commit murder.
20:34
But he had to refute the interpretation.
20:36
And this is where the vivid, unforgettable analogy of the
20:40
young Viper comes in. A.
20:41
Powerful analogy designed to shock the reader into separating
20:44
potentiality from actuality. Edwards grants that infants are
20:49
often presented as patterns of innocence, but he argues this is
20:52
purely negative virtue. Negative virtue a.
20:55
Harmlessness that exists only because the infant lacks the
20:58
physical and intellectual capacity for moral action.
21:01
It hasn't acted wickedly because he can't choose to act at all.
21:04
So the appearance of innocence is a function of physiological
21:06
incapacity, not inherent moral goodness.
21:09
Exactly. The analogy is designed to cut
21:12
through all the sentimentality. A young Viper has a malignant
21:16
nature, though incapable of doing a malignant action, and at
21:19
present appearing A harmless creature.
21:21
The corrupt nature, the poisonous disposition, is
21:24
imputed and present even if dormant.
21:26
It will inevitably manifest its true nature once it gains the
21:30
capacity to act. It will.
21:31
Sin is not only in the action, it is resident in the
21:34
disposition. This reframes the entire
21:37
objection. The doctrine isn't contemptuous,
21:39
it's a necessary diagnostic tool.
21:41
Edwards insists that revealing the disease, the sinful nature,
21:44
is actually the friendly part. It's the doctor giving the
21:47
accurate diagnosis which urges men to seat the necessary remedy
21:50
in Christ. While hiding the truth is the
21:53
truly cruel act. Hiding the true state of
21:55
spiritual death, on the other hand, is the truly unfriendly
21:58
act because it condemns men to neglect the cure and perish in
22:02
their ignorance. Humility is the path to grace.
22:05
That makes perfect sense within a reformed framework, and this
22:08
line of reasoning also addresses Doctor T's logistical objection
22:12
regarding procreation. A very sharp objection.
22:14
Doctor T argued that if natural generation unavoidably conveys
22:18
sin and condemnation, it must logically be sinful and unlawful
22:23
for parents to bigot children. A devastating rhetorical move
22:26
aimed at the moral foundations of society, Edward's retort
22:29
hinges on the nature of God's sovereignty and revealed will.
22:33
He asked the critics to consider God's own actions.
22:35
Such as? God upholds Satan in existence
22:38
despite knowing it will result in an eternal series of the most
22:42
hateful and horrid wickedness. Therefore, the mere fact that an
22:46
action like propagating life will certainly result in
22:49
wickedness does not make the original action sinful, provided
22:52
that action fulfills God's revealed will.
22:55
So the resulting sin is a consequence of the operation of
22:59
nature under the curse, but the act of procreation itself is
23:02
still part of God's positive commandment to fill the earth.
23:05
Precisely, Parents fulfill God's revealed will by propagating the
23:09
species in lawful marriage, and they do so for God's own wise
23:12
purposes, which center on the possibility of redemption.
23:16
So redemption is the key that unlocks.
23:18
It it is children, though they enter the world under the
23:20
condemnation of Adam's sin, are capable subjects of eternal
23:24
holiness and happiness. Through the Mediator, Edwards
23:26
emphasizes that parents, by giving up their children to God
23:29
in faith and seeking their salvation, have every reason to
23:32
hope for their eternal happiness through the Redeemer.
23:34
The prospect and capacity for redemption justifies the
23:37
continuation of the species despite the certainty of
23:40
corruption. Yes.
23:42
The continuing existence of the human race is therefore an act
23:45
of pre emptive mercy on the part of God creating subjects for
23:49
grace. That wraps up the objections
23:51
concerning the nature of corruption.
23:53
Now let's move to the ultimate challenge to justice, the final
23:57
judgement. Doctor T argued that since God
24:01
judges men according to their deeds, their personal works,
24:04
original sin, the imputed guilt must be irrelevant to the final
24:08
sentence. This brings us to the most
24:10
legally precise part of Edwards defense of God's justice and
24:14
sovereignty. He agrees that judgment is
24:16
according to works, but argues that Doctor T fundamentally
24:20
misunderstands the design of the judgement day.
24:22
What is that design? The purpose of public judgement
24:24
is declarative and demonstrative, not
24:26
investigative. What do you mean by declarative,
24:28
and why does that distinction matter so much?
24:31
It matters because God is omniscient.
24:34
The judgement is not required for God to find out what men are
24:37
or to decide the appropriate reward or punishment.
24:39
In his own mind, he already knows.
24:40
He already knows and has predetermined the outcome based
24:43
on His knowledge. The Judgement is the day of the
24:46
revelation of the righteous judgement of God, designed to
24:49
manifest what men are to their own consciences and to the
24:53
world. It's a public courtroom
24:55
proceeding. Yes, meant to vindicate God's
24:57
justice before angels and men using evidence that all parties
25:00
can observe and understand. So the process is entirely for
25:04
the benefit of the created order to justify God as eternal
25:07
verdict. Exactly the special end of this
25:09
public vindication is to make a proper, perfect, open
25:13
distinction among men in preparation for eternal
25:16
retribution. And Edwards identifies this
25:19
distinction as having two parts, both of which are manifested by
25:21
works. The first, the most vital 1 is
25:23
the difference of state. This is the primary and grand
25:26
distinction. This separates all humanity into
25:29
two absolute fixed categories, the righteous and the wicked.
25:34
This distinction reveals whether a person belongs to the head of
25:37
the apostasy, Adam, or the deceiver, or the head of the
25:40
Restoration, Christ. That is the fundamental
25:43
determining factor of the soul's destination.
25:45
The ultimate factor? This sounds like the separation
25:47
of the wheat and the tares. It's the ultimate separation.
25:50
Do you belong to the Kingdom of sin and death by natural birth,
25:54
and have you consciously adhered to that state?
25:57
Or have you been transferred through Christ into the Kingdom
26:00
of holiness? This foundational status,
26:03
imputed sin versus imputed righteousness, is the primary
26:07
distinction the judgement must declare.
26:09
And the second distinction then applies within those two groups.
26:13
Yes, the difference of degree. This is a secondary distinction
26:16
that differentiates individuals within the two general states.
26:19
This is where the judgement manifests the specific degrees
26:22
of additional fruits of righteousness and wickedness.
26:25
OK, so among the righteous, the judgement determines the degree
26:29
of their reward based on their faithfulness, and among the
26:32
wicked it determines the degree of their punishment based on the
26:36
amount of personal wickedness they added to their original
26:39
corruption. Correct, and this leads directly
26:41
to the role of personal works. Edwards clarifies that personal
26:45
works are the proper evidences or proofs used by the judge to
26:48
manifest the heart status and account for those degrees.
26:51
This is the crucial nuance that's often missed by Doctor
26:55
T's line of critique. Works are evidence, not the
26:58
cause, of the eternal state. Absolutely.
27:01
Think of it this way. Original sin is the judicial
27:04
status inherited at birth, the guilty verdict.
27:08
Personal works are the means by which a person confirms or
27:11
manifests their agreement with that status.
27:13
They show which side you're on. Evil works are the true seal
27:16
proving the hearts full consent to the common apostasy.
27:20
They demonstrate that the individual never relinquished
27:22
the apostasy by turning to Christ.
27:24
It proves they are fully one with the original transgression.
27:27
Conversely, good works manifest the sincerity of a believer's
27:30
acceptance of the Redeemer and their union with Him.
27:34
The work simply show which head the individual belongs to.
27:37
The primary judgement is about the root, Adam or Christ.
27:40
The works are the fruit used to prove the identity of the root.
27:43
And Edwards ensures that even the measurement of these
27:45
personal works is perfectly just accounting for individual
27:48
circumstances. He does.
27:50
The secondary distinction measures the degree of works
27:53
based on each one's talents, opportunities, advantages, light
27:57
motives, etcetera. This guarantees that the final
28:01
degree of reward or punishment corresponds precisely to how
28:05
each person utilized their specific individual
28:07
opportunities under Providence. It is perfectly righteous.
28:11
So judging men according to their deeds is the righteous
28:14
method of the trial, because those deeds provide the
28:17
observable public evidence of their fundamental state.
28:20
Adam's sin remains the foundation of the condemnation.
28:24
But personal works make manifest who fully and consciously abides
28:28
in that condemnation. Edward's summary ties it all
28:30
together by contrasting general and particular concern.
28:33
Inquiring whether Adam's sin or no is not the focus of the
28:36
judgments method because that fact is of general and equal
28:39
concern meant to all the wicked. It's the universal root of the
28:42
sin. But works are necessary to prove
28:44
who belongs to that root and who belongs to the new redemptive
28:48
root, which is Christ. The judgement confirms the
28:50
foundational state and declares the additional fruit.
28:53
What an incredible framework it successfully holds together, the
28:56
continuity of temporal existence, the necessity of the
28:59
covenant of grace through Christ, the reality of native
29:03
corruption, the young Viper, and the ultimate justice of the
29:06
judgement where works are used as evidence of the soul state.
29:09
His defense consistently forces the critics to recognize that to
29:13
deny original sin is, at the end of the day, to deny the
29:17
necessity of the mediator. If man is not fatally corrupted
29:21
and justly condemned, Christ's atoning work loses its reason
29:25
for being. And finally, let's circle back
29:28
to the emotional objection the critics raised that this
29:30
doctrine promoted gloominess, I'll will or hatred of humanity.
29:34
How does Edwards turn that on its head in his closing
29:37
argument? He completely inverts it.
29:39
Edwards argues that the doctrine, far from promoting ill
29:41
will, promotes humility and, paradoxically, mutual
29:44
compassion. How compassion.
29:45
By showing all men are companions in a miserable,
29:48
helpless condition, in an equal need of Divine Mercy.
29:51
So the doctrine is the ultimate killer of pride.
29:53
It is pride is the source of contention.
29:56
And I'll will among men one man judging himself better than
29:59
another. But when the doctrine of
30:01
original sin is fully grasped, everyone is forced to concede
30:05
that they are equally guilty, equally helpless, and equally
30:09
dependent on sovereign grace. And recognizing that everyone
30:12
else shares our need for pity and forgiveness.
30:15
It naturally promotes gentleness and compassion toward them.
30:18
He suggests that telling a person they have a fatal disease
30:22
doesn't encourage them to neglect their health.
30:24
It urgently spurs them to seek the great Physician.
30:28
The diagnosis is painful, but the purpose is salvific.
30:32
And the true act of contempt, in Edward's view, is the system of
30:35
thought that hides the spiritual disease that acts as an
30:38
unfriendly part, preventing men from seeking the only remedy,
30:42
which is Christ. This has been an incredibly
30:44
detailed and rigorous deep dive into Edward's mind.
30:47
We've seen how these subtle theological distinctions between
30:50
the terms of the original grant and the terms of the final
30:52
reward, and between the substance of the curse and the
30:55
form of the final verdict, provide a robust structure for
30:58
defending key tenets of reformed thought.
31:00
Understanding this structure is crucial because it allows you to
31:03
see the coherence of the system. Edwards was arguing for the
31:07
necessity of grace, and the availability of redemption under
31:11
the glorious dispensation of grace gives us reason to be
31:14
thankful for our very being and our continuing existence, even
31:17
in a world stained by Adam's apostasy.
31:20
A compelling final thought for you to consider that the
31:23
absolute necessity of grace makes existence, even with a
31:28
corrupt nature, a verifiable gift from a merciful God, not a
31:32
right earned by merit. Indeed, a gift only truly
31:35
understood when the scope of the curse is clearly and
31:38
forensically defined. Thank you for guiding us through
31:40
this material today. My pleasure.
31:42
We'll see you next time on Reform Thinking.