Latest / Reformed Thinking / The Doctrine of Original Sin: All Mankind Is Guilty | Jonathan Edwards

Transcript

The Doctrine of Original Sin: All Mankind Is Guilty | Jonathan Edwards · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Welcome to Reformed Thinking. This is the show where we try to
0:03
get to grips with some of the big ideas that shape our
0:06
theological understanding. And you're tuned into the deep
0:09
dive. We basically take a whole load
0:11
of sources, notes, research. And try to boil it all down into
0:15
something digestible, maybe some insights that get you thinking.
0:18
Yeah, the goal is really to cut through some of the noise, give
0:21
you a good solid grasp of topics that really matter without you
0:25
needing to read stacks of books yourself.
0:28
And today we are definitely doing a deep dive into, well,
0:31
one of the weightiest theological discussions you can
0:33
find, Jonathan Edwards and his doctrine of original sin.
0:38
We'll be looking at how he built his case, how he argued for it.
0:41
And also which is fascinating how he tangled with his main
0:45
critics, specifically Doctor Taylor of Norwich and Doctor
0:48
Turnbull. Right.
0:49
The goal today really is to unpack Edwards defense.
0:52
Understand what the disagreements were actually
0:54
about with those critics. And see why Edwards thought this
0:56
doctrine was so absolutely central to getting the good news
0:59
of salvation. So yeah, get ready for some
1:02
hopefully compelling points and maybe even a few surprises about
1:06
how Edwards viewed humanity's natural condition.
1:09
Let's get into it. It's quite something.
1:11
You know how Edwards structured his work on Original Sin?
1:14
It's not just him stating his views in isolation.
1:17
No, it feels more like a like a direct response, doesn't it?
1:20
A kind of running debate with specific books and ideas that
1:23
were out there at the time. Exactly.
1:25
He clearly saw this not as some, you know, abstract theological
1:30
game. Right, but as something vital,
1:33
foundational for Christian belief.
1:35
For him, the stakes were incredibly high.
1:36
This wasn't optional. OK, so if it wasn't just about
1:39
winning an argument, why was this specific doctrine original
1:43
sin so, so important for Edwards?
1:46
What was he really trying to defend?
1:48
Well, looking at the big picture, Edwards believed that
1:51
understanding original sin properly reveals humanities, and
1:55
he uses this phrase state of total ruin.
1:58
Total ruin. That's a strong language.
2:00
It is, and then he means it comprehensively.
2:02
It's not just, oh, we sometimes make mistakes or have bad
2:05
inclinations. No, for Edwards, it involved two
2:08
things. Deep, inherent moral corruption
2:11
within us, and also our exposure to terrible outcomes,
2:17
consequences we actually deserve because of that corruption.
2:20
So a deserved outcome. A just outcome, he'd argue, of
2:24
moral evil. And without seeing that clearly,
2:27
the whole idea of the great salvation by Christ, the Gospel
2:30
itself, well, it loses its context.
2:33
It's like you said before we started offering a cure when
2:35
someone doesn't even know they're sick.
2:37
Precisely that. It's like being handed an
2:39
antidote, maybe a life saving one, but you had no idea you'd
2:42
ingested poison. For Edwards, the gospel message
2:46
rests entirely on this foundation.
2:48
To really grasp God's good news, you first have to accept this
2:51
initial, pretty grim picture of the human condition.
2:54
It's the diagnosis that makes the cure make sense.
2:56
And makes it absolutely essential.
2:58
If you downplay the problem, you inevitably misunderstand the
3:02
solution, its scale, its necessity.
3:04
OK, that really clarifies the the urgency he felt.
3:07
So when Edwards uses the term original sin, what exactly did
3:11
he mean? Can you break down the
3:12
components he was focused on? Sure.
3:14
Edwards, and he was drawing on how theologians commonly use the
3:18
term, then identified 2 main aspects.
3:20
Both were critical for him. OK, what's the 1st?
3:23
The 1st, and maybe the one people think of most often, is
3:26
the innate sinful depravity of the heart.
3:30
Innate depravity. Yeah, meaning a natural built in
3:34
evil disposition, A moral corruption that's part of human
3:37
nature from birth. So not something we learn or
3:39
pick up, but something inherent. Exactly, it's our default
3:42
setting. You could say a tendency towards
3:45
sin that affects our thoughts, desires, actions right from the
3:48
start. OK, that's the first part.
3:49
What's the second? The second aspect is what's
3:51
called the imputation of Adam's first sin.
3:53
Imputation meaning. Meaning that Adam's descendants,
3:56
that's us, are exposed in God's fair judgment to share in the
4:00
consequences of Adam's original disobedience in the Garden.
4:03
So we're held liable in a way for the results of what Adam
4:07
did. That's the idea.
4:08
It's about a just liability stemming from that initial act
4:12
of rebellion, often understood in terms of Adam acting as our
4:15
representative, our federal head.
4:17
Right. So it's both things, an inner
4:18
corruption and this kind of legal or judicial liability.
4:22
That's a key pairing. It is.
4:24
But that second part, the imputation, that sounds like the
4:27
bit that would really draw fire, especially the idea of it being
4:30
just how did Edwards handle that, particularly when his
4:33
opponents were arguing against it based on God's justice?
4:37
That's a really good question. And yet Edwards knew that was a
4:40
sticking point. He's been a lot of effort on it.
4:41
So how did he connect the two, the inner depravity and the
4:45
outer liability? Well, he saw them as deeply
4:47
linked. He didn't think you could really
4:49
separate them cleanly. He argued they were so closely
4:53
joined that proving one actually helped to establish the other.
4:56
How so? His thinking went something like
4:58
this. If it's true that all humans are
5:02
born with this innate sinful depravity, this corruption that
5:05
universally leads us into sin and ruin, then that widespread
5:10
inherent condition must have a cause, a reason that can be
5:14
justly traced back. And for him, that cause was
5:17
Adam's sin. Exactly.
5:19
It wasn't just that we suffer the fallout from Adam's sin like
5:23
inheriting a debt. It was deeper in God's righteous
5:26
judgement. We're considered implicated in
5:28
it, or at least justly subject to its consequences, because of
5:31
our connection to Adam. So the inner corruption we
5:33
experience is, in a sense, the outworking of that original
5:37
imputed guilt. That's how Edwards saw They're
5:39
like two sides of the same coin. Our falling condition involves
5:43
both the legal standing and the resulting internal corruption.
5:48
He argued that the very fact of universal depravity is evidence
5:51
that something foundational happened at the beginning that
5:54
legally involved us all. OK, so Edwards wasn't just
5:57
writing theological thoughts in his study, he was actively
6:00
engaging in a debate, almost like stepping into a ring.
6:03
Definitely. And who are the main figures in
6:05
the other corner challenging this view?
6:07
He primarily locked horns with two significant writers of his
6:10
day who were pushing back hard against the traditional doctrine
6:13
of original sin. Who were they?
6:15
Doctor Turnbull and the one who got most of Edwards's attention,
6:19
Doctor Taylor of Norwich. Edwards mentions reading such of
6:23
the more noted opposers, and these two were clearly top of
6:26
his list for a detailed response.
6:28
He wasn't just picking off easy targets then.
6:30
No, these were serious contemporary thinkers.
6:33
He aimed to dismantle their entire opposing framework, not
6:36
just poke holes in it. And you mentioned Doctor Taylor
6:39
was central. How deep did Edwards engagement
6:42
with Taylor actually go? Was it just a few footnotes or?
6:45
Oh, much, much more than footnotes.
6:47
Yeah, Edwards explicitly calls Taylor the author chiefly
6:51
attended to in his whole work on the subject.
6:53
Chiefly attended to. Yeah, and he describes Taylor as
6:55
a late and specious writer. Specious is interesting,
6:59
suggesting Taylor's arguments might look good on the surface,
7:01
but we're ultimately misleading. Edward states very clearly that
7:05
he closely attended to Doctor Taylor's piece on original sin
7:08
in all its parts. His goal was that no one thing
7:11
they're said of any consequence in this controversy should pass
7:15
unnoticed. Wow, that's thorough.
7:16
He read everything Taylor wrote on it.
7:19
It seems so, not just Taylor's main book, The Scripture
7:22
Doctrine of Original Sin proposed to free and candid
7:25
examination, but also Edward says he looked at many things in
7:30
that other book containing his key and exposition on Romans.
7:34
So a really focused, sustained effort against Taylor's
7:38
argument. Absolutely.
7:40
He wasn't aiming for a quick rebuttal.
7:41
He wanted a comprehensive, systematic takedown of Taylor's
7:45
position on this doctrine. OK, this really gets us to the
7:48
core of the disagreement. Then.
7:49
What was it at bottom that Taylor and Turnbull just
7:53
wouldn't accept about human nature?
7:54
What did they fundamentally object back to?
7:57
Their main point of contention, the thing they strenuously
8:00
denied, was the idea that the heart of man is naturally of a
8:03
corrupt and evil disposition. So they rejected inherent built
8:07
in moral corruption from birth. Flat out rejected it, and along
8:11
with that they opposed the idea that Adam's sin resulted in a
8:14
corrupt nature being passed down to his descendants.
8:16
They thought we started differently.
8:18
Yeah, they believe we were born essentially neutral, or maybe
8:22
even with a natural inclination towards good, not inherently
8:25
bent towards evil. So if they denied this
8:28
widespread corruption, what did they propose instead?
8:32
What was their picture of humanity's basic state?
8:35
Well, instead of corruption, they basically argued that good
8:38
preponderance and that virtue has the ascendant in the world.
8:42
Good outweighs the bad, generally speaking.
8:44
That was their view. They looked at society and felt
8:47
that on balance, there was more morality and kindness than vice
8:51
and wickedness. Doctor Turnbull used an
8:54
interesting analogy. Oh yeah, he said.
8:55
Look, you don't judge the overall health of a population
8:58
by only looking inside a hospital, right?
9:00
Makes sense? Or you don't judge the general
9:03
morality of society by only looking at criminals in court.
9:06
He argued that the number of honest citizens and farmers far
9:09
surpasses that of all sorts of criminals.
9:11
So the bad stuff is the exception, not the rule.
9:14
That was his point. He even suggested that criminals
9:16
themselves probably do more innocent and kind actions in
9:20
their day-to-day lives than actual crimes.
9:22
Serious wrongdoing for Turnbull was relatively uncommon.
9:26
That's why it stood out and got recorded.
9:28
OK, that's Turnbull's analogy. Did Taylor have a similar one,
9:31
warning against judging the whole by its worst elements?
9:34
He did very similar logic, Taylor said.
9:37
Quote, we must not take the measure of our health and
9:39
enjoyments from a Lazar house, a what now?
9:42
A Lazar house like a hospital for lepers or contagious
9:45
diseases, nor of our understanding from Bedlam.
9:48
The famous asylum. Right, nor of our morals from a
9:51
jail. His point was the same.
9:53
Judging humanity based on these extreme negative examples gives
9:57
you a distorted picture. It doesn't represent the average
10:00
person. Exactly.
10:01
He believed those places showed aberrations, not the true
10:05
general state of human nature which he thought was
10:07
fundamentally capable of good, not inherently depraved.
10:11
Both were essentially saying look at the big picture,
10:13
humanity is basically OK. So Edwards is facing this, this
10:17
fundamentally more optimistic view of human potential.
10:21
How did he try to approach understanding human nature to
10:24
counter that? How did he define this
10:26
disposition or tendency he talked about?
10:29
Edward's method was to look at outcomes.
10:32
He argued we understand a disposition or tendency by
10:35
seeing what happens constantly or generally in event.
10:39
So look at the results. Yeah, especially if you see the
10:42
same result happening over and over across a great variety of
10:45
circumstances, and even when there are strong efforts used to
10:48
the contrary that still don't manage to prevent it.
10:51
Like trying to stop water running downhill.
10:54
If it always does, that tells you something about gravity and
10:56
slopes. That's a good analogy.
10:58
If you consistently see a certain outcome despite
11:01
different environments, different teaching, different
11:03
attempts to stop it, then that outcome isn't just chance or
11:06
circumstance, it points to some underlying prior inclination or
11:10
disposition. So applied to morality.
11:13
Applied to morality, Edwards argued, if humanity consistently
11:17
universally shows widespread moral failure, not just isolated
11:20
bad acts, but a universal pattern of sinning despite laws,
11:25
education, conscience, societal pressure all trying to prevent
11:28
it. Then that pattern reveals an
11:30
inherent prior corrupt leaning within us.
11:33
Exactly that constant general failure for Edwards was the
11:37
proof of a corrupt disposition of the heart.
11:40
The outcome reveals the nature. Now Edwards makes this really
11:43
crucial distinction, which you mentioned earlier about
11:46
considering human nature without divine grace.
11:49
That feels key, but maybe easily missed.
11:52
Why was isolating that natural state so vital for his whole
11:55
case? It really is the linchpin.
11:58
And you're right, it's often where the disagreement lay.
12:00
He insisted that the true tendency of the innate
12:03
disposition of man's heart has to be considered as they are in
12:07
themselves or in their own nature, without the
12:09
interposition of divine grace. So strip away God's help and see
12:12
what's left. Pretty much to assess our
12:14
natural state, you have to conceptually remove God's active
12:18
benevolent intervention. An inherent tendency is evil and
12:21
pernicious, he argued, if it's own nature leads to extremely
12:25
pernicious consequences and utter ruin.
12:27
Even if God steps in later. Even if God, out of free mercy
12:31
and kindness, later intervenes to stop that outcome from
12:34
actually happening to everyone, the point isn't what ultimately
12:37
happens to every individual because of grace.
12:40
It's about what would happen if things were just left to run
12:43
their natural course without any divine rescue mission.
12:46
So grace is like an external force, not part of the original
12:49
system. That's exactly how Edwards
12:51
framed it. Divine grace is a sovereign
12:54
intervention. It's totally separate from our
12:56
natural state. It's the remedy, the
12:58
countermeasure. It doesn't change the disease
13:00
itself, our inherent nature. It just reverses the course of
13:03
things, as he put it, preventing the natural disastrous endpoint.
13:07
So even if grace prevents, say, eternal ruin for some, the
13:11
underlying tendency towards it and the fact that we deserve it,
13:14
naturally that remains. That's not cancelled out.
13:16
That's precisely his point, and he clarifies this further with
13:19
this idea of a moral tendency or influence by desert.
13:22
By desert meaning what we deserve.
13:24
Yes, when he talks about moral depravity, he's looking at what
13:28
our nature deserves. Let's use an analogy.
13:30
Imagine someone commits treason. They legally deserve the death
13:34
penalty. Now the head of state issues a
13:36
full pardon out of sheer mercy. The crime was still real.
13:41
The deserving of the penalty was still just, even though the
13:44
final consequence was mercifully averted, Edward says.
13:46
Our natural state is like that. We are justly liable to ruin,
13:50
not because God actively makes us bad, but because of what we
13:53
are and what we deserve in our fallen nature, apart from grace.
13:56
So the deserving remains even if mercy is shown.
13:59
Yes, grace testifies to God's goodness, not to our original
14:03
innocence or lack of desert. This really clarifies that
14:06
debate around God's justice, because Edwards's opponents
14:09
would say it's unjust for God to consider us corrupt or liable
14:12
because of Adam. How did Edwards flip that
14:15
around, especially since he also relies heavily on God's justice?
14:18
His counter was essentially to distinguish between what God's
14:21
grace does and what God's justice would permit or require
14:25
if grace wasn't involved. He famously said the controversy
14:28
is not what Grace will do, but what justice might do.
14:31
What justice might do? His point was, if our natural
14:35
exposure to ruin is indeed in a way of justice, meaning we
14:40
justly deserve it, then the very need for divine grace proves the
14:44
point. How so?
14:46
Well, if we weren't justly deserving of ruin to begin with,
14:49
then justice alone would be sufficient.
14:51
We wouldn't need Grace to save us from a just outcome.
14:54
He accused Doctor Taylor of confusing the issue by looking
14:57
at humanity's state after Grace has intervened and then drawing
15:00
conclusions about the original state being somehow OK or
15:04
rectified. Taylor thought Grace fixed an
15:06
unjust system. Edwards felt Taylor implied that
15:09
suggesting grace was like a compensation or correction for a
15:12
basically unfair foregoing constitution.
15:15
Edwards pushed back hard. Grace isn't making up for God
15:19
being unfair earlier. It's.
15:20
Not compensation. No, it's sovereign favor shown
15:22
to those who justly deserve the opposite.
15:24
The very fact that grace is necessary for Edwards
15:26
demonstrates that our natural condition, apart from it, is one
15:29
that justly warrants destruction.
15:31
That's a really subtle but critical distinction he's
15:33
making. OK, so given all that, what was
15:35
Edwards core claim, his main proposition about humanity's
15:39
natural state that he set out to?
15:40
Prove his central assertion, The thing he aimed to demonstrate
15:44
was this, and it's quite stark. Mankind are all naturally in
15:49
such a state as is attended without fail with this
15:54
consequence or issue, that they universally run themselves into,
15:57
that which is in effect their own utter eternal perdition, as
16:01
being finally a curse of God, and the subjects of his remedy,
16:04
less wrath through sin. Wow, so inevitably heading for
16:08
utter eternal perdition under God's wrath because of sin.
16:11
That's. Blunt it is, and he believed he
16:13
could prove this by establishing 2 key things, two pillars for
16:16
his argument. What were the 2 pillars?
16:17
1st that all mankind universally without exception commits sin.
16:21
OK. Universal sinfulness.
16:23
Pillar One. 2nd that all sin, even the smallest, justly
16:26
deserves and exposes the Sinner to utter and eternal
16:29
destruction. OK, sin deserves eternal ruin.
16:31
Pillar 2. If he could establish both of
16:33
those firmly, then his conclusion that our nature must
16:37
be inherently corrupt and headed for ruin would follow logically
16:41
in his view. All right, let's look at that
16:42
first pillar, then the Universal Commission of sin.
16:45
How did Edwards make the case for that?
16:46
What evidence did he pull out? He marshalled a really wide
16:49
range of scriptural evidence. He's wasn't just picking
16:52
isolated verses. He was showing a consistent
16:54
theme running through the Bible. Like what?
16:57
Well, think of Solomon's prayer in First Kings 8.46, stating
17:01
plainly there is no man that sinneth not.
17:05
It's presented as a basic fact of human existence.
17:08
Or. Ecclesiastes 7.20 which says
17:11
almost the same thing. There is not a just man upon
17:13
earth that doeth good and sinneth not.
17:16
He also used Psalm 143.2. The plea in thy sight shall no
17:20
man living be justified. So Old Testament texts.
17:23
And New Testament 2 heavily relying on the apostle Paul,
17:26
Romans 3.1920 is crucial where Paul says the law exists so that
17:30
every mouth may be stopped and all the world become guilty
17:33
before God, and then concludes therefore by the deeds of the
17:35
law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight.
17:38
Basically, everyone is guilty. No one gets justified by works.
17:42
That's Paul's point, yeah. Edwards also pointed to
17:44
Galatians 3 verse 10 saying as many as are of the works of the
17:48
law are under the curse, and verse 22 saying the Scripture
17:51
hath concluded or shut up all under sin, like we're all
17:55
imprisoned together by sin. And then there's first John 1
17:58
verses 7 to 10, which talks about the need for all believers
18:01
to confess sin, implying it's a universal issue even for
18:04
Christians. So direct statements, but
18:07
anything else? Yeah, he also pointed to
18:10
practices commanded in the Old Testament, like the universal
18:12
requirement for sacrifices or the ransom money required for
18:15
everyone counted in Israel in Exodus 30.
18:19
Edward saw these as symbolic recognitions of universal guilt
18:22
and the need for atonement for everyone, not just a few bad
18:25
apples. OK, that's a strong biblical
18:27
case. Now, you mentioned something
18:28
remarkable earlier that Doctor Taylor, the main opponent,
18:31
actually kind of conceded this point about universal sin.
18:34
How did that happen? Yeah, this is where Edwards's
18:36
argument gets really interesting and frankly, quite clever.
18:39
Strategically, Taylor, even while arguing against inherent
18:42
inherited sin, made some statements that Edwards seized
18:46
upon. What did Taylor admit?
18:48
Well, Taylor acknowledged that God's standard is perfection.
18:51
He said God can never require imperfect obedience or by his
18:55
holy law, allow us to be guilty of anyone's sin.
18:58
How small so ever? So the standard is absolute
19:01
perfection. Any slip up is sin.
19:03
Exactly, and building on that, Taylor then explicitly stated
19:07
and Edwards quotes him. No one of mankind from the
19:09
beginning of the world can ever be justified by the law, because
19:12
everyone transgresses it. Everyone transgresses it, Taylor
19:15
said that. He did, and then Taylor even
19:17
asks rhetorically for who when from the beginning of the world
19:21
could be saved. It's this crystal clear mission
19:24
of universal failure to meet the laws standard coming straight
19:27
from the mouth of the guy arguing against original sin.
19:30
Wow, so Taylor basically handed Edwards the evidence for his
19:34
first pillar. Pretty much, Edwards highlighted
19:37
this concession effectively saying, look, even my main
19:39
opponent agrees that absolutely everyone fails to keep God's
19:43
perfect law. It was a major point for
19:45
Edwards. OK.
19:46
That's a huge concession now for the second pillar, that all sin
19:51
justly deserves eternal destruction.
19:54
How did Edwards argue for that? What's the standard for
19:57
judgement here? The standard for Edwards is
20:00
God's moral law. He describes this law not as
20:03
arbitrary rules, but is the reflection of God's own
20:06
perfectly holy, just and good nature.
20:09
It's everlasting, unchangeable, rooted in everlasting truth and
20:13
righteousness. And its demands are.
20:14
Absolute. It requires perfect obedience
20:17
and not just an outward actions. It reaches into the heart,
20:19
condemning even less than irregular desires, the minutest
20:22
branches of sin. Nothing escapes it.
20:25
And the consequences for breaking it?
20:27
Because the law is so perfect and absolute, it's condemning
20:29
power is also absolute. Edwards points to Paul calling
20:32
it the letter that kills the ministration of death and the
20:35
ministration of condemnation in 2nd Corinthians 3.
20:38
Strong terms. Very.
20:40
And the penalty prescribed by this law for every
20:42
transgression, Edwards argues, is death.
20:44
But, he clarifies, this isn't just physical death, it's final
20:48
prediction, The second death, eternal ruin in essence,
20:52
everlasting wrath and curse. And Edwards argued that this
20:55
severe penalty, eternal ruin for even a small sin, is actually
20:58
just. That seems hard to grasp for
21:01
many. How did he defend that?
21:03
He insisted it is just. He argued that this punishment,
21:06
even for the least sin, is just and righteous and perfectly
21:09
agreeable to truth in the nature of things.
21:12
God's justice, he said, weighs things in an even balance.
21:15
It sees things as they truly are.
21:17
So the law reveals the true nature of sin.
21:19
Yes, it shows sin in its proper colors, revealing what it really
21:23
is, an exceeding, great and deadly evil.
21:25
The reason even a seemingly small sin deserves such a
21:28
massive punishment, in Edward's view, comes down to who is being
21:32
sinned against. God himself.
21:33
Exactly. A sin against an infinite,
21:36
perfectly holy God is an infinitely serious offense.
21:40
The gravity isn't measured by the size of the ACT itself, but
21:43
by the infinite majesty and holiness of the one offended.
21:47
So for Edwards, eternal punishment isn't
21:49
disproportionate, it's the just reflection of offending infinite
21:53
goodness. OK, I see the logic now.
21:56
The really surprising part again.
21:58
Did Doctor Taylor also concede this point about Sins just
22:01
penalty? It seems like that would
22:03
completely undermine his whole case against inherent ruin.
22:06
It's just as striking as his first concession, maybe even
22:09
more so. Edwards points out that Taylor
22:11
himself confesses and asserts that God's law justly threatens
22:16
sin with death. Thusly threatens death.
22:17
Yes, and Taylor agreed that the law reveals the natural and
22:20
proper demerit of sin, demerit meaning what sin inherently
22:24
deserves. So Taylor agreed.
22:26
Sin deserves death. You did.
22:28
Taylor affirm that everything is in strict justice, deserving of
22:31
wrath and punishment, and he even agreed that the death
22:33
threatened by the law is eternal death or final perdition.
22:36
That's astonishing. It really is.
22:39
Edwards quotes Taylor making incredibly strong statements
22:42
like if we once transgress we are ruined forever.
22:46
That shows Taylor clearly understood the laws.
22:49
Absolute condemning power. Once transgress ruined forever.
22:52
Wow. Taylor also acknowledged that
22:54
without God's mercy, the situation for anyone under such
22:58
a law must be quite deplorable. So you have this tension.
23:02
Taylor denies inherent inherited corruption.
23:05
It admits that any actual sin, which he also admits is
23:08
universal, justly deserves eternal ruin.
23:11
Edwards must have seen that tension as a huge opening.
23:13
Oh absolutely. He basically used Taylor's own
23:15
words about the law's justice and sins desert to build his
23:19
second pillar. So with these two pillars
23:21
seemingly established, even with Taylor's help, universal sin and
23:24
sin justly deserving eternal ruin, what does the law itself
23:29
offer people? Any hope there?
23:30
According to Edwards, none whatsoever the law precisely
23:34
because it's perfect and just supply of neither help nor hope
23:37
to the center. It just can.
23:38
It diagnosis the problem perfectly reveals our utter
23:41
failure and pronounces the just sentence.
23:45
It leaves humanity, as Edwards put it, under the power of sin
23:48
and sentence of death. It's like a perfect mirror
23:51
showing you your fatal flaw and a judge delivering the
23:54
inevitable verdict but offering no way out.
23:57
Right. No escape route provided by the
23:59
law itself. None at all.
24:01
Which leads us directly then, to the need for divine grace.
24:05
How does Edwards introduce grace into this picture?
24:08
How does it relate to this seemingly hopeless situation
24:11
under the law? Edwards presents grace as
24:13
something completely external to this system of law and deserved
24:17
consequence. He calls it something altogether
24:19
independent on it, meaning independent of our natural
24:22
tendency or what we deserve. It comes from outside.
24:24
Yes, it's introduced to oppose the natural tendency and reverse
24:28
the course of things. It's not a natural development
24:30
or something earned. Its whole point is to save man
24:33
from deserved ruin, and to prevent the fatal consequence
24:36
that our nature would otherwise lead to.
24:38
And this is the grace for pardon and salvation.
24:41
Exactly the grace needed for pardon and salvation.
24:45
The very thing Taylor admitted we all need to fly to his God's
24:48
mercy for, precisely because no one can be justified by the law
24:53
standards. So grace is God's sovereign,
24:55
unearned rescue operation. That's the idea.
24:59
Not a correction of an unfair system, but a totally free act
25:02
of favor intervening in a system where condemnation was justly
25:05
deserved. It's a whole new factor entering
25:08
the equation. Now let's just circle back one
25:10
more time to that crucial nuance, because it seems so easy
25:12
to misunderstand, Edwards insists.
25:15
Grace doesn't change our inherent nature or what that
25:17
nature deserves in itself. Right, absolutely vital to
25:20
restate that he hammers this point.
25:22
The interposition of divine grace does not alter the nature
25:26
of things as they are in themselves.
25:27
Meaning meaning grace doesn't magically make our natural state
25:30
non corrupt, nor does it make us retroactively undeserving of
25:34
ruin. The true nature and tendency of
25:36
humanity state which is 1 of justly deserving ruin.
25:39
That remains what it is. Grace just steps in to prevent
25:42
the deserved outcome. Like the part?
25:44
What an analogy again. Exactly.
25:46
The pardon doesn't mean the crime doesn't happen or didn't
25:48
deserve punishment, it just cancels the punishment.
25:52
Grace prevents the consequence without denying the original
25:55
demerit or the inherent depravity.
25:57
And the very fact that grace is needed is proof for Edward, yes.
26:02
He concludes that the necessity of grace itself shows that our
26:05
liableness to misery and ruin comes in a way of justice.
26:09
If we weren't justly ruined, if justice alone would see us safe,
26:13
grace wouldn't be required. Grace is needed precisely
26:17
because justice condemns us. It's God's free kindness
26:20
stepping in where justice would otherwise have its due course.
26:24
OK, so Edwards has built his case on these two pillars.
26:27
Universal sin. Sin deserving eternal ruin,
26:29
heavily supported, ironically, by his opponent.
26:33
How does he bring it all together?
26:34
What's the final unifying conclusion about original sin
26:36
and the human condition? His final conclusion flows
26:39
directly from those two established pillars.
26:41
He argues. If it's true that all mankind
26:43
universally commit sin Killer 1, and if it's true that all sin
26:46
justly deserves eternal destruction, then the logical
26:49
consequence is that the natural state of the mind of man is
26:52
attended with the propensity of nature which is prevalent and
26:55
effectual to such an issue. Meaning our nature reliably
26:59
leads to this outcome. And that therefore their nature
27:02
is corrupt and depraved with a moral depravity that amounts to
27:06
and implies their utter undoing. So the conclusion is innate
27:10
ruinous corruption. Yes, but simply our natural
27:13
state without fail, attended without fail, he says, leads to
27:17
utter eternal perdition, resulting in us being finally
27:21
accursed of God and the subjects of his remedy, less wrath
27:24
through sin. It's a chain of reasoning,
27:27
universal outcome plus just consequence for the actions
27:30
leading to it. It's an inherent flaw in the
27:31
source. And what are the implications of
27:33
accepting this conclusion for Edwards?
27:35
Why did he fight so hard for it? Why is it more than just a point
27:38
of theology? For Edwards, this wasn't just
27:40
one doctrine among many. He was absolutely foundational.
27:43
He believed that recognizing that all mankind or by nature in
27:46
a state of total ruin changes everything.
27:49
It's the essential backdrop against which the Gospel makes
27:52
sense. His diagnosis of our natural
27:55
state makes the great salvation by Christ not just helpful, not
27:59
just a nice offer, but utterly essential.
28:02
It's the only remedy to the disease.
28:04
Without it, the gospel isn't really necessary.
28:06
Or at least it's necessity isn't properly understood.
28:10
All real understanding of the gospel for Edwards depends on
28:14
grasping this first. If you don't see the depth of
28:17
the problem or natural state of ruin and just condemnation, then
28:21
you can't possibly appreciate the magnitude, the wonder, the
28:24
sheer grace of God saving work in Christ.
28:26
It makes Christ's work seem less significant if the problem isn't
28:30
that bad. Exactly.
28:32
If we're not truly lost and justly ruined by nature, then
28:35
Christ's sacrifice might seem like an overreaction, or maybe
28:38
just one option among others. But for Edwards, acknowledging
28:41
original sin is what allows us to see the grace of God in its
28:44
true, breathtaking context. It makes salvation truly
28:47
amazing. Well, we've certainly covered a
28:49
lot today, seeing how Edwards built his case for original sin,
28:53
arguing that our natural state is inherently corrupt, leading
28:56
inevitably to sin and justly deserving ruin.
28:59
And it really is striking how he used his opponent's own
29:02
statements, particularly Taylor's concessions about God's
29:06
perfect law and our universal failure to strengthen his own
29:09
points. Yeah, a very skillful detail
29:12
argument. It was a real intellectual
29:14
undertaking. Definitely.
29:15
You know, thinking about all this raises a further thought.
29:18
If Edwards is right, if our natural state apart from God's
29:22
act of favor, really is 1 tending towards utter ruin, how
29:26
should that change how we see grace in our everyday lives?
29:29
Not just the grace that saves us eternally, but common grace.
29:34
That's an interesting angle. Does it maybe push us to see the
29:36
good things we experience? Moments of kindness?
29:39
Maybe societal order? Even just the fact that things
29:42
aren't constantly falling apart? Not as proof that we're
29:44
inherently good, but as constant, quiet examples of
29:47
God's kindness. A God actively holding back the
29:50
full consequences of our fallenness.
29:52
Yeah, preventing deserved outcomes in countless small
29:54
ways, day by day, even for people who don't acknowledge him
29:58
at all. Maybe the goodness we see isn't
30:00
evidence against depravity, but evidence of God's restraining,
30:03
preserving grace. That certainly puts a different
30:06
spin on things. It makes you think about how
30:08
much we might be spared constantly without even
30:11
realizing it. Something to consider, perhaps,
30:13
how much is held back not by our merit, but by an unseen divine
30:18
hand. A sobering yet potentially
30:20
gratitude inducing thought. Well, we hope this deep dive
30:23
into Edwards arguments has given you a clearer picture of this
30:26
really foundational theological doctrine.
30:28
Thanks for joining us on the Deep Dive.
30:30
Until next time, keep considering.