Latest / Reformed Thinking / Old Testament Witness to Original Sin | Jonathan Edwards

Transcript

Old Testament Witness to Original Sin | Jonathan Edwards · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Welcome to Reformed Thinking. This is the deep dive where we
0:03
take a stack of observations and research and we really try to
0:06
pull out the knowledge you need to be truly informed.
0:09
And today we are. We're undertaking a pretty
0:12
substantial deep dive. I think we're getting into the
0:14
theological arguments of Jonathan Edwards.
0:16
That's right. And we're not just, you know,
0:18
summarizing A doctrine. We're going to try and look at
0:20
Edwards systematic method, how he gathers proof for the
0:24
doctrine of original sin, and The thing is, he's pulling
0:27
almost exclusively from the consistency of Old Testament
0:30
language. Right, our source material lays
0:32
out this this really compelling case.
0:34
It focuses on a single core concept that wickedness isn't
0:39
presented in Scripture as you know, some accidental or
0:42
acquired behavior. It's presented as a defining
0:45
property of the human species in its natural condition.
0:49
So our mission here is to see how Edwards establishes that
0:52
linguistic argument. And that approach is so key
0:54
because it shifts the focus away from behavior and toward
0:58
inherent nature. Edward's goal is to prove, using
1:03
the collective witness of Scripture, that depravity is
1:05
universal, that it's intrinsic to the very identity of being
1:09
man, and that is passed down through generation.
1:12
This whole framework is what makes the idea of sovereign
1:15
grace not just optional, but, well, absolutely essential for
1:19
any kind of deliverance. So this isn't about finding a
1:22
few isolated proof texts, Not at all.
1:25
It's about recognizing patterns in God's revelation.
1:29
When we look at this stack of material, what stands out is
1:32
just how rigorous His methodology is.
1:35
He's demanding that we see how the Inspire authors consistently
1:38
labeled mankind. He really requires us to treat
1:41
the Bible like a unified whole where these language choices
1:44
matter a great deal. Edward saw that many of his
1:47
contemporary critics, particularly the Armenians and
1:50
those leaning toward Pelagianism.
1:52
Like Doctor John Taylor of Norwich.
1:54
Yes, like him, he believes sin was just an acquired habit, or
1:58
maybe imitation. They were all failing to take
2:00
the scriptural language about the the universality and the
2:03
depth of corruption seriously. Taylor saw man is born perfectly
2:07
innocent. And Edward saw the Bible as
2:09
consistently refuting that very notion by its own definitions.
2:12
You did. OK, let's start with the most
2:13
basic building block them nomenclature, the names.
2:18
Edwards makes this really striking observation that in
2:22
Scripture, the terms used to describe mankind in general, the
2:26
supposedly neutral terms like man or especially sons of men,
2:31
are very frequently used to denote the wicked and the
2:34
corrupt human race in its fallen state.
2:36
It's true, the default setting for a man seems to be Sinner.
2:39
It's remarkable linguistic insight, isn't.
2:41
It it is, we just assume Children of Man is a neutral
2:44
descriptor for humanity. You know, like saying people.
2:47
But Edwards argues the inspired writers actively use it as a
2:50
kind of shorthand for the unregenerate world.
2:53
The prime example and the one he always goes to 1st is Psalm 14
2:56
versus 2 and 3. Right.
2:58
It's the divine viewpoint. The Lord looks down from heaven
3:00
upon the children of men, and he's looking to see if any have
3:03
understanding if any are seeking God.
3:05
And the outcome of that divine insection is what really
3:08
establishes Edwards argument for universal depravity being a
3:11
property of the species. The report that comes back is
3:14
completely unambiguous. They are all gone aside.
3:17
They're all together. Become filthy.
3:19
There's none that doeth good. No, not one.
3:22
It's a total sweeping condemnation.
3:24
It doesn't say some of them are filthy, or a lot of them are.
3:27
It says. Looking at the entire body of
3:29
the children of men, they are all together filthy.
3:32
So how does Edwards handle the potential objection that the
3:36
Psalm, you know, it might only refer to a particularly wicked
3:39
generation in Israel. People could try to limit its
3:42
scope. Well, he dismisses that pretty
3:44
directly by pointing to the apostle Paul.
3:47
Paul takes this exact passage, this description of the children
3:50
of men, and he listed straight out of his historical context in
3:53
the Psalms. And uses it in Romans chapter 3.
3:56
Yes, in Romans 3, to prove the universal corruption of all
3:58
mankind, Jews and Gentiles alike.
4:02
So Paul treats Psalm 14 as describing the inherent
4:04
condition of man outside of Christ.
4:06
That really validates Edward's reading that the psalmist is
4:09
speaking about what men are, as they are the children of men
4:12
born of the corrupt human race. So the language itself is
4:15
defining the condition. If scripture intended to
4:19
describe a mixed group, some good, some bad, it just wouldn't
4:24
use this kind of universal terminology in this context.
4:27
Precisely. You know, if you were to write
4:28
about a community where some were holy and some were not,
4:31
you'd specify the distinction. You might call them the sons of
4:34
the righteous and the sons of the wicked, sure, but here the
4:38
term that covers the whole species is linked to the guilt.
4:41
The natural generation of mankind is associated with this
4:44
failure. And this leads us to that
4:45
distinction even within Israel itself.
4:48
Edwards highlights that the psalmist sometimes uses this
4:50
seemingly neutral designation, Sons of Men, even when speaking
4:54
specifically about the vilest characters within the covenant
4:56
community. Right.
4:57
So why choose that term for the worst of them?
4:59
He points to passages like Psalms 4.257, point 4 and 58.1
5:04
to two. In Psalm 58, the psalmist is
5:06
addressing those who speak wickedness and weigh the
5:09
violence of your hands in the earth.
5:11
These are people actively judging on rightly.
5:13
The worst of the worst. And yet they're labeled as sons
5:16
of men. The key insight for Edwards is
5:19
that the inspired authors deliberately choose this
5:22
designation to link the individual's great depravity to
5:26
his membership in the natural human race.
5:28
It's their proper designation. Yes, it's their proper name.
5:32
They are wicked because they belong to the corrupt, ruined
5:35
race of mankind. Their depravity is derived from
5:39
their identity as sons of men. If they were redeemed, you see
5:43
they'd be described differently. Like sons of God or the
5:46
generation of the righteous? Exactly.
5:48
And that contrast just makes the argument so much clearer.
5:50
We see the distinction drawn explicitly in Proverbs 21.8,
5:54
where the perverse in his walk is simply called man, and he's
5:57
contrasted sharply with the pure whose work is right.
6:01
That is compelling because if mankind by nature were perfectly
6:04
innocent or pure, then the term man would must be
6:07
interchangeable with pure. But the text pits man against
6:11
the pure, which suggests that depravity naturally belongs to
6:13
mankind as they are naturally. And purity therefore, must be
6:17
acquired. It has to be the divine after
6:20
work, as Edwards calls it, a subsequent process that delivers
6:24
some people from that native pollution and distinguishes them
6:27
from mankind in general. This idea that sin belongs to
6:30
the species, it leads directly to the next observation that
6:34
wickedness is often called man's own in Scripture.
6:37
It's a possessive claim. It suggests ownership of the
6:40
corruption. That possessive language is
6:42
vital. It's so important because it
6:44
signifies that the quality belongs properly to the
6:47
character and nature of mankind in their present fallen state.
6:52
It isn't some external temptation or an accidental
6:54
slip. Up and it appears everywhere,
6:56
men's desires are their own hearts, lust.
6:59
They follow their own ways, their own counsels.
7:01
They act according to the imagination of their own heart
7:04
and their own devices. The sin isn't done to them, it
7:07
belongs to them. It's theirs and.
7:08
Edwards uses a strong parallel from the New Testament to
7:11
illustrate the force of this possessive language.
7:14
He looks at Christ's description of the devil in John 8.44.
7:17
When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own.
7:20
Right lying is the devil's proper nature.
7:23
In his present state. The analogy holds perfectly.
7:26
The devil's nature is lying. Falling man's nature is sin.
7:30
The source of the sin is internal and proper to the
7:33
current constitution of humanity.
7:35
And this internal corruption, this defining property, is
7:38
located right in the heart. Jeremiah 17.5 pronounces a curse
7:42
on the one who trusts a man, and the justification for that curse
7:46
given in verse 9. It speaks volumes about the
7:48
intrinsic nature of that heart. Well, verse 9 is arguably the
7:51
most famous diagnosis of man's internal condition in all of
7:55
Scripture. I would agree.
7:56
The heart is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked.
7:59
Who can know it? The individual were warned
8:01
against trusting the man is characterized by this deep
8:04
desperate wickedness. To call something desperately
8:07
wicked is not just saying it's inclined toward a few mistakes.
8:10
It indicates a a serious internal malfunction that
8:13
governs all activity. It does, and the observation is
8:16
reinforced by the Book of Ecclesiastes, which is a book
8:19
Edwards often cited. Ecclesiastes 9.3 adds to this
8:22
diagnosis, observing that madness is in the heart of the
8:25
sons of men while they live. And this madness isn't just
8:28
intellectual folly. No, it's a moral derangement, a
8:32
disposition fixed toward evil, residing in the heart of the
8:35
species, the sons of men the entire time they inhabit this
8:39
natural life. So if the universal diagnosis
8:41
for the species is a desperately wicked, deceitful and morally
8:45
mad heart, then Edwards core claim really holds up.
8:50
The neutral label of man becomes synonymous with the corrupt
8:53
condition because corruption is the default state of the
8:56
species. It seems to be.
8:58
We'd establish that depravity is a property of the species, so
9:01
the next step is proving that this property is inherited and
9:04
active immediately. It's not something you acquire
9:06
by observation. It's inbred.
9:08
It doesn't wait for habits to form later in life.
9:11
And this is where the linguistic rigor becomes just absolutely
9:14
essential, particularly when you're looking at texts that
9:16
speak about the timing of sins manifestation.
9:19
The key proof text here is Genesis 8.21.
9:22
It's spoken right after the flood, when God is considering
9:25
humanity. The imagination of man's heart
9:27
is evil from his youth. Right.
9:29
And a modern English reader might interpret youth as what,
9:32
adolescence? Maybe 12 to 18 years old.
9:35
Sure, suggesting sin starts when a child becomes morally
9:39
accountable or is exposed to bad influences.
9:42
And that is precisely the minimization that Edwards is
9:44
fighting against. If the word only means later
9:47
childhood or adolescence, it leaves a space for native
9:51
innocence. Which aligns perfectly with
9:53
Doctor Taylor's position. It does, but Edwards insists the
9:56
Hebrew word signifies the absolute beginning of human
9:59
existence. OK, so let's spend some time on
10:02
the linguistic evidence, because this seems like a critical
10:04
analytical point. What's the semantic range of the
10:07
Hebrew word here? The Hebrew word nurim.
10:10
It's translated as youth, but it signifies the entire former part
10:14
of a person's age, starting from the very beginning of life.
10:17
Edwards looked at his etymology. It comes from a root that means
10:20
to shake off. To shake.
10:22
Off. Yeah, referring to the emergence
10:24
or the commencement of existence.
10:25
Like fruit shaking off a tree at harvest, it marks the very start
10:28
of temporal life. So scriptural usage must reflect
10:32
that root meaning. Where does the Bible confirm
10:34
that this word encompasses infancy and early childhood, not
10:38
just the later teen years? Edwards provides specific
10:41
confirming texts. If you look at Exodus 2.6, the
10:44
word is used to describe Moses when Pharaoh's daughter finds
10:47
him in the ark of Bulrush's. Moses is an infant at that
10:50
point. An infant or First Samuel 1.2425
10:53
and 27, where Hannah brings Samuel to the temple.
10:57
He's described with this same term, though he's barely weaned
10:59
and still a very young child. And then most powerfully, we
11:02
have Psalm 71 verses 5 and 6, which links the timing directly
11:06
to birth. Yes, the psalmist says.
11:08
Thou art my hope, O Lord God, Thou art my confidence from my
11:12
youth. By Thee have I been holding up
11:14
from the womb. The two phrases are used
11:16
interchangeably. They're used synonymously.
11:18
From the womb is parallel to from my youth, and that firmly
11:22
establishes the reference point as the start of existence, the
11:24
moment the physical life begins. This just directly annihilates
11:28
the argument put forth by opponents like Doctor Taylor,
11:30
who tried to argue that from the youth simply meant a great
11:33
duration of time. It does.
11:35
I mean, if the term only meant long duration, why would the
11:38
text use such clear chronological markers?
11:42
The womb, the infinite in the bull, rushes to define its
11:45
starting point. It wouldn't make sense.
11:47
No, the literal meaning wickedness starting from the
11:49
beginning of life is the only one that stands up under the
11:52
totality of scriptural usage. The inclination is there before
11:56
conscious choice, and certainly before the acquisition of any
12:00
habits. And this natural fixed
12:02
wickedness is also described so vividly when Scripture focuses
12:06
on the earliest stage of development.
12:08
Proverbs 22.15 states foolishness is bound in the
12:12
heart of a child. A short sentence, but it carries
12:15
enormous theological weight. But we have to accurately define
12:18
the terms first. When Proverbs speaks of
12:21
foolishness, it is not talking about, you know, a low IQ or
12:25
lack of education. No, it's consistently used
12:27
throughout the book for moral wickedness, for active vice and
12:30
moral folly. And the text itself gives us the
12:32
clue about its nature. If foolishness were merely
12:35
intellectual, you wouldn't use the remedy that suggested right
12:38
after. Correct, the passage says.
12:40
The rod of correction is suitable for driving it away.
12:43
A rod is used for moral correction and discipline, for
12:46
active transgression and a perverse disposition.
12:49
Not for just correcting an intellectual deficiency.
12:51
Right, so the foolishness here is the innate moral perversity
12:56
of the child. Now let's talk about the verb
12:57
bound. The text doesn't just say
12:59
foolishness is present, but bound.
13:02
What does that signify about the nature of this perversity?
13:05
Bound signifies a close and firm union.
13:08
Edwards observes that the same Hebrew word quashar is used in
13:12
First Samuel 18.1, where Jonathan's soul was knit or
13:16
bound to the soul of David. This is not a casual connection.
13:20
It's a deep, fixed internal union.
13:23
Wickedness is thus firmly bound and strongly fixed in the hearts
13:26
of children. So the conclusion for the
13:27
doctrine of original sin is just inescapable if this union is
13:31
close and firm and children haven't had the opportunity to
13:34
fix habits of sin by quote, long custom and actual wickedness
13:37
because their lives are so short.
13:39
Then this fixed disposition must be present naturally.
13:41
It has to be. It's the most direct refutation
13:44
of the acquisition theory. If sin were required, the child
13:47
would begin perfectly neutral, and this union would develop
13:50
slowly over time as habits were repeatedly chosen.
13:54
But Scripture presents the opposite.
13:56
The disposition is there, fixed by nature from the very start.
14:00
And finally, the ultimate encapsulation of this idea,
14:03
depravity, fixed from the beginning of life, is found in
14:05
Psalm 58.3. The wicked are estranged from
14:09
the womb. They go astray as soon as they
14:11
be born, speaking lies. Estranged from the womb.
14:15
It means set apart, alienated from what is good for the very
14:18
moment of existence. It is an alienation derived by
14:21
the process of generation. It's not an estrangement
14:24
acquired later, but one inherited from the start.
14:27
And the context again reinforces that this is the definition of
14:30
the species. The slum is addressing the
14:32
wicked sons of men in the preceding verses, confirming
14:35
that this immediate depravity belongs to the human race
14:37
itself. And to make the nature of this
14:39
derived wickedness absolutely crystal clear, the very next
14:43
verse uses one of the most powerful analogies in the Old
14:45
Testament. The comparison to the serpent,
14:47
yes. Verse 4.
14:49
It compares the wicked to serpents, whose poison is like
14:52
the poison of a serpent. The analogy is perfect precisely
14:55
because the soup and is poisonous.
14:57
As soon as it comes into the world, it derives that poisonous
15:00
deadly nature by his generation. It doesn't learn to be venomous,
15:04
it is born venomous. In the same way, the wickedness
15:07
of mankind is inherent and derived by generation starting
15:11
from the womb. That distinction between the
15:13
naturally corrupted and the divinely set apart is so
15:16
critical. Edwards often contrasts this
15:19
with exceptions where God intervenes at the very beginning
15:21
of life. He points to Jeremiah 1.5 where
15:24
God tells the prophet, Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew
15:27
thee, and I sanctified thee, and ordained thee a prophet unto the
15:30
nations. Jeremiah was set apart or
15:33
sanctified from the womb. This shows that God's special
15:36
saving grace can operate from the earliest possible point.
15:39
Therefore, when the wicked are described as estranged from the
15:43
womb, it means they are set apart for evil from their
15:46
existence. It illustrates that the natural
15:48
state is 1 of corruption that requires an extraordinary
15:51
intervention for correction. So the phrase always means the
15:54
beginning of life. Always, whether for corruption
15:57
or for sanctification. Moving now to the third pillar
16:00
of Edward's argument, if sin is present from birth, why is it
16:04
present? The source must be generation
16:06
itself. The discussion moves from the
16:08
timing of sin to the cause of its universality.
16:12
And here we turn to the book of Job, which repeatedly raises the
16:15
rhetorical question of man's inherent cleanness, and it ties
16:18
it directly to his origin. Job 15.14 asks What is man that
16:24
he should be clean and he that is born of a woman that he
16:28
should be righteous. The structure of that question
16:30
is highly ensurmative, isn't it? Man's being born of a woman is
16:32
presented as the very reason for his moral uncleanness and his
16:35
lack of righteousness. Birth itself is the vector of
16:38
the corruption. And this idea that man derives
16:41
an unclean, corrupt nature through ordinary human
16:43
generation is supported very powerfully by another famous
16:46
text from Job, chapter 14, verse 4.
16:49
There Job is speaking expressly of man's physical generation.
16:53
Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean?
16:55
Right. The premise is that the source
16:57
is unclean, so the product cannot possibly be clean.
17:00
Now, a potential counter argument here might suggest that
17:03
Job is only referring to human physical frailty.
17:06
You know, the temporal weakness that comes from mortality, Not
17:08
necessarily a moral taint. Edwards addresses this head on.
17:13
He stresses that this is undeniably about moral
17:16
cleanness, and this is evident because the necessity of
17:19
cleanness is directly linked to the possibility of being
17:22
justified before God. Job 25.4 asks how then can man
17:28
be justified with God, and how can he be clean, that is born of
17:32
a woman? Justification is purely A moral
17:35
and spiritual category. It's a forensic declaration of
17:37
righteousness. OK.
17:38
If the problem derived from birth were only physical
17:40
frailty, it wouldn't be connected to the question of
17:43
justification. The uncleanness derived from
17:45
birth is therefore moral impurity.
17:48
So generation transmits moral guilt, or at least a moral
17:50
defect. And this derived wickedness is
17:52
what David confesses so openly and personally in Psalm 51.5.
17:56
He's speaking in the context of his profound moral failures,
17:59
adultery and murder. And he states, Behold, I was
18:02
shaping in iniquity, and in sin did my mother conceive me.
18:06
This is a deep theological confession.
18:09
He's acknowledging that the source of his present
18:11
overwhelming transgression lies in a nature that was corrupt
18:14
from the very beginning. But why does David need to trace
18:17
his sin back to conception? Why not just admit he made a few
18:20
bad choices? Because he recognizes the
18:23
continuance and power of indwelling sin, even after a
18:27
lifetime of piety and the best means of grace, he found sin to
18:31
be stubbornly persistent and powerful.
18:34
I see. This experience forces him to
18:36
recognize that sin was inbred and, in his very nature, fixed
18:40
at the point of his existence. It's an explanation for the
18:43
origin and the strength of his pervasive depravity.
18:45
And we should acknowledge that critics often try to minimize
18:48
this statement. They'll argue David is just
18:50
using figurative language, maybe exaggerating the heinousness of
18:53
his current sin by saying something like my sin is so
18:56
great it's as if I were Born This Way.
18:58
Edwards is quick to reject that figurative of interpretation.
19:01
He argues that this type of figurative expression is only
19:04
useful if it exaggerates a contrast, like suggesting a
19:08
person of high birth acted beneath their dignity.
19:11
But David's statement contains no such parallel.
19:14
He's not Speaking of excellent parents, nor is he aggravating
19:17
his sin by noting it's unworthiness of high birth.
19:20
He's simply confessing the fact of his derived wickedness of
19:23
heart due to his natural human generation.
19:26
The text is a straightforward declaration about his state upon
19:29
entering the world. The central truth remains.
19:31
I was born in iniquity, carrying the full weight of innate
19:35
derived sin. The argument for original sin
19:37
isn't just about the timing and the source of depravity, but
19:39
it's sheer degree. The depth of man's corruption is
19:42
so great that it can't be explained away as mere human
19:45
weakness or, you know, occasional acquired bad habits.
19:48
And the scriptural language used to describe the species
19:50
corruption is often, well, it's extreme, showing the intensity
19:54
of the appetite for evil. Job 15.16 is presented by
19:58
Edwards as an accumulated, intense representation of
20:01
depravity. How much more abominable and
20:03
filthy is man who drinketh iniquity like water?
20:06
That sequence of descriptors, abominable and filthy, already
20:10
established as a profound moral defilement.
20:12
These are not words for simple frailty, but the analogy
20:16
drinketh iniquity like water is visceral.
20:19
It is a devastating analogy. It speaks to three crucial
20:22
things about fallen man's relationship with sin boldness,
20:25
greediness, and familiarity. Think about the nature of water.
20:28
It's common, it's necessary, and it's easily consumed when you're
20:32
thirsty it. Represents a lack of resistance.
20:34
It's more than that. Edwards argues that iniquity,
20:36
which is the most deadly poison, is consumed by man as boldly as
20:40
they drink common water. They are as familiar with sin as
20:43
they are with everyday drink. And most critically, they
20:46
consume it with like greediness, as one who is thirsty drinks
20:49
water. So it's an appetite.
20:50
It signifies that there is not just a lack of ability to resist
20:54
sin, there is an inherent powerful appetite for it.
20:58
The will is not just neutral, it is violently vent toward evil.
21:03
So this is a depiction of man's inner craving.
21:06
It represents an exceeding degree of wickedness that can
21:08
only be explained by a radical corruption of nature.
21:12
And that profound degree of corruption is exactly what
21:14
Edwards uses to confront his opponents.
21:17
He addresses the objection, the one raised by Doctor John Taylor
21:20
of Norwich, that passages like Job 15.1 cents only refer to
21:25
infirmities as a mortal man or common excusable frailty.
21:30
Taylor's position tries to maintain perfect native
21:32
innocence by minimizing the strength of this terminology.
21:35
But if Taylor is right, then the Bible is engaging in theological
21:38
overstatement, isn't it? Using this hyperbolic language
21:41
that doesn't really match the reality of man's condition.
21:44
That's the core tension. Edwards argues that Taylor's
21:46
minimization simply doesn't stand up against the vocabulary
21:49
used. Why would Scripture use these
21:51
accumulated strong terms like abominable, filthy, and
21:55
desperately wicked if it were only describing a general
21:58
weakness that every man shares? Like a physical illness or a
22:01
tendency to forget things. Right.
22:03
These terms denote mortal failure and great wickedness of
22:06
heart. In other words, the severity of
22:08
the language demands A corresponding severity in the
22:11
diagnosis. Precisely the context in Job
22:14
25.4 ties the need for cleanness directly to justification.
22:19
If the heart of man is so greedy for sin that he drinks it like
22:22
water, it is not just a few bad choices.
22:25
It is a nature utterly incompatible with God's
22:28
holiness. The entire biblical picture from
22:31
Genesis 8.21, evil from youth to Jeremiah 17.9, desperately
22:36
wicked heart, consistently characterizes the heart of man
22:38
as fundamentally corrupt. This level of corruption
22:41
requires an equally strong explanation for its source, the
22:44
doctrine of original sin. So the natural conclusion, given
22:47
that the defining property of the species is wickedness, is
22:49
that Scripture must then draw a very clear and dramatic line of
22:52
distinction for those who are saved, those who are not sons of
22:55
men in the corrupt sense, yes. Wickedness is established as
22:59
belonging properly to the world, and that means the world of
23:02
mankind, the inhabitants, not the physical habitation.
23:06
This Old Testament concept of the wicked sons of men is
23:09
carried right into the New Testament with the concept of
23:12
the cosmos, or the world of fallen humanity.
23:15
We see John's Gospel making this distinction repeatedly.
23:18
John 7.7 tells us Christ's works are hated because he testified
23:23
that the works thereof are evil, and then first John 5.1 nay,
23:27
provides the definitive statement on the state of
23:29
natural man. We are of God, and the whole
23:31
world lieth in wickedness. The world, the world of mankind,
23:35
is defined as carnal, vain, and opposed to everything spiritual
23:38
and divine. Christ distinguishes His
23:40
followers from this natural state by declaring in John 15,
23:43
Fortnight. If you were of the world, the
23:46
world would love its own, but because I have chosen you out of
23:48
the world, therefore the world hated you.
23:50
Which speaks to the necessity of divine intervention.
23:53
If the world is synonymous with corruption, then salvation must
23:56
mean extraction. The righteous are the exception,
23:59
and they're set apart by an after work.
24:01
That distinction is powerfully illustrated in the Book of
24:03
Revelation. Revelation 14.4 describes those
24:07
who are pure, those who followed the Lamb, and it says of them
24:11
these were redeemed from among men.
24:13
To be redeemed from among men. That phrasing signifies that
24:17
they were delivered from the natural native pollution that
24:19
properly belongs to mankind in general.
24:22
They were rescued from the defining property of the
24:24
species. It shows that their purity is
24:26
not natural or acquired by choice alone, but it's attained
24:30
by that after work, the divine grace that saves them from the
24:34
world and calls them out of it. It confirms the chasm between
24:37
the natural state and the spiritual state, a chasm which
24:40
the natural man, the world, cannot cross by his own efforts.
24:44
John 14.17 drives this home in describing the nature of the
24:48
Holy Spirit, the Spirit of Truth, whom the world cannot
24:51
receive, because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth him, but ye
24:54
know him. The inability of the natural
24:56
man, the world of fallen humanity, to even recognize or
25:00
receive the spirit of truth is the ultimate proof that the
25:03
distinction between the redeemed and the corrupt race of mankind
25:07
is total. The natural state is defined by
25:09
spiritual death and opposition, which demands a total
25:12
supernatural transformation to achieve the purity that the
25:15
Bible describes as the exception, not the rule.
25:19
Our deep dive into Jonathan Edwards scriptural arguments
25:21
reveals a highly systematic, tightly reasoned defense of
25:26
original sin. He uses the consistency of the
25:28
Old Testament language and its semantic weight to construct a
25:31
three-part defense for the necessity of this doctrine.
25:34
We established that wickedness is a property of the species.
25:37
This was demonstrated by the fact that terms like sons of men
25:40
became the proper scriptural designation for the corrupt
25:43
ruined race of mankind. This is species wide diagnosis.
25:46
Second, this depravity is not acquired, it is inbred.
25:49
It's fixed from the absolute beginning of existence, and
25:52
that's proven by the detailed linguistic analysis of terms
25:54
like from the youth meaning infancy and childhood and being
25:58
estranged from the womb. And finally, the corruption is a
26:01
very real moral defilement derived through generation.
26:05
This was proven by the rhetorical questions in Job
26:07
about how one born of a woman can be righteous, and David's
26:10
confession of being conceived in sin.
26:12
The language of Scripture consistently describes man as
26:16
inherently, universally, and deeply wicked.
26:19
The theological conclusion is compelling.
26:21
The scriptural evidence characterizing the natural state
26:24
of man is one of such deep inherent corruption, drinking
26:27
iniquity like water, that only a sovereign supernatural
26:30
intervention, the after work, can lead to purity and
26:33
justification. And this leads us to a crucial
26:36
final reflection. Given that the scriptural
26:38
designation of man so consistently describes the
26:41
wicked and those estranged from the womb, how do we reconcile
26:44
this description of universal native depravity with the
26:47
original description in Genesis? The man was made in the Imago
26:50
day, the image of God. If the natural state of the sons
26:53
of men is to be abominable and filthy, drinking iniquity like
26:57
water, then what does that tell us about the ruin of that image?
27:00
And how does Christ, the true man, the second Adam, who was
27:03
not born of the ordinary corrupt generation, reveal the true
27:07
standard of humanity that was originally intended?
27:10
And what is the full scope of what redemption the after work
27:13
we discussed must restore in the regenerate man?
27:16
That contracts, I think, is the heart of reformed reflection on
27:18
the human condition.