Latest / Reformed Thinking / All Mankind under the Power of Sin | Jonathan Edwards

Transcript

All Mankind under the Power of Sin | Jonathan Edwards · Reformed Thinking

• 0:00
  Welcome to reformed thinking. Today we're really getting into
• 0:04
  the weeds, looking at Jonathan Edwards and how he constructs
• 0:07
  his argument for original sin. Right.
• 0:09
  Specifically, that first foundational step.
• 0:12
  Exactly. We're focusing on how he tries
• 0:14
  to prove that there's a natural propensity to sin in humanity.
• 0:18
  And crucially, he separates this from proving whether that
• 0:21
  tendency is actually, you know, morally corrupt.
• 0:24
  That comes later. Yeah, that separation is key to
• 0:26
  understanding his method. So our mission, if you like, for
• 0:30
  this deep dive is to really unpack the logical steps Edwards
• 0:33
  takes. We want to see how he argues
• 0:35
  that the universal, constant fact that everyone fails to keep
• 0:39
  God's law perfectly isn't just bad luck or circumstance.
• 0:43
  But that it demonstrates an inherent, an effectual tendency
• 0:46
  within human nature itself, a tendency towards sin and, as he
• 0:50
  argues, consequently, towards eternal ruin.
• 0:53
  So we need to follow his logic carefully, distinguish the
• 0:56
  observation, what actually happens from the judgable about
• 0:59
  it. OK, let's start with the logical
• 1:01
  framework. Yeah, the groundwork, the big
• 1:03
  question here seems simple, but it's got huge implications,
• 1:06
  doesn't it? Does the fact that everyone
• 1:08
  without exception commits some sin prove there's a fixed
• 1:12
  natural tendency towards it? Or could it just be, you know, a
• 1:16
  series of unfortunate events influenced by the world around
• 1:19
  us? Edwards really pushes us to
• 1:21
  think. Almost like scientists here
• 1:25
  looking at human behavior as data.
• 1:27
  Right. Cause and effect.
• 1:29
  And the first thing is his definition of propensity or
• 1:31
  tendency. This is where he sets the stage
• 1:33
  very carefully. How does he define it then?
• 1:36
  He defines it not as some inner feeling, but as a prevailing
• 1:40
  liableness or exposiveness to a specific outcome.
• 1:44
  It's functional. OK.
• 1:45
  So it's about the likelihood of something happening based on the
• 1:48
  nature of the thing. Pretty much.
• 1:49
  It's about a fixed reality that you figure out by seeing what
• 1:52
  results it produces. It's not something you just know
• 1:54
  intuitively, you have to infer it.
• 1:56
  You infer it, and he's very clear.
• 1:57
  It is inferred no other way than by observation of events.
• 2:02
  So if we can't see the tendency itself, what kind of observation
• 2:05
  proves it? It's about the commonness or
• 2:07
  constancy. That's the.
• 2:08
  Key, not just a one off event. No, he says.
• 2:11
  If something happens just once, or maybe sporadically, reason
• 2:15
  can't conclude there's a fixed propensity.
• 2:18
  A single mistake could be an accident.
• 2:20
  But if it happens consistently. Constant failure points to a
• 2:23
  fixed reality in the cause. To understand the nature of
• 2:27
  something, you need steady, predictable results.
• 2:30
  OK, so that brings us to the cause and effect rule he relies
• 2:33
  on. Yeah, this is the philosophical
• 2:35
  engine of the argument. He's basically saying human
• 2:37
  nature is like a system and we're observing its output.
• 2:41
  And if the output the effect is steady.
• 2:43
  Then the cause must be steady. A steady effect argues a steady
• 2:46
  'cause it's basic logic. So if the effect sinfulness
• 2:50
  happens consistently in everyone.
• 2:53
  Then reason tells you there must be a stated prevalence in the
• 2:56
  cause. The underlying tendency has to
• 2:58
  be strong enough, effectual enough, to guarantee that
• 3:01
  outcome it. Can't be a weak 'cause if the
• 3:03
  effect is universal. Right.
• 3:04
  If the cause wasn't sufficient, the effect wouldn't be so
• 3:07
  constant. The fact that it always happens
• 3:09
  proves the cause has this systematic bias or weight
• 3:12
  towards that result. A preponderation, as he puts it.
• 3:16
  Which leads us nicely into that dye analogy that really makes it
• 3:19
  clear. It does.
• 3:20
  It cuts through a lot of the abstraction, he says.
• 3:22
  Imagine a dye. You throw it millions of times,
• 3:24
  no skill involved, just random throws.
• 3:27
  OK, and suppose it constantly falls on the same side every
• 3:31
  single time, or almost every time.
• 3:33
  What do you conclude? Well.
• 3:35
  You know the dye is loaded, right?
• 3:36
  Something's wrong with its balance or.
• 3:38
  Weight. Exactly.
• 3:39
  You'd have not the least doubt there's a propensity in the dyes
• 3:42
  constitution. Maybe it's weighted unevenly.
• 3:45
  The point is you don't need to see inside the dye.
• 3:48
  The constant outcome is the proof.
• 3:50
  The constancy of the effect proves the underlying state.
• 3:53
  So in this analogy, human nature is the dye, yes, And all the
• 3:57
  different lives people live in all sorts of circumstances.
• 4:00
  Those are the throes, right? And the constant result falling
• 4:04
  on the side of sin must logically prove there's an
• 4:07
  internal fixed propensity in human nature itself.
• 4:11
  We're just watching the mechanism work.
• 4:12
  And notice at this stage he hasn't even touched whether this
• 4:15
  propensity is morally bad or good.
• 4:19
  He's just established its existence as a fact.
• 4:21
  Right, he's locked it in based on observation and causality.
• 4:25
  He's observed the universal failure, linked it through the
• 4:28
  cause and effect rule to an unseen internal state.
• 4:32
  It's clever because it forces opponents to either deny basic
• 4:36
  causality, which is irrational. Or deny the observable fact that
• 4:40
  everyone sins, which goes against scripture and, frankly,
• 4:43
  experience. So the existence of the
• 4:45
  propensity is established before we even get to the arguments
• 4:48
  about fairness or blame. OK, so we have the logical tool
• 4:51
  now. What's the data?
• 4:53
  What's the steady effect Edwards points to?
• 4:55
  It's that universal, unavoidable fact.
• 4:58
  All mankind commit some sin that everyone fails to keep God's law
• 5:03
  perfectly. This is the baseline reality
• 5:05
  acknowledged even by those who argued against him on original
• 5:08
  sin. And we need to be clear about
• 5:09
  the standard here. It's perfect obedience, not just
• 5:12
  being mostly good. Absolutely.
• 5:14
  The moral law demands perfection.
• 5:16
  Any deviation, even the smallest one, counts as failure.
• 5:19
  And this failure, he says, is the issue that all men do
• 5:22
  actually come to. Everyone ends up here.
• 5:24
  And because it's universal, every single person sins at
• 5:28
  least once. This single fact triggers the
• 5:31
  catastrophic consequences. He talks.
• 5:33
  About OK, what are those? This guaranteed failure results
• 5:36
  in a degree of sinfulness that he argues, implies and infers
• 5:41
  utter ruin, even extreme misery and eternal ruin.
• 5:44
  Because the law is absolute. Yes.
• 5:46
  If the law says the soul that sins shall die and everyone
• 5:50
  sins, then the logical result under that legal framework is
• 5:54
  unavoidable. So no man living can be
• 5:56
  justified by the law. Correct.
• 5:58
  Every single person is automatically exposed to
• 6:01
  condemnation simply by failing to meet the standard of perfect
• 6:04
  obedience. The ruin is guaranteed by the
• 6:07
  failure. It doesn't matter how big or
• 6:09
  small the sin is at this point in the gagic.
• 6:11
  Not for the basic fact of condemnation.
• 6:13
  Under law, any sin breaks the covenant of works it ensures a
• 6:17
  demerit of and just exposing this to eternal ruin.
• 6:21
  And this isn't a rare outcome, it's the universal constant
• 6:24
  result. So proving a tendency to sin is
• 6:27
  effectively proving a tendency toward ruin.
• 6:29
  The. Consequences tied directly to
• 6:31
  the failure itself. Edwards then strengthens this
• 6:34
  point by looking at the consistency across different
• 6:37
  situations. It's not just that people fail,
• 6:40
  but they fail everywhere, always.
• 6:42
  Right the constancy across circumstances.
• 6:44
  This is a powerful empirical point.
• 6:46
  If failure only happened in one type of society or situation,
• 6:50
  you can blame the environment. But that's not what we see.
• 6:52
  No, he points out, this failure happens despite an immense
• 6:56
  diversity of persons and circumstances.
• 6:58
  All countries, climates, nations, different historical
• 7:02
  ages, different upbringings, different social conditions.
• 7:05
  Rich, poor, educated, uneducated.
• 7:08
  Doesn't matter whether you look at the most advanced societies
• 7:11
  or the most isolated tribes, people with the best moral
• 7:14
  training or the worst. The result is the same sin
• 7:18
  happens. It's like taking that loaded and
• 7:20
  throwing it everywhere on the moon underwater.
• 7:22
  Exactly. If it still keeps landing on the
• 7:24
  same side, you become even more certain the problem is internal
• 7:27
  to the dye he. Uses the analogy of a tree,
• 7:29
  doesn't he? Yes, if you have a specific kind
• 7:32
  of tree and you planted in every possible soil and climate
• 7:35
  imaginable and it always produces bad fruit.
• 7:38
  Then you know the problem isn't the soil or the climate, it's
• 7:41
  the nature of that kind of tree. Precisely.
• 7:44
  The failure isn't environmental, it's characteristic of the
• 7:47
  species. So the constant bad fruits in
• 7:50
  across all human circumstances proves the nature and tendency
• 7:54
  of the humankind. It's a powerful statistical
• 7:56
  argument, really. Therefore, he concludes, the
• 7:59
  apparent and acknowledged fact of universal sin proves, by the
• 8:03
  rules of cause and effect, a propensity within the present
• 8:06
  nature of mankind. A.
• 8:07
  Propensity to do what? Eternally to ruin themselves by
• 8:10
  sin. The tendency is proven, and it's
• 8:13
  ruinous consequence is proven just by observing the consistent
• 8:16
  outcome. OK, so the propensity exists and
• 8:19
  it leads to ruin. The next logical step is where
• 8:22
  does it come from? Where is it located?
• 8:24
  Right. Edwards acknowledges the surface
• 8:26
  observation. We see people prone to sinful
• 8:29
  indulgence, often linked to so many sensual appetites, and so
• 8:33
  apartment to indulge them. So things like greed, lust,
• 8:36
  anger related to our physical desires.
• 8:38
  Yeah, but where does that aptness, that readiness to
• 8:41
  indulge, actually originate? He frames it as an internal
• 8:45
  issue. How so?
• 8:46
  He says it must come either from the body which God hath made the
• 8:49
  physical constitution in itself, or be immediately and originally
• 8:53
  seated in the soul itself. Either way, body or soul, the
• 8:58
  root is within the human makeup, not external to it.
• 9:01
  But this is where his opponents, like Doctor Taylor, tried to
• 9:05
  find an escape hatch. They the external evasion.
• 9:07
  Exactly. They'd concede, OK, yes,
• 9:09
  everyone sins, but they'd argue the tendency isn't truly in
• 9:13
  human nature. So.
• 9:14
  Where do they put it? They blamed the general
• 9:17
  constitution and frame of this world.
• 9:20
  They argue the world is just full of so many and strong
• 9:23
  temptations. So the idea is the soul starts
• 9:27
  out pure, but it gets placed in this corrupting world, and the
• 9:31
  world inevitably makes its sin. That's the argument.
• 9:34
  The environment is the source of the corruption, not the nature
• 9:36
  itself. Edwards had account of that,
• 9:38
  obviously. How did he do it?
• 9:39
  He uses a systemic argument. He says look, if any creature
• 9:42
  proves to be bad or fails in the proper situation, God designed
• 9:46
  for it. It's intended environment.
• 9:47
  Then you have to conclude that the creature itself has an evil
• 9:50
  nature, or at least a defective 1 relative to its purpose in
• 9:54
  that situation. Does that make sense?
• 9:56
  Like the clock analogy you mentioned earlier if it's
• 9:59
  designed for a certain humidity but always fails in that
• 10:03
  humidity. You blame the clock's design,
• 10:05
  not the humidity it was made for.
• 10:07
  OK, Edwards puts it formally. A propensity properly belongs to
• 10:11
  a being's nature if it's the necessary consequence of its
• 10:14
  nature interacting with its proper situation in the
• 10:17
  universe. And our proper situation is this
• 10:19
  world. Right.
• 10:20
  And this world, he argues, is as much of God's ordering as man's
• 10:24
  nature itself. You can't to separate the
• 10:26
  creature from the environment God specifically made for that
• 10:29
  creature. They function together as a
• 10:31
  system. So the opponent's attempt to
• 10:34
  blame the world is a false separation.
• 10:36
  Edwards argues it is the fact that this world always results
• 10:40
  in sin for humans proves there's a pernicious tendency belonging
• 10:43
  to their nature. The consistent failure in the
• 10:46
  intended environment points back to an inherent flaw or
• 10:49
  vulnerability in the creature design for that environment.
• 10:52
  The world pulls the trigger, but the gun was already loaded, so
• 10:55
  to speak. That's a way to put it.
• 10:57
  The nature has an inherent susceptibility that the
• 11:00
  environment invariably activates.
• 11:03
  And then he uses their own theology against them.
• 11:05
  Yes, the refuting divine authorship through concession.
• 11:08
  This is quite clever. He takes their idea that the
• 11:11
  world infallibly pollutes a pure soul and shows the devastating
• 11:16
  implication for their view of God.
• 11:18
  How? He asks the simple, powerful
• 11:20
  question, who created the world? God did.
• 11:24
  So if God created a world that is designed in such a way that
• 11:27
  it naturally and infallibly pollutes every soul placed.
• 11:30
  Within it, then, God becomes the ultimate author of that
• 11:32
  pollution, the author of sin. Which contradicts the opponent's
• 11:36
  own belief in a righteous, holy God who is not the author of
• 11:39
  sin. It forces them into a corner.
• 11:42
  And he even quotes them. Yes, he points out that Doctor
• 11:45
  Taylor himself describes this world as being full of God's
• 11:48
  riches, mercy and goodness. Ah, so if the world itself is
• 11:53
  fundamentally good, as even the opponent admits.
• 11:55
  Then how can it be the ultimate source of this universal,
• 11:58
  inevitable corruption? It doesn't add up.
• 12:00
  So the blame has to fall back onto human nature itself.
• 12:03
  Exactly. It pushes the problem back
• 12:05
  inside the person. The infallible tendency must be
• 12:08
  rooted in man's nature. The propensity is inherent.
• 12:12
  Whether it's more bodily appetite or a lack in the soul,
• 12:16
  the point is it's in the human system.
• 12:18
  That's the crucial step. He eliminates the environmental
• 12:20
  excuse and allocates the necessity for sin firmly within
• 12:24
  the human constitution. OK, we've established the
• 12:27
  propensity exists and it's inherent to human nature.
• 12:30
  Now, how strong is this tendency?
• 12:33
  This is where Edwards argues its strength based on the unfailing
• 12:36
  nature of the effect. The fact that sin is not just
• 12:39
  common, but universal and constant proves the propensity
• 12:43
  is of the highest kind, meaning meaning it's not just a slight
• 12:46
  inclination or a strong probability.
• 12:48
  He defines this highest kind of tendency as one that is
• 12:52
  universally invincible. Invincible.
• 12:54
  That sounds strong. Like unavoidable.
• 12:56
  Functionally, yes, he says. It really amounts to a fixed,
• 12:59
  constant, unfailing necessity. If an outcome happens 100% of
• 13:03
  the time across millions of cases, then for all practical
• 13:06
  purposes it's a necessary outcome of the system as it
• 13:09
  currently operates. So he's deriving necessity from
• 13:11
  the sheer consistency of the observation.
• 13:14
  Precisely. It's an empirical necessity.
• 13:16
  He's observing that in fact, humans never succeed in
• 13:19
  achieving sinless perfection, therefore failure is in that
• 13:23
  sense necessary. So while people still make
• 13:26
  choices to sin the. Overall system human nature in
• 13:29
  its current state is so tilted or flawed that the outcome,
• 13:32
  universal failure, is guaranteed.
• 13:34
  The propensity ensures the effect.
• 13:36
  That's a key distinction. It's not saying people are
• 13:38
  puppets, but that the internal constitution makes sin
• 13:41
  inevitable overall. Right.
• 13:43
  And what's really striking here is how he uses the concessions
• 13:46
  of hopelessness from his opponents to back this up.
• 13:48
  He shows how they basically admit this necessity.
• 13:51
  Yeah, he points to their own words.
• 13:53
  For instance, Doctor Taylor says mankind's situation under the
• 13:56
  Law, the law threatening death for every sin, must be quite
• 14:00
  deplorable if they have no relief from the mercy of the
• 14:03
  Lawgiver. Deplorable.
• 14:04
  Why is that significant? Edwards jumps on that if the
• 14:07
  situation is deplorable without mercy, it implies it's
• 14:10
  functionally hopeless. Otherwise, why call it
• 14:13
  deplorable if people could actually succeed through their
• 14:16
  own efforts under the law? Good point.
• 14:19
  It implies the only way out is mercy, meaning self salvation
• 14:23
  through law keeping is impossible.
• 14:25
  It's a powerful rhetorical point.
• 14:28
  Their own language betrays a sense of helplessness, conceding
• 14:31
  that justification by works is off the table unless God steps
• 14:34
  in with mercy. Do they say anything else that
• 14:36
  supports this? Yes, Edwards knows they speak of
• 14:39
  trying to fulfill the law perfectly as truly impossible.
• 14:42
  Impossible. Yes, impossible for the law
• 14:44
  demanding sinless obedience to actually give life specifically
• 14:48
  because of the weakness of our flesh.
• 14:50
  Wow, so they admit impossibility due to human weakness?
• 14:53
  Which perfectly confirms Edwards's point about an
• 14:56
  invincible propensity if achieving perfect obedience is
• 14:59
  truly impossible for humans in their current state.
• 15:02
  Then the failure is necessary and the propensity is as strong
• 15:06
  as Edwards claims, invincible. It validates his claim that the
• 15:09
  tendency to sin is so powerful that attempting to escape death
• 15:13
  by law keeping is hopeless without divine intervention.
• 15:17
  And what's the practical consequence of this invincible
• 15:20
  necessity? Spiritual futility under the
• 15:22
  law. Edwards concludes that because
• 15:24
  of this fixed propensity, all human efforts to achieve
• 15:27
  righteous by works are lost labor.
• 15:30
  Wasted effort. And it's impossible for them to
• 15:32
  expect ought but death based on their own performance under the
• 15:36
  law. OK, but we have to be careful
• 15:37
  here. Does this necessity, this
• 15:39
  impossibility of perfection mean people aren't guilty?
• 15:42
  Does it remove responsibility? That's a crucial point, and
• 15:45
  Edwards addresses it directly. No, it does not remove guilt.
• 15:48
  Why? Because the propensity to sin,
• 15:50
  even if it comes from a defect or an infirmity like a lack of
• 15:54
  original righteousness, still results in an actual
• 15:57
  transgression of God's commands, and that transgression is justly
• 16:01
  condemned. So the source of the sin, the
• 16:03
  defective nature, doesn't excuse the act of sin.
• 16:06
  Correct. The necessity of sinning leads
• 16:09
  to a genuine demerit of and just exposedness to eternal ruin.
• 16:15
  Failing to meet God's standard is still a failure of duty, and
• 16:18
  duty is owed regardless of the creatures internal state.
• 16:21
  So the universal failure means universal condemnation.
• 16:24
  Even if that failure was unavoidable given our nature,
• 16:28
  this maintains God's justice. Exactly.
• 16:30
  The argument structure is now complete.
• 16:32
  Edwards believes he's proven the propensity exists, it's inherent
• 16:35
  in human nature, it's invincibly strong, and its consequences
• 16:39
  ruin and condemnation. All based, he argues, on
• 16:42
  observable facts that even his opponents concede hashtag tags
• 16:45
  of the summary and final thought.
• 16:47
  OK, let's try to pull this together for everyone listening.
• 16:49
  We've walked through a pretty dense, logical argument from
• 16:51
  Edwards. What are the main takeaways?
• 16:53
  I think we can break it down into four key pillars he built.
• 16:56
  First, the very idea of tendency or propensity isn't some
• 17:00
  mysterious feeling. It's proven entirely by
• 17:03
  constancy. Right, you see, the effect
• 17:05
  happened over and over again universally, and that's how you
• 17:08
  know there's a fixed tendency causing it.
• 17:10
  Observation is key. Second, what is that constant
• 17:13
  effect in humanity? It's universal sinfulness.
• 17:16
  Everyone fails perfect obedience, and under God's law,
• 17:19
  that failure automatically leads to utter ruin and condemnation.
• 17:22
  OK, third, third. Because this failure happens
• 17:26
  consistently across every imaginable human circumstance,
• 17:29
  different cultures, times, conditions, it proves the
• 17:32
  tendency isn't just external, it's an inherent pernicious
• 17:35
  tendency within human nature itself, operating in the world
• 17:38
  God designed for it. The blame the world argument
• 17:41
  doesn't hold up. Got it.
• 17:43
  And the final pillar. Finally, the sheer fact that
• 17:46
  this failure is always the outcome, something even
• 17:48
  Edwards's opponents admitted was impossible to avoid, proves the
• 17:52
  tendency is of the highest degree.
• 17:54
  It amounts to an invincible necessity.
• 17:57
  Escape through human effort alone is functionally
• 17:59
  impossible. So the logical conclusion of all
• 18:01
  this? The conclusion Edwards drives us
• 18:03
  toward is that humanity state just based on observable reality
• 18:08
  and the demands of the law, is one of complete hopelessness for
• 18:12
  self salvation. Which then makes God's mercy not
• 18:15
  just nice, but absolutely necessary.
• 18:18
  It's the only way out. Exactly.
• 18:20
  The law, in revealing this universal, necessary failure,
• 18:24
  highlights our total inability and therefore magnifies the need
• 18:28
  for and the glory of God's grace in providing another way.
• 18:32
  Now this brings us back to that careful distinction Edwards made
• 18:34
  at the start. He spent all this effort proving
• 18:37
  the existence and necessity of this tendency towards sin and
• 18:40
  ruin based on facts. Right, he meticulously built the
• 18:43
  case for the what and the how strong.
• 18:45
  But he intentionally held back on proving its moral quality.
• 18:48
  So here's the thought to leave you with if the facts
• 18:50
  established this inherent, universally invincible necessity
• 18:53
  towards sin and ruin, what kind of oral argument has to come
• 18:56
  next? Yeah, what further step is
• 18:58
  needed to prove that this observed, functionally
• 19:00
  disastrous tendency is also, in the eyes of a perfectly
• 19:04
  righteous God, truly corrupt and depraved in itself?
• 19:07
  Establishing the fact of the propensity is one thing.
• 19:10
  Establishing its inherent guilt or moral corruption is the next
• 19:14
  layer. And that's the bridge to the
• 19:16
  deeper aspects of the doctrine of original sin, which involves
• 19:19
  inherited guilt and moral pollution, a crucial and perhaps
• 19:23
  even more debated step. Different, something to think
• 19:25
  about. We'll have to tackle that moral
• 19:27
  dimension in a future deep drive.
• 19:29
  Thanks for joining us on Reformed Thinking.