Latest / Reformed Thinking / The Cost of Redemption as Proof of Original Sin | Jonathan Edwards

Transcript

The Cost of Redemption as Proof of Original Sin | Jonathan Edwards · Reformed Thinking

• 0:00
  Welcome to Reform Thinking. Today we are taking a really
• 0:04
  deep dive into a critical piece of historical theology.
• 0:07
  We are. We're looking at an 18th century
• 0:09
  debate that honestly, it feels like it could be happening right
• 0:12
  now. It really does.
• 0:13
  It's all about salvation, human ability, and, you know, the
• 0:16
  actual necessity of the cross. That's right, we are unpacking
• 0:19
  the work of Jonathan Edwards, and specifically his critique of
• 0:23
  a theologian known as Doctor T or Taylor.
• 0:26
  And this isn't just some dusty old argument.
• 0:28
  Edwards is basically saying that Taylor's whole system, while it
• 0:31
  might sound good, it makes Christ's work well.
• 0:35
  Not just nice, but sort of pointless.
• 0:37
  Superfluous. Yeah.
• 0:39
  Our mission here is to really get into the nuts and bolts of
• 0:41
  Edwards's logic. Why does he say that?
• 0:43
  If Taylor is right about humanity, the Atonement was a a
• 0:47
  glorious but ultimately avoidable event.
• 0:49
  So we're tracing the argument. We're starting with sin, then
• 0:52
  looking at infants and then at, you know, capable adults.
• 0:56
  And the whole thing forces you to decide what humanity's
• 0:58
  condition is before God steps in.
• 1:00
  That's the real conflict here. Which brings us to the big
• 1:03
  question for this deep dive if some humans, like infants, are
• 1:06
  totally innocent, or if adults have, as Doctor T says,
• 1:11
  sufficient power to obey God. Then what evil did Jesus
• 1:16
  actually save us from? Exactly, if we could get
• 1:18
  righteous on our own, why the sacrifice of God's Son?
• 1:21
  And that leads right to the verse that hangs over this whole
• 1:24
  debate. Galatians 2.21.
• 1:26
  If righteousness come by law, Christ is dead in vain.
• 1:30
  Edwards holds Taylor's system right up to that standard, and
• 1:33
  the conclusions are pretty stark.
• 1:35
  So let's unpack this piece by piece.
• 1:36
  All right, so Edwards, you know, he's always so meticulous.
• 1:38
  He starts where you have to start defining the problem.
• 1:42
  Right. You can't talk about a rescue
• 1:43
  mission if you don't know what the disaster is.
• 1:45
  He argues that the whole story of redemption in the Bible
• 1:48
  depends on US correctly identifying the specific evil
• 1:52
  that humanity needs saving from. You have to diagnose the disease
• 1:55
  before you can praise the physician.
• 1:57
  That's the idea. And for Edwards, pulling from
• 1:59
  Scripture, that disease is severe.
• 2:01
  It's not a minor issue. No, it's twofold.
• 2:03
  First, there's sin. That's the moral evil, our
• 2:06
  rebellion. And then?
• 2:08
  And then there's the deserve punishment of sin, the judicial
• 2:11
  evil. It's not just that we're sick,
• 2:14
  it's that we're also guilty and condemned.
• 2:15
  So Redemption isn't just getting a tune up, it's a rescue from
• 2:19
  what he calls deserved destruction.
• 2:21
  Yes, and he's always grounding this.
• 2:23
  He points to John 3.36 that without faith in Christ, the
• 2:27
  wrath of God abideth on a person.
• 2:30
  It's a present condition. It's a legal sentence.
• 2:32
  We're on death row, not just having a bad day.
• 2:35
  Precisely. The Reformed view that Edwards
• 2:38
  is championing is that mankind is found already in a state of
• 2:41
  ruin. Christ isn't coming to prevent a
• 2:44
  future car crash. He's walking onto the scene of a
• 2:46
  wreck that's already happened. And the Bible backs us up
• 2:48
  everywhere. 2nd Corinthians 5.1 teen.
• 2:51
  If one died for all, then we're all dead.
• 2:53
  Dead already not dying dead and Luke 19.10 Christ came to save
• 2:58
  that which was lost. You have to be lost before the
• 3:00
  rescuer shows up. OK.
• 3:01
  So that's the groundwork. The Savior is necessary to
• 3:04
  deliver us from an actual present state of condemnation
• 3:07
  and death. But this is where Doctor T comes
• 3:09
  in with a just a radical redefinition.
• 3:11
  It is radical, especially when it comes to death itself.
• 3:16
  For Edwards, physical death is the primary visible sign of that
• 3:20
  judicial condemnation from Adam. But not for Taylor.
• 3:23
  Not at all. Doctor T argues that death, our
• 3:26
  physical mortality, is not a calamity.
• 3:28
  It's not a curse from Adam's sin.
• 3:30
  He claims that whole Original Covenant was just abolished.
• 3:34
  Hold. On I have to stop you there.
• 3:35
  This is just, it's a huge claim. If death isn't a curse, then
• 3:39
  what on earth is it? Well, according to Doctor T,
• 3:41
  Death is actually appointed through what he calls the
• 3:44
  Covenant of Grace. Springs Death.
• 3:47
  He says it comes to humanity only as favors, not as evils.
• 3:51
  He even goes so far as to call it a medicine.
• 3:53
  A medicine and. Quote one of the greatest of
• 3:56
  benefits. A benefit that just turns
• 3:57
  Genesis on its head? Yeah.
• 3:59
  What about the resurrection? If death is a good thing, a
• 4:02
  health measure God prescribes, then what is Christ doing when
• 4:05
  he conquers the grave? He's destroying a benefit.
• 4:08
  This is exactly where Edwards pounces.
• 4:10
  He calls it the absurdity of beneficial.
• 4:12
  Evil. It sounds absurd.
• 4:14
  Edwards says it's ridiculous to talk about needing a savior to
• 4:17
  redeem us from a happy remedy or an excellent medicine.
• 4:21
  It just makes no sense. So if death is a favor.
• 4:24
  Then, Edwards concludes there is no evil or calamity at all for
• 4:28
  Christ to redeem us from. Let's just walk through that
• 4:31
  logic. If the worst thing that happens
• 4:33
  to us, mortality, is actually a good thing, then you don't need
• 4:37
  a substitutionary death to pay for it.
• 4:39
  You don't need a ransom. You.
• 4:40
  Don't The whole gospel framework just collapses.
• 4:43
  Edwards insists that Christ's salvation has to be understood
• 4:46
  as a pardon, A pardon from a deserved execution sentence.
• 4:49
  Right, It's the difference between a lawyer showing up to
• 4:52
  get you off death row versus a travel agent booking your flight
• 4:55
  for a mandatory but pleasant vacation.
• 4:58
  That's a great way to put it in Doctor TS system.
• 5:00
  Christ just manages the next step.
• 5:03
  Death is a beneficial event, and Christ just provides the happy
• 5:06
  ending, the resurrection. But if death itself is the
• 5:08
  deliverer, if it ushers an innocent person into a better
• 5:11
  state. Then, as Edward says, the
• 5:13
  sentence itself is in effect the deliverer, and there is no need
• 5:17
  of another to deliver from that sentence.
• 5:19
  So Christ becomes what? An administrator, not a rescuer
• 5:22
  from Wrath. Exactly.
• 5:24
  And that's the whole hinge. The necessity of the atonement
• 5:27
  depends on that one concept. Deserve destruction if it's
• 5:31
  deserved because of sin. Christ is essential.
• 5:34
  But if the experience death is just a beneficial step for an
• 5:38
  innocent person, then the atonement is in that case
• 5:41
  completely redundant. So that sets the stage.
• 5:44
  Now let's apply this to the actual people being redeemed,
• 5:47
  and let's start where Doctor T does with infants.
• 5:50
  And his claim is that they die perfectly innocent and perfectly
• 5:53
  guiltless, no sin on their account whatsoever.
• 5:56
  This is. Such a critical part of the
• 5:58
  argument because if you have a whole category of human beings
• 6:00
  who die without sin, then their death can't be a judicial
• 6:04
  penalty for sin. And Edwards says this doesn't
• 6:06
  just mess with the purpose of Christ's death for them, it
• 6:09
  actually attacks the meaning of Christ's own name.
• 6:11
  It's a brilliant move. Logically.
• 6:13
  He takes the name Jesus. This name was given by God's
• 6:17
  special and immediate appointment.
• 6:18
  It wasn't random. Right Matthew 1.20 the Angel
• 6:22
  says his name will be Jesus because he will save his people
• 6:25
  from their sins. From their sins the name is the
• 6:28
  job description. So if the job is savior from
• 6:30
  sin, then everyone he saves has to be a Sinner.
• 6:33
  If they're innocent, the title just doesn't apply.
• 6:36
  He can't save you from a. Probably you don't have.
• 6:38
  That is the point Edwards just hammers home again and again.
• 6:41
  The title savior makes no sense for someone who is perfectly
• 6:45
  innocent. The.
• 6:46
  Analogies he uses are so clear. Like the Pardon Attorney, a
• 6:49
  pardon attorney's whole job is to get forgiveness for a guilty
• 6:53
  person. Right.
• 6:54
  If the client didn't commit a crime, the attorney's role is
• 6:57
  nonsensical. An innocent person doesn't need
• 7:00
  a pardon, they need to be declared innocent.
• 7:02
  And Edwards even uses Christ's own words to back this up.
• 7:05
  He does the physician analogy from Mark 2.17.
• 7:09
  They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that
• 7:12
  are sick. So if Doctor T is right, if
• 7:14
  infants are perfectly innocent, they are spiritually whole.
• 7:17
  And if they're whole, they have no need of him as a Redeemer.
• 7:20
  Period. If a doctor walks into a
• 7:22
  hospital ward and finds a child who is perfectly healthy, his
• 7:25
  expertise as a healer is wasted there.
• 7:27
  It's not needed. And this goes beyond just
• 7:29
  analogies, right? It gets into the actual
• 7:31
  mechanics of salvation, the necessity of remission.
• 7:34
  Yes, the entire Bible, Old Testament sacrifices, New
• 7:38
  Testament fulfillment. It's all built on the shedding
• 7:41
  of blood for the remission of sins.
• 7:43
  Hebrews 9.22. Without the shedding of blood,
• 7:46
  there is no remission. So let's follow the logic.
• 7:50
  If infants have no SIN on their account, they need no remission.
• 7:54
  If it need no remission, they need no blood.
• 7:55
  And suddenly you have a massive contradiction.
• 7:58
  Scripture says Christ's blood was shed for the forgiveness of
• 8:01
  sins. But here's a huge group of
• 8:03
  redeemed people who apparently have no sins to forgive.
• 8:08
  The cross becomes for them completely unnecessary.
• 8:11
  Which means Doctor TS system has to shrink Christ's role for an
• 8:15
  infant down to almost nothing. It does.
• 8:17
  He can't save them from sin because they have none.
• 8:19
  He can't save them from hell because being innocent, they
• 8:22
  were never going there. So what is left for the great
• 8:24
  savior of the world to do for this innocent child?
• 8:26
  The only thing left in the system is for him and to procure
• 8:29
  the resurrection of the body. So he just wakes them up from
• 8:31
  their nap. He takes the benefit of death,
• 8:34
  that medicine we talked about, and turns it into the further
• 8:36
  benefit of resurrection. Christ is reduced from the Lamb
• 8:40
  of God who takes away the sin of the world to basically the
• 8:44
  manager of the general resurrection, A cosmic wake up
• 8:48
  call service. It's just amazing how Edwards
• 8:50
  connects all these dots by getting rid of original sin.
• 8:54
  Doctor T accidentally makes Christ's redemptive work totally
• 8:58
  non redemptive for a huge portion of humanity.
• 9:01
  He does. The necessity of the atonement
• 9:03
  requires universal sinfulness. If you're innocent, the
• 9:07
  atonement is unnecessary for you.
• 9:09
  And if it's unnecessary, it was avoidable.
• 9:11
  For Edwards, that's a direct attack on the gospel.
• 9:14
  OK, so Christ is redundant for the innocent infant, but what
• 9:17
  about adults? Adults who have sinned?
• 9:19
  Surely Christ is necessary for. Them.
• 9:21
  You'd think so, but Edwards shows that Doctor T's view of
• 9:25
  human ability ends up making the atonement unnecessary for
• 9:28
  adults, too. And this is where the stakes get
• 9:30
  you know, as high as they can possibly be.
• 9:31
  This is. Really the heart of the
• 9:33
  critique, isn't it? It's where the doctrine of man
• 9:34
  anthropology smashes right into the doctrine of Christ,
• 9:37
  Christology. That's it.
• 9:39
  What you believe about man's natural abilities directly
• 9:42
  impacts whether you think a divine substitute is necessary.
• 9:45
  So let's look at Doctor T's doctrine of human ability.
• 9:48
  As Edwards lays it out, it's a it's a shockingly optimistic
• 9:53
  view of our moral capacity. It is, Doctor T states, that all
• 9:57
  mankind has quote sufficient power and ability to do all
• 10:01
  their duty, and wholly to avoid sin.
• 10:03
  Wholly to avoid sin. Holy.
• 10:05
  And he says this is a matter of justice.
• 10:08
  God's justice requires that He demand no more than they have
• 10:11
  sufficient powers to do. OK, so on the surface that
• 10:14
  sounds fair. God can't demand the impossible.
• 10:17
  Your duty has to match your ability.
• 10:19
  If I can't do something, God can't justly require it of me.
• 10:22
  And that's the logic. Edwards actually grants him that
• 10:24
  premise for the sake of argument, and then he just turns
• 10:26
  it right back on him. How so?
• 10:28
  Well, if your duty equals your ability, and your ability is
• 10:31
  sufficient to avoid all sin and do all your duty, then the
• 10:34
  conclusion is inescapable. You have sufficient power to be
• 10:37
  righteous by the law. You have sufficient power to
• 10:40
  obtain righteousness by the law. That's the devastating leap.
• 10:44
  If you can do everything God asks, then you can earn your own
• 10:47
  justification. There is no prior impossibility
• 10:51
  blocking you from achieving life through your own obedience.
• 10:54
  And that is the exact trigger for the knockout blow.
• 10:56
  It is this is where Edwards brings in the Apostle Paul,
• 10:59
  Galatians 2.21 the absolute non negotiable standard.
• 11:03
  If righteousness come by by law, Christ is dead in vain.
• 11:07
  If you have sufficient power to fulfill the law, then the cross
• 11:10
  was redundant. It was a waste.
• 11:12
  How could Doctor T not see that his own doctrine LED directly to
• 11:16
  this conclusion? Well, what's so brilliant is
• 11:18
  that Edwards shows that Doctor T actually agrees with the
• 11:21
  principle. Doctor T himself says that
• 11:24
  Christ died in vain, if his death was for something that
• 11:26
  might have been affected by law itself without his death.
• 11:29
  Oh wow, so he sets his own trap. He sets his own trap, and
• 11:32
  Edwards just springs it. The syllogism is.
• 11:34
  Perfect premise one from Doctor T Humans have sufficient power
• 11:39
  to fulfill the law. Premise 2.
• 11:40
  Also from Doctor T If the law could have done it, Christ's
• 11:43
  death was in vain. Conclusion from Edwards Since
• 11:47
  the law could have produced righteousness through our power,
• 11:50
  Doctor T has met his own condition for making Christ's
• 11:53
  sacrifice completely needless. It's a perfect logical box.
• 11:58
  If the law could have given life because we had the power to obey
• 12:01
  it, then a wise God would have seen it was needless to give his
• 12:04
  Son to die for men. The entire necessity of Christ's
• 12:07
  death hangs on the idea that it was absolutely, completely
• 12:10
  impossible for us to save ourselves.
• 12:12
  That's it. The Reformed doctrine of total
• 12:14
  inability or complete inability to fulfill the law after the
• 12:17
  fall is what makes Christ's substitutionary death essential.
• 12:22
  By claiming we have sufficient power, Doctor T kicks the legs
• 12:25
  out from under the whole structure.
• 12:26
  The analogy of the prisoner with the key just makes it so clear.
• 12:29
  It does if the prisoner humanity already has the key to unlock
• 12:33
  the cell door. Which is that sufficient power?
• 12:36
  Power to obey the law. Then the benefactor who dies a
• 12:39
  horrible death to pay the ransom was, I mean it was a totally
• 12:42
  wasted sacrifice, A tragic, unnecessary gesture.
• 12:45
  So the atonement gets downgraded.
• 12:47
  It's no longer an essential legal payment for a failed race.
• 12:50
  It's just a big motivational speech for people who could have
• 12:54
  done it themselves anyway. That's the consequence, and This
• 12:56
  is why Edwards saw this as a life or death issue for the
• 12:59
  gospel. If man can produce his own
• 13:02
  righteousness, then the imputed righteousness of Christ, the
• 13:05
  great exchange at the cross, becomes useless.
• 13:07
  OK, so Doctor T has to see the corner he's painted himself
• 13:11
  into. He must have a way to try and
• 13:13
  escape this. Christ is dead in vain.
• 13:15
  Conclusion. He does.
• 13:17
  He tries to carve out a necessary role for Christ by
• 13:19
  talking about what he calls a mild dispensation of grace.
• 13:23
  A mild dispensation? What does that mean?
• 13:25
  He basically argues that OK, yes, we have the power to obey,
• 13:29
  but we also suffer from infirmity, a natural weakness.
• 13:33
  So we need Christ's death to allow God to lower the standard,
• 13:37
  to accept our imperfect, weak obedience as if it were perfect.
• 13:40
  He's trying to wedge Grace back into the equation.
• 13:42
  Edwards's counter argument here is just it's lethal.
• 13:46
  It is because he refuses to call it grace.
• 13:48
  He says look, if God's justice requires him to perfectly match
• 13:52
  our duty to our ability. Demanding no more than they have
• 13:56
  sufficient powers to do. Right then, if God accepts a
• 13:59
  lower performance because he knows that's all our infirm
• 14:02
  state and produce, that's not grace.
• 14:04
  That's just mere justice. Because if God demanded more
• 14:07
  than our infirmity allowed, he would be unjust by Doctor TS own
• 14:11
  definition. Exactly.
• 14:13
  If God can only justly demand what we're able to give, then
• 14:17
  accepting that level of performance is just an act of
• 14:19
  fairness. It's not unmerited favor.
• 14:21
  So justice itself is what protects us from condemnation.
• 14:25
  We don't need an atonement for that.
• 14:26
  There's no wrath to satisfy, there's no debt to pay, because
• 14:29
  God is already being perfectly fair to our imperfect state.
• 14:33
  The mild dispensation is just what justice demands.
• 14:36
  This. Completely gets rid of the need
• 14:39
  for propitiation. Propitiation is about satisfying
• 14:42
  divine wrath, but if justice is already satisfied by our best
• 14:45
  effort, then there's nothing to propitiate.
• 14:47
  That's the point, Edwards says. Grace biblically is getting
• 14:50
  something you absolutely do not deserve.
• 14:53
  If God's acceptance of you is required by his own justice,
• 14:56
  then you in a sense deserve it. Christ's death can't be
• 14:59
  necessary to make God be just. He's already just.
• 15:02
  OK, what about another angle? What about bad habits?
• 15:06
  Dr. T could argue that sure, we had sufficient power at the
• 15:09
  start, but now we're trapped in sinful patterns and we need
• 15:13
  Christ to break us out. Edwards is ready for that too.
• 15:16
  He says no matter how you slice it, the Redeemer is still
• 15:19
  irrelevant. In Doctor TS system.
• 15:21
  He sets up a really clean dilemma.
• 15:23
  OK. Lay it out for us.
• 15:24
  Dilemma one. If the bad habit was avoidable
• 15:27
  in the 1st place, then the person had sufficient power and
• 15:29
  didn't need Christ to avoid it. Then the original sin was their
• 15:32
  own avoidable fault. OK, that makes sense.
• 15:34
  What's the other side? Dilemma 2.
• 15:36
  If the habit has now become unavoidable, it's an addiction
• 15:39
  too strong to resist. Then, according to Doctor TS own
• 15:42
  rules, it changes categories. How so?
• 15:45
  Doctor T claims that any evil that is necessary, meaning you
• 15:47
  can't possibly avoid it, is therefore not a moral evil.
• 15:51
  It's not sin. Wait, hold on.
• 15:53
  So if my addiction is so strong that I can't break it, the
• 15:56
  actions that come from it are no longer considered sins.
• 16:00
  That's the implication Edwards draws out of his principles.
• 16:02
  If you can't avoid it, you're not morally responsible.
• 16:05
  If you're not responsible, you don't need forgiveness or a
• 16:07
  savior. You have no sin to be saved from
• 16:09
  now. So either you didn't need Christ
• 16:12
  then, or you don't need him now. Either way, the Savior from sin
• 16:16
  is made needless for the adult. It's a complete trap.
• 16:19
  So if Christ isn't saving us from deserved wrath, and he's
• 16:22
  not needed for the innocent, and He's not needed to overcome our
• 16:27
  own sufficiency, what is left for Him to do?
• 16:30
  The only thing left in the system is for Christ to be a
• 16:33
  moral influence. He provides more light
• 16:35
  advantages, means and motives. So he's a good teacher, a great
• 16:39
  example. He gives us better information.
• 16:41
  Right, but he doesn't actually change our hearts.
• 16:43
  He doesn't infuse holiness. It's just an external influence
• 16:46
  model. And Edwards shows that even this
• 16:48
  role is ultimately useless based on Doctor T's own rules.
• 16:52
  He does because Doctor T says that our duty is measured by our
• 16:56
  talents. So if Christ gives an adult more
• 16:59
  light, more advantages, then their duty, their level of
• 17:03
  required obedience goes up proportionally.
• 17:06
  The bar for judgment is raised at the exact same rate that the
• 17:10
  advantage is given. Which means, Edwards concludes,
• 17:12
  the person stands no better chance of being free from sin
• 17:15
  than they did without Christ. Their increased ability or
• 17:19
  knowledge is completely cancelled out by their increased
• 17:21
  responsibility. So even Christ's role as a moral
• 17:24
  teacher accomplishes nothing in terms of actually making us
• 17:27
  righteous. Nothing.
• 17:28
  The great redemption Edward says comes to nothing.
• 17:31
  It doesn't cure the innocent, and it doesn't actually empower
• 17:33
  the capable in any redemptive way.
• 17:35
  It's just a system that uses all the right words, Grace, savior,
• 17:39
  redemption. But when you look at the engine
• 17:42
  under the hood, it's empty. The Atonement has no necessary
• 17:45
  function. So as we wrap up this deep dive,
• 17:49
  it's clear what we've seen. Edwards just masterfully uses
• 17:52
  logic and the Bible's own definition, Savior, sin,
• 17:55
  remission, to show that any theology that starts with human
• 17:58
  sufficiency or innocence ends up making the Atonement
• 18:01
  unnecessary. The whole thing hinged on one
• 18:04
  question. What is the state of humanity
• 18:07
  are we facing? Deserve destruction, which means
• 18:09
  we need a savior from sin and wrath.
• 18:12
  Or are we just experiencing A beneficial mortality and have
• 18:15
  all the moral power we need, which means, really, we don't
• 18:17
  need a rescuer at all? Edwards forces you to look at
• 18:20
  the name Jesus and realize it only makes sense if his people
• 18:23
  actually need saving from their sins.
• 18:25
  If sin isn't a universal, damning problem, the name itself
• 18:28
  becomes illogical. This whole discussion just
• 18:31
  clarifies that the necessity of Christ's death is completely
• 18:34
  dependent on the prior impossibility of us saving
• 18:36
  ourselves by the law. If the law could have given life
• 18:40
  because we had the power to obey it, then the cross was in vain.
• 18:43
  It's exactly what Paul learned about.
• 18:45
  It really makes you look at that verse.
• 18:47
  Galatians 2.21 with with new gravity.
• 18:50
  Edwards's whole critique is a demand that we understand the
• 18:53
  depth of our ruin in Adam to even begin to grasp the height
• 18:57
  of our salvation in Christ. So as you think about this
• 18:59
  debate, maybe the final thought is to consider just how
• 19:02
  essential the doctrine of original sin is, not as some,
• 19:05
  you know, legal technicality, but as the absolute precondition
• 19:08
  for finding any real meaning in the name, the life and the death
• 19:11
  of Jesus the Savior. If we didn't need saving from
• 19:14
  sin, he wouldn't be Jesus. Thank you for joining us for
• 19:17
  this deep dive.