# Jonathan Edwards: Original Sin



## RamistThomist (Apr 28, 2020)

This isn’t really an exegetical defense of Original Sin as it is an extended book review on Dr Taylor’s works. There is some exegesis, and Edwards does make a few good comments on concreated holiness, but the real fireworks are at the end.

Identity with Adam: mankind has a “constituted connexion” with Adam as an acorn does with an oak (IV.II. n). Edwards acknowledges, but does not develop, a federal principle in Adam. In this same section Edwards affirms creationism as opposed to traducianism.

Edwards’ conclusion is that Adam’s posterity is one with him (IV.III). It is a “constituted oneness or identity.” This allows him to solve the problem of imputation. “By the law of union there is a communion and co-existence of acts” between Adam and his posterity (see note). That’s his imputation: “his posterity are viewed in the same place with their father.”

Edwards pays a high price for his doctrine of imputation. Strictly speaking, nothing is imputed. If I do something, you don’t impute my doing the act to me. I simply did it. Likewise, since Edwards has identified Adam and his posterity, his posterity just as equally did the act. There is nothing to impute.

Edwards tries to get around these problems of identity by using analogies of body/soul, tree/acorn. He takes Locke’s theory of identity as “sameness of consciousness” and adds a new twist. Personal identity depends on a law of nature, namely the “sovereign will and agency of God” (p. 223 in the Banner of Truth edition). Here is his argument:

(1) Personal identity depends on God’s constitution.
(2) God continually upholds and preserves his creation.
(3) Our dependent existence is an “effect and must have some cause” and the cause is either an antecedent cause or the power of the creator.
(4) It cannot be an antecedent cause because no passive thing can create a cause in space and time that is greater than itself, and so must pass out of existence. If it is out of existence it cannot create a new cause.
(5) “Therefore, the existence of created substances, in each successive moment, must be the effect of the immediate agency, will, and power of God”. 
(5*) New exertions of divine power are needed to keep things from dropping into nothing.

But isn’t Edwards simply saying that God upholds things every moment, and if God didn’t exist, they wouldn’t? No. He goes on to say:

(6) God is “causing its existence in each successive moment.” In fact, he says this is “altogether equivalent to an immediate production out of nothing, at each moment” (224).

Criticisms

There are some major problems with this. If God’s reconstituting humanity at each new moment does all the heavy lifting, then why is there any need for a metaphysical oneness with Adam? Couldn’t God just view it like that? Oliver Crisp points out that “Divine fiat is doing all the explanatory work” (Jonathan Edwards Among the Theologians 121). Further, it appears that not only is God recreating the world at every moment, he is creating sin at every moment. This is a fatal price to pay.

Unfortunately, I think JE paid too high a price. He must surrender either his view of Original Sin or his view of the Will. In the latter he said that each moment’s prior state was the cause of the next state. But here he seems to say that the antecedent cause has no real existence. If it doesn’t, then it can’t cause the next state, pace Freedom of the Will.

Oliver Crisp has raised yet a bigger problem: if God is recreating me each moment, and I am a sinful human, then is God creating evil and sin each moment?


----------



## James Marr (Apr 28, 2020)

Job 6v4. For the arrows of the Almighty [are] within me, the poison whereof drinketh up my spirit: the terrors of God do set themselves in array against me.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 28, 2020)

James Marr said:


> Job 6v4. For the arrows of the Almighty [are] within me, the poison whereof drinketh up my spirit: the terrors of God do set themselves in array against me.



Okay.....so, about Edwards?


----------



## James Marr (Apr 28, 2020)

Psa 32v2. Blessed [is] the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit [there is] no guile.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 28, 2020)

James Marr said:


> Psa 32v2. Blessed [is] the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit [there is] no guile.

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## Taylor (Apr 28, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


>



This short interaction has been the funniest thing I’ve seen in a while. Totally unexpected. LOL

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Apr 28, 2020)

Taylor Sexton said:


> This short interaction has been the funniest thing I’ve seen in a while. Totally unexpected. LOL


Yes not very Edwardsian to have the interaction so brief

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## py3ak (Apr 29, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> If I do something, you don’t impute my doing the act to me. I simply did it. Likewise, since Edwards has identified Adam and his posterity, his posterity just as equally did the act. There is nothing to impute.



I liked the rest of the review, but I am not entirely sure about this argument. In Psalm 32, David had committed sin; but it wasn't imputed to him, which was a happy surprise and a demonstration of mercy. So if "impute" is glossed as "laid to x account" or "held against" or "attributed" it is possible both to commit sin and to have that committed sin imputed to you in judicial reckoning.


----------



## James Marr (Apr 29, 2020)

Yes David didn't which would mean that others do such as Esau. Towards the end of Vol 2 in Edwards works he deals i think very well with how God permits sin. Ultimately its something our finite minds cannot reconcile praise the Lord for His infinite wisdom in being able to do so.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 29, 2020)

py3ak said:


> I liked the rest of the review, but I am not entirely sure about this argument. In Psalm 32, David had committed sin; but it wasn't imputed to him, which was a happy surprise and a demonstration of mercy. So if "impute" is glossed as "laid to x account" or "held against" or "attributed" it is possible both to commit sin and to have that committed sin imputed to you in judicial reckoning.



I understand. Let's try it a different way. If I am ontologically identical with Adam, then why do I need a federal head?


----------



## James Marr (Apr 29, 2020)

Because God covenants with His creation to interact with it.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 29, 2020)

James Marr said:


> Because God covenants with His creation to interact with it.



I agree, but that's not what JE is saying. He is saying we are one with Adam, a real union.


----------



## James Marr (Apr 29, 2020)

That is what covenant is a real union, God looks on all mankind through covenant as united with Adam really and actually united with Adam through covenant. God entered into covenant with man and most especially with Abraham, God united Himself with man at that point. If this covenant is broken which it already was due to fall then I God will fulfill its cursings by death itself. God unites really and actually through covenant placing Himself under the covenant broken by Adam.. The perpetual nature of covenant and creation is seen in the Gen 3.15. Now if God is covenanting with His creation and creatures then all will be fulfilled so union of each within it is very real in the sight of God.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 29, 2020)

James Marr said:


> That is what covenant is a real union, God looks on all mankind through covenant as united with Adam really and actually united with Adam through covenant. God entered into covenant with man and most especially with Abraham, God united Himself with man at that point. If this covenant is broken which it already was due to fall then I God will fulfill its cursings by death itself. God unites really and actually through covenant placing Himself under the covenant broken by Adam.. The perpetual nature of covenant and creation is seen in the Gen 3.15. Now if God is covenanting with His creation and creatures then all will be fulfilled so union of each within it is very real in the sight of God.



When God covenants with me, I am not ontologically one with him.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## James Marr (Apr 29, 2020)

Obviously not because you are finite, but in covenanting with you in grace you enter into those attributes that begin to transform you into the image of His Son who is God in the flesh.. Words will always fail to describe that relationship.. Praise be to God.


----------



## James Marr (Apr 29, 2020)

Communicable and incommunicable attributes


----------



## py3ak (Apr 29, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> I understand. Let's try it a different way. If I am ontologically identical with Adam, then why do I need a federal head?



In that case, you don't.


----------



## James Marr (Apr 29, 2020)

God in His Word says otherwise..


----------



## James Marr (Apr 29, 2020)

Ecc 3v14. I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth [it] , that [men] should fear before him.


----------



## James Marr (Apr 29, 2020)

Psa 115v3. But our God [is] in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 29, 2020)

James Marr said:


> God in His Word says otherwise..



I'm pretty sure God didn't say I am ontologically one with him.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 29, 2020)

James Marr said:


> Psa 115v3. But our God [is] in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.



This has nothing to do with whether we are ontologically one with God.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 29, 2020)

James Marr said:


> Obviously not because you are finite, but in covenanting with you in grace you enter into those attributes that begin to transform you into the image of His Son who is God in the flesh.. Words will always fail to describe that relationship.. Praise be to God.





James Marr said:


> Communicable and incommunicable attributes





BayouHuguenot said:


> I'm pretty sure God didn't say I am ontologically one with him.



From what I can gather here, James does seem to accept that we are not ontologically one with God. Nonetheless, he seems to be saying that we, meaning the elect and regenerate sinners in the covenant of grace, are ethically made partakers of the divine nature being conformed to God's image in grace and glory. 

James, I think your use of "enter into those attributes" may have caused some confusion. Let me know if I have accurately discerned your meaning.


----------



## James Marr (Apr 30, 2020)

Think if you can of life beyond this life with God in eternity. Those attributes of God that He communicated to man at creation being made in His image will be made manifest, this life in the covenant of grace is but a foretaste a very small and limited foretaste... Language use is always limited to describe our union with Christ through the Holy Spirit.


----------



## James Marr (Apr 30, 2020)

Dichotomies are great mysteries with respect to God yet He is able to bridge the unabridgable. Think of a heaven and a hell existing at the same time throughout eternity. Think of the sinless One being made sin. 2Co 5v21. For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 30, 2020)

I understand what you are saying now. That's not how the words are generally used, nor is it what Edwards said.


----------



## James Marr (Apr 30, 2020)

Its difficult to actually and explicitly know what a person meant by their writings from 300 years ago.. If we are to look at Edwards over the entirety of his writings and sermons then i would imagine we might find some and most likely very few inconsistencies although most generally all his writings would most definitely concur with a very orthodox and sound doctrinally exegesis of the Holy Scriptures. Without Edwards here to answer we are always liable to the accusation of being anachronistic.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 30, 2020)

James Marr said:


> Its difficult to actually and explicitly know what a person meant by their writings from 300 years ago.. If we are to look at Edwards over the entirety of his writings and sermons then i would imagine we might find some and most likely very few inconsistencies although most generally all his writings would most definitely concur with a very orthodox and sound doctrinally exegesis of the Holy Scriptures.



Sometimes that's true, sometimes it isn't. I'm well-read on Edwards and 18th century theology and philosophy. I know what he is saying. Charles Hodge said the same thing about Edwards. So did Dabney and Shedd. Hodge said Edwards was a pantheist and no one would accuse Hodge of being ignorant of what Edwards meant or of being a theological light-weight.



> Without Edwards here to answer we are always liable to the accusation of being anachronistic.



By that same logic, we shouldn't be able to understand him when he is orthodox, either.


----------



## hammondjones (Apr 30, 2020)

Geerhardus Vos said:


> *On Continuous Creation: *Jonathan Edwards, who brought the sovereignty of God dangerously close to the borders of pantheism, defended this opinion in his book on original sin.





Geerhardus Vos said:


> *On Mediate Imputation:* Likewise, the doctrine of mediate imputation assets that Adam's sin is only imputed to us because we possess with him the same depravity. The Formula of the Helvetic Consensus expressed itself against this conception decisively and unambiguously. The theory was adopted by the younger Vitringa, Venema, Stapfer, and, so it seems, by Edwards. The New School theory is associated with it.



This is a fairly common observation of Edwards, that he at least spoke in a way that opened him up to this criticism.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 30, 2020)

hammondjones said:


> This is a fairly common observation of Edwards, that he at least spoke in a way that opened him up to this criticism.



Continuous creation is a terrible view, since it has God being the author of evil every moment of creation. Mediate imputation is problematic, but not heretical.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 30, 2020)

A. A. Hodge writes concerning pantheism:

"The same is true of all systems which represent providential preservation as a continual creation, deny the efficiency of secondary causes, and make God the only agent in the universe, e.g., Edwards on "Original Sin," pt. 4., chapter 3" (Outlines, 52).

"President Edwards teaches the same doctrine incidentally in his great work on Original Sin" (260).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 30, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> A. A. Hodge writes concerning pantheism:
> 
> "The same is true of all systems which represent providential preservation as a continual creation, deny the efficiency of secondary causes, and make God the only agent in the universe, e.g., Edwards on "Original Sin," pt. 4., chapter 3" (Outlines, 52).
> 
> "President Edwards teaches the same doctrine incidentally in his great work on Original Sin" (260).



Robert Letham in his _Systematic Theology_ is similarly critical towards Jonathan Edwards on this point.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## James Marr (Apr 30, 2020)

Did any of the afore mentioned theologians sit down with Edwards and discuss his views?


BayouHuguenot said:


> Sometimes that's true, sometimes it isn't. I'm well-read on Edwards and 18th century theology and philosophy. I know what he is saying. Charles Hodge said the same thing about Edwards. So did Dabney and Shedd. Hodge said Edwards was a pantheist and no one would accuse Hodge of being ignorant of what Edwards meant or of being a theological light-weight.
> 
> 
> 
> By that same logic, we shouldn't be able to understand him when he is orthodox, either.


That is a false dichotomy - either we can understand all a persons says or nothing at all.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Apr 30, 2020)

James Marr said:


> Did any of the afore mentioned theologians sit down with Edwards and discuss his views?



Jonathan Edwards died the previous century in 1758; Charles Hodge's _Systematic Theology_ came out over 100 years later.


----------



## James Marr (Apr 30, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Edwards


Just because other men think the same doesnt mean they are correct, what i said regarding anachronism is still valid. Also it would be an error in judgment to categorically state that by studying a persons works whom they never met or spoke with that they know what the person being studied means in all that they state.


----------



## James Marr (Apr 30, 2020)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Jonathan Edwards died the previous century in 1758; Charles Hodge's _Systematic Theology_ came out over 100 years later.


That was rhetorical question..


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 30, 2020)

James Marr said:


> Just because other men think the same doesnt mean they are correct, what i said regarding anachronism is still valid. Also it would be an error in judgment to categorically state that by studying a persons works whom they never met or spoke with that they know what the person being studied means in all that they state.



You have to prove it was an anachronism and you have to prove that I am misinterpreting him. You have done neither. I'm not a Freudian. I don't need to get to know the subject personally in order to interpret his works, otherwise all of church history is doomed.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 30, 2020)

James Marr said:


> Did any of the afore mentioned theologians sit down with Edwards and discuss his views?



By that same logic we can't disagree with anyone in the Reformed tradition because we haven't sat down with them.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 30, 2020)

Was Owen wrong to disagree with Rutherford on the nature of divine justice because he didn't sit down with him and talk it out?


----------



## James Marr (Apr 30, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> You have to prove it was an anachronism and you have to prove that I am misinterpreting him. You have done neither. I'm not a Freudian. I don't need to get to know the subject personally in order to interpret his works, otherwise all of church history is doomed.


When it is a subject such as original sin then it would be very necessary to fully understand what the person believes. I am not charging anyone with anachronism I am simply stating that without knowing fully the mind of a person it would be very easy to become anachronistic also i am not charging anyone with misinterpretation. Although to categorically state to know all things about a person's view from studying their works is akin to travelling down a road and noticing everything therefore if the road is travelled again nothing new is found.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 30, 2020)

James Marr said:


> Although to categorically state to know all things about a person's view from studying their works



No one claimed that. Since I am not a postmodernist or a nominalist, I assume words have meaning. Jonathan Edwards was very specific on this point. He knew what philosophical occasionalism was. In fact, he anticipated the types of objections that I am raising, which decisively proves he thought he believed what I am saying he believed.


----------



## James Marr (Apr 30, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> No one claimed that. Since I am not a postmodernist or a nominalist, I assume words have meaning. Jonathan Edwards was very specific on this point. He knew what philosophical occasionalism was. In fact, he anticipated the types of objections that I am raising, which decisively proves he thought he believed what I am saying he believed.



You said 'I know what hes saying'


----------



## James Marr (Apr 30, 2020)

I have not claimed you are a postmodernist or nominalist. I have also not mentioned church history these are all separate arguments each would need dealing with separately.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 30, 2020)

James Marr said:


> You said 'I know what hes saying'



Which did not mean I know totally what his whole thought process as a human being is. I am operating under the assumption that words have meaning and as such, we know what Edwards was saying. Both his friends and critics interpreted him as such. 

On our being sinful itself, Edwards is within the tradition. He has a good section on conreated holiness. When it comes to saying God recreates the universe every moment, he is not. He very clearly intends this doctrine. He raises the same objection that I am raising, and he thinks he deals with it. He does not say, "Oh wait, you misunderstood me." No, in his "Replies to Objections" he makes it very clear that we understood him correctly.


----------



## James Marr (Apr 30, 2020)

The importance of what a mans says is not nearly as important as what is the impact in what he says upon the Church. What are the principles of a man and how does that impact the Church. What was the impact of Edwards theology upon the Church and most especially what is the impact today?


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 30, 2020)

And I mean no disrespect towards Edwards. He was the most profound thinker, religious or secular, in American history. Even secularists admit this much. We shall revisit the data. Remember, I am operating under the assumption that words have meaning.

“no [real] cause can produce effects in a time and place on which itself is not” (_Original Sin_, 1758; Edwards 1957–, vol. 3, 400). 

“It don't at all necessarily follow,” for example, “that because there was…color, or resistance,…or thought, or any other dependent thing at the last moment, that therefore there shall be the like at the next” (_Original Sin_, 1758; Edwards 1957–, vol. 3, 404) 

“the material universe exists only in the mind;” “the existence of all corporeal things is only ideas” (“Of Being,” “The Mind,” no. 51, and “Miscellanies,” no. 179; Edwards 1957, vol. 6, 204, 368, and vol. 13, 327)


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 30, 2020)

James Marr said:


> The importance of what a mans says is not nearly as important as what is the impact in what he says upon the Church. What are the principles of a man and how does that impact the Church. What was the impact of Edwards theology upon the Church and most especially what is the impact today?



That's not the issue under discussion. Sure, he had a big impact. However, I am reviewing what he said on Original Sin. 

Further, I am not discussing whether his words are primarily important. I am assessing what they actually mean.


----------



## RamistThomist (Apr 30, 2020)

I am even willing to go with him in his claim that the material universe exists in the mind, as long as we understand this to be the mind of God.


----------

