Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadJonathan Edwards Collection: Edwards, Jonathan - Rational Biblical Theology: Chapt 24 Sin
TOPIC: Edwards, Jonathan - Rational Biblical Theology (Other Topics in this Collection)
SUBJECT: Chapt 24 Sin
Other Subjects in this Topic:
We have seen, from the discussion of the fall of man, that corruption came about by the withdrawal of the Holy Spirit from man. This, in fact, is the first feature of the nature of sin that I will notice, followed by universal disobedience, infinite guilt (in varying degrees), noetic blindness and moral inability.
1. Sin as Self-love Without God.
The most fundamental Edwardsian conception of sin is as self-love without God. We have already seen the difficulty in deciding which comes first - the sin as self-love which alienates God or the absence of God which occasions the sin. But one thing is never obscure in Jonathan Edwards: sin is self-love without God.
It is notable that a very early Miscellany opens the door to other gods besides self; namely, the world. It seems strange that Edwards would consider this a second god. It could have no significance except as it appealed to the ego. Self-interest is still paramount and the only paramour. He appears to sense this process when he remarks that “The great contest for the heart of men is between the true God and idols.” These are merely two servants competing for the honor of serving the one and only I-dol.
That man was devoid of the love of God and that this was the root of all evil Edwards consistently preached. We have seen from Original Sin that God the Holy Spirit withdrew, then Adam rebelled and this occasioned his natural corruption. No infusion or transfusion of corruption was necessary. The theme was fully developed in the sermon on Genesis 3:11. *1* Nothing more was needed to explain the invariable and incorrigible wickedness of mankind. *2* Privation of love of God was enough to account for all deprivation and depravity. Man’s evil actions begin at birth *3* and continue through life. Environment and example make no difference because the cause is internal.
The sermon on Mat_10:17 is an especially vivid description of the brutality and cruelty that can be accounted for by the mere absence of God in the soul. Edwards argued that “the nature of man is so corrupted that he is become a very evil and hurtful creature.” *4* Many other sermons are like it. For example, the sermon on Deu_32:35 shows all sin amounts to hating God. *5* The sermon on Rom_5:10 makes it clear that man does indeed hate God. *6* Men do not admit it (one thinks of the remark of David Thoreau “I am not at war with God.”) but they are the sworn enemies of God. In fact, they claim to be at peace and friendly but that is with false gods. All merely outward religion is forced. *7* Often unbelievers do not attack God openly because He is out of their reach, as a serpent will not strike at a person who is at a distance. *8* But men’s actions show clearly how they feel. Jehovah is placed below the world in their scale of values and even vile lusts are above God. *9* There is actually a constant never ending struggle going on between God and man to see who will be chief. *10* Human worms raise themselves up against their Creator and this is why all unconverted persons are wicked and unable to escape the damnation of hell. *11* The sermon on Jer_44:4 teaches that men hate God, *12* on Hab_1:13 that God hates sin, *13* and on Zec_11:8 that there is mutual loathing. *14* Man’s heart without God is as a stone and God hardens it only by withdrawing further and further. *15* Needless to say, it is futile for the sinner to argue that God is to blame for hardening his heart when his heart becomes hardened only when God is absent. *16*
Hopkins carried this principle to a point where Edwards feared to tread. Self-love, he agreed, is the root of all sin. Therefore it must be uprooted completely. And what can be more ultimate than the willingness to have oneself utterly destroyed? And what can that be other than eternal destruction? Therefore a willingness to be damned is the acid test of the repudiation of self-interest and all evil. Emmons too argued the ultimate enmity of self-love against the love of God. As we noted above, Edwards feared to tread where his later disciples confidently rushed in.
2. Universal Disobedience
Universal disobedience is another and fundamental part of the nature of sin. It is true whether we consider it horizontally or vertically. Mankind is disobedient universally and also universally disobedient. There is no mere man who constitutes an exception and every part of each individual is corrupt.
(1) Disobedient Universally
Disobedience extends as far as mankind does. Fallen man as such (though not human nature as such), is corrupt (original sin):
That everyone of mankind, at least of them that are capable of acting as moral agents, are guilty of sin . . . is a thing most clearly and abundantly evident from holy Scriptures. (1Ki_8:46), “If any man sin against thee, for there is no man that sinneth not.” (Ecc_7:20), “There is not a just man on earth that doth good, and sinneth not.” (Job_9:2-3), “I know it is so of a truth” (i.e. as Bildad had just before said, that God would not cast away a perfect man, etc.), “but how should man be just with God? If he will contend with him, he cannot answer him one of a thousand.” To the like purpose (Psa_143:2), “Enter not into judgment with thy servant; for in thy sight shall no man living be justified.” So the words of the Apostle (in which he has apparent reference to those of the Psalmist, Rom_3:19-20), “That every mouth may be stopped, and all the world become guilty before God. Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.” So Gal_2:16; 1Jn_1:7-10 : “If we walk in the light, the blood of Christ cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” As in this place, so in innumerable other places, confession and repentance of sin are spoken of as duties proper for all; as also prayer to God for the pardon of sin; and forgiveness of those that injure us, from that motive, that we hope to be forgiven of God. Universal guilt of sin might also be demonstrated from the appointment, and the declared use and end, of the ancient sacrifices; and also from the ransom, which everyone that was numbered in Israel, was directed to pay, to make atonement for his soul (Exo_30:11-16). All are represented, not only as being sinful, but as having great and manifold iniquity (Job_9:2-3; Jam_3:1-2). *17*
In Edwards’ sermon on man’s natural blindness” he draws the same conclusion as in his Original Sin: “We may observe, that this dreadful disease is ascribed to mankind in general. The Lord knoweth the thoughts of MAN, that they are vanity.” *18*
All of his posterity have been shut up under the sin of Adam. Edwards gives three arguments to prove the universality of this phenomenon. First, it is the usual way of Scripture’s speaking. Second, the very ground was cursed because of Adam’s sin. And, third, Eve was so called because she was the instrument of the universal salvation. *19*
This universality is corroborated by the death of society. It appears in the very fact that little is said about it even in church and family. Society is not really against scandals and immorality prevails everywhere. *20* The end result is that society is “nothing.” Nothing is achieved by society. Man may get misery from this world but never joy. “There is nothing gotten by ways of sin.” *21* Certainly no eternal good is gotten nor spiritual good. Even temporal good is temporary and the consequent bitterness outweighs the fleeting pleasure. Therefore temporal gains are cursed. Brimstone is over them. Only the meek inherit the earth. The fundamental reason for this is that all good comes only from God and sin spells the absence of God. In his appeal Edwards turns to those present especially to the young people.
A decade later Edwards puts the matter more bluntly still: “The present life is as it were nothing.” *22* It is nothing as to enjoyments, to duration, or as yielding any good.
A further piece of irony is that Christianity and civilization make the world a still larger cipher if the faith is not embraced as usually it is not. Consequently the Indians (“savage Americans”) are better off than those who conquered them as is characteristic of the whole history of this fallen world:
And as to the Gentile nations, though there was a glorious success of the gospel amongst them, in the apostles’ days; yet probably not one in ten of those that had the gospel preached to ’em, embraced it. . . . And the greater part of the ages which have now elapsed, have been spent in the duration of that grand and general apostasy, under which the Christian world, as it is called, has been transformed into that which has been vastly more deformed, more dishonorable and hateful to God, and repugnant to true virtue, than the state of the heathen world before: which is agreeable to the prophetical descriptions given of it by the Holy Spirit. . . . The poor savage Americans are mere babes and fools (if I may so speak) as to proficiency in wickedness, in comparison of multitudes that the Christian world throngs with. *23*
The most tragic evidence of this universal disobedience, however, is not the heathen nations and the savage Americans but the human infant. Edwards exhaustively gathers the texts to show that the Word of God finds infants under condemnation.
Here, not to stay to be particular concerning the command by Moses, concerning the destruction of the infants of the Midianites (Num_31:17). And that given to Saul to destroy all the infants of the Amalekites (1Sa_15:3), and what is said concerning Edom (Psa_137:4), “Happy shall he be that shall take thy little ones, and dash them against the stones.” I proceed to take notice of something remarkable concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, represented in Eze_9:1-11, when command was given to them that had charge over the city, to destroy the inhabitants (Eze_9:1-8). And this reason is given for it, that their iniquity required it, and it was a just recompense of their sin (Eze_9:9-10). And God at the same time was most particular and exact in his care that such should by no means be involved in the slaughter, as had proved by their behavior, that they were not partakers in the abominations of the city. Command was given to the angel, to go through the city, and set a mark upon their foreheads, and the destroying angel had a strict charge not to come near any man on whom was the mark; yet the infants were not marked, infants were expressly mentioned as those that should be utterly destroyed, without pity. (Eze_9:5-6), “Go through the city, and smite: let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity. Slay utterly old and young, both maids and little children: but come not near any man upon whom is the mark.” *24*
Edwards continues that “No care was taken to preserve the infants of the city.” He concludes that they were involved in the destruction, just as the children to whom Christ alludes when he says of the coming tribulation, “Blessed are the barren, and the womb that never bare, and the paps which never gave suck.”
All the above is direct evidence that the Bible teaches the condemnation of children in Adam. Edwards cites some negative evidence also, perhaps even more impressive. He observes that God had offered Abraham to spare Sodom if there were but ten righteous in the city. There were not, though there must have been more than that many infants. Nor is Edwards unaware of the contrary appeal to Christ’s taking the children in his arms and saying that of such is the kingdom of heaven. For Edwards they are no more virtuous than the doves who have the same image. *25* Grimly he reminds his readers that vipers too, when young, are cute and harmless, though their malignant nature will later appear clearly. If this doctrine is considered harsh, Wesley’s Arminianism did not save him from it either, for he, too, argued that infants would not suffer if they did not deserve to.
(2) Universally Disobedient
Not only is mankind disobedient universally but universally disobedient. Not only is disobedience as extensive as mankind but it pertains to each individual in the universality of his being. The totality of mankind is totally depraved according to Jonathan Edwards who if anything is more thorough-going than John Calvin on this crucial Calvinistic doctrine.
Fairweather has written about Karl Barth that he “goes far beyond Calvin in holding that the Imago Dei is effaced, not defaced, so that our human nature is not only incapable of spiritual good, but can neither retain nor pass on a divine gift.” *26* With Jonathan Edwards though the image in the broader sense is intact, the image in the narrower or proper sense is utterly eradicated. *27*
Lacking all virtue, there is nothing men do that is good. In fact, all that they do is wrong *28* for there is no excellence in any of their deeds. *29* Even their minds are carnal, *30* and their bodies are the sepulchres of their dead minds. *31* Their life’s trade or business is sin. *32* They are so wicked that when Christ first told his disciples to beware of wolves he changed it to say beware of men because men are far more ferocious and cruel than animals. *33*
4. Noetic Blindness
This is an especially difficult subject especially in Edwards. There can be no denying that in some of his statements Edwards seems clearly and indubitably to teach that the fall has literally wiped out man’s ability to think. On the other hand there are equally clear and indubitable statements in Edwards to the effect that the fall left the faculty of the mind utterly intact. After reviewing these two bodies of evidence we will take up what we suppose is the reconciling line of thought in Edwards’ theology.
First then, we note the Edwardsian doctrine that seems to teach that the fall virtually obliterated the mind of man. In our earlier discussion of natural theology we noted the man in the dungeon all his life who according to Edwards would never have had the slightest idea of God. You will remember his insistence against the deist that this knowledge of God comes by divine revelation alone. There was this strain in Edwards that seemed to be utterly antithetical to natural theology.
There is a strain in his crucial sermon on “Man’s Natural Blindness in the Things of Religion” which seems to teach this doctrine just as clearly. “Though they [the Greeks] were so wise in other things, yet in matters of religion they were very absurd and brutish. . . . The blindness of the mind, or an inclination to delusion in things of religion, is so strong, that it will overcome the greatest learning, and the strongest natural reason.” *46*
Possibly the most thorough statement of this viewpoint in Edwards is in the sermon on Psalms 19:12. *47* “Man is naturally a miserably darkened and blind creature and his blindness chiefly consists in two things viz., his ignorance of God and his ignorance of himself. Man is naturally and totally ignorant of God in his divine excellency and next to him he is most ignorant of himself.” “The Bible,” Edwards continues, “is a mirror in which men can see themselves, but they are like children when they have a mirror. They do not know that it is their own picture.” This is explained more fully in the sermon on Psa_119:18 where Edwards propounds the theme that men do not see the main things in the Word of God. *48* It does not matter what pedagogy God in His providence uses, men will not learn wisdom (Pro_27:22). Their notional knowledge of things, Edwards insists, “is darkness.” *49* Strangely enough he remarks in the sermon on 1Co_15:34 that some men have not the knowledge of God. *50* Of course he means that all men except those who have been enlightened by the Word of God and the Spirit of God are devoid of the knowledge of God.
“The heart of man is exceeding deceitful.” “There are many that appear saints before men that are far away from it in the dark.” “Because of their exceeding ignorance they are not sensible of their own ignorance.” “Men don’t know enough to know their own ignorance and the wiser men are the more will they be sensible of their own ignorance.” *51* But that wisdom comes only from the Word of God.
In a sermon on 2Ki_8:12-13 Edwards goes into this blindness of men concerning themselves with the greatest thoroughness. The doctrine: “Men are naturally very blind with respect to what is in their own hearts.” He gives many proofs of his doctrine, such as the prevalence of pride, the resenting of faults in others, the quietness of their own consciences, their being offended at reproof, having a hope of salvation based on nothing, a hiding much in their hearts, thinking a change in circumstances is an alteration of character, supposing that they could get away with a practice that is different from their profession, and so on. *52*
Why do they follow such folly? There are several reasons. One is the nature of things itself. There are so many counterfeits. But the main reason is the nature of human corruption. Men live in a darkness that blinds them. Their inclinations blind their understanding. The sum of their corruption which is self-love blinds them especially to their own faults and stupefies them to the point that they will not even examine themselves. One senses Edwards’ pastoral lament here at his people’s apparent resentment of his own searching of their hearts. “How persons ought to prize a searching ministry.”
Some people use this insensibleness to their own ignorance as a proof of its absence. Edwards ruthlessly exposes this variety of 18th century escapism.
That natural men are not sensible of their blindness, and the misery they are under by reason of it, is no argument that they are not miserable. For it is very much the nature of this calamity to be hid from itself, or from those who are under it. Fools are not sensible of their folly. Solomon says, “The fool is wiser in his own conceit, than seven men that can render a reason.” Pro_26:16. The most barbarious and brutish heathens are not sensible of their own darkness; are not sensible but that they enjoy as great light, and have as good understanding of things, as the most enlightened nations in the world. *53*
Men are in a world of darkness and even reject the light that comes from Holy Scripture. “They don’t understand i.e. they neither know God nor know how to seek or serve Him. Natural men, many of them, are taught concerning God and his ways, but they are without understanding. They neither know nor will they learn.” *54* “’Tis a great and terrible wilderness a land of pits and of draughts and firey flying serpents and if men don’t follow the pillar of cloud don’t look to God for His guidance and direction but will follow their own reason they will soon fall into some of those pits. . . . Our own reason let it be more or less is not to be depended on in this great concern.” *55*
For Edwards inconsistency was the hallmark of a mind blinded by sin. Thus he preached: “Wicked men are very inconsistent with themselves.” *56* For one thing our wills are inconsistent with our reason. The will follows the dictates of the practical not the pure reason. The sinners’ wills is not only inconsistent with pure reason but with their own wills also. They choose and refuse the same things. They pray for conversion but they do not leave their sins. They want humility but persist in pride. They want to come to Christ they say but not to the whole Christ. They prefer heaven but they choose hell. They dislike things as they are but they refuse to have them otherwise. They dislike God as He is but they wouldn’t have Him otherwise. They do not like Him holy or unholy (because if He were unholy they could not depend on Him). The same is true of their feelings about His justice, His almightiness, His omniscience, etc. Again, they are inconsistent in their external behavior and their internal spirit. They profess that God is excellent, but inwardly they prefer their lusts. Their practice is inconsistent with their profession, with their hope, and with itself. That is, they are zealous at one time, but cold at another.
As clearly as Edwards indicates the blindness of the human intellect so clearly, on the other hand, he asserts the integrity of the human mind. In the last sermon which we cited, Mat_11:16-19, in which man’s total inconsistency and thus irrationality is revealed, Edwards is very insistent that the faculty of the understanding is good. It is part of the “natural image” that has survived the fall. As a matter of fact man’s inconsistency is shown in that his will is against his faculty of understanding. Edwards has remarked there, following the language of Francis Turretin, that man’s mind follows practical reason rather than theoretical reason (which is incidentally the language of Immanuel Kant also). What it amounts to is that the practical reason is contrary to the true reason of men.
Likewise in Edwards’ sermon on “Man’s Natural Blindness,” the most thorough indictment of the noetic influence of sin that we have in all of his writings, he again at the very outset insists on man’s rationality - sinful man’s rationality.
The blindness that is in the heart of man, which is spoken of in the text and doctrine, is neither for want of faculties nor opportunity to know, but from some positive cause. There is a principle in his heart, of such a blinding and besotting nature, that it hinders the exercise of his faculties about the things of religion; exercises for which God has made him well capable, and for which he gives him abundant opportunity. *57*
Sinful man understands very clearly the awesome revelation of God, his sinful heart notwithstanding. Men “may see his [God’s] terrible greatness to excite their terror.” *58* Even those who do not have religious experience nevertheless have some religious knowledge. “Others who have it not may yet have an intelligent opinion about divine things, as a man may have some knowledge or opinion about sweet things who has not tasted them.” *59*
The same truth is observed in the sermon on Jam_2:19 : the preservation of the human intelligence in the fallen man. *60*
And though he be now become sinful, yet his sin has not abolished the faculties of the angelic nature; as when man fell, he did not lose the faculties of the human nature. - Sin destroys spiritual principles, but not the natural faculties. It is true, sin, when in full dominion, entirely prevents the exercise of the natural faculties in holy and spiritual understanding; and lays many impediments in the way of their proper exercise in other respects. It lays the natural faculty of reason under great disadvantages, by many and strong prejudices; and in fallen men the faculties of the soul are, doubtless, greatly impeded in their exercise, though that great weakness and disorder of the corporeal organ to which it is strictly united, and which is the consequence of sin. - But there seems to be nothing in the nature of sin, or moral corruption, that has any tendency to destroy the natural capacity, or even to diminish it, properly speaking. If sin were of such a nature as necessarily to have that tendency and effect; then it might be expected, that wicked men, in a future state where they are given up entirely to the unrestrained exercise of their corruptions and lusts, and sin is in all respects brought to its greatest perfection in them, would have the capacity of their souls greatly diminished. This we have no reason to suppose; but rather, on the contrary, that their capacities are greatly enlarged, and that their actual knowledge is vastly increased; and that even with respect to the Divine Being, and the things of religion, and the great concerns of the immortal souls of men, the eyes of wicked men are opened, when they go into another world. *61*
So we gather that the sinner is a blind man who sees. I suppose that from the hints dropped by Edwards in these various passages examined we get the clue to his own solution. Take this statement for example:
[T]he unregenerate are wholly ignorant of this [glory of God]. They are blind and see no glory in God how wellsoever they can argue about God’s power or wisdom or justice or mercy and reason about his works, yet see no divine glory appearing in any of these things. *62*
In other words they see God clearly enough but they see no glory in God. This is the theme of Edwards’ famous sermon on the “divine and supernatural light.” Men see God, in a sense, but they do not see His glory and His excellency, neither in Him, nor in His Son Jesus. They can see in the sense that they can conclude that such a being as God must indeed be excellent, but the excellence itself they do not see.
This comes close to an actual deficiency in faculty. Edwards never says so, but it is difficult to escape the feeling that he is so inferring. Excellence is something that man’s mind does not actually grasp. This is a kind of faculty deficiency, but not in the rational faculty; rather, it is in the disposition. It is the moral, not natural, image that was lost in the fall, and it can only be restored by re-creation. This rational deficiency is not a rational deficiency really - but the lack of the “sense of the heart.”
The second type of noetic influence, however, is much more understandable, though not so basic. Edwards sees in fallen man a constant tendency to repudiate the light that he does see. However devoid he may be of seeing certain light, there is a vast spread of it of which he is capable, but which provokes a reaction against it. This reaction leads man to try to extinguish the light. As Edwards puts it “Men are exceedingly prone to bring their principles to agree with their lusts.” *63* This is the reason they do not like to retain God in their knowledge. They grasp the principles that are against their natural corruption, but they seek to eradicate them precisely because they are against their natural corruptions which must prevail. This is why they are prone to represent the natural state as less dreadful than it actually is, and even to hold to their own regeneration by baptism. They try to say of these principles “’Tis nothing” because they want their principles to be in line with their wicked practice.
In “Man’s Natural Blindness” again Edwards says, “The sottish blindness and folly of the heart of men appears in their being so prone to fall into such gross delusion soon after they have been favored with clear light.” He gives an historical illustration of that fact bringing the story from the Reformation right down to his own time:
And since the reformation, wherein God wonderfully restored gospel light in a great part of the christian world, which was but about two hundred years ago, many are fallen away again, some to popery, some to gross heresies, and some to atheistical principles: so that the reformed church is greatly diminished. *64*
5. Moral Inability
“That wicked men are servants and slaves to sin” is the doctrine of Edwards’ sermon on John 8:44. *65* The text clearly indicates that men are bond-servants of sin though they deny that they feel any such servitude. Edwards’ answer to that is “you can’t see that you are under slavery now because of your blindness which is one effect of your servitude.” *66* You will see it, he says, if you pay attention to this sermon. But in any case you will see it in the world to come when you are set free of the blindness. But men are under Satan’s bondage and therefore they have no satisfaction even if they had the whole world. Edwards refers to Alexander the Great lamenting because there were no more worlds to conquer. They are utterly devoted to the commission of sin even though their personal interests suffer by it. They are obedient to the point of jumping into the pit at Satan’s command. The bondage appears most clearly in the fact that men receive no advantage from their servitude. There is no happiness for them. Even the earthly slave may have enough to keep alive but sin utterly kills. Man’s whole heart is given up to sin. Satan will not allow him to see one truth. He can open his eyes only when sin allows. His senses are also blindfolded. Sin makes him hate life itself, Pro_21:4 and Rom_6:19. Edwards refers to a practice in Guinea of which he had heard where victims were actually required to gather the fuel for their own burning. *67*
But withal this is a voluntary bondage. As Edwards says in another sermon, “we may learn the reason why natural men will not come to Christ: they do not come because they will not come.” *68*
There may be some difference in the type of bondage but the bondage itself is universal.
Some men are not born with some lusts and corruptions in their hearts that others have. Neither doth any man get any new principles of corruption in the course of his life. Although some contract habits of sin by their practice that others do not yet they contract those habits by the exercise of corruption that was in their hearts before. A contracted habit is no new corruption but only a particular way of the corruption of nature’s flowing out . . . there is no lust in the heart of devils but what is in the heart of man. . . . *69*
Consequently it is futile for men to attempt to excuse themselves for this sin since this is of their own choosing. To say that “I cannot” when I mean that “I will not” is of course no excuse.
[T]hey make sin an excuse for sin. ’Tis as if a man should be called to an account for his wickedness and should give in this as excuse why he did because he was very wicked. . . . To these I say: let them consider whether they intend to plead that when they come before God on his judgment seat and whether they think ’twill be accepted. *70*
Edwards says to the sinner who would use his sin as an excuse that “As long as you will not, it is no matter whether you have ability or no ability.” *71* That is the bottom line with Edwards on this matter of the difference between moral and natural inability. As long as a person is morally indisposed toward virtue it really makes no difference whether he has a natural ability or not. Edwards believes that he does have natural ability, but it really makes no difference because moral inability is, in and of itself, reprehensible.
Natural ability does excuse according to Edwards while moral inability does not but, that refers only to an initial natural inability. *72* That is, if a person never had an ability to choose morally then he would not be morally blameworthy or praiseworthy. Naturally one asks at this point, “But Mr. Edwards suppose this person was created this way.” Edwards, of course, does not believe he was created this way and he is not thinking of that possibility. He believes that God is a moral God who would never make a person wicked and then blame him for being wicked. Nevertheless, he does not spell that out at this point and we have to assume that it is in his mind when he says that moral inability never excuses. Edwards is assuming that God would not create man morally unable. At least we assume he is assuming. We remember the discussion on “The Entrance of Sin into the World.” He does have that awesome sentence in Freedom the Will which seems to suggest that God might have created man with a disinclination to virtue. We discussed that at considerable length and will not review it here. Sufficient to say at this time that Edwards believed that moral inability was something that a person came by responsibly and was therefore a moral liability to him. In the sermon on Rom_11:10 he does say that this moral inability or bondage whereby men are bowed down to the earth and cannot stand erect, as was the case with Nebuchadnezzar and with the woman who was bound down for 18 years, came about by the first transgression of Adam, but men are given over when they reject the offer of mercy. *73* This is a rather surprising theme that Edwards apparently nowhere really develops. His general teaching seems to be that fallen man is given over in infancy, at the moment of birth. He is born dead in trespasses and sins. Here Edwards seems to suggest that he is bowed down only after he rejects mercy.
The utterly debilitating effect of sin in the life of the natural man is seen in the effect of the means of grace in his life or rather the non-effect of the means of grace in his life. The most earnest Biblical preaching, the most fervent prayers, the most assiduous personal counseling and labor, every conceivable ordinance of God in the Gospel and in providence is of no use to those who are in bondage to evil. It is an internal ailment that no amount of external medicine - including preaching - will ever heal.
The burden of his Treatise on Grace is to show that this moral inability is what makes supernatural grace absolutely necessary to the salvation of the human soul.
Inference 2. Hence we may learn that it is impossible for men to convert themselves by their own strength and industry, with only a concurring assistance helping in the exercise of their natural abilities and principles of the soul, and securing their improvement. For what is gained after this manner is a gradual acquisition, and not something instantaneously begotten, and of an entirely different nature, and wholly of a separate kind, from all that was in the nature of the person the moment before. All that men can do by their own strength and industry is only gradually to increase and improve and new-model and direct qualities, principles, and perfections of nature that they have already. And that is evident, because a man in the exercise and improvement of the strength and principles of his own nature has nothing but the qualities, powers, and perfections that are already in his nature to work with, and nothing but them to work upon; and therefore ’tis impossible that by this only, anything further should be brought to pass, than only a new modification of what is already in the nature of the soul. That which is only by an improvement of natural qualities, principles, and perfections - let these things be improved never so much and never so industriously, and never so long, they’ll still be no more than an improvement of those natural qualities, principles, and perfections; and therefore not anything of an essentially distinct and superior nature and kind. *74*
We simply have no power “to make ourselves holy or work any holy inclination or affections or exert any one holy act any more than a dead body can raise itself to life.” *75* Again elsewhere in the same sermon he writes, “We are in ourselves utterly without any strength or power to help ourselves.”
Though only God by supernatural grace can help a person in this state of moral inability no one dare say that God is obligated to do so. Men have a habit of saying that because they cannot do something God must help them to do it. Any cogency in that kind of argument eludes Edwards. “Persons are not at all excused for any moral defect or corruption that is in them, but God doesn’t help ’em to be otherwise.” *76* The Bible says that every act is a responsible one and a free one and man will be accountable for his corruption even though God does not interfere. Once again he addresses himself to the constant objection why man is to blame for what he cannot do. His answer is: “Men are under no such inability to any moral good required of them as is owing to any defect in the capacity of his nature.” Man, Edwards insists, does have this natural ability or capacity of knowing God and serving Him. All inability from which he suffers is owing to his sin. There is no forcible restraint upon him. “No man is condemned properly not because he is unable but because he is unwilling.” Men do not even do what is in their power to get God’s help. In answer to another objection he again states that we never came by this inability except by our own fault. It is justly reckoned to us even though we did not personally make this choice. We are reminded here of Edwards’ doctrine of identity whereby all the progeny of Adam are identified with him. It is surprising therefore that he says at this point that men do not commit the original act which brought divine judgment upon all personally. We noted in our fuller discussion of this subject that he is not always consistent here and has a tendency to vacillate and it was later tradition which tended to fix on one phase of his vacillation. Once again Edwards shows his classical power as a polemicist even in the pulpit when he preached: “Because he [God] leaves them to themselves therefore what they do is not of themselves” is the objection that the morally unable sinner offers as Edwards interprets it.
In spite of Edwards’ devastating replies to the various objections which were raised in his lifetime we make bold to critique him once again on this subject of natural and moral inability. First of all, we say, Edwards’ assertion notwithstanding, that in his thought moral inability is a natural inability. His whole psychology is based on the fact that we must have an inclination in order to choose in a particular way. His doctrine of the fall and the complete obliteration of the moral image in man means that the inclination to virtue has been totally erased. That is the same thing as to say man no longer has any natural ability to incline to God. Edwards keeps insisting that he does have a natural ability “if he will.” But the “if he will” implies if he is inclined, but he cannot incline without an inclination. This inclination is totally lacking according to Edwards’ own view of man the sinner.
Secondly, this natural inability as well as moral inability of men is blameworthy only if it was produced from an original moral ability in the Garden. Edwards does say of course that Adam did have that moral ability. He agreed, as I have shown, with Augustine that man was posse non peccare as well as posse peccare. But I have also shown in our earlier examination that this is an untenable conception in Edwards’ system. If this is so then the resultant natural inability would itself be unfairly imputed and blameless in its very existence.
Third, Finney was right when he condemned Calvinism for its “cannotism” even though he did not prove his point. He simply, with characteristic evangelistic impatience, was frustrated by the doctrine even of moral inability. He had no time for any neat distinction between moral and natural inability as long as man was viewed as unable in any way of responding to Finney’s gospel. In other words, Finney’s charge against Edwards and Calvinism and Princeton in the 19th century was an accurate charge but inaccurate as far as his basis for making it was concerned. These Edwardsians really were guilty of “cannotism” because, as apparently Finney did not realize, their “will-notism” amounted theoretically, though they were unaware of it, to nothing less than natural inability.
With this doctrine of sin how does Edwards account for the apparent goodness of man? Believing that the moral image of God has been totally obliterated how does he account for the seemingly moral deeds of the sinner? What is his explanation of what Augustine calls the “splendid vices of the heathen” and Martin Luther “civic righteousness”?
Joseph Haroutunian has written what is surely one of the most interesting studies of Edwardsian and New England theology. Its title Piety Versus Moralism, suggests its theme that New England theology after Edwards turned away from theology or piety to a mere moralism. What he says is undoubtedly true, but there is a deficiency in Haroutunian’s understanding of “moralism” in Edwards. He writes, “Edwards does not deny that the natural man may be good. But he will not permit himself to lose sight of the fact that to be religious and to be moral are two different things.” *77* To be religious and to be moral are indeed two different things in Edwards’ theology without doubt. But what Haroutunian does not seem to realize is that to be moral without being religious is impossible. Outward morality was of course possible and sometimes highly cultivated by human sinners; but real morality was something else again.
So, argued Edwards,
When they [natural men] do an act of justice it is not wrong as an act of justice and when they do an act of liberality it is not wrong as an act of liberality. . . . What is done is only a shadow without substance. There is the shell of the duty but the inside is hollow. *78*
The natural man may have a shadow of morality but never the real thing. Edwards puts the same principle in somewhat more technical language:
Thus when a natural man speaks the truth, when he is just in his dealings, when he gives to the poor, he does those things that are right as to the manner of them though altogether wrong as to the matter. As to what is visible in the action it is right. That which is as it were the body of the actions; but, if we look at the inward principle and aim which is, as it were, the soul of the act and is what God looks at and which the rule does chiefly regard it is altogether wrong. *79*
Again he says in the same unpublished sermon (surely one of the most important ethical deliverances he ever wrote) that natural men do what is “negatively and comparatively right i.e. that they may do those things whereby they avoid those things that are much more wrong.” There are after all degrees of sinfulness even where there is no true virtue present. “They can avoid many sins.” This was a vital part of Jonathan Edwards’ system of evangelism that I will discuss in detail in volume III.
In a sermon entitled “Wicked men are the children of hell” Edwards does remark nevertheless that “There are many in a natural condition that are a very good sort of man are sober and moral in their behavior. . . .” *80* Of course he means moral in this outward sense of the word, because Edwards would never say that moral men are children of hell. Likewise it is in a sermon entitled “The Gadarenes loved their swine better than Jesus Christ” that Edwards remarks that if natural men ever part with anything it is not for Christ’s sake but to avoid hell. *81* Thus the morality of these swinish people is directed toward hell and not toward heaven.
It may also be that these famous metaphors of Edwards about the soul-destroying character of even one sin have led Haroutunian to suppose that Edwards believed natural men were capable of true morality. We will skip the metaphor in which he mentions that if a boat crossing the Atlantic only sank once it would be just as fatal *82* and cite this one about the servant and the wife:
Therefore how absurd must it be for Christians to object, against the depravity of man’s nature, a greater number of innocent and kind actions, than of crimes; and to talk of a prevailing innocency, good nature, industry, and cheerfulness of the greater part of mankind? Infinitely more absurd, than it would be to insist, that the domestic of a prince was not a bad servant, because though sometimes he contemned and affronted his master to a great degree, yet he did not spit in his master’s face so often as he performed acts of service; or, than it would be to affirm, that his spouse was a good wife to him, because, although she committed adultery, and that with the slaves and scoundrels sometimes, yet she did not do this so often as she did the duties of a wife. *83*
Obviously Edwards did not mean that when that servant was not spitting in his master’s face, and when the woman was not committing adultery, they were then being moral, and indeed were therefore more moral than they were immoral. He was simply proceeding ad hominem. Since most people can’t see little sins and must be as it were hit over the head with gross ones, Edwards is just vividly pointing out that one gross sin would be enough to vitiate the morality of any person. If a servant only spit in his master’s face once a year no matter how impeccable his behavior the rest of the time this would surely label him a bad servant. Edwards never for a moment supposes that there is any time when any man ever does anything truly virtuous even though most of the time he does abstain from the gross, conspicuous, and indubitable acts of immorality.
Here is Edwards’ bottom line on this point taken from the same treatise on Original Sin.
He that in any respect or degree is a transgressor of God’s law, is a wicked man, yea, wholly wicked in the eye of the law; all his goodness being esteemed nothing, having no account made of it, when taken together with his wickedness. And therefore, without any regard to his righteousness, he is, by the sentence of the law, and so by the voice of truth and justice to be treated as worthy to be rejected, abhorred and cursed forever; and must be so, unless grace interposes, to cover his transgression. But men are really, in themselves, what they are in the eye of the law, and by the voice of strict equity and justice; however they may be looked upon, and treated by infinite and unmerited mercy. *84*
Though man’s sin is universal and unvarying and though even in his age spiritual darkness was increasing with learning (Man’s Natural Blindness) still men were prone to trust in the law. Instead of fleeing from it because they were sinners violating it in every detail they flee to it as if they could be justified by it. This is the ultimate irony of sinners that they fancy themselves to be righteous. The theme of Edwards’ sermon on Joh_5:45 is “The law which natural men trust in to justify them will only condemn them.” *85* The law, he points out, condemns any act that is not sincere, any act that is not perfect and, indeed, would condemn the person if all acts were not perfect.
How does Edwards see sin and sickness? Especially mental sickness? He does not say a great deal about the subject directly. Perhaps the fullest allusion we have to it is his funeral oration on the occasion of the burial of “Uncle” Hawley, whose ghastly suicide virtually terminated the first Great Awakening in Northampton.
Melancholy was a particular concern of the evangelist Jonathan Edwards. He preached to his people that there is perhaps nothing in the world like melancholy to prevent proper self-analysis. *86*
Another question that always presses when sin and imputed guilt are considered is the bearing of this on infants and procreation. Edwards of course did not think that Psa_51:1-19 meant that the sexual relationship in marriage itself was sinful. Nor did he feel that there was any sin in begetting children born dead in trespasses and sins. He reasoned this way:
Now, if there be any force of argument here, it lies in this proposition, whatsoever is a means or occasion of the certain infallible existence of sin and wickedness, must itself be sinful. But I imagine Dr. Taylor had not thoroughly weighed this proposition, nor considered where it could carry him. For, God’s continuing in being the devil, and others that are finally given up to wickedness, will be attended, most certainly and infallibly, with an eternal series of the most hateful and horrid wickedness. But will any be guilty of such vile blasphemy, as to say, therefore God’s upholding them in being is itself a sinful thing? *87*
In other words being the occasion of sin is not being the cause or perpetrator of sin. If that were so God would be to blame in permitting the existence of sin at all. Again, Edwards used one of his favorite polemical arguments the reductio ad absurdum.
However innocent parents may be in bringing guilty children into the world they certainly are inexcusable if they did not attempt to rescue them from perdition. Can you, asks Edwards, be instruments of bringing children into the world under wrath and not seek their salvation? *88* Edwards surely systematically and successfully sought the salvation of his own numerous progeny.
6. The Unpardonable Sin
While Augustine considered the unpardonable sin the most difficult topic in Scripture, Edwards showed no particular perturbation about this doctrine. The unusually large amount of space devoted to this one topic indicates how important - if not difficult - Edwards considered it to be. We will review here his understanding of the sin against the Holy Spirit which is usually considered the unpardonable sin par excellence, then other forms of the unpardonable sin, its heinousness, its function and its application to Northampton in particular and the Great Awakening generally.
(1) The Sin against the Holy Ghost.
The consequence of the sin against the Holy Ghost is made quite clear in the comment Edwards makes on Mat_12:32 in his “Notes on the Bible.” *89* Edwards does not labor the point but simply recognizes that this sin will never be forgiven even in the world to come where some sins are forgiven. “Some sins may not be forgiven in this world, that yet are forgiven in the world that is to come.” Edwards hedges his bets here noting that God does not “manifest” his forgiveness here “but is provoked sometimes by the grievous fall of the godly, in a great measure to hide his face as long as they live. So that ever after they shall go hanging down their heads, even to their graves.” The result is that “their former joy and comfort is no more restored to its wonted degree until they die.”
It is in M 380 that we come to a proper definition of the unpardonable sin:
It seems to me by the Scripture, that the sin against the Holy Spirit is this: for a man, when convinced in conscience, to set himself with a free and full will to reproach, or otherwise openly and contumaciously to malign the Holy Ghost in his office, or with respect to his gracious operations. I say, with a free and full will; that is, the man must be perfectly free from any disorder, and he must do it without restraint. Sometimes men commit sin when there is one will against another, so that he (MS: it) may be said in some respect to do what he would not; there is something in him that resists it. It is free and deliberate choice, and not from any violent push of Satanic suggestion, or from being under the power of great distress, or violent fears of damnation, and the like. ’Tis from full will, from a settled malice, with a rational, deliberate, full design. *90*
Edwards’ Miscellanies on this subject of the unpardonable sin show a clear, straight-forward development of thought. He first gives a simple explanation of the reason for its being called the sin against the Holy Ghost, (M 297), then comes a much fuller one elaborating the former, (M 355), and gives a more thorough treatment of the theme plus an explanation of its special heinousness in M 475 while M 702 moves into the polemic area where he takes exception to Richard Baxter.
First, we read in the very early M 297 that, “SIN against the holy Ghost. One reason why this sin is called the sin against the holy Ghost is that spite and malice, and scorn the ingredients of it are so directly contrary to the nature of the holy Ghost who is love.”
Second, the elaboration in M 355 in which the three enumerated characteristics lead to this sin’s being associated with the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost:
THE UNPARDONABLE SIN is called the sin against the Holy Ghost (1) because it is sin against great light and convictions of the Holy Ghost; (2) because it consists in malice and spite, which [are] the direct contrary to love, which the Holy Ghost is; (3) because it is malice against the Holy Ghost, which is the very loveliness of God, and so a scornful hatred of it [as] represented in the Word and appearing in the hearts and lives of men. *91*
The sermon on Son_4:8 also mentions malice and contemptuousness and openness and direct reproach of the Holy Spirit. *92*
In M 475 Edwards begins by referring to “three things essential to this sin” but after developing the first two much more than ever before he seems to forget the third and moves into a discussion of the heinousness of this sin and the absolute necessity of conviction. Even with respect to the first two points he reverses the earlier order, mentioning presumptuousness before conviction, which would seem to be logically prior, and then introduces outwardness as virtually essential to the sin also.
(2) Other Unpardonable Sins
Much more commonly than the sin against the Holy Ghost, Edwards speaks of other sins of men that lead God to abandon them. He argues that men may “provoke God by their sins till they have committed the last sin that God will bear with before he . . . takes up a resolution that they never shall be saved.” *93* In this sermon, as well as frequently elsewhere, he refers to Psa_95:1-11 as illustrative of this hardness of unbelief leading to God’s final withdrawal in this world. When God does so, He promises never to give converting grace. If that happens even seeking does no good. “Judas had a mind to be saved. He did some things in order to it,” but in vain. Israel, after God had sworn that she would never enter into His rest, made later attempts to go up to Canaan, but to no avail. She wept, but God would not hear the nation any more than He would hear the crying of Esau. When God abandons them, men become possessed of a fear that moves them to this futile and empty seeking, though they will never have conviction again. Nor will God hear the prayers of others on their behalf. Even His ministers are sent merely to harden them.
Simon Magus’ seeking to buy the gifts of the Holy Spirit was a fatal sin for which there was no forgiveness to be had in this world, or the next. This theme Edwards developed in the doctrine, “A man may eternally undo himself in one thought of his heart.” *94* Here Edwards interprets this first case of attempted simony: “And when Simon saw that through laying on of the apostles’ hands the Holy Ghost was given, he offered them money, saying, Give me also this power, that on whomsoever I lay hands, he may receive the Holy Ghost. But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money.”
Sometimes God simply “wearies” of working with obdurate men. After a long time of striving with them He gives them up as He did the Jews in the times of Gedaliah. Because of their resolute idolatry and wickedness, God’s name should no more be in their mouth. Jeremiah had warned them and Nebuchadnezzar had conquered them several times. All this leads to the doctrine: “Sometimes when God has used many means with men to bring them to forsake their sins and they will not forsake them, God doth as it were swear in wrath that they shall never forsake them.” *95* Though God has no pleasure in the death of the wicked, these wicked must die.
Romans sermons, especially, pursue this theme. Edwards exposition of Rom_1:24 shows how God gives some men up to their sins and further sins become their punishment with no possibility of mercy. *96* The Romans 11:7 *97* and 11:10 *98* sermons teach that before some men died they were subject to the judgment of being given up to hardness.
(3) The Heinousness of the Unpardonable Sin.
The sermon on Son_4:8 is significant indicating that the unpardonable sin is not necessarily the most heinous and that all sins have the root of the unpardonable sin in them. *99* In fact, all wicked men have a certain measure of sin allotted. When that measure is reached wrath comes upon them to the uttermost. *100*
In M 475 Edwards raises the question, “[W]hy is this [sin against the Holy Spirit] more unpardonable; than to have a spite against and to blaspheme the divine being in general, or either of the other persons of the Trinity?” He answered:
If a man that was convinced of the being of a God should blaspheme & reproach him & charge him with folly, or with injustice & cruelty or wickedness, that is not unpardonable. But he that blasphemes against the holy Ghost, wilfully and maliciously reproaches that [which] should attract our love, & win our hearts, viz. the beauty & grace of God. They are malicious against God for his love & loveliness. . . .
(4) Application of the doctrine.
Edwards was chary about designating any individual or group as guilty of the unpardonable sin but he did warn some. Particularly he warned the opponents of the Great Awakening who were constantly the objects of his sombre admonitions. Of this sin also he warned them but did not charge them with it, though he was not far from doing that too:
Those that maliciously oppose and reproach this work, and call it the work of the Devil, want but one thing of the unpardonable sin, and that is doing it against inward conviction. *101*
While Edwards was often distressed with his own people and constantly assured them that many of them would perish in hell if they died at that time, he never accused any, so far as I know, of the unpardonable sin. He assured them that if they ever blasphemed the Holy Spirit God never will bestow salvation upon them. And, as noted, he more than once warned the opponents of the Awakening of this ultimate peril.
Apparently Edwards means that the rejection of the Holy Spirit is the rejection of God in his very saving overtures or as he is in mercy toward the sinner. Rejecting the Godhead in general, or either of the other persons of the Trinity, is a rejection of them in themselves, as it were, rather than in their relation to men. Heinous as that may be it is not so foul as rejecting God in the very act of offering salvation to men.
The lengthy M 706 is entitled “SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST why unpardonable