Original Sin (The Works of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 3 | WJE)
Overview
The controversy over human deprivation which raged throughout the eighteenth century was no mere intramural squabble among theologians but an important phase of the evolution in Western man’s estimate of his nature and potentialities. By the time Jonathan Edwards entered the lists to champion the hated doctrine of original sin, he saw himself as not only defending a particular dogma but also combating an increasingly dominant drift of opinion which had already engulfed much of Europe and was encroaching dangerously upon America.
John Taylor’s treatise was perhaps the boldest and most impressive assault on the doctrine which more than any other contradicted the Enlightenment view of man, and it haunted Edwards throughout all the pressing duties and personal hardships of the years just before and during his sojourn at Stockbridge. Ultimately, he was able to develop a thorough rebuttal of Taylor which focused on three major issues: the fact and nature of original sin, its cause and transmission, and God’s responsibility for man’s sinfulness.
Top Highlights
“As all moral qualities, all principles, either of virtue or vice, lie in the disposition of the heart, I shall consider whether we have any evidence, that the heart of man is naturally of a corrupt and evil disposition.” (Page 107)
“BY ORIGINAL sin, as the phrase has been most commonly used by divines, is meant the innate sinful depravity of the heart.” (Page 107)
“For the controversy is not, what grace will do, but what justice might do.” (Page 111)
“That is to be looked upon as the true tendency of the natural or innate disposition of man’s heart, which appears to be its tendency when we consider things as they are in themselves, or in their own nature, without the interposition of divine grace. Thus, that state of man’s nature, that disposition of the mind, is to be looked upon as evil and pernicious, which, as it is in itself, tends to extremely pernicious consequences, and would certainly end therein, were it not that the free mercy and kindness of God interposes to prevent that issue.” (Page 109)
“It therefore appears from the premises, that whosoever withholds more of that love or respect of heart from God which his law requires, than he affords, has more sin than righteousness.” (Page 140)
About Clyde A. Holbrook
Clyde A. Holbrook was William H. Danforth Professor of Religion at Oberlin College.
