The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended; Evidences of its Truth Produced, And Arguments to the Contrary Answered

By Jonathan Edwards and Tim Dieppe

If you want to go deeper in your faith. If you want your understanding of doctrine to be strengthened. If you want to be inspired by a leading revivalist. If you want to be provoked to prayer. If you want to learn to reason well with Scripture. If you want to learn from one of the greatest preachers of all time. If you want any of these things,

• Language: English
• Publisher: Ezra Press
• Release date: Oct 16, 2023
• ISBN: 9781989169308

Jonathan Edwards

Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758) was a pastor, theologian, and missionary. He is generally considered the greatest American theologian. A prolific writer, Edwards is known for his many sermons, including "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God," and his classic A Treatise Concerning Religious Affections. Edwards was appointed president of the College of New Jersey (later renamed Princeton University) shortly before his death. 

Book preview

Original_Sin_Cover_V2.jpg

Original Sin

by Jonathan Edwards

Published by Ezra Press, a ministry of the Ezra Institute for Contemporary Christianity, PO Box 9, Stn. Main. Grimsby, ON L3M 1M0.

Jonathan Edwards, The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin Defended;

Evidences of its Truth Produced, And Arguments to the Contrary Answered.

First published in 1758.

This Ezra Press edition copyright ©2023.

Outline and Introduction copyright Tim Dieppe ©2023.

All rights reserved. This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, without the written permission of the publishers.

Cover design by Barbara Vasconcelos

Interior design by Kathy Jimenez

Printed in the United States of America.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise, without prior permission of the author, except as provided by Canadian copyright law.

For volume pricing please contact the Ezra Institute: [e-mail]

ISBN: 978-1-989169-26-1

Introduction to Original Sin by Jonathan Edwards

Why Read Jonathan Edwards?

If you want to go deeper in your faith. If you want your understanding of doctrine to be strengthened. If you want to be inspired by a leading revivalist. If you want to be provoked to prayer. If you want to learn to reason well with Scripture. If you want to learn from one of the greatest preachers of all time. If you want any of these things, then you should read Jonathan Edwards.

Don’t just take my word for it. The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy entry for Jonathan Edwards begins:

Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758) is widely acknowledged to be America’s most important and original philosophical theologian.1

One of the greatest preachers of the twentieth century, Dr Martyn Lloyd-Jones, said:

No man is more relevant to the present condition of Christianity than Jonathan Edwards. None is more needed.2

He added:

I am tempted, perhaps foolishly, to compare the Puritans to the Alps, Luther and Calvin to the Himalayas, and Jonathan Edwards to Mount Everest. He has always seemed to me to be the man most like the apostle Paul.3

The Victorian prince of preachers, Charles Spurgeon, advised:

Look at that wondrous shaking under Jonathan Edwards.4

Contemporary preacher and revivalist, John Wesley, described Edwards as that great man.⁵

My point is that Jonathan Edwards was and is widely recognised to be one of the greatest theologians and preachers who ever lived. In your reading, you want to read some of the greats. Who better to start with than Jonathan Edwards?

Contemporary books are written from a contemporary perspective and deal with contemporary issues within a contemporary framework. All ages have blind spots. The value of reading older books is that you are reading someone who is not influenced by contemporary culture. Older writers can sometimes challenge contemporary thinking because they are not seeking to abide by contemporary norms or values. You will find that Christian writers from previous ages are a lot less reticent to talk about hell than contemporary writers, for example.

Older books have also stood the test of time. They continue to be valued because their work is considered to be beneficial for generations beyond their own. The vast majority of contemporary books will not pass the test of time. Surely you should read some contemporary books to keep up with contemporary thinking, but you will be missing out if you only read contemporary books. It is important to supplement your reading with older books from some of the greatest authors who can speak across generations and cultures.

The book you are holding in your hands continues to inspire and challenge people today. Contemporary novelist Marilynne Robinson has recounted that it was when reading one of Jonathan Edwards’ footnotes in this very book⁶ that her imagination was sparked:

Then, by grace of that footnote, I realised that I could think of God as present and intentional, and of reality as essentially addressed to human perception – perception being then as now my greatest interest and pleasure in life. . .. that was a memorable day in my interior life. I left the library thinking differently than I did when I entered it. I left persuaded that all experience is profound, and worthy of all the attention it can be given.7

Theologian and past President of the Evangelical Theological Society, Sam Storms, concluded that while the book is not without fault:

I believe Edwards has indeed provided us with the most lucid and convincing defence of these fundamental biblical truths since Paul penned Romans.8

I myself first read this book over twenty years ago. I was captivated by the power of the logic and the multitude of arguments and illustrations that I had never seen or heard before. I was so gripped that I constructed the detailed analytical outline that is printed in this volume so that I could refer back to it and read through the arguments again for myself. I resolved to read more of Jonathan Edwards, and recently finished reading all twenty-six printed volumes in the Yale Edition. I use Edwards’ illustrations and arguments from this volume in my preaching and teaching to this day. I was left fully convinced of Edwards’ theological genius.

Lloyd-Jones concluded his assessment of Jonathan Edwards with this exhortation:

"My advice to you is: Read Jonathan Edwards. Stop going to so many meetings; stop craving for the various forms of entertainment which are so popular in evangelical circles at the present time. Learn to stay at home. Learn to read again, and do not merely read the exciting stories of certain modern people. Go back to something solid and deep and real.

Are we losing the art of reading? Revivals have often started as the result of people reading volumes such as these two volumes of Edwards’ works. So read this man. Decide to do so. Read his sermons; read his practical treatises, and then go on to the great discourses on theological subjects.9

This book is one of those great discourses. It is worthy of careful attention and its message continues to be relevant today.

A Brief Description of the Life of Jonathan Edwards

Jonathan Edwards was born in 1703 in Connecticut, the son of a Congregational pastor. He excelled in school and was licensed as a pastor aged nineteen. At around this time he wrote his famous list of Resolutions¹⁰ which demonstrate the intensity of his spirituality. It is worth quoting some examples to show this:

7. Resolved, never to do anything, which I should be afraid to do, if it were the last hour of my life.

22. Resolved, to endeavor to obtain for myself as much happiness, in the other world, as I possibly can, with all the power; might, vigor, and vehemence, yea violence, I am capable of, or can bring myself to exert, in any way that can be thought of.

28. Resolved, to study the Scriptures so steadily, constantly and frequently, as that I may find, and plainly perceive myself to grow in the knowledge of the same.

44. Resolved, that no other end but religion, shall have any influence at all on any of my actions; and that no action shall be, in the least circumstance, any otherwise than the religious end will carry it.

63. On the supposition, that there never was to be but one individual in the world, at any one time, who was properly a complete Christian, in all respects of a right stamp, having Christianity always shining in its true lustre, and appearing excellent and lovely, from whatever part and under whatever character viewed: Resolved, to act just as I would do, if I strove with all my might to be that one, who should live in my time.

In 1723 he fell in love with Sarah Pierpont who was just 13 years old at the time. Four years later they married and together they raised 11 children.

Edwards was ordained assistant pastor of Northampton church in 1727, and he took over as senior pastor in 1729 when the incumbent, Solomon Stoddard, died. As a pastor he devoted himself to Bible study and wrote copious notes in various topical notebooks including a ‘blank Bible’ which he constructed. He also preached many hundreds of sermons. These notebooks and sermon notes have now been published by Yale University Press and can be browsed and searched online.¹¹

The Great Awakening brought the fires of revival to Edwards' ministry, and he was instrumental in defending and promoting the revival. He wrote A Faithful Narrative describing the effects of the Revival, and then Distinguishing Marks explaining how to tell whether manifestations were of God or not. Later, he published Some Thoughts Concerning the Revival in which he defended what had happened and responded to critics.

During this time, Edwards invited the English preacher and revivalist, George Whitfield, to speak at his church and was very moved by his preaching. Edwards was no mere armchair theologian or philosopher. He was deeply passionate about his faith and was affected by the works of revival, and preached and ministered in such a way that people were emotionally affected by the truths he proclaimed.

In 1743 Edwards met David Brainerd, a young missionary to the Indians. They became good friends, but sadly Brainerd died of tuberculosis in 1747, aged twenty-nine. Edwards then worked to publish The Life of David Brainerd which was a highly significant inspiration for the modern missionary movement. This book influenced such missionaries as William Carey, Henry Martyn, Robert Morrison, Robert M’Cheyne, David Livingstone, Andrew Murray, and Jim Elliot.¹²

In 1750, Edwards was dismissed as pastor of his church over a controversy about whether Edwards could determine who was eligible to receive the Lord’s Supper. He subsequently moved to pastor a church in the small frontier town of Stockbridge where he ministered to settlers and served as a missionary to Indians. It was while he was there that he wrote his most important theological works. These were Freedom of the Will – a still highly relevant and important discourse on the nature of free will; The End for Which God Created the World – about God’s purpose in creation; and The Nature of True Virtue – about ethics. His very last work was The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin, written in 1757.

In 1758, Edwards agreed to become the President of Princeton College. Just one month after assuming the Presidency, Edwards was inoculated against smallpox and died from the effects of the inoculation. Original Sin was published posthumously later that year.

His legacy and lasting influence continues through his many sermons, books, and notebooks, some of which have only recently been published for the first time.

Background to the Writing of Original Sin

The full title of the book is:

The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin defended;

Evidences of its Truth produced, and Arguments to the Contrary Answered. Containing, in particular, A Reply to the Objections and Arguings of Dr John Taylor, in his Book, Intitled, The Scripture-Doctrine of Original Sin proposed to free and candid Examination, &c.

This title makes clear that what prompted Edwards to write the book was the felt need to respond to an earlier book by John Taylor critiquing the doctrine of original sin. However, in the first sentence of the Preface, Edwards explains:

The following discourse is intended, not merely as an answer to any particular book written against the doctrine of original sin, but as a general defence of that great important doctrine.13

Thus, although some of the book is taken up with rebutting John Taylor’s arguments, Edwards’ objective is a thorough exposition and defence of the doctrine of original sin.

The doctrine of original sin was a source of some considerable controversy in New England at the time, and this controversy was well established before Taylor’s book came out. Multiple sermons and tracts had already been published on both sides of the argument.14

The doctrine of original sin was repugnant to the thinking of the Enlightenment. The Enlightenment portrayed human reason as entirely rational, and humans as fundamentally good by nature. It saw the doctrine of original sin, with its emphasis on human depravity, as detestable and contrary to reason. The imputation of sin to succeeding generations from Adam was seen as especially detestable and irrational.

Into this controversy stepped Dr John Taylor of Norwich in England. His book was a substantial treatise. Clyde Holbrook, editor of the Yale edition of Original Sin, says Taylor’s work was one that: bore the marks of thorough scholarship and breathed an air of amiable open-mindedness, with its talk of plain reason, common sense morality, and unperverted meanings of Scripture.¹⁵ Taylor’s book was first published in 1738 in England, and attracted initial responses from such figures as Isaac Watts¹⁶ and John Wesley.¹⁷ A second edition of Taylor’s book was published adding responses to some of the criticisms, and it was this book that landed on the shores of New England to stir up the controversy there.

Taylor’s book seeks to reinterpret all the key passages of the Bible used to defend the doctrine of original sin. Part 1 of the book addresses five key passages. Part 2 continues by examining all the passages cited in the Westminster Larger Catechism¹⁸ in defence of the doctrine. Here, for example, Taylor concludes at one point, Therefore sin is not natural to us, and therefore I shall not scruple to say, this proposition in the Assembly’s Catechism is false.¹⁹ Part 3 consists of responses to various objections, and the Supplement responds to two attempts to rebut his argument.

Taylor’s book proved popular and influential in New England, with some describing it as unanswerable.20 Clearly it was popular not least because the doctrine of original sin was becoming unpopular. People just did not want to believe in human depravity anymore.

However, to strike at the doctrine of original sin is to strike at the heart of the gospel. Either people are in a depraved state of slavery to sin which requires an incredible act of salvation, or they are not. And if they are not then what is the need for salvation? Surely a non-existent disease needs no remedy.

Something of Edwards’ concerns about Taylor’s influence can be seen in a letter he wrote to his former Northampton congregation in 1752. There he described Taylor as: that author who has so corrupted multitudes in New England.21 He further elaborated:

Taylor’s scheme of religion, which utterly explodes the doctrines you have been formerly taught concerning eternal election, conversion, justification; and so, of a natural state of death in sin; and the whole doctrine of original sin, and of the mighty change made in the soul by the redemption of Christ applied to it.²²

Edwards argued in his Preface to Original Sin:

According to my observation, no one book has done so much towards rooting out of these Western parts of New England, the principles and scheme of religion maintained by our pious and excellent forefathers, the divines and Christians who first settled in this country, and alienating the minds of many from what I think are evidently some of the main doctrines of the gospel, and that which Dr Taylor has published against the doctrine of original sin.²³

He said he saw "the doctrine as of great importance; which everybody will doubtless own if it is true."24

George Marsden notes: Edwards’ genius was to show how his core theological views were intellectually viable in the Enlightenment era.²⁵ Certainly that was his aim. In my judgment, in this aim he succeeded admirably. Alan Jacobs describes Edwards as: the most powerful articulator of the Augustinian doctrine of original sin that America has ever produced or is ever likely to produce.²⁶ Out of the fruit of the Enlightenment controversy came this work which demonstrates the full power of Edwards’ philosophical and theological thinking.

The Argument of the Book

Edwards marshals multiple arguments from three sources to defend the Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin. First, he argues from experience that in fact all mankind do without fail fall into moral evil. Much of Part One is taken up with this line of argument. In this he cites several authors, including Enlightenment thinkers like John Locke, to support his point. He brings superb illustrations to bear to illustrate human depravity. He also rebuts arguments against the evidence for the corruption of human nature. Second, he argues in Parts Two and Three from Scripture that the doctrine is clearly taught. He works through all the relevant passages in both the Old and New Testaments, and focuses in particular on the key passages of Romans 3:9-24 and Romans 5:6-21, refuting Taylor’s interpretations. Finally, he argues from reason in Part 4, finding philosophical defences to the most powerful criticisms of the doctrine. There is a detailed outline of the structure of the argument of the book included in this volume to help you follow Edwards’ train of thought, and to provide a useful summary of how the argument proceeds.

At the very beginning of the work, Edwards defines his terms. He explains that original sin can refer to the innate sinful depravity of the heart but that it also refers to the imputation of Adam’s first sin. He starts by focusing on the first point, which is very well supported by experience and multiple Scriptures. He argues that since all mankind do without fail sin, they are all under the influence of a tendency to sin. Good deeds cannot be said to outweigh bad deeds since this would be like saying a road is good if it is mostly safe, but highly dangerous in parts.²⁷ Or like saying a spouse is faithful if they commit adultery only occasionally and are faithful the rest of the time.²⁸ Since all humanity does sin, this indicates a cause which is: a) Fixed, because the effect is always the same; b) Internal, because circumstances make no difference; and c) Powerful, because it has not been overcome.²⁹

The second point is harder to establish and more offensive to modern sensibilities since it appears unjust. Edwards establishes that imputation is taught clearly in Scripture and then proposes a novel philosophical solution to the problem. He famously argues for continuous creation such that everything in creation is effectively recreated out of nothing at each moment of its existence.30 Edwards did not invent this view for this defence of the mechanism of imputation. He had already articulated it in an early entry in his Miscellanies notebook, where he said:

’Tis certain with me that the world exists anew every moment, that the existence of things every moment ceases and is every moment renewed.³¹

While this may seem an unusual and counterintuitive view, it is, as Stephen Holmes notes, an inescapable result of basic metaphysical commitments.32 Indeed, Walter Schultz has shown that continuous creationism is a logical consequence of Edwards’ arguments in The End for Which God Created the World.33

Assuming continuous creationism then, Edwards argues that unity or oneness of an entity is entirely dependent on God’s continuation and preservation of that entity. He illustrates this with the example of an acorn turning into an oak tree.³⁴ They have a unity through time even though there will probably be no common atoms through time because God set it up that way. I also have a unity in identity with the embryonic form that was in my mother’s womb because this is also how God set things up. Edwards argues that in a similar manner, God set it up so that all of humanity has an identity with Adam such that Adam’s sin would be imputed to all of humanity through time.

Paul Helm describes this view of personal identity through time as undoubtedly extravagant.³⁵ Oliver Crisp, by contrast, says there is a certain metaphysical elegance to this solution to the problems raised earlier about the transmission of original sin,³⁶ although he acknowledges that it is counterintuitive.

Edwards himself, while fully convinced of his metaphysics, concedes that Christians may legitimately disagree about this. In an aside he states:

On the whole, if any don’t like the philosophy, or the metaphysics (as some perhaps may choose to call it) made use of in the foregoing reasonings; yet I cannot doubt, but that a proper consideration of what is apparent and undeniable in fact, with respect to the dependence of the state and course of things in this universe on the sovereign constitutions of the supreme Author and Lord of all, who gives none account of any of his matters, and whose ways are past finding out, will be sufficient, with persons of common modesty and sobriety, to stop their mouths from making peremptory decisions against the justice of God, respecting what is so plainly and fully taught in his Holy Word, concerning the derivation of a depravity and guilt from Adam to his posterity; a thing so abundantly confirmed by what is found in the experience of all mankind in all ages.37

In other words, Christians are not obligated to agree with his metaphysical solution, but they must acknowledge that imputation is clearly taught in Scripture. Therefore, all Christians must accept the truth of the imputation of Adam’s sin, while we may disagree on the details of how this occurs. Whether you agree with the mechanism or not, Edwards’ metaphysics, and theory of identity through time, do at least provide a feasible solution to the problem of imputation so that no-one can say it is entirely irrational. This is the genius of Jonathan Edwards, and I myself at least find it persuasive.

The Relevance of the Book

Prominent headteacher Katherine Birbalsingh, known as the co-founder of Britain’s strictest school, sparked a Twitter storm in October 2021 after saying that children are born with ‘original sin’ and must be ‘habituated into choosing good over evil.’ Her view was called ‘medieval.’ An MSP responded:

Children are not born bad. Children are born good and I would suggest trauma, poverty … and negative influences of adults are what drive negative behaviour into adulthood. We must nurture and protect our children not stigmatise them from birth.³⁸

Economist Frances Coppola replied to the original tweet: The notion that children are born bad has been used to justify terrible abuse. Very worrying to see a high-profile head teacher using it. She may not be an abuser herself, but her endorsement of this toxic belief empowers people who are.³⁹ The opposite is actually the case. If you expect perfection in children, then you will be disappointed and discipline them too harshly. If, on the other hand, you expect sinfulness, then you will have grace as well as discipline in your response.

Birbalsingh faced calls for her to be fired from her job for her comments. She rather pointedly commented: Many are demanding my head on a platter. These people are demanding my job, throwing insults and all the while insist we are not flawed as human beings! You could not make this stuff up! Birbalsingh, who says she is not a Christian, later expressed regret for saying children have ‘original sin,’ claiming that she did not intend the phrase to be taken literally.⁴⁰

The angry, visceral reaction to the simple claim that children are born with original sin shows that opposition to this doctrine, and even hatred of it, is very much alive in the twenty-first century. In fact, I would suggest that the strength of feeling and opposition to this classic doctrine has only increased as the influence of Christianity has declined in the West over time.

Prior to the Enlightenment, everyone agreed with the doctrine of original sin. The idea that mankind is fundamentally flawed is, after all, common sense. G.K. Chesterton quipped that original sin is the only part of Christian theology that can really be proved.41 It was the onset of the so-called Enlightenment, and the influence of Jean-Jacques Rousseau in particular, that initiated a more optimistic view of human nature. This human optimism now so pervades our culture that a mere expression of dissent is liable to cause a storm – even in many churches.

This is, as they say, in spite of all the evidence! Scientists too have waded in, with Steven Pinker arguing in his book, The Blank Slate, that anti-social traits are heritable. In response to this, economist John Gray commented:

Enlightenment thinkers took up the scientific study of human behaviour in the hope of transforming the human condition. The result of scientific inquiry, however, is to vindicate a secular version of the idea of original sin.42

Yet, you will scarcely get a more visceral reaction today than when you challenge an optimistic view of human nature. Edwards could see where a denial of original sin leads. To view humans as fundamentally good is a denial of reality and an attempt to silence the conscience. It leads ultimately to a denial of the gospel. What do we need redemption from if we are not fundamentally sinful, by nature?

Thus, Edwards’ book is, if anything, even more relevant today than when it was first written. If we are going to proclaim the gospel in this age, then we need to proclaim that mankind is by nature sinful. Now that this is so contrary to the spirit of the age, we need to know why we believe that and to have the most powerful arguments and illustrations that we can to persuade people of its truth. Who better to turn to than Jonathan Edwards?

Oliver Crisp summarises the overall significance of this book:

His work on this topic is, to my mind, one of the few significant theological restatements of the doctrine in the early modern period, and perhaps one of a handful of post-Augustinian accounts that can claim to have made a real contribution to our understanding of the doctrine.43

This book is widely regarded as perhaps the best defence of the doctrine of original sin ever written. Original sin is fundamental gospel doctrine that has even more detractors today than when it was written. Hence the importance of the work and the need for it to be read again today.

Bibliography

Chesterton, G. K. Orthodoxy. House of Stratus, 2001.

Crisp, Oliver D. Jonathan Edwards among the Theologians. William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2015.

Davis, Barney. Headteacher ‘Faces Calls for Her Job’ after Sparking Original Sin Debate on Twitter. Evening Standard, 29 October 2021.

Edwards, Jonathan. Letters and Personal Writings. Works of Jonathan Edwards. Edited by George S. Claghorn Vol. 16, London: Yale University Press, 1998.

———. The Miscellanies, a-500. Works of Jonathan Edwards. Edited by Thomas A. Schafer Vol. 13, London: Yale University Press, 2002.

———. Original Sin. Works of Jonathan Edwards. Edited by Clyde A. Holbrook Vol. 3, London: Yale University Press, 1997. 1758.

Hazell, Will. Katharine Birbalsingh: England’s ‘Strictest Headteacher’ Regrets Saying Children Have ‘Original Sin’. (2021). iNews, last modified 5 January 2022. https://inews.co.uk/news/education/katharine-birbalsingh

-regret-children-have-original-sin-1369506.

Helm, Paul. The Great Christian Doctrine (Original Sin). In A God Entranced Vision of All Things, edited by John Piper and Justin Taylor, 175-200. Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2004.

Hobson, Theo. Katharine Birbalsingh Is Right: Children Do Have Original Sin. The Spectator, last modified 20 October 2021.

Holmes, Stephen R. God of Grace & God of Glory: An Account of the Theology of Jonathan Edwards. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2001.

Jacobs, Alan. Original Sin: A Cultural History. London: SPCK, 2008.

Kimnach, Wilson H., Caleb J. D. Maskell, and Kenneth P. Minkema, eds. Jonathan Edwards’s Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God: A Casebook. London: Yale University Press, 2010.

Lloyd-Jones, D. Martyn. The Puritans: Their Origins and Successors: Addresses Delivered at the Puritan and Westminster Conferences 1959-1978. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2002.

Marsden, George M. Jonathan Edwards: A Life. London: Yale University Press, 2003.

Piper, John. God’s Passion for His Glory. Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1998.

Schultz, W.J. Jonathan Edwards’ Concerning the End for Which God Created the World: Exposition, Analysis, and Philosophical Implications. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2020.

Schultz, Walter. "The Metaphysics of Jonathan Edwards’s End of Creation." Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 59, no. 2 (June 2016): 339-60.

Storms, C. Samuel. Tragedy in Eden: Original Sin in the Theology of Jonathan Edwards. University Press of America, 1985.

Taylor, John. The Scripture Doctrine of Original Sin Proposed to Free and Candid Examination in Three Parts. 4th ed. Newcastle: J. Barker, 1845.

---

1 Jonathan Edwards, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, last modified July 15, 2020, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/edwards/.

2 D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, The Puritans: Their Origins and Successors: Addresses Delivered at the Puritan and Westminster Conferences 1959-1978 (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2002), 367.

3 Ibid., 355.

4 Charles Spurgeon, Exposition of the Doctrines of Grace, Sermon preached April 11, 1861, From Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Volume 7. https://www.spurgeon.org/resource-library/sermons/exposition-of-the-doctrines-of-grace/#flipbook/

5 John Wesley, The Works of John Wesley, Vol X, Letters, Essays, Dialogs and Addresses (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958), 475, https://archive.org/details/worksofjohnwesle0010wesl/page/474/mode/2up

6 Note 20 on page 331-332 in this volume. (WJE 3, 402-404 n5)

7 Marilynne Robinson, Credo, Harvard Divinity Bulletin 36 (Spring 2008) 28. Cited in Wilson H. Kimnach, Caleb J. D. Maskell, and Kenneth P. Minkema, eds., Jonathan Edwards’s Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God: A Casebook (London: Yale University Press, 2010), 182.

8 C. Samuel Storms, Tragedy in Eden: Original Sin in the Theology of Jonathan Edwards (University Press of America, 1985), xii.

9 Lloyd-Jones, 369-70.

10 Jonathan Edwards, The Resolutions of Jonathan Edwards, Desiring God, last modified December 30, 2006, https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/the-resolutions-of-jonathan-edwards.

11 http://edwards.yale.edu/research/browse

12 John Piper, God’s Passion for His Glory (Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1998), 61.

13 See page 1. Italics are original.

14 Jonathan Edwards, Original Sin, ed. Clyde A. Holbrook, vol. 3, Works of Jonathan Edwards (London: Yale University Press, 1997), 7-8. Hereafter referenced as WJE 3, 7-8

15 Ibid., 2-3.

16 Isaac Watts, The Ruin and Recovery of Mankind (James Brackstone, 1740)

17 John Wesley, The Doctrine of Original Sin According to Scripture, Reason and Experience (E. Farley, 1757)

18 Larger Catechism, The Westminster Standard, last modified 2023, https://thewestminsterstandard.org/westminster-larger-catechism.

19 John Taylor, The Scripture Doctrine of Original Sin Proposed to Free and Candid Examination in Three Parts, 4th ed. (Newcastle: J. Barker, 1845), 56.

20 WJE 3, 3.

21 Letters and Personal Writings, ed. George S. Claghorn, vol. 16, Works of Jonathan Edwards (London: Yale University Press, 1998), 483.

22 Ibid., 483-84.

23 Page 1.

24 Page 1, emphasis his.

25 George M. Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life (London: Yale University Press, 2003), 458.

26 Alan Jacobs, Original Sin: A Cultural History (London: SPCK, 2008), 135.

27 Page 30 (WJE 3, 129)

28 Page 34 (WJE 3, 133)

29 Page 102 (WJE 3, 193)

30 Page 327-328 (WJE 3, 400-401)

31 Jonathan Edwards, The Miscellanies, a-500, ed. Thomas A. Schafer, vol. 13, Works of Jonathan Edwards (London: Yale University Press, 2002), 288., Miscellanies No. 125[a]

32 Stephen R. Holmes, God of Grace & God of Glory: An Account of the Theology of Jonathan Edwards (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 2001), 93.

33 Walter Schultz, "The Metaphysics of Jonathan Edwards’s End of Creation," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 59, no. 2 (2016).; W.J. Schultz, Jonathan Edwards’ Concerning the End for Which God Created the World: Exposition, Analysis, and Philosophical Implications (Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2020), 222-47.

34 Page 324-325 (WJE 3, 397-98)

35 Paul Helm, The Great Christian Doctrine (Original Sin), in A God Entranced Vision of All Things, ed. John Piper and Justin Taylor (Wheaton, Illinois: Crossway, 2004), 196.

36 Oliver D. Crisp, Jonathan Edwards among the Theologians (William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2015), 120.

37 Page 338-339 (WJE 3, 409)

38 Theo Hobson, Katharine Birbalsingh Is Right: Children Do Have Original Sin, The Spectator, 20 October 2021. https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/katharine-birbalsingh-is-right-children-do-have-original-sin/

39 Barney Davis, Headteacher ‘Faces Calls for Her Job’ after Sparking Original Sin Debate on Twitter, Evening Standard, 29 October 2021. https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/katharine-birbalsingh-twitter-original-sin-michaela-community-school-wembley-b963335.html

40 Will Hazell, Katharine Birbalsingh: England’s ‘Strictest Headteacher’ Regrets Saying Children Have ‘Original Sin’, iNews, last modified January 5, 2022, https://inews.co.uk/news/education/katharine-birbalsingh-regret-children-have-original-sin-

1369506.

41 G. K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy (House of Stratus, 2001), 6.

42 Cited in Jacobs, 258.

43 Crisp, 107.

Outline Analysis: Original Sin by Jonathan Edwards

Part One: Evidence of Original Sin from Observation, Experience & Scripture

Chapter 1: Evidence of Original Sin from the Sinfulness of Mankind

Section 1: All Mankind do without fail fall into moral evil (p6)

Original Sin can mean:

The innate depravity of heart of all men, OR

The imputation of Adam’s sin to all men.

Those who hold to one of these usually hold to the other.

Those who oppose Original Sin usually oppose both meanings.

What evidence do we have that the heart of man is naturally corrupt? (p6)

Man’s true tendency of heart should be his tendency without the interposition of divine grace. (p8)

Need to prove:

all mankind do without fail sin (p13)

all sin deserves eternal destruction but for God’s grace.

The biblical testimony that all who are capable of sin do sin is clear. (p13)

1 Kgs. 8:46; Ecc. 7:20; Job 9:23; Ps. 143:2; Rom. 3:19-20;

Gal. 2:16; 1 John 1:7-10.

The biblical testimony that all sin deserves eternal destruction is also clear. (p14)

Gal. 3:10; Rom. 4:14; 2 Cor. 3:6-9

Even Dr Taylor concedes this in his notes on Rom. 5:20,

and 7:6.

Section 2: Hence All Mankind are Under the Influence of a Tendency to Sin, & Evil (p20)

The universal sinfulness of mankind is good evidence of a universal tendency to sin.

Since if all mankind ran around acting raving mad one day of their lives or if all mankind put out their own eyes, this would be evidence of a tendency to this behaviour.

e.g. tendency of water to quench fire, winter to be cold, summer to be warm.

If a particular family all committed suicide at a certain age then we would conclude they had a tendency to do this.

Dr Taylor appears to admit this in certain passages. (p23)

External circumstances are not an excuse. (p24)

For if a creature proves sinful in the place God assigned the creature, then it has an evil nature.

Section 3: This Influence Must be very Evil & Depraved so that Man is by Nature Corrupt (p29)

The fact that men do sometimes perform good deeds is not evidence against their depraved nature. (p29)

The choice is innocent righteousness before God or sinful guiltiness.

e.g. Don’t call a road good if most of it is safe, but some parts are highly dangerous.

Don’t call a ship good to cross the Atlantic if it will sink on the way.

So, don’t call men good if they infallibly sin.

Men’s good deeds cannot be said to outweigh their bad deeds. (p31)

There is no merit in paying a debt we owe and are obliged to pay, but there is great demerit in refusing to pay it. (p31)

But we owe God total obedience and utmost respect.

Hence he who commits any one sin has guilt so great that no merit from all the good he does can ever outweigh it.

e.g. Servant of a prince who offends his master by spitting in his face, but did not spit in his face so often as he obeyed his master’s orders. (p34)

e.g. Wife who commits adultery several times, but not as often as she slept with her husband. (p34)

Section 4: This Depravity is Shown by the Fact that All Sin as soon as they are Capable of it (p36)

Scriptures imply that infants are sinful in God’s sight. (p36)

Phrases such as all flesh, all the world etc. surely include infants.

Even children of Christian parents sin. (p37)

cf. 1 John 1:8-9

Not only so, but all men continually sin against God. (p38)

Even the best of men continue to sin. (p40)

cf. Ecc. 7:20; Jas. 3:2; Prov. 20:9

Section 5: Depravity Shown by Greater Degree of Sin than Righteousness in Men (p42)

We fall short of God’s laws both by sins of commission and sins of omission. (p42)

cf. Matt. 25:42; 1 Cor. 16:22

The sum of our duty to God is love to God. (p43)

Thus, anyone who does not love God half as much as he ought to has more sin than righteousness. (p43)

But who will claim to love God half as much as he ought? cf. Mark 12:30

e.g. A servant of a prince sets his master below his lowest slave - this is a great instance of disrespect and contempt. But how often do we put things before the infinitely great God?

Objection: That this proves too much, viz. even the righteous have more sin than holiness. (p49)

A man may love God more than other things and still not love God half as much as he ought.

Holiness is maintained by faith, not works. (p50)

Section 6: Man’s Corrupt Nature Shown by Extreme Stupidity in Matters of Religion (p52)

History shows that men have a great tendency to the most stupid idolatry. (p52)

cf. Jer. 2:12-13; Rom. 1:19-21; Ps. 115:4-8

Men have a general and great disregard of their own eternal state. (p58)

cf. Ps. 49:11-14; Jer. 8:7; Prov. 8:36

Section 7: Man’s Corrupt Nature Shown in that the Great Majority of Men in All Ages have been Wicked (p64)

True saints form a very small portion of the population of those who have ever lived. (p64)

cf. Matt. 7:13-14; Luke 13:23-24; Ecc. 7:25-29; Gen. 6:12; Jer. 32:30-31

Men are even more destructive of their own kind than most wild beasts. (p75)

Section 8: Man’s Corrupt Nature Shown by the Small Effects of Great Means Used to Promote Virtue (p77)

Great means used from Adam to Noah. (p77)

viz. sorrow and death should restrain sin, Adam staying alive, the flood.

Great means used from Abraham to Jesus towards the Gentiles. (p80)

viz. Sodom and Gomorrah, Joseph, Egyptian plagues etc.

Great means used from Abraham to Jesus towards the Jews. (p86)

viz. Exodus, Mt Sinai covenant, prophets etc.

Great means used during the Church age. (p93)

viz. raising up leaders and preachers etc.

Dr Taylor objects gospel is misunderstood. (p96)

But how come it is misunderstood?

Section 9: Several Evasions of the Arguments for Man’s Corrupt Nature Considered (p100)

Evasion 1: Adam’s nature and nature of the angels was not corrupt, yet they sinned. So, all mankind may sin without having corrupt natures. (p100)

But our inclination to sin is like an addict to this drug. (p101)

But all manner of men do sin in all manner of circumstances. (p102)

Indicating a cause which is:

Fixed because the effect is always the same.

Internal because circumstances are of no effect.

Powerful because it has not been overcome.

Evasion 2: Man’s own free will is sufficient cause for the general wickedness of the world. (p105)

But If the balance be no heavier at one end than the other, why does it perpetually and as it were infinitely preponderate one way?

Evasion 3: The corruption of the world may be due to bad example. (p107)

This is accounting for the corruption of the world by the corruption of the world. (p107)

The world has a perfect example of virtue - namely Jesus Christ. (p111)

Infants universally commit sin as soon as they are capable. (p112)

Bad example is not a sufficient cause for universal depravity. (p112)

Evasion 4: Our senses and animal passions develop before our reason. (p113)

But this is virtually the same as saying we have a natural tendency to sin.

Evasion 5: Men in this world are in a state of trial and it is fitting that their virtue should meet with trials from both without and within. (p116)

Either these trials amount to a prevailing tendency to sin or they do not.

Chapter 2: Universal Mortality Proves Original Sin, Particularly the Death of Infants

Death came as a consequence of Adam’s sin and is represented as a great calamity in Scripture. (p120)

cf. 1 Sam. 5:11; Phil. 2:8; Lev. 22:9; etc.

Dr Taylor speaks of death as a benefit since it increases the vanity of earthly things and tends to excite sober reflections and mortify pride and ambition. (p124)

If such sharp means are necessary, then this is evidence of man’s depravity. (p124)

How does death benefit the majority of mankind who die in infancy? (p126)

Death is seen as an enemy in Scripture, not a benefit. (1 Cor. 15:22-26) (p127)

Death is seen as a chastisement in Scripture.

(1 Cor. 11:31-32) (p127)

Therefore, death should be seen as evidence that mankind is not wholly without sin. (p129)

Death is often spoken of as more awful than other chastisements. (Ps. 118:17-18; Ps. 13:3) (p129)

Death suggests to our minds God’s awful displeasure. (p130)

Particular cases in Scripture which show infants justly exposed to divine wrath. (p131)

Sodom and Gomorrah - the righteous were not destroyed with the wicked. (Gen. 18:23-25) (p131)

God expressly commanded infants not to be spared in the destruction of the Canaanites. (p133)

Infants were not spared in plague of firstborn on Egyptians. (p133)

Infants not marked out as innocent in

Ezek. 9. (p134)

NT destruction of Jerusalem included infants.

(Luke 23:29) (p134)

Part Two: Observations from Scripture Proving Original Sin

Chapter 1: Observations from Genesis 1-3

Section 1: Original righteousness (p138)

‘No original righteousness’ leads to a contradiction, as virtuous actions must come from a virtuous disposition. (p139)

Adam’s sin was the first sin so he must have been righteous before. (p144)

‘No virtue’ does not fit with the pre-fall state of the world. (p148)

Ecc. 7:29 proves that mankind was created righteous. (p150)

Section 2: Concerning the death threatened to Adam and Eve (p154)

This death must mean eternal death - argued from Scripture Rom. 6:23 etc.

Section 3: Does this threat include Adam’s posterity?

(i.e., all descendants) (p163)

Dr Taylor is inconsistent in applying death to all Adam’s posterity. (p163)

Dr Taylor’s excuse that the possible existence of Adam’s posterity is threatened. (p167)

Death and possible existence are two different things. (p165)

Future possible existence is in God’s hands. (p167)

There are many examples of failed possible existence of posterity, e.g., Abel, Flood victims etc. (p168)

Dr Taylor is inconsistent about this point. (p168)

The result should be a punishment. (denied by Dr Taylor) (p169)

Arguments from the text that show Adam’s posterity is included. (p170)

The head is spoken to as representative of posterity frequently in Scripture. (p172)

e.g., Noah, Abraham, Ishmael etc.

Cursed be the ground applies to all Adam’s posterity. (p173)

Adam named his wife Eve or Life on the promise of posterity. (p175)

Dr Taylor’s objection that the threat is inconsistent with Adam having any posterity. (p177)

The threat did not necessarily mean that Adam will physically die immediately. (p177)

A connection of sin with punishment is signified.

No second chance is signified.

God is not obliged to carry out the full punishment immediately. (p178)

Dr Taylor’s objection that Adam would have achieved more than Christ through obedience. (p180)

But Christ also rescued us from all our guilt and pollution.

Chapter 2: Observations from the rest of the Old Testament

Especially considering Gen. 8:21; Ps. 58:3; Job 15:14-16; 25:4; Ps. 51:5 (p182)

Chapter 3: Observations from the New Testament

Section 1: Observations