Are We Born in Sin? Edwards Answers the Objection | Jonathan Edwards

Deep Dive into The Doctrine of Original Sin by Jonathan Edwards - Concerning the Objection, That to Suppose Men Born in Sin, without Their Choice, or Any Previous Act of Their Own, Is to Suppose What Is Inconsistent with the Nature of SinJonathan Edwards critically assesses the Pelagian and Arminian perspectives, primarily represented by Dr. T., by dismantling their central definition of free will as self-determination. Edwards identifies this concept as the strategic foundation of their theology—an "impregnable castle" used to attack the doctrine of original sin. Dr. T. argues that moral agency requires that actions proceed from personal choice rather than necessity. Consequently, he insists that if humans are born with a corrupt nature, such corruption is natural and unavoidable, rendering it blameless. Based on this premise, Dr. T. declares the orthodox doctrine of original sin to be false.Edwards counters this by exposing "gross inconsistencies" within Dr. T.’s own reasoning. He highlights a fundamental paradox in how Dr. T. assigns blame. Dr. T. asserts that only the cause of an act (the choice) is blamable, not the effect. However, he simultaneously claims that nothing is sinful unless it proceeds from a choice. Edwards points out that this logic renders both the cause and the effect blameless: the effect is not the cause, and the cause does not proceed from a prior choice.Furthermore, Edwards employs a reductio ad absurdum regarding the origin of sin. If every sinful choice must result from a preceding choice to be considered moral, one must trace the chain back to a "prime or original act." By Dr. T.’s definitions, this first act cannot proceed from a prior choice, making it necessary and therefore not sinful, despite it being the source of all subsequent evil. Finally, Edwards notes that Dr. T. admits "sinful inclinations" exist prior to acts of will. Edwards exposes the fatal contradiction here: Dr. T. concedes these antecedent inclinations are sinful, yet they exist without a preceding choice, violating his own rule that nothing can be sinful without self-determination.Reformed Theologian GPT: https://chat.openai.com/g/g-XXwzX1gnv-reformed-theologianhttps://buymeacoffee.com/edi2730