Were Adam and Eve Created Holy? | Jonathan Edwards

An episode of the Reformed Thinking podcast, hosted by Edison Wu, titled "Were Adam and Eve Created Holy? | Jonathan Edwards" was published on November 6, 2025 and runs 22 minutes.

November 6, 2025 ·22m · Reformed Thinking

0:00 / 0:00

Summary

Deep Dive into The Doctrine of Original Sin by Jonathan Edwards - Concerning Original Righteousness; And Whether Our First Parents Were Created with Righteousness, or Moral Rectitude of HeartThe Doctrine of Original Righteousness asserts that the first humans were created with holy principles and moral rectitude of heart. This doctrine is defended by drawing inferences from the Genesis creation account and citing explicit scriptural testimony.Edwards supports original righteousness by interpreting the Genesis history to mean that Adam’s first sin was eating the forbidden fruit, which implies he was perfectly righteous from the moment of his existence. As a moral agent, he was immediately obligated to act aright, and therefore, must have been created with an inclination or virtuous disposition of heart. Furthermore, the Mosaic account describes Adam in a happy state of great favor and blessings before the fall. If he had lacked a holy principle, as Dr. T. suggests, he would have been under unspeakably greater disadvantages for avoiding sin than fallen man, contradicting the narrative of God's favor and rendering Paradise merely a "bait" for ruin. Explicit support is found in Ecclesiastes 7:29, which states that "God made man upright," contrasting man's original true virtue and integrity with the "many inventions," or sinful ways, they later sought out.This doctrine is fiercely opposed by Dr. T., whose main objection is that righteousness cannot be innate. Dr. T. insists that virtue, by its nature, requires the conscious choice and consent of the moral agent and must be the fruit of preceding action and reflection; thus, "a necessary holiness is no holiness."Edwards points out the contradiction in Dr. T.’s view: Dr. T. agrees that the essence of all moral rectitude is resolved into the single principle of love or benevolence. Yet, he simultaneously demands that love itself must proceed from a virtuous choice. This creates a logical impossibility: love must precede choice for the choice to be virtuous, and choice must precede love for the principle of love to be virtuous, leaving no way for Adam to ever obtain righteousness according to this scheme.Reformed Theologian GPT: https://chat.openai.com/g/g-XXwzX1gnv-reformed-theologianhttps://buymeacoffee.com/edi2730

Episode Description

Deep Dive into The Doctrine of Original Sin by Jonathan Edwards - Concerning Original Righteousness; And Whether Our First Parents Were Created with Righteousness, or Moral Rectitude of Heart

The Doctrine of Original Righteousness asserts that the first humans were created with holy principles and moral rectitude of heart. This doctrine is defended by drawing inferences from the Genesis creation account and citing explicit scriptural testimony.

Edwards supports original righteousness by interpreting the Genesis history to mean that Adam’s first sin was eating the forbidden fruit, which implies he was perfectly righteous from the moment of his existence. As a moral agent, he was immediately obligated to act aright, and therefore, must have been created with an inclination or virtuous disposition of heart. Furthermore, the Mosaic account describes Adam in a happy state of great favor and blessings before the fall. If he had lacked a holy principle, as Dr. T. suggests, he would have been under unspeakably greater disadvantages for avoiding sin than fallen man, contradicting the narrative of God's favor and rendering Paradise merely a "bait" for ruin. Explicit support is found in Ecclesiastes 7:29, which states that "God made man upright," contrasting man's original true virtue and integrity with the "many inventions," or sinful ways, they later sought out.

This doctrine is fiercely opposed by Dr. T., whose main objection is that righteousness cannot be innate. Dr. T. insists that virtue, by its nature, requires the conscious choice and consent of the moral agent and must be the fruit of preceding action and reflection; thus, "a necessary holiness is no holiness."

Edwards points out the contradiction in Dr. T.’s view: Dr. T. agrees that the essence of all moral rectitude is resolved into the single principle of love or benevolence. Yet, he simultaneously demands that love itself must proceed from a virtuous choice. This creates a logical impossibility: love must precede choice for the choice to be virtuous, and choice must precede love for the principle of love to be virtuous, leaving no way for Adam to ever obtain righteousness according to this scheme.

Reformed Theologian GPT: https://chat.openai.com/g/g-XXwzX1gnv-reformed-theologian

https://buymeacoffee.com/edi2730