The relevance of the topic
Prominent head-teacher 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.’1
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.’2 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 mean the phrase to be taken literally.3
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.
Well-known atheist Richard Dawkins said in a recent interview with Alex O’Connor, ‘The idea that we’re born in sin is a hideous idea.’4 This is the same person who wrote The Selfish Gene5 and therefore seems to have no problem with moral defects in our genetics! Nevertheless, he vehemently objects to the idea of being born in sin.
Sadly, I suspect that this kind of reaction to the doctrine of original sin is not just to be found amongst atheists, economists and politicians. Many Christians are unfamiliar with the doctrine or its importance. Cultural influence will lead Christians to adopt cultural values unless they are well taught. When was the last time you heard a sermon on the subject? I suspect many Christians too would object to the idea of being born in sin.
Enlightenment origins of disbelief in original sin
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 famously quipped that original sin ‘is the only part of Christian theology that can really be proved’.6
Yet 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.
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. Rousseau’s book Emile, or On Education focussed particularly on the essential goodness of man. Rosseau himself described this as the ‘best and most important of all his writings’.7 Towards the end of his life he said of Emile: ‘This book . . . is simply a treatise on the natural goodness of man, intended to show how vice and error are foreign to his constitution, invade it from outside, and imperceptibly alter it.’8 At least one poor parent tried bringing up a child according to Rousseau’s theories and later bitterly regretted it.9 Doubtless many others have followed since.
Indeed, it was Rousseau who came up with the idea of the ‘noble savage’ — an idea that remains popular to this day, particularly with environmentalists, and an idea that is predicated on a rejection of original sin. It should really be called the myth of the noble savage, however, since at no point in history did indigenous groups include concepts of conservation and ecology in their traditional vocabulary or behaviour.10 Rousseau’s own personal life was hardly a model of perfection. Whilst lecturing others on education, he abandoned all five of his children in infancy to an orphanage, where they most likely died. Nevertheless, Rousseau could be called the father of human optimism — at least of optimism regarding 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 all, as they say, in spite of all the evidence! Scientists too have waded in, with Steven Pinker arguing in his book The Blank Slate11 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.’12
Yet, you will scarcely get a more visceral reaction today than when you challenge an optimistic view of human nature. 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, by nature, sinful?
Enlightenment thinking hits New England
Living at the time of the Enlightenment was theologian, pastor and philosopher Jonathan Edwards. He had become well known through the publication of some of his sermons and treatises, and was a respected expositor of biblical doctrines. The doctrine of original sin had already become a source of some considerable controversy in New England at the time. Multiple sermons and tracts had been published on both sides of the argument.13
Into this controversy stepped Dr John Taylor of Norwich, England. His book was a substantial treatise. Clyde Holbrook, editor of the Yale edition of Original Sin by Jonathan Edwards, 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’.14 Taylor’s book was first published in 1738 in England, and attracted initial responses from such figures as Isaac Watts15 and John Wesley.16 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 sought to reinterpret all the key passages 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 Catechism 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.’17 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’.18 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 amazing 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.
Enter Jonathan Edwards
It was this controversy that prompted Jonathan Edwards to write a substantial treatise on the doctrine of original sin. It proved to be his last treatise, and one of his most important. It is certainly a treatise that remains highly relevant today.
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 Resolutions19 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 endeavour to obtain for myself as much happiness, in the other world, as I possibly can, with all the power, might, vigour, 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 subsequently had 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.20
The Great Awakening brought the fires of revival to his ministry, and Edwards 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 again, he published Some Thoughts Concerning the Revival in which he defended what 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 affected by the works of revival, and preached and ministered to see people 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 aged twenty-nine in 1747 of tuberculosis. 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, David Livingstone, Andrew Murray, and Jim Elliot.21
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 the church in the small frontier town of Stockbridge, where he pastored 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.
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.’22
This book is one of those ‘great discourses’. It is worthy of careful attention and its message continues to be relevant today.
Jonathan Edwards’ motivation for writing
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 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 to the book, 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.’23
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.
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’.24 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.’25
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, as that which Dr Taylor has published against the doctrine of original sin.’26
He said he saw ‘the doctrine as of great importance; which everybody will doubtless own if it is true’.27
George Marsden notes: ‘Edwards’ genius was to show how his core theological views were intellectually viable in the Enlightenment era.’28 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’.29 Out of the fruit of 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 multiple 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 this 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 focusses 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.
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 focussing 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.30 Or like saying a spouse is faithful if they only commit adultery a few times and are faithful many more times.31 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.32
The second point is harder to establish and more offensive to modern sensibilities as appearing 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.33 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’.34
While this may seem an unusual and counterintuitive view, it is, as Stephen Holmes notes, ‘an inescapable result of basic metaphysical commitments’.35 Indeed, Walter Schultz has shown that continuous creationism is a logical consequence of Edwards’ arguments in The End for Which God Created the World.36
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 with the example of an acorn turning into an oak tree.37 They have a unity through time because God set it up that way even though there will probably be no common atoms through time. 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’.38 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’,39 though 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.’40
In other words, Christians are not obliged 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 does 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 significance of Edwards’ book
Edwards’s treatise is widely regarded as perhaps the best defence of the doctrine of original sin ever written. Original sin is a 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.
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.’41
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.’42
Novelist Marilynne Robinson has recounted that it was when reading one of Jonathan Edwards’ footnotes43 in this book 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.’44
I myself first read Original Sin 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 a detailed analytical outline 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 26 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.
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 and his compelling defence of this doctrine?
Tim Dieppe wrote an introduction and outline analysis of Jonathan Edwards’s Original Sin, published by Ezra Press with the full text of the book: Jonathan Edwards, The Great Christian Doctrine of Original Sin, Ezra Press, 2023.
ISBN 978-1989169261.
Bibliography
Chesterton, G K. Othodoxy. Looe, Cornwall: House of Stratus, 2001.
Crisp, Oliver D. Jonathan Edwards among the Theologians. Gramd Rapids, Michigan. 2015.
Davis, Barney. “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.
Dawkins, Richard, ‘Religion Is Still Evil’. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaRVzooavRI [Premiered 14 January 2024, Accessed 14 February 2024].
Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press 1999.
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. Cited in footnotes as WJE3.
Hazell, Will. “Katharine Birbalsingh: England’s ‘Strictest Headteacher’ Regrets Saying Children Have ‘Original Sin’.” (2021). Published electronically 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, 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.
Pinker, Stephen. The Blank Slate. Penguin, 2003.
Piper, John. God’s Passion for His Glory. Leicester: InterVarsity Press, 1998.
Provan, Iain. Convenient Myths: The Axial Age, Dark Green Religion, and the World That Never Was. Waco, Texas: Baylor University Press, 2013.
Robinson, Marilynne. ‘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.
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. The Confessions. Trans. J.M. Cohen. Penguin, 1953.
Schultz, Wa;lter J. Jonathan Edwards’ Concerning the End for Which God Created the World: Exposition, Analysis, and Philosophical Implications. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2020.
_____________. ‘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. Lanham, Maryland: 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.
Watts, Isaac. The Ruin and Recovery of Mankind. London: James Brackstone, 1740.
Wesley, John. The Doctrine of Original Sin According to Scripture, Reason and Experience. Bristol: E. Farley, 1757.
#