region of motives though his action was not seen. Freedom of the Will, 161 ? ?It was fitting that the transaction should so take place that it might not appear to be from God as the apparent fountain.? Yet ?God may actually in his providence so dispose and permit things that the event may be certainly and infallibly connected with such disposal and permission?; see Allen, Jonathan Edwards, 304. Encyclopedia Britannica, 7:690 ? ?According to Edwards, Adam had two principles, natural and supernatural. When Adam sinned, the supernatural or divine principle was withdrawn from him and thus his nature became corrupt without God infusing any evil thing into it. His posterity came into being entirely under the government of natural and inferior principles. But this solves the difficulty of making God the author of sin only at the expense of denying to sin any real existence and also destroys Edwards?s essential distinction between natural and moral ability.? Edwards on Trinity, Fisher?s edition, 44 ? ?The sun does not cause darkness and cold, when these follow infallibly upon the withdrawal of his beams. God?s disposing the result is not a positive exertion on his part.? Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, 2:50 ? ?God did not withdraw the common supporting grace of his Spirit from Adam until after transgression.? To us Adam?s act was irrational but not impossible; to a determinist like Edwards, who held that men simply act out their characters, Adam?s act should have been not only irrational but also impossible. Edwards nowhere shows how, according to his principles, a holy being could possibly fall.

Pfleiderer, Grundriss, 123 ? ?The account of the fall is the first appearance of an already existing sinfulness and a typical example of the way in which every individual becomes sinful. Original sin is simply the universality and originality of sin. There is no such thing as indetermination. The will can lift itself from natural non-freedom, the non- freedom of the natural impulses, to real spiritual freedom, only by distinguishing it from the law which sets before it its true end of being. The Opposition of nature to the law reveals an original nature power, which precedes all free self-determination. Sin is the evil bent of lawless self-willed selfishness.? Pfleiderer appears to make this sinfulness concreated and guiltless because it proceeds from God. Hill, Genetic Philosophy, 288 ? ?The wide discrepancy between precept and practice gives rise to the theological conception of sin, which, in low types of religion, is as often a violation of some trivial prescription as it is of an ethical principle. The presence of sin, contrasted with a state of innocence, occasions the idea of a fall, or lapse from a sinless condition. This is not incompatible with man?s derivation from an animal ancestry, which prior to the rise of self-consciousness may be regarded as having been in a state

<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->

Was this article helpful?

0 0

Post a comment