Edwardsean Theology, Part 5: Speaking to Frogs? Man as a Responsible Agent

I was conversing with a good friend during the last few days, contemplating together the content of my last post. He stated rather profoundly that Edwards, “Wasn’t telling frogs to get saved!” (paraphrase) This statement came in the context of Man as a responsible agent. Much of Edwards motivation in Anthropology was to undeniably assert that Man had a moral responsibility to God and was required to fulfill it. Man, however, is in every way unable to do so. Man is a responsible moral agent: preaching the gospel to a member of the human race is different than preaching it to a frog! Edwards defense against mediate imputation is that original sin is the cause of Man’s moral corruption: hence, man’s evil inclinations are produced. As I previously stated, man’s guilt is not based on acts, but upon essence: unregenerate Man is guilty because of what he is. These teachings do not contradict the idea of Man as a free and responsible agent. (If we deny this, then we really would be preaching to frogs!) Edwards principle of dichotomist ability was his way of making each man personally responsible for his sin. Man’s natural abilities gave him a choice – his spiritual principles (i.e. corrupted morality) informs those choices and determines them (inevitably, wrong choices). Hence, Man is free as well as responsible. Edwards was very strict concerning Man’s condition. He states: “They [unregenerate men] are totally corrupt, in every part, in al their faculties … Their heads, their hearts, are totally depraved; all the members of their bodies are only instruments of sin; and all their senses, seeing, hearing, tasting, etc. are only inlets and outlets of sin, channels of corruption (Discourse IV: “The Justice of God in the Damnation of Sinners,” Works, I:670).” To Edwards, Man is indeed without an excuse (see more in his Works, I:676). To Edwards, Man’s inability (technically speaking) is linked to his unwillingness, not his inability. Man, in his constitution, is a moral being, as well as a responsible agent. Very simply, that is how mankind was created! As a Calvinist, I do not contest the idea that Man is a free and moral and responsible agent. To say otherwise is to contest the very way in which Man is created. We, like Edwards must recognize that despite the utter depravity and inability of Man, He is still a responsible agent, balking against the claims of the Creator. Let us remember this when we preach/teach/converse with others, that we are not speaking to frogs!