Did Jonathan Edwards apparently misunderstand Jesus' point in John 8:23? In the sermon titled "Sinners in the hands of an angry God" Jonathan Edwards says that sinful man deserves judgement (certainly), has been condemned by God in the law (that's true), then he says this as well: > So that every unconverted man properly belongs to hell; that is his place; from thence he is, John 8:23. “Ye are from beneath,” In John 8:23 it seems like Jesus' point is not that "you are from beneath, hell where you are punished for your sins" but rather "you are from beneath, earth where your minds are set on physical things rather than spiritual things". **Is there any possible explanation for this other than "Mr. Edwards was wrong"?** --------- Sources to find the full text of the sermon: - [Blue Letter Bible](https://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/edwards_jonathan/Sermons/Sinners.cfm) - Jonathan Edwards Center at Yale University: - [Introduction](http://edwards.yale.edu/archive?path=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZHMueWFsZS5lZHUvY2dpLWJpbi9uZXdwaGlsby9nZXRvYmplY3QucGw/Yy4yMTo0Ni53amVv) - [Facsimile](https://collections.library.yale.edu/catalog/2011583) - [Transcription](http://edwards.yale.edu/archive?path=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZHMueWFsZS5lZHUvY2dpLWJpbi9uZXdwaGlsby9nZXRvYmplY3QucGw/Yy4yMTo0OC53amVv) - [Edited transcript](http://edwards.yale.edu/archive?path=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZHMueWFsZS5lZHUvY2dpLWJpbi9uZXdwaGlsby9nZXRvYmplY3QucGw/Yy4yMTo0Ny53amVv)

What did Edwards mean when he penned the subject line of a sermon he preached in 1752: "No such experiences as the devils in hell are the subjects of are any sure sign of grace." I'm trying to unravel the point he was making in this sentence. ------ (Research added by @GratefulDisciple; many thanks to @depperm [who helped us discover](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/102722/10672) the Yale WJE Online archive) According to [WJE Vol. 25 Appendix pages](http://edwards.yale.edu/archive?path=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZHMueWFsZS5lZHUvY2dpLWJpbi9uZXdwaGlsby9nZXRvYmplY3QucGw/Yy4yNDozOS53amVv) listing dated and undated sermons: > *James 2:19(b)*. "No such experiences as the devils in hell are the subjects of are any sure sign of grace." Dec. 1746. Repreached Sept. 28, 1752. New York. Published as *True Grace Distinguished from the Experience of Devils* (New York, 1753). The sermon manuscript's facsimile [can be viewed here](https://collections.library.yale.edu/catalog/10695957) (the entry from the collection itself is [here](https://findit-uat.library.yale.edu/catalog/digcoll:3888407)) , which is transcribed in WJE Vol. 25 as [*"True Grace Distinguished From the Experience of Devils"*](http://edwards.yale.edu/archive?path=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZHMueWFsZS5lZHUvY2dpLWJpbi9uZXdwaGlsby9nZXRvYmplY3QucGw/Yy4yNDozMDoxLndqZW8=) . The volume also provides a [sermon background](http://edwards.yale.edu/archive?path=aHR0cDovL2Vkd2FyZHMueWFsZS5lZHUvY2dpLWJpbi9uZXdwaGlsby9nZXRvYmplY3QucGw/Yy4yNDozMC53amVv) .

I'm trying to locate a transcript of Jonathan Edwards's sermon from August 1740 that he delivered to the children of his congregation. I have already located [a facsimile of the handwritten manuscript](https://collections.library.yale.edu/pdfs/10719295.pdf) but it is fairly illegible and I don't want to have to buy the entire volume 22 of Jonathan Edwards' works in which the sermon transcript is located.

[Jonathan Edwards](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Edwards_(theologian)) (1703–1758) was a major 18th century theologian who, though rooted in Reformed theology, innovated in some important ways. According to J. V. Fesko, in *The Theology of the Westminster Standards* (chapter 4), one of these areas was Edwards's belief in *philosophical necessity*, which Fesko explains: > Nothing, according to Edwards, can occur without a cause, and there is a "fixed connection" between cause and effect. For Edwards, if everything has a cause, there can be no contingency in the world. For him, contingency means that something has no cause. Thus, says Fesko, Edwards denies the idea of *contingency*. But this seems to deviate from the [Westminster Confession of Faith, 3.1](https://www.opc.org/wcf.html#Chapter_03) : > God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; **nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.** Fesko mentions one author, William Cunningham, who "argued that Edwards's views were compatible with the teaching of the Reformers and the Westminster Standards." But Fesko lays out the case against compatibility in more detail, and concludes that "the Confession does not teach philosophical determinism (or necessity) and does affirm contingency." I don't believe that Edwards subscribed to the Westminster Confession, so a lack of compatibility isn't necessarily surprising. But I'd like to better understand how Edwards's view differs from that of the Westminster Confession, and how, in the eyes of some, they can be reconciled.

In _A Dissertation Concerning the End for which God Created the World_, John Edwards makes the following statement, >Because it is evident, by both Scripture and reason, that God is infinitely, eternally, unchangeably, and independently glorious and happy: that he cannot be profited by, or receive anything from, the creature; or be the subject of any sufferings, or diminution of his glory and felicity, from any other being. It is however _not_ immediately evident by either Scripture or reason to me that God is infinitely and unchangably _happy_, nor that God is not subject to _any_ sufferings. In fact, numerous passages in the scriptures describe instances in which God is _angry_ or _wrathful_ and is thus unhappy, and also instances when God is _greiving_ or _sorrowful_ and is thus subjected of suffering. For me personally, the sufferings of God, especially the contrast between those sufferings caused in him by the Acuser, Man, and those caused in him by the ministry of Jesus, is a central theme of the narrative of redemption. How are passages that contain these themes handled by Edwards and other Reformed teachers that follow him, in the context of his statement here?

In a few places I've seen claims that [Jonathan Edwards](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Edwards_(theologian)) (1703–1758) believed in the imminence of Christ's return. For example: > [Jonathan Edwards] was convinced that the world was going to the dogs and that it was running out of time, that Jesus was going to come any minute. ([source](http://www.ligonier.org/learn/qas/are-we-living-last-days/)) And according to Bruce Shelley, Edwards thought that the US would play a significant role: > Jonathan Edwards even preached that America would be the scene of the coming millennium! ([*Church History in Plain Language*, 359](https://books.google.com/books?id=RbfVAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA359)) I'd like to know where exactly in his writings Jonathan Edwards expresses views like these – the imminent coming of Jesus (within Edwards' lifetime?) and the location/characteristics of the millennium.

I recently re-read "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" and I was struck by the pleasure Jonathan Edwards seemed to have taken in describing the imminent destruction of sinners: > The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours. You have offended him infinitely more than ever a stubborn rebel did his prince; and yet it is nothing but his hand that holds you from falling into the fire every moment. It is to be ascribed to nothing else, that you did not go to hell the last night; that you was suffered to awake again in this world, after you closed your eyes to sleep. And there is no other reason to be given, why you have not dropped into hell since you arose in the morning, but that God's hand has held you up. There is no other reason to be given why you have not gone to hell, since you have sat here in the house of God, provoking his pure eyes by your sinful wicked manner of attending his solemn worship. Yea, there is nothing else that is to be given as a reason why you do not this very moment drop down into hell. One can almost see Edwards "rubbing his hands together gleefully and cackling a little" over the plight of unbelievers. Is this attitude toward the damned common among Calvinists? Is it a necessary conclusion from their particular set of assumptions?

I recently learned from a John Piper podcast that Jonathan Edwards owned slaves . Edwards lived in the early and mid 18th century, long before the American Civil War, and passed away decades before Wilberforce would begin his abolitionist work in England.* Nevertheless, many believe that ownership of slaves seemed uncharacteristic of a man like Edwards who, in his preaching and writing, placed such an emphasis on piety and holiness. **What did Edwards have to say about his ownership of slaves? Did he ever address the issue of slavery in any of his published works?** --- \* Of course, that's simply context, and not an excuse.

Jonathan Edwards, a renowned Christian thinker and past president of Princeton University said: >So long as men are in their natural state, they not only have no good thing, but it is impossible they should have, or do any good thing. ([Jonathan Edwards \[1758\], Original Sin (Vol. 3), Ed. Clyde A. Holbrook, P280][1] ) It may seem that saying 'a man can't do good' means a man could do neutral things, but further reading of Edwards makes it clear he does not think so. By 'no good' he actually means sin, or actions springing from a sinful nature. Luther says even works from grace (let alone apart from grace) has not just 'human weakness' and 'defect' in them but 'sin in them'. Therefore, according to Luther even all the saints' works are sins in the sense that there is some evil deserving of eternal wrath in them (brackets mine): >Now, if there is such a thing as a good work without sin... God forbid! ... Why then do they [papists] condemn my article...But if they [papists] say here, as they always do, “Yes, but this impurity is not sin but rather an imperfection, or weakness, or defect,” my reply is that it is indeed a defect and a weakness, but if that is not sin I am prepared to say that murder and adultery are not sins either but only defects and weaknesses. (Works of Martin Luther, Vol 32.83) The 'Thirty Nine Articles of Religion' of the Church of England is more explicit. This article is rejected by the Roman Catholic church as heresy. More simply put I am looking for the **biblical justification of this article**: >XIII. Of Works before Justification. WORKS done before the grace of Christ and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, are not pleasant to God, forasmuch as they spring not of faith in Jesus Christ, neither do they make men meet to receive grace, or (as the School authors say) deserve grace of congruity: yea, rather for that they are not done as God hath willed and commanded them to be done, we doubt not but they have the nature of sin. As opposed to a Catholic view of grace, **what is the Protestant biblical basis for those concluding that 'all works' without grace have no real good in them? In other words, all works by unbelievers are more or less sinful, according to many in the Protestant Reformation.** --- See also the reverse question, here .