On the Freedom of the Will: Part II: Section I (Refuting Arminian Free-Willism)

CCEL ^ | 1754 | Jonathan Edwards

[Corin Stormhands]

Anybody have an answer for me?

First you have to show us where any of us said it was unfair.

[Alamo-Girl]

Er, if I may, I’d like to unravel the essay (at least as I understand it on first blush). I would sum it up as follows:

Everything is the effect of a cause and thus everything stems from a first cause, ergo there is no free will.

This is very similar to the concept of ‘strong determinism’ in science. Stephen Wolfram suggests that cellular automata is the unfolding mechanism in A New Kind of Science. Stephen Pinker suggests the concept of free will (and the soul) is only an epiphenomenon of the physical brain. He has written two books – one which attempts to debunk the “ghost in the machine” How the Mind Works and The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature.

Of course, these views are based on scientific materialism and metaphysical naturalism (atheism) and would not recognize God as the First Cause. Then again, such science avoids the fact of a beginning altogether.

My counter-argument to these assertions on the science threads, is that algorithm at inception is proof of intelligent design. IOW, if the scientific materialist or metaphysical naturalist wishes to believe that the physical realm is ”all that there is” and it is all strongly determined – atheism nevertheless fails on the fact of initial conditions, that there was a beginning (an informed beginning at that!).

Of course, on this forum, noone is arguing for scientific materialism or atheism – but those who favor strong determinism may wish to be aware of the meaning on the “outside”.

BTW, I agree that it is most helpful when concepts are plainly spoken.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

...I had good reason to hate Edwards and make up any stupid excuse to discount it, and him.

Now this sounds real familiar for some reason...where have i heard this before...Oh yeah, silly me, right here in some of these posts.

Ya suppose that this might be closely related to the level of maturity that we've seen recently?

[Corin Stormhands]

So, if you want to have libertarian free will, the second level act of will must itself be chosen by the will; we now have a third level act of will. Obviously, the same analysis applies to the third level act of will, and any more you might add. The acts of will go back in an infinite regression.

But what does any of this have to do with the price of matches in Geneva?

It appears to me to be just one more of those silly games of "logic" a couple of swarm members like to play. Games they say "prove their point" when they're so totally off base they make no sense.

And I'm sure they're all off on their private email lists having a jolly old laugh about ol' Corin not getting it (they've told me that's what they do).

But the fact is, ain't really nothin' here to get.

[SoliDeoGloria]

Concerning Norman's lack of understanding Edwards, I addressed his first critique in post #74. Here's the rest:

Second, Edwards also misunderstands self-determinism as free acts caused by other free acts. Rather, it means simply that a self can cause something else to happen. That is, a free agent can cause a free action without that free action needing another cause ad infinitum.

I can only assume one of two things: either Norm didn't comprehend Edward's argument that all choices are based on previous inclinations, in which case we should all simply ignore his refutation; or Norm is explicitly rejecting such an obvious truth, and instead suggesting that a "free agent" can cause a "free action" without any previous desire or inclination to do so. If this is the case, then Norm is equating man with the creator in his ability to to create ex nihilo. How else can one make choices with neither motivation nor circumstance? Heck, I don't think even the Armenians here on FR would go so far.

Third, Edwards has a faulty, mechanistic view of human personhood. He likens human free choice to balancing scales in need of more pressure in order to tip the scales one way or the other. But humans are not machines; they are persons made in the image of God

This type of an argument is actually quite less than I've come to expect from Geisler. Edward's asserts that all choices are made by weighing desires and following the strongest inclination. Norman responds by calling that "mechanistic", and says people are "made in the image of God". How exactly do either of those refute Edward's argument? I'll defend Edwards by simply calling Norman's arguments irrational, and point out that Edward's assertions concerning the will must be true since people are made in the image of God.

Even the Calvinistic Westminster Confession of Faith declares that...

There's no sense in misrepresenting the Confession, Norm... Here's a link to the Confession's chapter: "On Free Will"

Time for bed...

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

First you have to show us where any of us said it was unfair.

Alright, then, just so I'm clear:

The Arminians do affirm that: It IS NOT "unfair" of God to command all men everywhere to Believe on Jesus and Repent unto Him -- even if He knows that, while they remain Spiritually Dead, they certainly will not Believe and Repent.

True, or False?

[CCWoody]

Everything is the effect of a cause and thus everything stems from a first cause, ergo there is no free will.

***My counter-argument to these assertions on the science threads, is that algorithm at inception is proof of intelligent design. IOW, if the scientific materialist or metaphysical naturalist wishes to believe that the physical realm is ”all that there is” and it is all strongly determined – atheism nevertheless fails on the fact of initial conditions, that there was a beginning (an informed beginning at that!).***

That is not a counter argument to Edward's assertion. The first cause would be God. It is absurdly easy to demonstrate as well.

My problem with this whole line of discussion about the will is that it doesn't even address the fact that the will is not the determiner of man's eternal destination. His nature is. See John 3 for starters.

Woody.

[Corin Stormhands]

O.P., do you really give me so little credit? I'm not buying your house for a dollar either.

Good nite.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

O.P., do you really give me so little credit? I'm not buying your house for a dollar either. Good nite.

Hey, I was just asking.

"Don't be so thin skinned".

Good night.

[A.J.Armitage]

If stupid people can't understand it, then it is not worth understanding.

I'm too stupid to understand the mathematics of rocketry. Since our civilization now depends on communication satellites, I'd say it's highly worthwhile for some of those who can to understand it.

Because at least half the population of the world has an IQ of less than 100. And if God made his gospel only for the intelligent to understand, then I suppose a sure sign of election would be an IQ over 120, eh?

In the first place, no one ever said you have to be a subtle theologian to be saved (but the Apostle John did say you have to be orthodox, or rather, if you are saved orthodoxy naturally follows -- 2 John 1:9). Nor does anyone serious say you have to be a Calvinist.

Neither Calvinism nor basic orthodoxy requires any sophisticated thinking, just, "The bible says it, that settles it." (Notice I left out the part about "I believe it".) But if you want to go deeper you can, and some, elders, are positively required to by their position.

[SoliDeoGloria]

Excellently stated, nobdysfool.

Here is one of my favorite Blaise Pascal quotes:

“All men seek happiness. This is without exception. Whatever different means they employ, they all tend to this end. The cause of some going to war, and of others avoiding it, is the same desire in both, attended with different views. The will never takes the least step but to this object. This is the motive of every action of every man, even of those who hang themselves." (Pascal, p.113, quoted in Desiring God , p.173)

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

My counter-argument is for a science discussion, where the participants may be scientific materialists or atheists ... it is not for a theological discussion (such as to defend or debunk Edwards). Seems to me that people who do battle on the details of theology are already believers and do not need that line of argument. I just thought it might be helpful to anyone discussing the same issues on the general forum...

[reflecting]

Jumping in - I will respond by saying the strict Calvinism does not paint God as unfair it paints Him unloving. It is contrary to the His declared and revealed nature. It is the saddest of false doctrines to me and of late have been wondering what set of variables inclines one to embrace Calvinism.

[Vernon]

Frankly, the sentences in the New Testament Greek are far more complicated...

Yeah, you have that exactly right, and the Greek destroys the Calvinistic...(heresy? apostasy?) o.k., you choose the term, and it is anything but Biblical!

[xzins]

Thank you, AG.

Your summary is the most concise I've seen so far.

Since everything stems from a first cause that means there is no free will doesn't explain for me God's decision to grant free will.

God chose to make a rock, a duck, a tree, and a "free will" in man. My sense is that He made it properly.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Jumping in - I will respond by saying the strict Calvinism does not paint God as unfair it paints Him unloving. It is contrary to the His declared and revealed nature. It is the saddest of false doctrines to me and of late have been wondering what set of variables inclines one to embrace Calvinism.

Why do you say that Calvinism paints God as being unloving?

And when you give your answer, consider this: According to the Bible, All men sinned in Adam and earned for themselves Spiritual Death and Eternal Damnation (Romans 3:10-12,23; Romans 5:12-14). And the nature of Spiritual Death is precisely this: that while a man remains Spiritually Dead, he will always reject God (Romans 8:5-8).

Given, then, that ALL Fallen Men deserve Hell; and that NO Fallen Man would ever accept Jesus without first being Regenerated by the Holy Spirit; is God not perfectly Just to damn whomsoever He pleases, and perfectly Loving to grant Spiritual Life to whomsoever He pleases?

Thoughts?

[Vernon]

Everything is the effect of a cause and thus everything stems from a first cause, ergo there is no free will.

Hmmmm...very mechanistic world isn't it? Kinda like a clock...or maybe a puppet?

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

Yeah, you have that exactly right, and the Greek destroys the Calvinistic...(heresy? apostasy?) o.k., you choose the term, and it is anything but Biblical!

So, are you ready to discuss your assertons concerning Acts 13:48 yet, or are you just here for more unsubstantiated assertions of dubious validity and value?

[A.J.Armitage]

In the first place, I was asked to re-present Edwards' argument, which is why I did.

In the second place, a game or not, unless the premises are false or the logical fallacious, the results of logic are infallibly true. So if you want to refute it, aim at the premises or the form the argument took, not at "silly games of logic". Otherwise you'll look like a snakehandling hick.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply!

Oh, I certainly agree that we have free will. I was just trying to restate the essay as succinctly as possible.

I also agree that were are predestined. From God's view - outside of space/time - He sees the story all at once. From our view - inside of space/time - we see it one frame at a time.

It may sound like a contradiction that I say both statements are true. It is not, though. A more thorough explanation is in my post 34 on another thread.