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

CCEL ^ | 1754 | Jonathan Edwards

[xzins]

Any way I could get you to explain your rant that explained Edwards' rant? :>)

[CCWoody]

"Having taken notice of those things which may be necessary to be observed, concerning the meaning of the principal terms and phrases made use of in controversies concerning human liberty, and particularly observed what Liberty is according to the common language and general apprehension of mankind, and what it is as understood and maintained by Arminians; I proceed to consider the Arminian notion of the Freedom of the Will, and the supposed necessity of it in order to moral agency, or in order to any one's being capable of virtue or vice, and properly the subject of command or counsel, praise or blame, promises or threatenings, rewards or punishments; or whether that which has been described, as the thing meant by Liberty in common speech, be not sufficient, and the only Liberty, which make, or can make any one a moral agent, and so properly the subject of these things." ~ Jonathan Edwards

Here is the core portion of the sentence: "I proceed to consider the Arminian notion of the Freedom of the Will."

Woody.

[Corin Stormhands]

You may consider that the "or be quiet" part applies to you Woody.

Continue with your Bible study preparations. I was talking to A.J.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

OK Einstein. Why don't you explain, or translate, or paraphrase, or whatever, the first sentence of Mr. Edward's rant so that us stupid people can understand it.

(sigh!) Marlowe, stupid people by definition, CAN'T understand. i seriously doubt that you are one of them. Frankly, the sentences in the New Testament Greek are far more complicated than the Edwards excerpt that you posted earlier, yet it can be diagrammed. The Edwards Excerpt can be as well. While it might look as if it is the engineering drawings of the Starship Enterprise (NCC-1701E), it can be done. i had to diagram similar statements in Eighth Grade English (Spit!) classes.

Keep in mind that the language has changed Substantially since the Mid 18th Century, yet would have been perfectly comprehensible to somebody from that era. You are aware that there were no distractions from Radio, television, internet or even daily printed media for the great majourity of the people.

[A.J.Armitage]

Yes, act of will and act of volition are the same thing. In fact, "act of will" makes the point even clearer.

Now, for libertarian free will to be true, the will's act in causing your legs to carry you to the kitchen cannot have been caused by something other than the will. That is, your will, by an act of will, caused itself to move your legs by an act of will. If act of will moving the feet was caused by something from outside the will, the desires of the heart (like we Calvinists claim) or genes or social conditioning or what have you, by definition we'd have determinism.

Understand so far?

[P-Marlowe]

I saw the important things to observe about the main terms and phrases used in the free will debate, especially what the ordinary usage of them is and what the Arminian usage is; then I considered the Arminian conception of free will and the supposed necessity of it for moral responsibility to exist, or whether the ordinary usage of "free will" is a better, or the only, justification for moral responsibility

Nice try AJ, but your translation needs another editing. The more I read of Mr. Edward's rant against Arminianism the more likely I am to conclude that it makes no sense because there's no sense there to make.

His sermons in which he sounds like an Arminian are much more clear and in need of no translation or paraphrasing. In the above essay I believe the he really had no idea what he was saying, and your paraphrase does nothing to clarify the matter.

But it was a nice try. Do you want to try in in English this next time?

[A.J.Armitage]

I've already simplified it for you significantly. At some point you've just got to apply yourself.

[Corin Stormhands]

If act of will moving the feet was caused by something from outside the will, the desires of the heart (like we Calvinists claim) or genes or social conditioning or what have you, by definition we'd have determinism.

Your analogy falls apart if I have to go to the kitchen to answer the phone. I didn't want to get up.

[P-Marlowe]

(sigh!) Marlowe, stupid people by definition, CAN'T understand.

If stupid people can't understand it, then it is not worth understanding. 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? "Here, take this IQ test. If you score above 120, then you are clearly a chosen person."

Literary Genius is the ability to convey a profound message to an unsophisticated audience. Jesus is the prime example. Jesus did not speak in long run-on sentences. He spoke so that a child could understand, and yet his thoughts conveyed a message that cannot be contained in all the books in the world.

The Gospel message is simple. It is clear. One does not need run on sentences to explain it. Indeed, when Edwards is preaching a straight (Choose Christ) gospel message, he is easily understood. But when he attempts to disprove that which is not capable of being disproven as is shown above, then he comes off sounding like a man speaking in other tounges. And where there is no one around to interpret, that man ought to keep silent.

[connectthedots]

Here is the web site for Gerald's son-in-law Kurt Salerno's ministry, Church on the Street and his his wife, Lori Salerno's ministry Celebrate Life International

Both Lori and Kurt are being mightily used by God to reach the lost.

Gerald's older son Jerry is senior pastor of Columbia Community Church in Richland, WA and is being used by God there with his wife and three children.

They were all raised in a Church of God (Anderson, IN) pastor's home; certainly not Calvinistic by any stretch of the imagination.

[xzins]

I understand the point but I have trouble with it. We'll go back to this.

Go on for now.

[connectthedots]

Do you think A.J. could explain how the story of the rich young ruler fits in with total depravity or any other tenet of swarm Calvinism. Seems to me that the rich young ruler is a strong argument for free will. Then there is the scripture that talks about a man can either be born twice and die once or be born once and die twice, with the individual having the choice.

[Calvinist_Dark_Lord]

Still trying for a flame bait post/thread removal tactic i see, forget it, not going to work, so get over it.

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

Non Sequitur. Nuclear Physics can't be understood by stupid people, yet i seriously doubt that you would dispute it's importance and inherent worth.

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? "Here, take this IQ test. If you score above 120, then you are clearly a chosen person."

So, the entire population of the world has been IQ tested? If so, by what measure, Stanford-Benet, Guilfoil 120? Second: you have set an invalid condition. You don't know who God has made His Gospel for, aside for the corporate term "The Elect". If the conditional clause is invalid, the conclusion is nonsense.

Literary Genius is the ability to convey a profound message to an unsophisticated audience. Jesus is the prime example. Jesus did not speak in long run-on sentences. He spoke so that a child could understand, and yet his thoughts conveyed a message that cannot be contained in all the books in the world.

You have set up another straw man conditional. Who told you that Edwards didn't convey his message to the masses? In light of the vast amount of reading over the ages, i would strongly suggest that his message was assimilated and comprehended...even by those with public school education.

The Gospel message is simple. It is clear. One does not need run on sentences to explain it.

You've obviously never read New testament Greek, LOL. The Gospels are FULL of what you call "run-on sentences". That is simply the nature of the language. As was the nature of Mid 18th Century English (Spit!)

Indeed, when Edwards is preaching a straight (Choose Christ) gospel message, he is easily understood. But when he attempts to disprove that which is not capable of being disproven as is shown above, then he comes off sounding like a man speaking in other tounges. And where there is no one around to interpret, that man ought to keep silent.

So, on the basis of mere exerpts of sermons that Edwards preached, you are making a general conclusion about The validity of Edwards' Theology, and absolving yourself from the necessity of considering his arguments. Not a bad gig if you can get it, but not intellectually or Spiritually honest either.

[SoliDeoGloria]

Your analogy falls apart if I have to go to the kitchen to answer the phone. I didn't want to get up. - Corin Stormhands

Opponents to Edwards' determinism respond as follows. First, defining free choice as "doing what one desires" is contrary to experience. For people do not always do what they desire, nor do they always desire to do what they do - Norman Geisler (From post #25)

I suggest you read Part I of Edward's treatise. When the phone rang, you had two desires: to remain seated, and to answer the phone. Your preference was to answer the phone. Therefore, your will acted in following your strongest inclination. If remaining seated had been your preference, you wouldn't have gotten up.

In every decision of the Will, the strongest desire is always followed. That was Edwards point in Part I. Here is a short excerpt:

...in every act of will there is an act of choice; that in every volition there is a preference, or a prevailing inclination of the soul, whereby, at that instant, is out of a state of perfect indifference, with respect to the direct object of the volition. So that in every act, or going forth of the will, there is some preponderation of the mind, one way rather than another. And the soul had rather have or do one thing, than another, or than not to have or do that thing; and that where there is absolutely no preferring or choosing, but a perfect continuing equilibrium, there is no volition. - Jonathan Edwards, Freedom of the Will, Part I, Section I, "Concerning the nature of the will"

[Corin Stormhands]

I would contend that I had to answer the phone, being that I was expecting the wife to call with a report about her mother's surgery. I willed none of that to happen.

That said, my reading list is long enough. I'm not inclined to read more from Edwards...at this time.

[connectthedots]

Still trying for a flame bait post/thread removal tactic i see, forget it, not going to work, so get over it.

I don't think any non-Calvinist wants this thread pulled. this is going to be fun by the time it's over.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I did not say that the will is not free. But as with all freedoms, it has its limitations. Being able to accept or reject the Gospel of Christ is not one of those limitations. God grants sufficient grace to men to make a knowing decision and allows them the free will to do it. It does not diminish God's sovereignty if he sovereignly grants to men that ability. He gives men the ability to do lots of things. How does that subtract from his sovereignty?

You can claim that God gives men the grace to make a "knowing decision" (although your claim is in conflict with Scripture, which declares: "1 Corinthians 2: 14 -- But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised."). You can claim that Man has a free will for the making of decisions (no objection from this corner).

All of which does the Arminian System not a bit of good, as the Bible remains ADAMANT that so long as a Man remains Spiritually Dead, that Man will always Reject God (Romans 8:5-8) -- for he still hates God, and so rejecting God is what he wants to do.

As long as a Man remains Spiritually Dead, he will always reject God. This is the nature of Spiritual Death, according to the Bible.

Now, I have a question: it seems to me that the Arminians think it fundamentally "unfair" that Scripture commands all men everywhere to Repent, when at the same time Scripture teaches us that no man ever will Repent unless he is first Regenerated by the Holy Spirit. So here is my question:

• God commands all men everywhere to obey the Law of God perfectly. Yet even the Arminian will admit that NO man who comes into the world in an Unregenerate state (which is all men except Jesus) will ever obey the Law of God perfectly -- Unregenerate Men are 100% certain to commit Sin, and indeed they enter the world with one Sin (Original Sin) already upon their account! Yet the Arminian does not think it "unfair" that God commands all men everywhere to obey the Law of God perfectly -- even though He knows that, being Unregenerate, they will not!!

• So if God is not "unfair" to command all men everywhere to obey the Law of God perfectly -- even though He knows that, being Spiritually Dead, they will not obey; why, then, do Arminians consider it "unfair" of God to command all men everywhere to Believe on Jesus and Repent unto Him -- even though He knows that, while they remain Spiritually Dead, they certainly will not Believe and Repent??

Anybody have an answer for me?

[CCWoody]

***You have set up another straw man conditional. Who told you that Edwards didn't convey his message to the masses? In light of the vast amount of reading over the ages, i would strongly suggest that his message was assimilated and comprehended...even by those with public school education.***

I read Edwards in High School. I hated it, and him, but had no problem understanding what I read. That's one reason I hated it, and him. Of course, I was an Arminian back then. I had good reason to hate Edwards and make up any stupid excuse to discount it, and him.

Eventually I grew up. Now, like thoughtful men everywhere, I consider him America's greatest preacher and read his stuff frequently. It is vastly more satisfying than the sour milk preached from most modern day pulpits.

Woody.

[nobdysfool]

Opponents to Edwards' determinism respond as follows. First, defining free choice as "doing what one desires" is contrary to experience. For people do not always do what they desire, nor do they always desire to do what they do - Norman Geisler (From post #25)

People do not always do what their primary desire is, but it is usually for reasons of consequences.

In that case the secondary desire is to avoid the consequences of choosing the first desire, so they act in accordance with the desire that will cause the least pain and therefore relatively more pleasure.

Human desire can be summed up as pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain. Where the primary desire might bring great pleasure, it also may bring gret pain, due to consequences.

To say that one does not always do what one desires is to ignore the reason for not choosing that desire, even though it is wanted. That reason is in itself a desire.

Therefore the will is always predicated on desire.

[A.J.Armitage]

I don't think I understand the relevance of Corin's objection. Since they don't put implants in your brain making you get up whenever the phone rings, you yourself clearly have an act of will to do it. You seem to be objecting to the soft determinist (Calvinist in this context, although there are soft determinists who aren't Christian) case that the desires rather than the will cause choices, but this is off topic from Edwards' argument, which is an examination of libertarian free will. So I'll just note that a soft determinist would answer that you desire to listen to the phone keep ringing and/or miss a potentially important call even less than you desire to get up and answer it.

So, back to the argument. We have, first of all, what you can call the first level act of will, to make your legs carry you to the kitchen, and we've seen that for libertarian free will to be true, this first level act of will must not be caused by anything outside the will. So it's caused by the will itself, and when the will causes something, by definition we have an act of will. So you could call it a second level act of will. Now the question is, where does the second level act of will come from? If it's caused from outside the will, we get some form of determinism. I suppose you could posit that it has no cause, but then you'd both give it a traditional title of God (the Uncaused Cause), and abandon libertarian free will, since it would mean people act on random urges that have no connection to anything you could call a "self" or a "character" (it's not clear either term would make sense anymore) and which we are powerless to resist. In other words, you'd have hard determinism.

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.

Since you yourself had a beginning, and your choice to go to the kitchen an even more recent one (when the phone rang, for instance), you haven't had time for an infinite number of acts of will. One of the acts of will was the initial link in the chain. Where did this first one come from? A choice made by the will? Ah, but this contradicts the idea of the initial act of will being initial, since a choice made by the will is the definition of what an act of will is. But you need a source within the will to have libertarian free will. Ruinously for the libertarian free will position, any attempt to find one either contradicts the idea of an initial act of will, or abandons it altogether for the infinite regression. In order for the chain to get started, then, something must have given the will direction from outside.

And now I've given you the argument as best I can (I've expanded it a little from Edwards' version too), so have at it.