Freedom of the Will by Jonathan Edwards (available from Amazon or free here) - Continue Part IV by reading Section V to VIII.
Today we continue to witness Edwards answering objections from Arminians.
Section V answers the objection that if we are controlled by God in all we do then we are simply a machine and without virtue: 'As to that objection against the doctrine, which I have endeavoured to prove, that it makes men no more than mere machines; I would say, that notwithstanding this doctrine, man is entirely, perfectly, and unspeakably different from a mere machine, in that he has reason and understanding, and has a faculty of will, and is so capable of volition and choice; and in that his will is guided by the dictates or views of his understanding; and in that his external actions and behavior, and in many respects also his thoughts, and the exercises of his mind, are subject to his will; so that he has liberty to act according to his choice, and do what he pleases; and, by means of these things, is capable of moral habits and moral acts, such inclinations and actions, as, according to the common sense of mankind, are worthy of praise, esteem, love, and reward; or, on the contrary, of disesteem, detestation, indignation, and punishment.'
Section VI is a brief section defending the accusation that Calvinists are Stoics because they believe in Fate.
Section VII is a defense of the necessity of the divine will. The Arminian argues that Calvinists makes Fate rule God. Edwards says that 'It is no disadvantage or dishonour to a being, necessarily to act in the most excellent and happy manner, from the necessary perfection of his own nature. This argues no imperfection, inferiority, or dependence, nor any want of dignity, privilege, or ascendancy. It is not inconsistent with the absolute and most perfect sovereignty of God.'
Finally, Section VIII continues to defend the moral necessity of God by pointing out that there are differences in every choice that God makes. He is never faced, as the Arminians would like to suppose, with various objects of choice.
Today I loved how he threw the accusation that Calvinists are Stoics back in the face of the Arminians: 'And it is very remarkable, concerning Dr Whitby, that although he alleges the agreement of the Stoics with us, wherein he supposes they maintained the like doctrine with us, as an argument against the truth of our doctrine; yet this very Dr Whitby alleges the agreement of the Stoics with the Arminians, wherein he supposes they taught the same doctrine with them, as an argument for the truth of their doctrine. So that, when the Stoics agree with them, this (it seems) is a confirmation of their doctrine, and a confutation of ours, as showing that our opinions are contrary to the natural sense and common reason of mankind: nevertheless, when the Stoics agree with us, it argues no such thing in our favour; but, on the contrary, is a great argument against, us, and shows our doctrine to be heathenish. It is observed by some Calvinistic writers, that the Arminians symbolize with the Stoics in some of those doctrines wherein they are opposed by the Calvinists; particularly in their denying an original, innate, total corruption and depravity of heart; and in what they held of man’s ability to make himself truly virtuous and conformed to God; and in some other doctrines.'
All very well for Arminians to call us Stoics when we have a similarity in doctrine, but they should be honest and call themselves Stoics where they teach similar doctrine to the Stoics, particularly the inherent goodness of man.
Continue Part IV by reading Section IX to XI.
Please post your own notes and thoughts in the comments section below.
No comments:
Post a Comment