Freedom of the Will

[preacher4truth]

You've obviously never read Edwards and Luther....If you had, you'd realize that there is basically no comparison. They don't write the same, and they don't sound the same. Not at all. My critique of Edwards was merely my own opinion. You may take it or leave it. I think that Luther makes far more sense than Edwards quite frankly, and I have more appreciation for him than Edwards. Edwards contradicts himself ALL THE TIME....but Edwards usually makes a statement and then bloviates for about 400 words before he then contradicts himself...That's what he does. Luther (I don't agree with)....but he makes more sense than Edwards a lot of the time IMO.

Bloviates? Hmmm. The same accusation you leveled on Sproul with your HoS handle. Edwards writings are of a deeper level which is obviously beyond your grasp. Comparing him to Luther is foolish. All you've implied is that you can't comprehend Edwards and nothing more all the while denigrating him. Such is a commentary upon you and not upon him.

 

[Luke2427]

Bloviates? Hmmm. The same accusation you leveled on Sproul with your HoS handle. Edwards writings are of a deeper level which is obviously beyond your grasp. Comparing him to Luther is foolish. All you've implied is that you can't comprehend Edwards and nothing more all the while denigrating him. Such is a commentary upon you and not upon him.

Yea, and Luther would gladly bow to Edwards superior mind if they lived in the same day. Edwards is one of the greatest philosophers who ever lived and even ATHEISTS respect his mind.

Anyone who says that kind of nonsense that "inspector" says is simply uneducated on these matters.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Yea, and Luther would gladly bow to Edwards superior mind if they lived in the same day. Edwards is one of the greatest philosophers who ever lived and even ATHEISTS respect his mind.

Anyone who says that kind of nonsense that "inspector" says is simply uneducated on these matters.

Edwards was incredibly intelligent Luke, but his premise two as quoted above is mistaken. I would even agree that his was a better mind than Luther's too. Atheists also respect Thomas Aquinas, so what? Aquinas was certainly wrong about a LOT of things.

Many Calvinists recognize that that form of argument he is making is in error and have drawn up differing arguments from the one Edward's makes there. What I said is not nonsense, or you apparently didn't read it. I like many of Edward's things (specifically his sermons). But his second premise quoted above is mistaken....I'm sorry, it is not a lack of education "on those matters" which causes me to say so. I think you are saying this only out of a generalized respect for Edwards and not out of an objective critique of what was quoted.

......Sometimes....even really smart dudes (like Edwards) are wrong, and this is the case here.

 

[Luke2427]

Edwards was incredibly intelligent Luke, but his premise two as quoted above is mistaken. I would even agree that his was a better mind than Luther's too. Atheists also respect Thomas Aquinas, so what? Aquinas was certainly wrong about a LOT of things.

Many Calvinists recognize that that form of argument he is making is in error and have drawn up differing arguments from the one Edward's makes there. What I said is not nonsense, or you apparently didn't read it. I like many of Edward's things (specifically his sermons). But his second premise quoted above is mistaken....I'm sorry, it is not a lack of education "on those matters" which causes me to say so. I think you are saying this only out of a generalized respect for Edwards and not out of an objective critique of what was quoted.

......Sometimes....even really smart dudes (like Edwards) are wrong, and this is the case here.

He's not just one of the great minds, he is one of the great writers of all time and you dismissed him in a superior tone as if his standing did not require respect.

Edwards authored one of the few books in human history to last so long in an unbroken stream without going out of print- his biography of David Brainerd.

He was an extraordinary writer highly praised for his ability to make complex truths clear. I do not see how you could argue otherwise.

 

[Inspector Javert]

He's not just one of the great minds, he is one of the great writers of all time and you dismissed him in a superior tone as if his standing did not require respect.

I'll accept that I may have had a tone of dismissiveness which was unwarranted. But I said, even with my first post that I like his sermons. Golly, what do you have to say? I gave the man credit where I thought it was due. No points for that?? But, I'm not, and simply will not be personally impressed with his writings. Sorry, slavish sycophantcy simply isn't my style. I think there are better writers. Many of them. It's an opinion, I only introduced it as an opinion, and possession of, and expression of such are perfectly allowed.

Edwards authored one of the few books in human history to last so long in an unbroken stream without going out of print- his biography of David Brainerd.
He was an extraordinary writer highly praised for his ability to make complex truths clear.

I think he is incredibly overly wordy, and he often contradicts himself. I think his contradictions are missed because, again, his contradictory statements are often separated by unnecessary verbosity. That's just my opinion. I realize many don't share it, that's fine.

I do not see how you could argue otherwise

I didn't "argue" anything. How is the phrase "IMO"... an argument? I am being argued with. I simply stated my opinion and pointed out that the quoted portion was flawed.

 

[Luke2427]

I'll accept that I may have had a tone of dismissiveness which was unwarranted. But I said, even with my first post that I like his sermons. Golly, what do you have to say? I gave the man credit where I thought it was due. No points for that?? But, I'm not, and simply will not be personally impressed with his writings. Sorry, slavish sycophantcy simply isn't my style. I think there are better writers. Many of them. It's an opinion, I only introduced it as an opinion, and possession of, and expression of such are perfectly allowed.

I think he is incredibly overly wordy, and he often contradicts himself. I think his contradictions are missed because, again, his contradictory statements are often separated by unnecessary verbosity. That's just my opinion. I realize many don't share it, that's fine.

I didn't "argue" anything. How is the phrase "IMO"... an argument? I am being argued with. I simply stated my opinion and pointed out that the quoted portion was flawed.

Then it might as well be your opinion that roses are ugly and boogers are beautiful.

He was a brilliant writer and it is not hyperbole to say that no man in history ever was the wordsmith that Jonathan Edwards was. his descriptive powers more than rival Shakespeare.

But listen, there are people who hate Shakespeare, too. This is because they lack the kind of classical education that puts one on the level to enjoy him.

My children think Shakespeare is stupid and verbose. It is because they are children- they do not think Shakespeare was the writer that J. K. Rowling is. They think she is more talented. That is not an opinion, though, it is ignorance.

Thugs who listen exclusively to rap music think Jay Z is a better singer than Pavarotti. Well, that's idiotic in the highest degree.

If they took some music appreciation classes and expanded their minds they would not dare compare Jay Z to Pavarotti.

In this dumbed down age Jonathan Edwards and William Shakespeare seem verbose because people are so stupid that they cannot read a sentence with more than 50 words in it.

Is it possible that you are a product of the age and that that is why you do not like the writing of Edwards?

 

[Inspector Javert]

Then it might as well be your opinion that roses are ugly and boogers are beautiful.

:laugh: That's kinda funny.

He was a brilliant writer and it is not hyperbole to say that no man in history ever was the wordsmith that Jonathan Edwards was. his descriptive powers more than rival Shakespeare.

I don't think I'd compare the writings of a Theologian to those of a playwright and poet; different skill-set and what-not

But listen, there are people who hate Shakespeare, too.

But, umm...I don't. So, this analogy breaks down. Painting me as a hater of Shakepeare (when I admire him greatly) isn't going to work. This is why arguments from analogy don't work.

This is because they lack the kind of classical education that puts one on the level to enjoy him.

Probably.

My children think Shakespeare is stupid and verbose.

I'm not your child, and I do not think thus.

It is because they are children- they do not think Shakespeare was the writer that J. K. Rowling is. They think she is more talented. That is not an opinion, though, it is ignorance.

Agreed. I am not one who believes that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I do not believe that aesthetics and talent are purely subjective.

Thugs who listen exclusively to rap music think Jay Z is a better singer than Pavarotti. Well, that's idiotic in the highest degree.

Agreed, but they are not the same sort who would also maintain that they appreciate Luther's writing more than that of Edwards. They have heard of neither.

If they took some music appreciation classes and expanded their minds they would not dare compare Jay Z to Pavarotti.

Agreed. But then, they also wouldn't compare Pavarotti to Guiseppe Verdi Either, as that would be akin to comparing Shakespeare to Edwards.

In this dumbed down age Jonathan Edwards and William Shakespeare seem verbose because people are so stupid that they cannot read a sentence with more than 50 words in it.

I agree with this general sentiment.

Is it possible that you are a product of the age and that that is why you do not like the writing of Edwards?

It's more probable that I find him unnecessarily verbose, and (at least in his polemical writings) I think he makes contradictory statements that go unnoticed due to excessive verbiage. He wrote out his sermons too, and I have already said (3 times now) that I rather enjoy his sermons. I didn't hear them live, nor in his weekly telecast either so.........I would have been forced to have read them now wouldn't I?

I respect what Edwards DID as much as anything. I also like a lot of the writings of that era, but frankly (They all had a habit of being a little verbose really). But Edwards more than most. And I don't think that was a particularly good habit of theirs. If it were a great habit, I think literary style would have remained that way, but it didn't.

But to compare that opinion with someone who dislikes Shakespeare and thus most likely prefers Jay Z to Pavorotti, is a sort of argument, that, at least I know Edwards wouldn't have made; I'll give him that.

 

[Luke2427]

:laugh: That's kinda funny.

I don't think I'd compare the writings of a Theologian to those of a playwright and poet; different skill-set and what-not

But, umm...I don't. So, this analogy breaks down. Painting me as a hater of Shakepeare (when I admire him greatly) isn't going to work. This is why arguments from analogy don't work.

Probably.

I'm not your child, and I do not think thus.

Agreed. I am not one who believes that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I do not believe that aesthetics and talent are purely subjective.

Agreed, but they are not the same sort who would also maintain that they appreciate Luther's writing more than that of Edwards. They have heard of neither.

Agreed. But then, they also wouldn't compare Pavarotti to Guiseppe Verdi Either, as that would be akin to comparing Shakespeare to Edwards.

I agree with this general sentiment.

It's more probable that I find him unnecessarily verbose, and (at least in his polemical writings) I think he makes contradictory statements that go unnoticed due to excessive verbiage. He wrote out his sermons too, and I have already said (3 times now) that I rather enjoy his sermons. I didn't hear them live, nor in his weekly telecast either so.........I would have been forced to have read them now wouldn't I?

I respect what Edwards DID as much as anything. I also like a lot of the writings of that era, but frankly (They all had a habit of being a little verbose really). But Edwards more than most. And I don't think that was a particularly good habit of theirs. If it were a great habit, I think literary style would have remained that way, but it didn't.

But to compare that opinion with someone who dislikes Shakespeare and thus most likely prefers Jay Z to Pavorotti, is a sort of argument, that, at least I know Edwards wouldn't have made; I'll give him that.

Fair enough.

 

[Van]

"God... begs"

Only an Arminian would ever say such a thing.

Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

Calvinists must nullify scripture after scripture. God sets before us the choice of life and death, not death only for some and life only for others. Calvinism turns choice into non-choice.

I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,

If God sets before us the choice of life and death, he would be mistaken if we could not choose life or death. God does not make mistakes. When He begs others through His ambassadors to be reconciled, He would be making a mistake if the others could not choose be reconciled.

Total Spiritual inability, the Edward's fiction, has been demonstrated as mistaken doctrine over and over. Matthew 23:13 has unregenerate men "entering heaven" thus seeking God. Romans 9:30-33 has unregenerate men seeking God. The rich young ruler was seeking God.

The very idea that this thread is not pushing Calvinism, the "T" of the Tulip, is ludicrous.

Note every advocate is a self professed Calvinist, from Agedman to Luke 2427.

 

[Yeshua1]

Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

Calvinists must nullify scripture after scripture. God sets before us the choice of life and death, not death only for some and life only for others. Calvinism turns choice into non-choice.

I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,

If God sets before us the choice of life and death, he would be mistaken if we could not choose life or death. God does not make mistakes. When He begs others through His ambassadors to be reconciled, He would be making a mistake if the others could not choose be reconciled.

Total Spiritual inability, the Edward's fiction, has been demonstrated as mistaken doctrine over and over. Matthew 23:13 has unregenerate men "entering heaven" thus seeking God. Romans 9:30-33 has unregenerate men seeking God. The rich young ruler was seeking God.

The very idea that this thread is not pushing Calvinism, the "T" of the Tulip, is ludicrous.

Note every advocate is a self professed Calvinist, from Agedman to Luke 2427.

Are you totally sure that the Law blessings and curses to come upon people based upon their response to obeying it or not exactly same as NT blessings ofcoming to Chrsit to have eternal life?

 

[agedman]

Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making an appeal through us; we beg you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God.

Calvinists must nullify scripture after scripture. God sets before us the choice of life and death, not death only for some and life only for others. Calvinism turns choice into non-choice.

I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants,

If God sets before us the choice of life and death, he would be mistaken if we could not choose life or death. God does not make mistakes. When He begs others through His ambassadors to be reconciled, He would be making a mistake if the others could not choose be reconciled.

Total Spiritual inability, the Edward's fiction, has been demonstrated as mistaken doctrine over and over. Matthew 23:13 has unregenerate men "entering heaven" thus seeking God. Romans 9:30-33 has unregenerate men seeking God. The rich young ruler was seeking God.

The very idea that this thread is not pushing Calvinism, the "T" of the Tulip, is ludicrous.

Note every advocate is a self professed Calvinist, from Agedman to Luke 2427.

No part of this thread other than what your imagination constructs is upon Arminian or Calvinistic thinking.

This tread is upon the words and work of Jonathan Edwards, which shamefully (as I stated in the OP) I have long neglected to read.

Certainly, Edwards is difficult reading for the unintellectual, and he sure does use an extensive number of words so his thoughts are precisely presented. All these are not atypical of the writings from scholars of that period, and why many do not aspire to read extensively in favor of that which provides instant gratifications.

What would you like to contribute about Jonathan Edwards or what you have read that he wrote.

 

[preacher4truth]

Certainly, Edwards is difficult reading for the unintellectual, and he sure does use an extensive number of words so his thoughts are precisely presented. All these are not atypical of the writings from scholars of that period, and why many do not aspire to read extensively in favor of that which provides instant gratifications.

Great point!

I find it interesting the mocking and slanderous remarks against others (Sproul/Edwards et al) manifestation of the gift of God and His given abilities in their ministering to others as per 1 Peter 4:11.

Each mentioned above have done their ministering according to His ability, yet we have some who mock and deride them.

Mocking and denigrating these ministers is shameful to say the least. Additionally, such an attitude is against Scripture and is a condemnation of God's ministers minus any Scriptural basis in so doing, which is both premature and unspiritual. The lack of evidence for condemning said ministers is truly an exposition of the heart of the one leveling them.

 

[Van]

No part of this thread other than what your imagination constructs is upon Arminian or Calvinistic thinking.

This tread is upon the words and work of Jonathan Edwards, which shamefully (as I stated in the OP) I have long neglected to read.

Certainly, Edwards is difficult reading for the unintellectual, and he sure does use an extensive number of words so his thoughts are precisely presented. All these are not atypical of the writings from scholars of that period, and why many do not aspire to read extensively in favor of that which provides instant gratifications.

What would you like to contribute about Jonathan Edwards or what you have read that he wrote.

So Freedom of the Will does not teach total spiritual inability?
So I guess it teaches fallen men in their unregenerate state can choose to seek God and trust in Christ such that they will be saved. Is that the idea? Boy, I am sure surprised any Calvinist would agree, but that is what Agedman is claiming.
LOL

Here is what I wrote concerning Edwards:

In a nutshell, Edwards claimed we always choose what we see as best and because of our fallen state, we always freely choose other than the will of God. So we have 140 pages of bombastic rhetoric to push mistaken doctrine.

Scripture says God sets before us the choice of life or death and begs us to choose life. Now if we were only able to choose death, God would be lacking in knowledge and making a mistake. But God does not make mistakes.

 

[agedman]

When I was doing graduate work at a secular school, a professor spent quite a length of time in lecturing that folks always choose what is best in every situation.

The students had great disagreement with him, and showed by anecdote that the "freedom to choose" was always encased in multiple options. That the options would be ranked in some sort of personal hierarchy scheme based upon desire and need.

What the students showed by secular anecdotal statements, Edwards would validate also:

"A man never, in any instance, wills any thing contrary to his desires, or desires any thing contrary to his will. The fore mentioned instance, which Mr. Locke produces, is no proof that he ever does. He may, on some consideration or other will to utter speeches which have a tendency to persuade another and still may desire that they may not persuade him; but yet his Will and Desire do not run counter all: the thing which he wills, the very same he desires; and he does not will a thing, and desire the contrary, in any particular. In this instance, it is not carefully observed, what is the thing willed, and what is the thing desired: if it were, it would be found, that Will and Desire do not clash in the least." (Freedom of the Will: part 1 - in responding to a quote of John Locke)
​

Is there any Scripture evidence that this is not true?

None that I have found.

 

[Inspector Javert]

:

"A man never, in any instance, wills any thing contrary to his desires, or desires any thing contrary to his will. The fore mentioned instance, which Mr. Locke produces, is no proof that he ever does. He may, on some consideration or other will to utter speeches which have a tendency to persuade another and still may desire that they may not persuade him; but yet his Will and Desire do not run counter all: the thing which he wills, the very same he desires; and he does not will a thing, and desire the contrary, in any particular. In this instance, it is not carefully observed, what is the thing willed, and what is the thing desired: if it were, it would be found, that Will and Desire do not clash in the least." (Freedom of the Will: part 1 - in responding to a quote of John Locke)
​

Is there any Scripture evidence that this is not true?
None that I have found.

There is in Romans:

Rom 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, ("would" is KJV for "want") that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
The NIV rendering:
Rom 7:15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.

I understand the love of Edwards for the modern compatibilist Calvinist inasmuch as he is the champion of their explanation of the will....But Edwards is missing something in his responses to this question:
Namely, he fails to account for the fact that we can have desires about our desires. We have the capacity to wish or desire that we desired something other than we do. This is obvious to most, but, I would also proffer that such desires can ultimately lead to a choice which is against our desires and that those choices ultimately reflect in what we end up desiring.

But truth is...this is essentially a circularity on Edwards's part:
He is merely conflating choices and desires.

Obviously, what we can assume to be our most inherent natural immediate or intense desires (i.e. to choose to recant the faith rather than be torn apart by lions in a collosseum) are not acted upon. I would suggest to Edwards that those Christians who stand with courage in the face of persecution would very much "desire" the easy way out....ALL we KNOW is that they CHOOSE otherwise. We KNOW only that they choose to have courage in the face of persecution. It would be a stretch to say that they desired to do the right thing.
Obviously, the argument can be made that they desired to please God MORE than they desired to save their own skins.....but that is an assumption that we cannot know. What evidence would Edwards proffer in defense of that proposition?

His evidence would be that they chose to honor God. But that's the circularity. His evidence for what they "want" is what they choose. His argument boils down to:
1.) People only choose what they most desire
2.) A person's greatest desires can be known by what choices they make
3.) Therefore, people only choose what they most desire.
This is a circular argument.

I believe what Paul suggests in Romans is that there is quite clearly a disconnect often between which choices are made and which desires that one has (at least in the immediate VS. ultimate). But Edwards' argument proffered here if looked at closely and objectively is merely an assumption of the truth of his own conclusions re-inforced by his own statements.

 

[Winman]

There is in Romans:

Rom 7:15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, ("would" is KJV for "want") that do I not; but what I hate, that do I.
The NIV rendering:
Rom 7:15 I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do.

I understand the love of Edwards for the modern compatibilist Calvinist inasmuch as he is the champion of their explanation of the will....But Edwards is missing something in his responses to this question:
Namely, he fails to account for the fact that we can have desires about our desires. We have the capacity to wish or desire that we desired something other than we do. This is obvious to most, but, I would also proffer that such desires can ultimately lead to a choice which is against our desires and that those choices ultimately reflect in what we end up desiring.

But truth is...this is essentially a circularity on Edwards's part:
He is merely conflating choices and desires.

Obviously, what we can assume to be our most inherent natural immediate or intense desires (i.e. to choose to recant the faith rather than be torn apart by lions in a collosseum) are not acted upon. I would suggest to Edwards that those Christians who stand with courage in the face of persecution would very much "desire" the easy way out....ALL we KNOW is that they CHOOSE otherwise. We KNOW only that they choose to have courage in the face of persecution. It would be a stretch to say that they desired to do the right thing.
Obviously, the argument can be made that they desired to please God MORE than they desired to save their own skins.....but that is an assumption that we cannot know. What evidence would Edwards proffer in defense of that proposition?

His evidence would be that they chose to honor God. But that's the circularity. His evidence for what they "want" is what they choose. His argument boils down to:
1.) People only choose what they most desire
2.) A person's greatest desires can be known by what choices they make
3.) Therefore, people only choose what they most desire.
This is a circular argument.

I believe what Paul suggests in Romans is that there is quite clearly a disconnect often between which choices are made and which desires that one has (at least in the immediate VS. ultimate). But Edwards' argument proffered here if looked at closely and objectively is merely an assumption of the truth of his own conclusions re-inforced by his own statements.

Excellent argument, you have proven from the word of God that men do not always do their greatest desire.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMWN-HSR-rM

 

[agedman]

His evidence would be that they chose to honor God. But that's the circularity. His evidence for what they "want" is what they choose. His argument boils down to:
1.) People only choose what they most desire
2.) A person's greatest desires can be known by what choices they make
3.) Therefore, people only choose what they most desire.
This is a circular argument.

I believe what Paul suggests in Romans is that there is quite clearly a disconnect often between which choices are made and which desires that one has (at least in the immediate VS. ultimate). But Edwards' argument proffered here if looked at closely and objectively is merely an assumption of the truth of his own conclusions re-inforced by his own statements.

Edwards concludes the "determination of the will" section with this statement:

"These things may serve, I hope, in some measure, illustrate and confirm the position laid down in the beginning of this section (section 1), viz. “That the Will is always determined by the strongest motive,” or by that view of the mind which has the greatest degree of previous tendency to excite volition." (From Jonathan Edwards: Freedom of the Will, section 2)
​

His perspective is not incomplete as you state it, nor is his argument "circular."

Unlike your desire to have Edwards contradicting Paul, Edwards is actually showing more precisely just how right Paul was.

When Edwards starts this section, he carefully begins to lay out such words such as: will, volition, motive, ... see the statement below:

"With respect to that grand inquiry, “What determines the Will?” it would be very tedious and unnecessary, at present, to examine all the various opinions, which have been advanced concerning this matter; nor is it needful that I should enter into a particular discussion of all points debated in
disputes on that other question, “Whether the Will always follows the last dictate of the understanding?” It is sufficient to my present purpose to say, It is that motive, which, as it stands in view of the mind, is the strongest, that determines the will. But may be necessary that I should a little explain my meaning.

By motive I mean the whole of that which moves, excites, or invites the mind to volition, whether that be one thing singly, or many things conjunctly. Many particular things may concur, and unite their strength, to induce the mind; and when it is so, all together are as one complex motive. And when I speak of the strongest motive, I have respect to the strength of the whole that operates to induce a particular act of volition, whether that be the strength of one thing alone, or of many
together." (taken from Jonathan Edwards on Freedom of the Will, section 2)
​

Again, Edwards is being extremely precise that no reader might miss the specific area in which he is addressing in each part of each section.

In the quote above, Edwards introduces "motive" and how it plays a role in the volition. That the greatest motive exciting the most volition determines the will.

He uses the illustration of the drunkard who has the drink before him. What forces play upon the person that they will to drink or not.

 

[Inspector Javert]

His perspective is not incomplete as you state it, nor is his argument "circular."

In the sense that I put it that he says (at least in your quoted portion) nothing about the fact that we can have desires ABOUT desires...yes. In other words, post Edwards at least, people have created rejoining arguments to his P.O.V. One of those arguments is that if people can have desires ABOUT desires themselves than it undermines the notion that all functions of will are completely enslaved merely to a sum total of the greatest driving desires.

Unlike your desire to have Edwards contradicting Paul,

Why would you say such a thing? I DESIRE him to contradict Paul??? I am simply saying that there is IMO a verse which completely contradicts the statement he made. You said you didn't know of one.....I supplied one....That's how adults converse.

Edwards is actually showing more precisely just how right Paul was.

The portion you just posted adds nothing particular to the argument I am making at all. It neither confirms nor denies my post.

I think the fact that you can find Edwards being more specific causes you to think that it serves as a rejoinder to my argument. It doesn't. Again...I think his extreme verbosity is convincing you that his statements must be true. The portion you posted is simply irrelevant to the discussion. I am getting the impression quite frankly, that you don't really understand what Edwards is saying in most of your quoted portions...I could very possibly be wrong. You just posted a place where Edwards gets more specific....so what? It says nothing to my argument.

Yes...his argument...at least in the portions you have quoted thus far are indeed circular.
Look, I get it...you're a fan, great. I'm not and the reasons I have posted are why, and they are namely.......that he is simply wrong.

 

[agedman]

In the sense that I put it that he says (at least in your quoted portion) nothing about the fact that we can have desires ABOUT desires...yes. In other words, post Edwards at least, people have created rejoining arguments to his P.O.V. One of those arguments is that if people can have desires ABOUT desires themselves than it undermines the notion that all functions of will are completely enslaved merely to a sum total of the greatest driving desires.

Why would you say such a thing? I DESIRE him to contradict Paul??? I am simply saying that there is IMO a verse which completely contradicts the statement he made. You said you didn't know of one.....I supplied one....That's how adults converse.

The portion you just posted adds nothing particular to the argument I am making at all. It neither confirms nor denies my post.

I think the fact that you can find Edwards being more specific causes you to think that it serves as a rejoinder to my argument. It doesn't. Again...I think his extreme verbosity is convincing you that his statements must be true. The portion you posted is simply irrelevant to the discussion. I am getting the impression quite frankly, that you don't really understand what Edwards is saying in most of your quoted portions...I could very possibly be wrong. You just posted a place where Edwards gets more specific....so what? It says nothing to my argument.

Yes...his argument...at least in the portions you have quoted thus far are indeed circular.
Look, I get it...you're a fan, great. I'm not and the reasons I have posted are why, and they are namely.......that he is simply wrong.

When showing circular reasoning of an author, it is done by quoting that author's writing.

That places the rational for circular argument(s) factually based upon the writing and not upon the view of the writing.

Rather than try to post what you think he says, and that he is wrong, post exactly what he states, and exactly were he is wrong.

I am encouraging you in this, not to engage in disagreement, but so that all readers of the BB can be shown an example of how to bring more wisdom and discernment to their reading. It is good to sift the reading of authors, just as the believer is to do to the listening of preachers, that only that which is valuable as gold be extracted and the rest trashed.

 

[Van]

The issue is not that we always do what we think at the moment is best, that is bunny trail to divert us away from the core, that we always think doing the will of God is not the best at the moment. This is the core fiction, the falsehood wrapped in an enigma.

Do not let Agedman use the old derailer argument to avoid collision with the truth.