Freedom of the Will

[agedman]

Another thread got me to thinking about doing some reading from Jonathan Edwards. To my own shame, it has been years sense I did any serious reading of his work.

I selected Freedom of the Will, and was again in awe at the precise writing and explaining this man did when he wrote.

Not only is it a scholarly work worthy of all who claim to be educated, but it is also a fundamentally sound work in which there can be very little disagreement.

I would encourage the BB folks to read the Freedom of the Will (though tiresomely tedious it may seem) and see what areas you might disagree and agree.

(To access the link, merely click on the title underlined and in blue)

 

[Jope]

Another thread got me to thinking about doing some reading from Jonathan Edwards. To my own shame, it has been years sense I did any serious reading of his work.

I selected Freedom of the Will, and was again in awe at the precise writing and explaining this man did when he wrote.

Not only is it a scholarly work worthy of all who claim to be educated, but it is also a fundamentally sound work in which there can be very little disagreement.

I would encourage the BB folks to read the Freedom of the Will (though tiresomely tedious it may seem) and see what areas you might disagree and agree.

(To access the link, merely click on the title underlined and in blue)

I think I agree with everything here, or at least a lot of it:

2. If there be any such thing as a divine Foreknowledge of the volitions of free agents, that Foreknowledge, by the supposition is a thing which already has, and long ago had existence; and so, now its existence is necessary; it is now utterly impossible to be otherwise, than that this Foreknowledge should be or should have been.
3. It is also very manifest, that those things which are indissolubly connected with other things that are necessary, are themselves necessary. As that proposition whose truth is necessarily connected with another proposition, which is necessarily true, is itself necessarily true. To say otherwise would be a contradiction: it would be in effect to say, that the connexion was indissoluble, and yet was not so, but might be broken. If that, the existence of which is indissolubly connected with something whose existence is now necessary, is itself not necessary, then it may possibly not exist, notwithstanding that indissoluble connexion of its existence.— Whether the absurdity be not glaring, let the reader judge.

(page 73).

 

[Inspector Javert]

2. If there be any such thing as a divine Foreknowledge of the volitions of free agents, that Foreknowledge, by the supposition is a thing which already has, and long ago had existence; and so, now its existence is necessary; it is now utterly impossible to be otherwise, than that this Foreknowledge should be or should have been.
3. It is also very manifest, that those things which are indissolubly connected with other things that are necessary, are themselves necessary. As that proposition whose truth is necessarily connected with another proposition, which is necessarily true, is itself necessarily true. To say otherwise would be a contradiction: it would be in effect to say, that the connexion was indissoluble, and yet was not so, but might be broken. If that, the existence of which is indissolubly connected with something whose existence is now necessary, is itself not necessary, then it may possibly not exist, notwithstanding that indissoluble connexion of its existence.— Whether the absurdity be not glaring, let the reader judge.

Ughh... sorry but this is simply wrong. This may sound right (mainly due to it's being overtly and unnecessarily verbose)...but Edwards' logic here is extremely flawed. His sermons are often good. But, I don't usually like his writings because statemenst he makes like the above are simply false. Specifically, premise no. #2 is hogwash.........
And he could have employed about 3,000 fewer words to say it.

That's just me though. Edwards had a lot of good things going for him too. Good preacher, but, he's just wrong a lot, and this is one of those times.

 

[preacher4truth]

Another thread got me to thinking about doing some reading from Jonathan Edwards. To my own shame, it has been years sense I did any serious reading of his work.

I selected Freedom of the Will, and was again in awe at the precise writing and explaining this man did when he wrote.

Not only is it a scholarly work worthy of all who claim to be educated, but it is also a fundamentally sound work in which there can be very little disagreement.

I would encourage the BB folks to read the Freedom of the Will (though tiresomely tedious it may seem) and see what areas you might disagree and agree.

(To access the link, merely click on the title underlined and in blue)

Thanks for bringing this up. Jonathan Edwards works are in fact rock solid doctrinally &c. Another great work of his is 'The Religious Affections'.

As to the post by IJ, it is only meant to inflame, and no credibility is to be given to his post, as it is simply mocking and subjective basless conclusions with no evidence whatsoever. I see nothing within its objective but to belittle another, but this is unfortunately status quo for him towards the reformed.

Any serious student of the Word will at times appreciate the writings of men like Edwards and search out their depths of wisdom, or should at the least consider these works. These works are a difficult read and very challenging to the mind.

Agedman, if you wouldn't mind, please share some insights you glean from this work.

 

[Yeshua1]

Ughh... sorry but this is simply wrong. This may sound right (mainly due to it's being overtly and unnecessarily verbose)...but Edwards' logic here is extremely flawed. His sermons are often good. But, I don't usually like his writings because statemenst he makes like the above are simply false. Specifically, premise no. #2 is hogwash.........
And he could have employed about 3,000 fewer words to say it.

That's just me though. Edwards had a lot of good things going for him too. Good preacher, but, he's just wrong a lot, and this is one of those times.

do you also think martin Luther was wrong with his Bondage of the Will?

 

[Herald]

Any serious student of the Word will at times appreciate the writings of men like Edwards and search out their depths of wisdom, or should at the least consider these works. These works are a difficult read and very challenging to the mind.

I concur. A person does not have to be Reformed to appreciate the writings of Reformed scholars. It was Reformed scholarship that dominated the 16th and 17th centuries. What is often lost in discussion is that Reformed Baptists have significant differences with many of these Reformed authors. We do not share their view of ecclesiology or of baptism, but that does not detract from the good their works have done and continue to do.

 

[Van]

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.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Another Calvinist thread in the wrong forum. No Calvinist biased in administration on this forum:tonofbricks:

 

[agedman]

Another Calvinist thread in the wrong forum. No Calvinist biased in administration on this forum:tonofbricks:

There was NOTHING in the OP that even suggested that this thread was on Calvinistic thinking.

It was on what folks get from reading Jonathan Edwards - which I haven't done in a very long time.

What do you know of Jonathan Edwards, and his writing?

 

[Inspector Javert]

do you also think martin Luther was wrong with his Bondage of the Will?

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.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Thanks for bringing this up. Jonathan Edwards works are in fact rock solid doctrinally &c. Another great work of his is 'The Religious Affections'.

As to the post by IJ, it is only meant to inflame, and no credibility is to be given to his post, as it is simply mocking and subjective basless conclusions with no evidence whatsoever. I see nothing within its objective but to belittle another, but this is unfortunately status quo for him towards the reformed.

Any serious student of the Word will at times appreciate the writings of men like Edwards and search out their depths of wisdom, or should at the least consider these works. These works are a difficult read and very challenging to the mind.

Agedman, if you wouldn't mind, please share some insights you glean from this work.

You couldn't comprehend the first word from Edwards if he spoon fed you from your milk bottle...:laugh:
Edwards is BEYOND your thought processes...:laugh:........Herald may comprehend him more or less...but YOU???? :laugh: What a joke...you couldn't understand hide nor hair of Edwards' work...He is WAY beyond your feeble mind LOL :laugh:

 

[Inspector Javert]

There was NOTHING in the OP that even suggested that this thread was on Calvinistic thinking.

Der.....Edwards personifies Calvinist thinking...haven't you read him???

It was on what folks get from reading Jonathan Edwards - which I haven't done in a very long time.

Yah...and folks get Calvinism from Edwards...duh...

What do you know of Jonathan Edwards, and his writing?

Dr. J???
Probably about twice as much as you or I know, that's probably how much he knows, but, you wouldn't likely realize that.

 

[Inspector Javert]

Double post..

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

To be honest with you, have never read any of Edwards, but have quite a bit on Luther!

Just was asking what you thought of his treatment of the Human Will...

 

[Yeshua1]

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.

We are all free to choose what we want to do, but we are NOT free to choose anything and all things, as we are confined by sin and our fallen natures!

God knows that, and he has made the way for His elect to be saved out from that!

 

[Rippon]

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 _______ 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.

Though I respect Edwards a great deal I have to agree wityh much of the above. Warfield, Cunningham, Calvin and many other theologians are much more concise. Charles Hodge and Edwards are too philosophical for my blood.

 

[Winman]

We are all free to choose what we want to do, but we are NOT free to choose anything and all things, as we are confined by sin and our fallen natures!

God knows that, and he has made the way for His elect to be saved out from that!

This is your opinion, you do not have a word of scripture to support this view.

On the other hand, there are scriptures that show unregenerated men can choose for God, Cornelius and the Philipian jailer.

Cornelius was not rengenerated, because he did not receive the Holy Spirit until he heard Peter preach and believed on Jesus. Yet, for years he feared God, prayed always, and did many righteous works that God recognized.

The Philipian jailer was not regenerated, because he had not yet believed, yet he recognized he was lost and desired to be saved.

Both of these stories in scripture easily refute your view.

 

[Luke2427]

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.

"God... begs"

Only an Arminian would ever say such a thing.

People tell people to choose all of the time knowing what choice they will make.

I like Robocop. "Dead or alive you're coming with me!"

He knows they are going to choose death. He knows giving them a choice will not change their nature. They are slime and they will do what slime does. And he knows he is going to kill them for it.

But he makes a great point by presenting the choice. He is saying, "When I kill you it is because you are evil which you proved by making the choice you made- the only choice evil thugs CAN make."

 

[Winman]

"God... begs"

Only an Arminian would ever say such a thing.

People tell people to choose all of the time knowing what choice they will make.

I like Robocop. "Dead or alive you're coming with me!"

He knows they are going to choose death. He knows giving them a choice will not change their nature. They are slime and they will do what slime does. And he knows he is going to kill them for it.

But he makes a great point by presenting the choice. He is saying, "When I kill you it is because you are evil which you proved by making the choice you made- the only choice evil thugs CAN make."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sw6ndZNLYUA

Robocop is not real Luke.

 

[preacher4truth]

You couldn't comprehend the first word from Edwards if he spoon fed you from your milk bottle...:laugh:
Edwards is BEYOND your thought processe :laugh:........Herald may comprehend him more or less...but YOU???? :laugh: What a joke...you couldn't understand hide nor hair of Edwards' work...He is WAY beyond your feeble mind LOL :laugh:

Nothing other than a typical inflammatory post from "IJ". No substance, no evidence, simply a post with an objective to irritate whilst coloring said poster in silly garb. What a shame.