Desire isn't good enough - Edwards' arguments against the link between LFW and Responsibility

Outline of Edwards’ arguments in part III.V
  1. Some falsely argue we can’t perform our spiritual duties, but desire these things, so they are excusable.
  2. This entails the contradiction that we are inclined and disinclined to the same thing
  3. Obedience consists in the inclination itself
  4. The inclination is itself the choice
  5. “Desire without performance” is a phrase sometimes used, but it's improper as the desire relates to something future or something else is the object of desire. (i.e. someone might say a drunk doesn't want to drink the drink he's drinking, meaning: a drunk who desires to avoid drinking “someday” so he can keep his money)
  6. This “indirect willingness” falls short of any virtue or even partial obedience to God’s command
  7. “Sincerity” in indirect willingness doesn’t make it any better, people can be sincerity about bad things.

I already addressed the inconsistency between Edwards and modern Calvinists on the will here, but I wanted to address the argument itself.

My Response

I mainly object to Edwards' first point. God doesn't let people off the hook for anything less than full obedience. God's requires perfect obedience to all His commands throughout our whole lives. It requires not only right actions, but right actions for the right motives. We must obey God out of love for God with all our heart.

Deuteronomy 10:12-14 12 “And now, Israel, what does the LORD your God require of you, but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all His ways and to love Him, to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul, 13 and to keep the commandments of the LORD and His statutes which I command you today for your good? 14 Indeed heaven and the highest heavens belong to the LORD your God, also the earth with all that is in it.

Also see Matthew 5:48.

While Adam was able to obey God’s commands, fallen mankind cannot obey without God’s assistance. Ecclesiastes 7:29, Romans 5:12-20, Matthew 12:33-35 It’s easy to mix the purpose of the law for pre-fallen Adam with the purpose of the law for sinful mankind. For Adam, the law would have given life, for sinners the law’s threatening only bring us to fear God’s coming judgment.

It’s also easy to mistake the role of prevenient grace. God doesn’t give us prevenient grace in order for us to keep the law, either partially or fully, but rather for us to realize that we are not keeping the law. God uses the law to help us understand that we are sinners and that we need a Savior. Romans 7:7-9, Romans 8:15, Galatians 3:24 Then the Law stops and the Gospel begins. The law points out our need for a Savior and the Gospel tells us that Savior is Jesus Christ. Luke 5:31-33, Matthew 11:28, Romans 3:19-26, Romans 10:3-13

So it’s a mistake to think that man partially obey without grace, or that the purpose of prevenient grace is to enable partial or complete obedience, or that God would accept partial obedience.

Another problem I have with Edwards’ argument is that points 2, 3 & 4 seem to conflate desire and choice.

The final problem I have with Edwards’ argument is that point 5 indicates desire relates to a remote object (i.e. something other than an action on our part). I disagree. We can want to do something, but not do it. This is called velleity, in contrast with volition. If we are faced with alternatives, we may desire them both, but we end up only choosing one. So at least in some sense we may desire to do something that we don’t do. John 16:18-20

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,...
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens...
Read more

Scripture and the Common Man

Paul seems to missunderstand my view on scripture. He states: Crucial to Dan’s argument is the claim that “common man” are all, each and every, libertarians. If Dan claims that some “common men” are not indeterminist, but determinist, then he defeats one of his premises, or makes the Bible speak in contradictions. To spell this point out, recall that Dan says, “The Bible is written by and to the common man, it means what they mean, since they mean certain words libertarianly, then the Bible so means those words.” Yet if we allow some (even one?) of the “common men” to whom the Bible was written to be determinists, then it must mean what they mean by the words that are the topic of our discussion. However, since there are indeterminist “common men”, then the Bible must also mean what they mean by the words we are discussing! Therefore, Dan must assume that each and every “common man” is a libertarian, which I find highly implausible. ( link ) It was not said what was said I said. The b...
Read more