Necessity of the Divine Will – Arguments against the Arminian basis of LFW

Everything is about God in one way shape or form. So my biggest problem with Edwards’ arguments regards the nature of God.

Outline of Edwards' Arguments About the Necessity of the God's Will - Part IV.VII

  1. Arminians say that if God doesn’t have LFW, God is stuck in fate.
  2. The Arminian argument is based on the idea that LFW is a good thing, but acting according to nature is not disadvantageous – especially in God’s case where His nature is perfect.
  3. The sovereignty of God is in His ability and authority to do as He pleases. His power is infinite and His authority supreme.
  4. His will is not dependent on anything outside Himself, but it is determined by His infinite wisdom.
  5. God’s wisdom determines His will to what is most wise. Otherwise God is unwise, which is unworthy of God.
  6. Arminians themselves say God cannot choose contrary to the fitness of things due to His wisdom.
  7. If the fitness of things necessitating God’s actions doesn’t detract from His glory, neither does it detract from His freedom.

My Repsonse

#6 doesn't mean God doesn't have LFW, but rather that He can choose between good options, as has been discussed here. #5 has a similar resolution - God's options are equivalant (none of them being best), so He can choose between them.

The Real Problem

Here Calvinism may diverge from “Edwardsianism”. Edwardsianism contends that since LFW is illogical, God doesn’t have LFW. Calvinists could simply say LFW is logical, and God has it, but man does not. But if LFW is logical, most of Edwards’ arguments fall.

Denying God’s LFW conflicts with His Omnipotence, sovereignty and goodness.

Omnipotence

If Edwards is right, God can’t choose anything other than what He will choose. But scripture says God is able to make children of Abraham out of stones (which God didn’t do) and that Christ was able to ask the Father for angels (which He didn’t do). These are positive statements about God’s abilities, not just denials of man’s ability to stop God. Scripture further declares that with God all things are possible. If Edwarsianism is true, God cannot do these things.

Sovereignty

Edwardsians speak of God’s sovereignty in terms of unconditional election and God’s predetermination of all things. They also use scriptural language, stating God predestines us and governs the world. Is this consistent with Edwards’ notation that “the fitness of things” necessitates God’s actions, such that God is unable to choose otherwise? No. Edwardsians speak inconstantly about sovereignty. If “the fitness of things” precedes (both logically and temporally) God’s actions and necessitates all things including God’s actions, such that God cannot do anything about it, God is not sovereign in either the scriptural or Edwardsian sense.

Since "the fitness of things" is not God, and they determine God's actions, this undermines God's aseity as well. But to give Edwards the benefit of the doubt, we will assume for him that the fitness of things arises from God's nature, which leads to the next problem.

Goodness

Scripture declares God is good, not just in His actions, but also in His nature. But if His nature makes evil necessary, and He is unable to avoid evil, what does that say about His nature?

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