Friday Files: Dunn, A DISCOURSE ON THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL

In Dunn's article, A Discourse on the Freedom of the Will he dispatches Jonathan Edwards two main arguments in a quick and decisive manor. He responses to Edwards' cause of a volition dilemma (infinite regression of causes or causeless cause) by pointing out that Edwards begs the question regarding the definition and nature of causes and that his argument undermines God's freedom. Following Edwards' principles, Dunn argues: therefore there never was a divine volition without a pre-existing motive. Hence there was a time when there was no force in the universe, but the force of motive; and when there either was no God, or else no active God. If we take one horn of the dilemma, and say there was a God, but a God without volition, and consequently without activity or character, we have the Pantheist's God. If we take the other, and affirm that previous to volition there was no intelligent God, we have the God of the Atheist. In either case, the universe presents but a vast blind machine, driven by fate through the immensity ,of space and duration.

Dunn counters Edwards claim that Calvinism explains how God knows the future and Arminianism does not, by stating God is infinite, filling all space, and even filling all duration, there, can be no object or evidence between him and the object or fact known. God knows the future directly, not indirectly by way of predetermining it or any other mediating factor.

Dunn also address the practical implications of Calvinism, point out that is it not universally known, that in their efforts for changing the hearts and characters of men--for promoting morality and religion, they leave entirely out of sight their peculiar views upon this question, and address themselves to common sense and common consciousness... Does not this fact go to show most conclusively, that our opponents themselves have no confidence in the practical influence of their doctrine, and especially when any great practical interest is at stake?

I thought this articles was fabulous!

Comments

Odeliya said…
Excellent article, indeed.

Dan have you read this book- available online.
Calvinism: A closer look by Daniel Gracely

http://www.xcalvinist.com/

I just finished it, enjoyed it much.
Odeliya
October 2, 2009 at 10:18 PM
Jnorm said…
Quote:
"Dunn counters Edwards claim that Calvinism explains how God knows the future and Arminianism does not, by stating God is infinite, filling all space, and even filling all duration, there, can be no object or evidence between him and the object or fact known. God knows the future directly, not indirectly by way of predetermining it or any other mediating factor."


Excellent point!







ICXC NIKA
October 3, 2009 at 8:22 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Hi Odeliya,

I have read some of Gracely's stuff and I did enjoy it except for his views on original sin.

God be with you,
Dan
October 4, 2009 at 4:16 PM
Godismyjudge said…
thanks Jnorm!

God be with you,
Dan
October 4, 2009 at 4:16 PM
Anonymous said…
Dunn counters Edwards claim that Calvinism explains how God knows the future and Arminianism does not, by stating God is infinite, filling all space, and even filling all duration, there, can be no object or evidence between him and the object or fact known. God knows the future directly, not indirectly by way of predetermining it or any other mediating factor.

How does an immaterial person fill all space and duration?
October 12, 2009 at 7:43 PM
Godismyjudge said…
Dear Steven,

Spiritually.

God be with you,
Dan
October 12, 2009 at 8:00 PM
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