Disagreements on freedom of the will by Edwards

Mayflower · #1 (**permalink**) 06-29-2007, 03:34 PM

I was wondering if ever from the reformed calvinistic writters or theologions has been given a critic or disagreements on the view and teaching of Jonathan Edwards on the freedom of the will.

Any comments or links would be helpfull !

polemic_turtle · #2 (**permalink**) 06-29-2007, 04:04 PM

I'd be interested in this as well: has the church found better ways to express the doctrine?

cih1355 · #3 (**permalink**) 06-29-2007, 06:45 PM

Jonathan Edwards makes a distinction between natural and moral inability in his book, Freedom of the Will, in part I, section IV. He says, "We are said to be naturally unable to do a thing, when we cannot do it if we will, because what is most commonly called nature does not allow it, or because of some impeding defect or obstacle that is extrinsic to the will; either in the faculty of understanding, constitution of body, or external objects. Moral inability consists not in any of these things; but either in the want of inclination, or the strength of a contrary inclination or the want of sufficient motives in view to induce and excite the act of the will, or the strength of apparent motives to the contrary."

A.A. Hodge in his book, Outlines of Theology, in chapter 20, objects to the phraseology of natural and moral ability.

He says that the phraseology of natural and moral ability has no warrant in Scripture. The Bible does not teach that man has one kind of ability, but not another.

Hodge goes on to say that this phraseology is not adopted in any of the Reformed Confessions.

Hodge says that you do not have an ability to do something if you do not have all of the essential conditions of that ability. If a dead bird has muscles does that mean that it has the ability to fly in a certain sense- muscular ability? If a dead bird has muscles does that mean that it has the partial ability to fly?

Hodge says that natural is not really the opposite of moral.

Hodge says that the phraseology does not accurately express the important distinction intended. Man's inability is moral and is not either physical or constitutional.

Mayflower · #4 (**permalink**) 06-29-2007, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cih1355

Jonathan Edwards makes a distinction between natural and moral inability in his book, Freedom of the Will, in part I, section IV. He says, "We are said to be naturally unable to do a thing, when we cannot do it if we will, because what is most commonly called nature does not allow it, or because of some impeding defect or obstacle that is extrinsic to the will; either in the faculty of understanding, constitution of body, or external objects. Moral inability consists not in any of these things; but either in the want of inclination, or the strength of a contrary inclination or the want of sufficient motives in view to induce and excite the act of the will, or the strength of apparent motives to the contrary."

A.A. Hodge in his book, Outlines of Theology, in chapter 20, objects to the phraseology of natural and moral ability.

He says that the phraseology of natural and moral ability has no warrant in Scripture. The Bible does not teach that man has one kind of ability, but not another.

Hodge goes on to say that this phraseology is not adopted in any of the Reformed Confessions.

Hodge says that you do not have an ability to do something if you do not have all of the essential conditions of that ability. If a dead bird has muscles does that mean that it has the ability to fly in a certain sense- muscular ability? If a dead bird has muscles does that mean that it has the partial ability to fly?

Hodge says that natural is not really the opposite of moral.

Hodge says that the phraseology does not accurately express the important distinction intended. Man's inability is moral and is not either physical or constitutional.

Thanks alot Curt, i was looking for this kind of critic!