Jonathan Edwards (PhD Edit)

New Zealand-Dean Hintz

Myanmar-Facebook

The first photo is from the Green Dragon where The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit films have been made.

Jonathan Edwards And Libertarian Free Will: August 2006

Older work above on the same subject, some of which ended up in the PhD.

Sovereignty and Providence

Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758)(1729)(2006) writes that God has the power to bestow upon anyone of his creatures good, evil, or indifference for the greater good.[1]  This sovereign control is accepted despite the obvious problem of evil occurring in God’s creation.[2]  Attempts to harmonize strong concepts of God’s divine control over his creation, with the apparent corrupt nature of what he has made in regard to the problem of evil, will be described within this thesis as sovereignty theodicy.[3]  In Law of Nature, Edwards  (1731-1733)(2006) explains that providence is the means by which God governs the world as the supreme judge of the universe.[4]  Reichenbach notes that providence is how God guides and cares for his creation.[5]  He further reasons that God on one hand possesses wisdom in order to direct his creation within his plans, and on the other hand has the power by which he attempts to implement his plans.[6]  Reichenbach deduces that God’s providential plans allow for significant human freedom and choices to occur.[7]

Free Will And Determinism

Edwards thinks there is a major difficulty within libertarian concepts concerning free will.[8]  If the human will determines the will and resulting choices, since every choice must have a cause, then a chain is established where a will and choice is determined by a preceding will and choice. Therefore, if the will determines its own free acts, then every free act of will and choice is determined by a preceding act of will and choice. If a preceding act of will also be of free choice, then that too was self-determined.[9]  What Edwards is stating is that in the act of causing a free choice (choice1), the cause of that choice was also made freely (choice2), and the cause of that choice was made freely (choice3) and so on. 

This theological concept of Edwards would tie into the philosophical concept of vicious regress[10] since with a regress it could not be determined what caused a human choice initially, because every free choice was caused by a previous free choice. Edwards instead reasoned that human choices were a result of human nature originally created by and within God’s will. God therefore wills all things, and is the primary cause of all actions.[11]  I reason human actions, and any angelic or demonic actions would be accepted  as a secondary cause[12] in order to avoid concepts of hard determinism, where only God or the first cause would be morally responsible for acts.[13] 

Blackburn counters that some form of metaphysical libertarianism[14] postulates that free choice is not causally determined, but is also not random.[15]  It is suggested that an agency situated outside of human nature,[16] in regard to making human choice, is possible but likely ‘fantasy.’[17]  It appears human choice should be traced back to human nature.[18] 

Edwards writes that God controls all things.[19]  The sovereignty approach can present the remedy for the problem of evil in a practical sense, not just primarily philosophically.[20]  The approach needs to focus on the idea that the triune God consummates his Kingdom and gives things meaning.  It seems rather meaningless for a Christian to readily accept a notion of God willing all things for a greater good within a theological system when the greater good is not vividly practically explained within the system, at least in general ultimate terms.[21]

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996)  Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy,  Oxford, Oxford University Press.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1729)(2006) Sovereignty of God, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.

http://edwards.yale.edu/archive/documents/page?document_id=10817&search_id=&source_type=edited&pagenumber=1

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1731-1733)(2006) Law of Nature, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas. Jonathanedwards.com.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids,  Zondervan Publishing House.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.

POJMAN, LOUIS P. (1996) Philosophy: The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

REICHENBACH, BRUCE (1986) Predestination and Free Will, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press.

STACE, W.T. (1952)(1976) Religion and the Modern Mind, in John R. Burr and Milton Goldinger (eds.), Philosophy and Contemporary Issues, London, Collier Macmillan Publishers. 

---

[1] Edwards (1729)(2006: 414).

[2] Edwards (1729)(2006: 414).

[3] Feinberg (1994: 124-143).

[4] Edwards (1731-1733)(2006: 553).

[5] Reichenbach (1986: 115).

[6] Reichenbach (1986: 115).

[7] Reichenbach (1986: 118).

[8] Which would correspond to modern concepts of libertarian free will and incompatibilism.

[9] Edwards (1754)(2006 2.1: 1-1-2). 

[10] Blackburn (1996: 324).

[11] Edwards (1754)(2006 2.1: 1-1-2). 

[12] Pojman (1996: 596).  Stace (1952)(1976: 29). 

[13] Pojman and Stace both state a secondary cause must freely commit acts in order to be significantly morally accountable.  Pojman (1996: 596).  Stace (1952)(1976: 29). 

[14] Blackburn (1996: 218).

[15] Blackburn (1996: 218).

[16] It appears Blackburn is discussing a human agency.

[17] Blackburn (1996: 218).

[18] Edwards (1754)(2006 2.1: 1-1-2).  Blackburn (1996: 218).  Within my Reformed world view I reason God created this nature and simultaneously influences and wills all human choice.

[19] Edwards (1729)(2006: 414).

[20] This is where empirical theology can be beneficial.

[21] I can admit this can be a weakness within sometimes overly philosophical Reformed approaches.