Latest / Reformed Thinking / The Arminian Case for Free Will Examined | Jonathan Edwards

Transcript

The Arminian Case for Free Will Examined | Jonathan Edwards · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Welcome to reformed thinking. Imagine you're sitting in a
0:04
perfectly sealed courtroom. The air is tense.
0:08
Oh, I can easily picture that it is a very heavy setting.
0:10
Right. The judge raises the wooden
0:12
gavel, strikes the sounding block and delivers a final
0:16
verdict. Now ask yourself a question
0:18
about that specific moment. Is that verdict based on a rigid
0:22
chain of evidence, prior laws, witness testimonies, and
0:26
undeniable logic? Well, you would certainly hope
0:28
so. That is a whole point of a
0:29
trial. Absolutely.
0:31
Or did that verdict just pop into existence out of thin air,
0:34
completely disconnected from any prior influence or reason?
0:37
I mean, if a judge did that, we would call it a complete
0:40
miscarriage of justice. We naturally want a courtroom
0:43
verdict to be based on solid reasons.
0:45
We. Really, do we want a clear chain
0:46
of cause and effect? But you know, when it comes to
0:49
the human mind and the choices you make every single day,
0:52
people suddenly want the opposite.
0:53
Yes, they do. They want their choices to be
0:55
completely uncaused. Which is wild to think about.
0:57
South. Today's Deep Dive investigates
1:00
Jonathan Edwards, Seminole theological work Freedom of the
1:03
will. Our objective is to unpack his
1:06
rigorous defense of moral necessity against the Armenian
1:09
concept of absolute free will. And we are approaching this from
1:13
a specific angle, right? Both of us look at this text as
1:16
Protestant Christians holding to the Westminster Confession,
1:20
viewing these mechanics of human agency through the lens of
1:23
Reformed theology. Spot on.
1:25
So consider this for a moment. If your choices are determined
1:28
by your strongest desires, are you truly free?
1:32
And if they aren't determined by your desires, are they even your
1:35
choices at all? That tension right there is the
1:37
crux of the entire historical debate.
1:39
It is fascinating how Edwards approaches this.
1:42
He doesn't start with massive abstract theological decrees
1:45
about the cosmos. No, he really keeps it grounded.
1:47
He does. He starts with a microscopic
1:49
anatomy of a single human choice.
1:52
He is looking at the fundamental mechanics of cause and effect in
1:55
the human heart. So to really grasp this, we
1:58
first need to define the opposing view he is attacking
2:01
right? Because you can't understand the
2:03
defense without knowing the charge.
2:05
Precisely. The Armenian view relies heavily
2:08
on a concept called independent self determination.
2:11
They argue that an act of the will is only virtuous or vicious
2:16
if the cause of it, meaning the agents independent uncaused self
2:20
determination, is virtuous or vicious.
2:22
Wait, let me stop you right there because I want to make
2:23
sure I'm grasping the actual mechanics of what they are
2:26
claiming. Are they saying the moral weight
2:29
doesn't sit in the choice itself?
2:30
Yes, that is their framework. You do not look at the action,
2:34
you look at the uncaused origin of that choice.
2:36
They believe you must be the absolute, unmoved originator of
2:40
your action for it to have any moral value.
2:42
So if my strongest desire forces my hand, they are essentially
2:45
saying I have no absolute uncaused choice in the matter.
2:48
That is their claim and they ask how could you possibly say
2:51
someone is fully responsible for a bad choice if they could not
2:54
have acted otherwise? I mean, that Armenian view seems
2:57
incredibly appealing on the surface.
3:00
People want to feel like they are the blank slate authors of
3:02
their own destiny. They really do.
3:04
It feels good to the human ego. But when you map out that
3:07
premise logically, you hit a brick wall almost immediately.
3:12
Let us trace Edwards logic here because he exposes A glaring,
3:16
undeniable flaw. He really tears it apart.
3:19
He does if the evil of an act lies not in the ACT itself, but
3:23
in its underlying 'cause then the evil of that cause must lie
3:27
in a prior cause. Think about how this plays out
3:30
in real life. Let us say you choose to steal a
3:32
car. OK, I'm stealing a car in this
3:34
scenario. Right, if you apply the Armenian
3:36
logic, you have to say the act of stealing the car isn't bad on
3:39
its own. It is only bad because your
3:42
underlying will determined it to be so.
3:44
But then we have to ask the logical follow up question.
3:48
What made my underlying determination bad?
3:50
Was it another previous determination?
3:52
Yes. You end up pushing fault back
3:54
step by step in infinitum. It is an infinite regress.
3:58
That is just a massive logical wall.
4:00
If you keep pushing the blame to the cause of the cause of the
4:03
cause, fault is entirely banished from the universe.
4:06
You can never actually point to anything and say that is where
4:10
the evil is. You are forever hunting for a
4:13
phantom first 'cause that exists in the vacuum.
4:16
So how does Edwards cut through this philosophical knot?
4:19
Because it sounds exhausting. He states that vice is hateful
4:23
because of its inherent deformity, not because it was
4:26
produced by something else. This is a crucial distinction
4:29
and reformed thought. The hateful nature of The thing
4:31
is what makes it vicious, and the amiable, beautiful nature of
4:35
a thing is what makes it virtuous.
4:37
Right, he uses the practical example of ingratitude.
4:40
Imagine you donate a kidney to save someone's life.
4:42
A very generous act. Unbelievably generous.
4:45
And the very next day, they slander your name, steal your
4:48
life savings, and mock your generosity.
4:50
Oh wow, that is incredibly dark. It is.
4:53
But when you see someone act with that kind of bitter
4:56
ingratitude toward a benefactor, common sense tells you that the
4:59
ingratitude is blameworthy because it is ugly and deformed
5:02
in its very nature. You definitely do not pause to
5:05
run a philosophical calculation about whether a prior completely
5:10
uncaused choice produce the ingratitude.
5:13
No one does that. The deformity is in the
5:16
disposition of the heart itself. The ugliness is inherent.
5:19
The ugliness is in the thing itself.
5:21
That makes so much more sense than chasing a ghost cause.
5:25
Edwards also brings up a fascinating quote from a
5:27
contemporary American author who is making a lot of noise during
5:31
that era. Oh, this part is brilliant.
5:33
This critic claimed a necessary holiness is no holiness.
5:37
He argued that Adam could not have been created originally in
5:40
true holiness. And why did he think that?
5:42
Because, according to this critic, Adam had to exist first
5:45
in a state of neutrality. He had to reflect on his options
5:48
and consciously choose to be righteous before he could
5:50
actually be considered righteous.
5:52
But Edwards just takes a logical hammer to this entire premise.
5:55
If the very first choosing to be righteous is what makes you
5:58
righteous, then what made that first choice righteous?
6:01
It could not have been a prior choice because by definition it
6:04
is the first choice. That is a devastating counter
6:07
argument. He shows that this Armenian
6:09
logic shuts all holiness out of the world entirely.
6:13
Let us walk through the mechanics of that.
6:15
Please do because it gets a bit tangled if you aren't paying
6:17
attention. Well, if in effect cannot
6:20
prevent the influence of its cause, and every choice must be
6:23
preceded by a holy cause to be considered genuinely holy, then
6:28
the very first choice to be holy has no precedent.
6:31
It has no holy cause behind it. Right.
6:34
Therefore, no door is left open for holiness to ever possibly
6:37
enter the world. The Armenian premise demands an
6:40
impossible contradictory sequence.
6:42
You must somehow be holy before you can choose to be holy, but
6:45
you cannot be holy until you choose it.
6:47
It is a closed loop of absolute absurdity.
6:50
And having dismantled that infinite regress so thoroughly,
6:53
Edwards forces his opponents to reckon with how they misuse
6:57
everyday language to try and escape this logical trap.
7:00
Specifically, they try to change the definition of what an action
7:03
actually is. But wait, if common sense says
7:06
we are just acting out our desires, why do his opponents
7:09
use the word action so differently?
7:11
Because they have to. Their entire system depends on
7:13
it. What do they think an action
7:15
actually is, then? This brings us to one of the
7:17
most entertaining parts of Edward's text.
7:20
It really is entertaining. Since the Armenian view requires
7:23
this impossible infinite regress, you have writers like
7:27
Mr. Chubb trying to create this highly specific, tangled
7:31
metaphysical definition of action.
7:33
They claim an action must have 0 passiveness.
7:36
It must be influenced by absolutely no external cause,
7:40
yet it must simultaneously be an effect of the minds free
7:43
determination. So think about what they're
7:44
demanding. It is an effect, but it is
7:47
uncaused by anything prior. It is an effect of a choice, but
7:51
utterly uncaused by any prior bias, motive or inclination.
7:56
I struggle to even picture what that looks like in reality.
7:58
You struggle to picture it because it is a definition that
8:01
contradicted its own terms. Let's breakdown the psychology
8:04
of what they're suggesting. OK, let's look into it.
8:06
If an action is an effect of the mind's determination, then the
8:09
action is passive to that determination.
8:11
It's being caused by the mind that.
8:13
Makes sense? Cause and effect.
8:14
Right. You cannot be entirely active
8:17
and entirely passive in the exact same respect at the exact
8:20
same time. The Armenian notion of action
8:23
requires it to be necessary because it is determined by a
8:26
foregoing choice, and yet not necessary because it must spring
8:30
from perfect contingents and total indifference.
8:32
It must be the beginning of motion, yet consequent on
8:35
previous exertion. It is an absolute non entity.
8:39
It is nothing more than a confusion of the mind excited by
8:41
tangled words. They're trying to invent a
8:44
category of reality that cannot logically exist.
8:46
And Edwards uses the most brilliant biting satire to mock
8:51
this fabricator category of reality.
8:54
He invents this bizarre creature to illustrate the absurdity the
8:57
Terra del Fuego animal. I love this analogy.
9:00
It is so good. Let me just lay out the traits
9:02
of this magnificent, impossible beast because it is worth
9:04
savoring, Edwards says. Imagine a traveler returning
9:07
from a far off land claiming he saw an animal that begets
9:10
itself. Right out of the gate, a
9:12
biological impossibility. Oh, but it gets better.
9:14
It has a sire and damn distinct from itself.
9:16
It is hungry before it even exists.
9:18
Which hurts the brain to even think about.
9:20
It leads its master who governs it.
9:23
It takes a step before its very first step.
9:25
And my absolute favorite trait? It goes head first while
9:28
walking, tail foremost. It is hilarious, but it
9:31
perfectly mocks the logical impossibilities of an action
9:35
that is simultaneously an effective choice but utterly
9:38
uncaused by any prior motive. You cannot have an animal that
9:42
walks tail foremost while going head 1st, and you cannot have a
9:45
choice that is an effect of the mind but uncaused by the mind's
9:49
desires. The Terra del Fuego animal
9:51
perfectly illustrates what happens when you abandon common
9:54
sense language for the sake of defending A flawed philosophy.
9:57
When you look at how language is actually formed, words like
10:00
action and common speech do not carry all this heavy
10:03
metaphysical baggage. Not at all.
10:05
In everyday life, an action simply means a voluntary
10:08
exertion of the body or the mind.
10:10
When you say you did something, you mean you chose to do it and
10:13
your body or mind executed that choice.
10:15
You do not mean that your choice was a self determined uncaused
10:18
origin that materialized out of a vacuum of indifference.
10:22
The Armenian Divine's try to force this impossible,
10:25
contradictory definition onto common vocabulary, creating an
10:29
intellectual edifice built entirely on sand.
10:33
They're trying to win a debate by changing the dictionary.
10:35
That semantic game leads right into the next massive trap.
10:40
Edwards exposes the definition of necessity.
10:43
This is where things get incredibly practical for you as
10:46
a listener, sitting in traffic or making decisions at work.
10:49
It really hits home here. If our choices are necessarily
10:52
connected to our strongest desires, how are we still to
10:55
blame for bad choices? Opponents of Reformed theology
10:59
love to cry foul here. They definitely do.
11:01
They say if I must do something, you cannot blame me for doing
11:04
it. My hands are tied.
11:05
But Edwards brings in this brilliant psychological insight
11:08
about childhood conditioning to explain why we get so confused
11:11
by the word necessity. Yes, he points out that we learn
11:13
words like must, cannot and impossible when we are very
11:17
young children and we learn them entirely regarding physical
11:20
constraints. That childhood conditioning is
11:21
the root of the entire philosophical confusion.
11:24
It really is. As children, our primary
11:27
experience with the concept of impossibility is what Edwards
11:30
calls natural necessity. Imagine a young child who
11:33
desperately desires to reach the cookie jar on the top shelf, but
11:37
they are simply too short. They cannot reach it.
11:39
The impossibility is purely physical.
11:42
It happens against their sincere will and their sincere
11:45
endeavors. Common sense universally
11:47
dictates that natural necessity completely excuses a person from
11:51
blame. You do not punish a child for
11:53
failing to reach a shelf they are physically too short to
11:56
reach. The physical constraint is
11:58
entirely external to their will. Their heart wanted to achieve
12:01
the goal, but nature prevented them.
12:04
But then Edwards contrast this physical constraint with moral
12:07
necessity. In moral necessity the
12:09
impossibility lies entirely in the opposition of the person's
12:13
own will and inclination. It is not that you want to do
12:16
the good thing, but a physical barrier stops you.
12:18
It is that your heart hates the good things so much that is
12:21
morally impossible for you to choose it.
12:23
And to explain the mechanics of this, Edwards gives us the
12:26
crucial that piece of the two prisoners.
12:29
Let us walk through this carefully because it paints such
12:31
a vivid psychological picture. We have prisoner A and Prisoner
12:34
B both locked in a royal dungeon.
12:37
Let us examine Prisoner A first. Think about his emotional state.
12:41
He is genuinely repentant, he is weeping, he recognizes his crime
12:45
against the king, and he desperately wants to fall down,
12:48
beg the King's pardon, and reconcile.
12:50
But he is locked deep in a subterranean dungeon, behind
12:54
strong brass gates and heavy iron bars.
12:57
His inability to go to the king is a textbook case of natural
13:01
necessity. His will is entirely in favor of
13:03
the action, but external physical forces prevent him from
13:07
moving his body to the throne. Room.
13:08
According to the universal dictates of common sense, he's
13:11
completely excused for not presenting himself to the king.
13:14
No rational judge would condemn him for failing to walk through
13:17
solid iron right. We look at Prisoner A and we
13:20
feel pity. We recognize his heart is in the
13:22
right place. But then look at Prisoner B.
13:24
The king himself comes down to the dungeon, walks up to
13:27
Prisoner B's cell, strikes off his iron chains, and sets the
13:30
prison doors wide open. The path to the throne room is
13:33
completely clear. There are no physical barriers
13:36
whatsoever. But Prisoner B possesses such an
13:39
inveterate, haughty, firmly rooted enmity toward the king
13:43
that he spits at the open door. It is impossible for him to bend
13:47
the knee because his hatred is so absolute.
13:49
His pride binds him stronger than the iron bars ever bound
13:53
Prisoner A. This is moral necessity.
13:55
And what does common sense say about prisoner B?
13:57
We do not pity him for a single second.
14:00
We place maximum blame on him. His inability to bow does not
14:03
excuse him, it condemns him. That is the turning point of the
14:06
entire argument. It reveals A fundamental truth
14:09
about human nature. In common speech, the strength
14:12
of an evil inclination is an aggravation of guilt, not an
14:15
extenuation. Think about modern legal
14:18
culpability, or how we judge people in everyday life.
14:20
If you observe someone doing something terrible and you say
14:23
it is his very nature to be malicious, he cannot help but
14:26
act cruelly. You are not excusing him from
14:28
the crime. You are highlighting the
14:30
staggering depth of his wickedness.
14:32
You were saying he is rotten to the core.
14:35
The stronger the inclination toward evil, the more
14:37
blameworthy the person is. The Armenian framework tries to
14:40
equate natural necessity with moral necessity, claiming both
14:44
should excuse a person equally. But common sense universally
14:48
applied across all cultures shows we judge them entirely
14:52
differently. A physical barrier excuses.
14:55
The wicked, unyielding heart condemns.
14:58
I think this raises a natural follow up question, one that is
15:00
likely crossing your mind right now as you listen.
15:03
If human choices operate by moral necessity, if our actions
15:07
are necessarily tied to our strongest desires, why should
15:10
anyone strive to do good? Yes, the classic fatalism
15:13
argument. Doesn't this make all human
15:15
efforts entirely useless? If my future is fixed by an
15:18
unbroken chain of causes and effects, shouldn't I just stay
15:21
in bed, stare at the ceiling, and do absolutely nothing?
15:23
Why get? Up and go to work.
15:25
Why pray? Why try to be a better person?
15:27
Exactly. Wait, I mean precisely.
15:29
It feels like effort is pointless if everything is
15:31
already mapped out. It is a very common
15:33
misunderstanding of reformed theology, but Edwards dismantles
15:36
this fatalism by explaining the intricate mechanics of means.
15:40
In his framework, means are not outside the chain of necessity.
15:44
They are not optional add-ons. They are vital integral links
15:48
within the chain itself. When God ordains A predetermined
15:51
end, that divine decree includes the predetermined means to
15:55
achieve it. The necessity of an event does
15:57
not render the means useless. The means are precisely how the
16:00
necessary event actually comes to pass in space and time.
16:04
Edwards uses such a simple, concrete analogy for this.
16:07
He says think about opening your eyes in broad daylight to see
16:10
the world around you. There is a necessary,
16:13
unbreakable connection between having your eyes open in the
16:16
sunlight and the act of seeing. The fact that seeing is
16:19
necessarily connected to opening your eyes does not make the
16:22
physical effort of opening your eyes useless.
16:25
It is the very reason you perform the action.
16:27
The established connection between the antecedent opening
16:30
your eyes and the consequent seeing the light is what gives
16:32
your effort any meaning at all. If you want another analogy,
16:35
think about eating to stop hunger.
16:37
The necessity of food curing starvation doesn't mean you
16:40
shouldn't eat, it's the absolute guarantee that eating will work.
16:44
And this is where Edwards turns the tables on his critics in a
16:47
striking, philosophically aggressive way.
16:50
He points out that it is actually the Armenian scheme of
16:53
indifference that renders all human endeavors and means
16:56
entirely useless. Think about the massive
16:59
implications of pure contingents.
17:02
If the human will operates by uncaused contingents, meaning it
17:06
sits in perfect equilibrium and makes decisions completely
17:09
independently of any prior motive, bias, or external
17:12
influence, then no sermon, no prayer, no reading of scripture
17:16
has any reliable connection to a good choice.
17:19
That is a staggering realization when you really chew on it.
17:22
Imagine a pastor preaching A heartfelt sermon to a purely
17:25
Armenian congregation. If their choices truly do not
17:28
depend on prior motives or on God disposing their hearts
17:30
toward the good, then all the pastors endeavors to influence
17:33
their hearts are entirely vain. The words just bounce off a will
17:37
that operates in a vacuum. You could preach the most
17:40
persuasive, logical, emotionally resonant sermon in the history
17:44
of the world, but if the listeners will is truly
17:46
contingent and uncaused, the sermon cannot cause them to
17:50
repent. Because if a motive causes the
17:52
choice, the choice wasn't contingent.
17:54
So under the Armenian system, everything you do to persuade,
17:57
teach or guide someone is essentially a waste of breath.
18:00
There is no reliable bridge between your advice and their
18:04
action. If there is no fixed, necessary
18:06
connection between an antecedent cause and a consequent effect,
18:10
then your prayers and your endeavors are entirely
18:13
untethered from reality. You are shouting into a void.
18:16
The person who objects to more necessity often falls into the
18:19
comfort of sloth. They might say my future is
18:21
fixed, so I will seek the comfort of laziness.
18:23
I won't even try. But Edwards brilliantly exposes
18:27
the logical contradiction happening in their own brain.
18:30
By choosing laziness to gain comfort, they are still using a
18:33
means to achieve a desired future end.
18:36
They are relying on the very law of cause and effect they claim
18:38
makes action useless. They contradict their own
18:41
premise just by deciding to do nothing.
18:43
They are essentially saying because cause and effect are
18:46
fixed, I will use the cause of doing nothing to achieve the
18:49
effect of personal comfort. It is a complete, undeniable
18:53
contradiction. Now, when opponents lose this
18:55
logical debate, when the infinite regress is exposed,
18:59
when the definition of action is shown to be absurd, when the
19:01
prison analogy clarifies moral necessity, and when the fatalism
19:05
objection collapses, they often resort to simple name calling.
19:09
Edwards has to spend time addressing the guilt by
19:12
association fallacy. Critics look at his rigorous
19:15
theology and accuse him of aligning with Pagan Stoics and
19:18
the notorious philosopher Thomas Hops.
19:20
It is a classic ad hominem tactic.
19:22
When the logic of your opponent holds up, you attack the
19:25
supposed associations of the logic to scare people away from
19:28
it. Critics cry Stoicism to
19:31
discredit Calvinistic thought. The ancient Stoics believed in a
19:34
form of fate, and Hobbes believed in a form of material
19:38
necessity. So the opponents try to smear
19:40
Edwards by association, hoping the theological stigma will
19:43
stick. But Edwards mounts A rigorous
19:45
defense of truth itself. Truth is truth, regardless of
19:49
who happens to speak it or twist it.
19:51
If Thomas Hobbes held to a form of necessity, that does not
19:54
somehow invalidate the demonstrable, undeniable logic
19:57
of cause and effect. It is like saying mathematics is
20:00
evil because a notorious criminal knows how to add 2 and
20:03
2. Edwards points out that if the
20:05
devil himself proclaims that Jesus is the Son of God, the
20:08
statement remains entirely, undeniably true.
20:11
You do not reject reality just because someone you disagree
20:14
with acknowledges a piece of it. And there was a glaring, almost
20:17
comical hypocrisy here among Edwards critics.
20:21
Edwards calls out Doctor Whitby, a prominent Armenian writer.
20:24
Oh. This part is just devastating
20:27
for Whitby's credibility. Whitby cited the Stoics
20:29
agreement with Armenian ideas as proof that Arminianism is true,
20:32
claiming it beautifully aligns with natural reason.
20:35
But then, in the very same breath, Whitby cited the Stoics
20:38
agreement with Calvinists as undeniable proof that Calvinism
20:42
is Pagan. That double standard exposes the
20:44
total weakness of the critique. They use history as a weapon
20:48
when it suits them and cry foul when it doesn't.
20:50
But beyond exposing the hypocrisy, Edwards draws A
20:53
crucial, non negotiable distinction between his theology
20:56
and static fate. He thoroughly rejects the
20:59
concept of blind fate. The necessity he defends is not
21:03
a mindless, unguided machinery that rolls over the universe
21:07
randomly crushing people without purpose.
21:09
The necessity of Reformed theology is a universe governed
21:12
by an intelligent, infinitely wise agent.
21:16
God is governing all things by proper will, choice and design.
21:20
That is entirely different from the mechanical, unthinking,
21:23
impersonal fate of the ancient Stoics.
21:25
Which brings us to the theological climax of this
21:27
entire discussion. We have established that moral
21:30
necessity is is undeniably true for humans.
21:33
Our choices are determined by our strongest desires.
21:35
But what about God? Does moral necessity apply to
21:38
the Creator? Does God have free will in the
21:41
Armenian sense? Because the opponents charge
21:43
Edwards with a terrifying accusation here, they say if God
21:47
is determined by superior fitness and wisdom, if God must
21:51
always do what is most wise and most good, then he becomes a
21:56
mechanical medium of fate. They argue this strips God of
21:59
his true dominion, binds his hands, and turns him into a mere
22:02
servant of destiny. It is a weighty accusation, but
22:05
Edwards dismantling it is perhaps his finest theological
22:08
work. In the entire book he details 4
22:11
specific attributes of true absolute sovereignty to show
22:15
that God is not a servant of fate but the supreme ruler of
22:18
all reality. First, God has infinibility to
22:21
do whatever He pleases without any control or restraint from
22:24
outside himself. No one can stop Him. 2nd he
22:26
possesses supreme authority, meaning he is subject to no
22:29
other authority and derives his right to rule from no one.
22:32
Third, he has an independent will determined only by his own
22:35
counsel. And 4th he possesses Supreme
22:38
self-sufficient wisdom to direct that will perfectly.
22:41
I love how we look at that fourth point.
22:43
God's will is determined by his own supreme wisdom.
22:46
To the Armenian critic, being unable to do evil makes God look
22:49
weak. They want a God who has the
22:51
freedom to act arbitrarily. But Edwards points out that
22:54
being unable to act foolishly or wickedly is the ultimate sign of
22:58
infinite majesty. We do not look at God's eternal
23:01
existence and say, oh, what a shame.
23:04
It is a dishonor that God must exist.
23:06
He lacks the freedom to not exist.
23:08
Yeah, we recognize His necessary existence as His glory.
23:12
So if it is no dishonor for His existence to be necessary, why
23:16
in the world would it be a dishonor for His Holiness to be
23:18
necessary? The logic there is unassailable.
23:22
If you introduce the Armenian concept of absolute, uncaused
23:25
free will into the nature of God, you are demanding that
23:28
God's will suctuates based on blind contingents.
23:31
You are asking for randomness in the divine nature.
23:34
Think about what that implies. If God's choices are not
23:36
strictly determined by his infinite wisdom and perfect
23:39
holiness, then they are determined by nothing at all.
23:42
That would introduce a massive liability to evil.
23:44
It would strip him of his absolute perfection.
23:46
To act perfectly in every single instance without fail, according
23:50
to what is most fit and excellent is the very definition
23:53
of praise. The glory of moral necessity
23:55
reaches its absolute apex in the nature of God Himself.
23:58
It is stunning. God acting necessarily in
24:01
perfect holiness isn't a limitation, it is the sheer
24:04
brilliance of his perfection. It means he's completely
24:07
dependable, utterly good, and entirely incapable of being
24:11
swayed by the random, uncaused fluctuations that Armenians call
24:15
freedom. He's free to be perfectly
24:17
unchangeably himself. To summarize the massive
24:21
intellectual terrain we have covered today, Edwards
24:23
demonstrates that true virtue lies in the nature of our
24:26
hearts, not in some uncaused origin point hidden in the
24:30
background of our psychology. Human choices are necessitated
24:33
by our strongest desires, which is the definition of moral
24:36
necessity. This makes us fully responsible
24:38
for our actions because those actions flow from who we truly
24:41
are at our core. The use of means like prayer,
24:45
reading scripture, and preaching are the very links in the chain
24:48
of causes that God uses to bring about His purposes.
24:51
They are not rendered void by necessity, but guaranteed by it.
24:55
And this entire system mirrors the glorious, perfect necessity
24:58
of God's own holy will, always directed by His infinite,
25:01
self-sufficient wisdom. So we return to that sealed
25:04
courtroom we discussed at the very beginning.
25:07
The verdict of your actions doesn't just materialize out of
25:10
nowhere in a vacuum of indifference.
25:12
The verdict of your life flows directly from the evidence of
25:15
your heart, your strongest desires, and your fundamental
25:19
nature. And that leaves you with a final
25:21
thought to chew on today. If your greatest freedom isn't
25:24
the ability to choose randomly, but rather having a heart that
25:28
necessarily desires the highest good, how does that reshape the
25:31
way you pray for your own sanctification tomorrow morning?
25:34
You aren't asking God to give you the ability to randomly
25:37
choose good. You are asking Him to change
25:40
your desire so completely that you cannot help but run toward
25:43
Him. Thank you for joining us on this
25:45
deep dive. This is Reformed thinking.
25:47
Wishing you clarity and grace Farewell.