Latest / Reformed Thinking / Is Free Will Necessary for Moral Responsibility? | Jonathan Edwards

Transcript

Is Free Will Necessary for Moral Responsibility? | Jonathan Edwards · Reformed Thinking

• 0:00
  I want you to picture a set of vintage brass scales.
• 0:03
  Oh, like the kind you might see sitting in the window of an old
• 0:05
  apothecary shop. Yeah, that is but on or maybe
• 0:09
  resting on the velvet counter of a high end jeweler, right?
• 0:12
  So imagine taking two identical, perfectly calibrated weights and
• 0:17
  placing them on both sides of the mechanism.
• 0:19
  The brass arms tremble for a second, oscillating back and
• 0:22
  forth. It's kind of weighing it.
• 0:23
  Out. Yeah.
• 0:24
  And then they settle. They lock into absolute perfect
• 0:27
  stillness, complete equilibrium. A totally balanced state.
• 0:32
  Right now, I want you to imagine trying to make a choice, like a
• 0:36
  significant moral decision in your life, but you are demanding
• 0:40
  that your own heart and your own mind remain in that that very
• 0:44
  state of perfectly balanced, motionless neutrality.
• 0:48
  Which is pretty hard to imagine. It is.
• 0:50
  You are not allowed to tip to the left or tip to the right
• 0:53
  until the very microsecond you make the decision.
• 0:55
  We like to tell ourselves that human freedom looks like that
• 0:58
  perfectly balanced scale. We really do.
• 1:00
  We like to think we operate from a place of complete,
• 1:03
  uninfluenced neutrality. But when we actually take a
• 1:06
  wrench to the mechanics of human choice and look under the hood,
• 1:10
  that perfect balance turns out to be a total illusion.
• 1:13
  It is an incredibly persistent illusion though.
• 1:16
  I mean, it is the default setting for how most people view
• 1:18
  the world today. Oh for sure.
• 1:20
  We naturally assume that true authentic freedom requires a
• 1:24
  blank slate. We think we need a state of mind
• 1:27
  where our desires, our history and our inclinations do not push
• 1:31
  us in any particular direction before we act.
• 1:34
  Like any push at all is somehow a violation of our freedom.
• 1:37
  Precisely, there is this inherent assumption that if the
• 1:40
  scale is already tipped before we even approach a decision, we
• 1:43
  are somehow less free. We assume bias destroys liberty.
• 1:47
  Well, welcome to this deep dive on reform thinking.
• 1:50
  Today we are undertaking a massive mission.
• 1:52
  We are pulling a very specific stack of sources onto the table
• 1:55
  to take a rigorous look at Jonathan Edwards classic 1754
• 1:59
  theological and philosophical text Freedom of the Will.
• 2:02
  It is a heavy book. It really is, and along with
• 2:06
  Edwards original work, we're pulling in historical analysis
• 2:09
  of the 18th century debates, notes on the writings of his
• 2:12
  primary opponents, and the theological guardrails of the
• 2:16
  Westminster Confession of Faith. Which is going to be incredibly
• 2:19
  helpful for keeping us grounded. Definitely.
• 2:21
  Specifically, we're going to dissect Edwards devastating
• 2:25
  systematic critique of the Armenian concept of liberty of
• 2:29
  indifference. And that phrase, you know,
• 2:30
  liberty of indifference, is the technical term for that
• 2:33
  perfectly balanced brass scale you just described.
• 2:35
  OK, right. It was the prevailing academic
• 2:37
  theory of Edward's day. It was championed by Armenian
• 2:40
  theologians who believed that for any human choice to have
• 2:43
  moral value, the human will had to be entirely indifferent.
• 2:47
  Neutral. Yes, neutral right up until the
• 2:49
  moment of choosing. For an action to be genuinely
• 2:51
  praiseworthy or blameworthy, you had to have that total
• 2:54
  equilibrium. Look, whether you are sweating
• 2:57
  through a seminary midterm right now, studying the Westminster
• 3:00
  Confession with your church, or you are just someone trying to
• 3:04
  figure out how your own dearly choices fit into God's absolute
• 3:08
  sovereignty, this framework is going to fundamentally alter how
• 3:12
  you see human action. It really shifts your whole
• 3:15
  paradigm. It does, and we are going to
• 3:16
  take our time with this. We are laying down some ground
• 3:19
  rules for this conversation. We're going to maintain a steady
• 3:23
  rhythm. We will not talk over one
• 3:25
  another, and we're going to give these massive philosophical
• 3:28
  arguments plenty of room to breathe.
• 3:30
  Sounds good to set our baseline. The theological framework we
• 3:34
  will be operating from today is the affirmation that true
• 3:37
  freedom is not the ability to choose without bias.
• 3:40
  Right, the reformed view is completely different.
• 3:42
  It is in the Reformed view, true freedom is simply acting
• 3:45
  according to our greatest desire.
• 3:47
  We choose what we want most in the moment of choosing.
• 3:50
  So to really test this Armenian idea that true freedom requires
• 3:54
  absolute neutrality, we are not going to start by analyzing
• 3:58
  human beings. No, that would be too easy.
• 4:00
  Yet we are going straight to the very top of the cosmic
• 4:03
  hierarchy. We are going to look at God
• 4:05
  himself. Let's test their theory.
• 4:07
  I love this approach. Right.
• 4:09
  If the Armenian definition of freedom is accurate, how does it
• 4:13
  apply to a perfectly holy God? This is where Edwards proves his
• 4:17
  brilliance as a logician. He does not just attack the weak
• 4:20
  points of an argument, he takes the opponent's strongest premise
• 4:24
  and pushes it to its absolute logical conclusion.
• 4:27
  He stress tests it. He absolutely does.
• 4:29
  Edwards looks at the arguments of prominent Armenian thinkers
• 4:33
  of his era, specifically focusing on a man named Doctor
• 4:37
  Daniel Whitby. And Whitby was a pretty big deal
• 4:39
  back then, right? Oh, Whitby was a heavy hitter.
• 4:42
  He championed the idea that for an action to be virtuous, it
• 4:45
  must be completely free from necessity.
• 4:47
  Whitby argued that you cannot praise someone for doing
• 4:50
  something they could not avoid doing.
• 4:52
  So if you're forced, you get no credit.
• 4:54
  Right. To summarize his logic, he
• 4:56
  essentially claimed that if an action is necessary, then virtue
• 5:00
  and vice are just empty words. You need freedom from outside
• 5:03
  coercion, yes, but, Whitby insisted, you also need freedom
• 5:07
  from internal necessity. You must possess the raw ability
• 5:10
  to do otherwise in any given situation.
• 5:12
  So let me make sure I'm tracking with this.
• 5:15
  If I understand Whitby's rules, if an individual is guaranteed
• 5:18
  to do the right thing, if it is completely impossible for them
• 5:21
  to fail, they get 0 credit for doing it.
• 5:24
  Precisely the ability to choose evil is, in Whitby's mind, a
• 5:28
  strict prerequisite for getting credit for choosing good.
• 5:31
  That is quite a standard. It is, and Edwards takes that
• 5:34
  precise logic and holds it up against the nature of God.
• 5:37
  Armenians and Calvinists completely agree on one
• 5:40
  fundamental truth. God is necessarily holy.
• 5:43
  Right. His will is eternally determined
• 5:46
  to do good. Yes, it is completely impossible
• 5:49
  for God to sin. He cannot lie.
• 5:50
  He cannot choose to be evil. Therefore, Edwards points out
• 5:54
  the fatal flaw here. It comes according to strict
• 5:56
  Armenian logic, God has no virtue because God is under a
• 6:00
  necessity of his own divine nature to be good.
• 6:03
  He actually deserves no praise, no commendation, and no honor
• 6:07
  for His goodness. That is a terrifying conclusion.
• 6:09
  It really is. When you actually play that
• 6:11
  theory out in real time, the result is totally absurd.
• 6:15
  You read the Psalms, you read the prophets, you read the
• 6:17
  entire span of Scripture, and the text constantly magnifies,
• 6:21
  honors, and exalts God specifically because of his
• 6:24
  unchangeable holiness. Right.
• 6:26
  He is praised because he cannot change.
• 6:29
  Yeah. Exactly.
• 6:30
  I mean, that is spot on. What stands out here is how
• 6:33
  Edwards draws out the practical implications of obese stance.
• 6:37
  He is so good at doing that. If internal necessity negates
• 6:40
  virtue, then God's goodness is categorically no different than
• 6:44
  a raw physical property of nature.
• 6:46
  Like gravity or something. Yeah, Edwards uses phenomenal
• 6:48
  examples here. He points to the brightness of
• 6:51
  the sun or the fertility of the earth.
• 6:53
  We all acknowledge that the sun is incredibly bright and gives
• 6:56
  life sustaining heat, but we do not attribute moral virtue to a
• 7:00
  *. No, we don't.
• 7:01
  We do not write hymns praising a rock for being hard or water for
• 7:05
  being wet. Right, because it's just nature
• 7:07
  doing its thing. Precisely if Whitby is right,
• 7:10
  God's holiness is just a natural, unavoidable property.
• 7:14
  It is completely devoid of moral worth simply because it does not
• 7:17
  result from a self determining, neutral, indifferent choice.
• 7:21
  Let me build an analogy here to see if this tracks with the
• 7:23
  practical world. Imagine you go to a speciality
• 7:27
  culinary shop and you drop $10,000 on a highly
• 7:31
  sophisticated commercial grade espresso machine.
• 7:34
  Oh, a really nice one. Yeah, top of the line.
• 7:36
  It has precision burs, perfect temperature control and
• 7:39
  automated pressure profile and you push a button and it makes
• 7:41
  the flawless world class cup of espresso every single time
• 7:46
  without fail. Sounds like a dream.
• 7:48
  Right. And as the owner, you appreciate
• 7:50
  the machine, you enjoy the coffee immensely, but you do not
• 7:54
  look at the machine and attribute moral virtue to it.
• 7:56
  Of course not. You do not think the machine is
• 7:58
  a good person? It is just doing what is
• 8:00
  internal mechanics necessitate. It has absolutely no choice in
• 8:02
  the matter. So is the Armenian logic
• 8:05
  actually suggesting that God is essentially just a cosmic
• 8:08
  flawless coffee machine? That is the inescapable
• 8:12
  conclusion of their own premise, whether they want to admit it or
• 8:15
  not. Wow.
• 8:16
  If you demand that authentic virtue requires the tangible
• 8:21
  ability to choose evil, then a God who cannot choose evil
• 8:24
  cannot be virtuous. Which completely unravels their
• 8:27
  whole system. It does, but when we look at the
• 8:29
  Reformed tradition, particularly the theology codified in the
• 8:32
  Westminster Confession, we see a stark and beautiful contrast.
• 8:36
  Yeah, let's look at the contrast.
• 8:37
  In Reformed theology, God is the the very fountain and standard
• 8:41
  of all virtue. His absolute unchangeable
• 8:44
  inability to sin is not a lack of freedom.
• 8:47
  It is not a handicap. No, it's a perfection.
• 8:49
  Yes, it is the absolute perfection of His nature.
• 8:51
  It is the very reason He is infinitely worthy of our esteem,
• 8:55
  our worship, and our praise. His goodness is not a neutral
• 8:58
  choice He happens to make on a whim.
• 9:00
  It is the essence of who He is. So if necessity destroys praise,
• 9:05
  then God gets no praise. That is a devastating starting
• 9:08
  point for the Armenian argument. But let's follow Edwards as he
• 9:10
  moves this argument forward. OK, where to next?
• 9:13
  Let's logically step from God the Father in heaven down to the
• 9:16
  Incarnate sun on earth. Let's look at the earthly
• 9:19
  ministry of Jesus Christ. That is a brilliant next step,
• 9:22
  right? Did Jesus possess this Armenian
• 9:25
  version of free will while he was walking around for a
• 9:28
  century? Judea was his internal brass
• 9:30
  scale, perfectly balanced between sin and righteousness.
• 9:34
  To answer that question, Edwards bypasses the philosophical
• 9:37
  arguments entirely and goes straight to the text.
• 9:39
  He looks at the sheer volume of Old Testament promises
• 9:42
  guaranteeing the Messiah's success long before Jesus was
• 9:45
  even born in Bethlehem. Because there are a lot of them.
• 9:48
  Oh, there are hundreds. God the Father made absolute,
• 9:51
  unbreakable promises regarding the Son.
• 9:54
  In the book of Isaiah, specifically chapter 43, God
• 9:57
  promises to uphold His Servant, explicitly stating that He will
• 10:01
  not fail nor be discouraged. Right, that is a huge one.
• 10:04
  God swore a covenant oath to David about an everlasting
• 10:08
  throne that the Messiah would occupy forever.
• 10:10
  There are countless prophecies asserting that the Messiah would
• 10:12
  execute perfect justice, that he would be a light to the
• 10:15
  Gentiles, and that he would see the travail of his soul and be
• 10:18
  completely satisfied. And we need to clarify what a
• 10:21
  promise from God actually is, especially for listening right
• 10:25
  now. A divine promise is not a
• 10:27
  weather forecast. No, not at.
• 10:29
  All it is not A prediction of a high probability based on
• 10:33
  current trends is an absolute ironclad guarantee of a future
• 10:38
  reality. Yes, and that guarantee changes
• 10:41
  the mechanics of the situation entirely.
• 10:43
  These promises made it absolutely impossible for Christ
• 10:46
  to fail or to fall into sin. Because God cannot break a
• 10:50
  promise. Right.
• 10:51
  The outcome of his earthly life was entirely necessary.
• 10:54
  It could not have happened any other way without making God a
• 10:57
  liar. Edwards argues that if it was
• 10:59
  even theoretically possible for Christ to sin, then the whole
• 11:03
  system falls apart. Like if his will was hovering in
• 11:06
  a state of neutral equilibrium where he could have genuinely
• 11:09
  chosen to rebel against the father.
• 11:10
  Yes, if that were the case, then the entire salvation of the Old
• 11:14
  Testament Saints was built on a sandy, fallible foundation.
• 11:17
  Because God would have been justifying and saving people
• 11:20
  like Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses based on a future event
• 11:23
  that might not have actually happened.
• 11:25
  That is exactly the point. God would have been leaning the
• 11:28
  entire weight of cosmic justice on a staff that could
• 11:32
  potentially break. Furthermore, we have to look at
• 11:35
  Christ's own behavior during his earthly ministry.
• 11:37
  What I mean, Well, Jesus promised kingdoms to his
• 11:41
  disciples. He looked at them and told them
• 11:43
  they would sit on Thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.
• 11:47
  Oh, right. If his ultimate success on the
• 11:49
  cross depended on a neutral, unpredictable, self determining
• 11:53
  human will that could have opted out at the last second, making
• 11:57
  those promises to the disciples would have been incredibly
• 12:00
  presumptuous. Yeah, he would be promising
• 12:02
  eternal realities that he technically could not guarantee.
• 12:05
  Precisely. But I have to stop you there
• 12:07
  though, because I know what someone listening to this is
• 12:09
  thinking. What is that?
• 12:10
  If the outcome was guaranteed from the start, and Christ could
• 12:13
  not possibly fail, how was his temptation in the wilderness
• 12:17
  real? That is a very common question.
• 12:19
  The Gospels tell us Satan tempted him for 40 days.
• 12:23
  If Jesus had no ability to choose, sin was a temptation,
• 12:26
  just a theatrical performance. How can his earthly life be a
• 12:30
  model for us if his will was, as Edwards describes it,
• 12:34
  unalterably determined to good? That is the most natural
• 12:38
  objection to race, and it requires us to draw a sharp
• 12:40
  distinction between natural compulsion and moral certainty.
• 12:44
  OK, unpack that for us. Christ did not obey the Father
• 12:47
  because He was physically forced to against His own desires.
• 12:50
  There was no external coercion overriding His will.
• 12:53
  So no one was quisting his arm, right?
• 12:55
  He obeyed because His holy disposition perfectly and
• 12:59
  consistently aligned with the Father's commands.
• 13:02
  His obedience was necessary because of who He was, yet it
• 13:05
  was also completely willing. It was the purest expression of
• 13:08
  His highest desire. So he could not sin because he
• 13:11
  absolutely hated sin and he absolutely loved the Father.
• 13:14
  Spot on. His inability to sin was an
• 13:16
  inability of character, not a lack of physical opportunity.
• 13:19
  Right. And because it was a willing
• 13:20
  obedience flowing from a perfect, unblemished
• 13:23
  disposition, it was highly rewardable.
• 13:25
  Which brings us to the Book of Revelation.
• 13:27
  Yes, we see the culmination of this in Revelation, where the
• 13:30
  heavenly hosts fall down and sing.
• 13:33
  Worthy is the Lamb that was. Slain they do not sing.
• 13:36
  Lucky is the Lamb who happened to make the right choice out of
• 13:39
  a state of indifference. No, they don't.
• 13:41
  They praise his worthiness. His unalterable, necessary bias
• 13:45
  toward holiness is the very thing that makes him worthy of
• 13:49
  infinite praise. So we have looked at the
• 13:52
  perfect, necessary obedience of Christ.
• 13:55
  Now we need to flip the spectrum and drop into the stark reality
• 13:58
  of the fallen human condition. The dark side of the equation,
• 14:01
  yeah. What happens when a human will
• 14:03
  is totally determined toward evil?
• 14:06
  Edwards applies this exact same logic to the darkest parts of
• 14:09
  humanity. He does, and the results are eye
• 14:11
  opening. Edwards brings up individuals in
• 14:14
  the biblical narrative who were explicitly given over to sin by
• 14:17
  God. He points to Judas Iscariot
• 14:19
  betraying Christ. That betrayal was explicitly
• 14:22
  prophesied centuries in advance. Christ knew it would happen,
• 14:25
  told the disciples it would happen, and Judas was given over
• 14:27
  to the dark desires of his own wicked heart to accomplish it.
• 14:30
  Wow. Yes, Edwards also points to
• 14:32
  Pharaoh in Egypt or the rebellious Israelites during
• 14:36
  Jeremiah's time who refused to worship Yahweh and acted out of
• 14:40
  a deeply hardened, entrenched rebellion.
• 14:43
  Let's run the Armenian logic on these scenarios.
• 14:45
  If we apply the idea that necessity removes blame, we
• 14:49
  arrive at a conclusion that offends every fiber of human
• 14:52
  justice. We really do.
• 14:54
  If an action is necessary and unavoidable, then the person
• 14:57
  committing the action is completely innocent.
• 15:00
  Under Whitby's rules, Judas is completely innocent because his
• 15:04
  actions were guaranteed by divine prophecy and driven by a
• 15:07
  heart that was totally hardened and bent toward evil.
• 15:10
  Judas lacked the liberty of indifference.
• 15:13
  His scale was not balanced. Not even close.
• 15:15
  He could not help but betray Jesus because his desires were
• 15:17
  so utterly corrupted. Therefore, according to the
• 15:21
  Armenian framework, he cannot be blamed for the betrayal.
• 15:24
  This is where Edwards does something brilliant.
• 15:26
  He introduces A mathematical takedown of the Armenian
• 15:29
  position. I love this part.
• 15:30
  Let's walk through the math of this argument, because it
• 15:32
  exposes the total absurdity of their premise.
• 15:35
  Edwards reasons through it like a mathematical proof.
• 15:38
  He says if total impossibility excuses a sin completely, then
• 15:43
  extreme difficulty must excuse it partially.
• 15:46
  OK, that makes sense on a proportional level.
• 15:48
  This is a basic proportional truth.
• 15:51
  So if a person has cultivated a massive, overwhelming habit of
• 15:55
  doing evil, that habit makes it very difficult for them to
• 15:59
  choose to do good. It pulls them in One Direction.
• 16:01
  Right. It creates a strong internal
• 16:03
  necessity to sin. Therefore, the stronger a
• 16:06
  person's evil habits become, the closer they get to total
• 16:10
  impossibility, and proportionally the less guilty
• 16:13
  they become. Let's use the scale analogy
• 16:15
  again, but let's upgrade it to a modern digital smart scale.
• 16:18
  OK. I'm with you.
• 16:19
  Imagine a machine that is required by its programming to
• 16:22
  push down with 10 lbs of force. That is its baseline duty. 10
• 16:26
  lbs Got it. But someone comes along and
• 16:28
  places a heavy 9 LB counterweight on the other side
• 16:31
  of the mechanism. Now the scale is severely
• 16:34
  hindered. It only has the remaining
• 16:35
  capacity to push with 1 LB of force.
• 16:37
  Because of the heavy counterweight, right?
• 16:40
  According to Armenian logic, because of that £9 hindrance,
• 16:44
  you can only blame the scale for failing to produce that one
• 16:47
  single pound. You are required to excuse the
• 16:49
  other £9 because the counterweight made it too
• 16:52
  difficult. And when you take that
• 16:53
  mechanical logic and apply it to human morality, the results are
• 16:57
  catastrophic for any system of justice.
• 16:59
  Completely by this logic, imagine a hardened serial killer
• 17:04
  who has spent decades cultivating a massive,
• 17:06
  ingrained, almost unbreakable habit of violence and cruelty.
• 17:10
  A truly terrifying person. Yes, he is heavily hindered from
• 17:14
  doing good by his own corrupted nature.
• 17:17
  Therefore, he is far less blameworthy for his next murder
• 17:20
  than, say, a gentle, kind hearted St. who has a momentary
• 17:24
  lapse in judgment and tells a single white lie.
• 17:26
  That is just mind blowing. The scene had a lot of liberty,
• 17:29
  a balanced mind and very little habit pulling them towards sin
• 17:32
  so they get maximum blame for the lie.
• 17:35
  The serial killer had almost 0 liberty due to their horrific
• 17:37
  habits, so they get almost zero blame for the murder.
• 17:40
  It's a complete and total inversion of justice.
• 17:42
  It really is. The worse you become, the more
• 17:45
  innocent you are considered, the more you hate God, the less
• 17:48
  guilty you are for rebelling against Him.
• 17:50
  Which leads us to look at a massive theological
• 17:53
  inconsistency in the Armenian system regarding the law of God
• 17:57
  itself. Oh, this is a good point.
• 17:58
  Let's dig into that. Armenians historically claim
• 18:01
  that it is fundamentally unjust for God to require perfect
• 18:04
  obedience from fallen humanity precisely because we are unable
• 18:08
  to provide it. So they think God's standard is
• 18:10
  unfair. Right.
• 18:11
  They argue that Christ died to satisfy that old, rigorous,
• 18:15
  impossible law and to institute a milder law of sincere,
• 18:20
  imperfect obedience that we in our fallen state can actually
• 18:24
  manage to achieve. Wait, think about that for a
• 18:26
  second. If the old law requiring perfect
• 18:29
  obedience was fundamentally unjust to begin with because it
• 18:32
  demanded what we lacked the ability to give, why did Christ
• 18:35
  need to die to satisfy it? That is the glaring
• 18:38
  contradiction Edwards exposes. Why would God offer a bloody
• 18:41
  infinite atonement to satisfy an unjust requirement?
• 18:44
  You wouldn't. If it is truly unjust to demand
• 18:47
  perfect obedience from a fallen creature, a righteous God could
• 18:50
  simply drop the demand. You do not need a sacrifice to
• 18:53
  appease an unjust law. No, you just need a righteous
• 18:56
  judge to recognize the injustice, strike it from the
• 18:59
  books, and apologize for demanding it.
• 19:01
  Exactly. Or well, I should say that is
• 19:03
  100% correct. The very fact that Christ had to
• 19:05
  die on a cross to satisfy the law proves that the original
• 19:09
  demand for perfect obedience was completely just, regardless of
• 19:13
  our fallen inability to meet the standard.
• 19:15
  That raises the most common objection I hear from people
• 19:17
  wrestling with Reformed theology for the first time.
• 19:20
  Let's hear it. They hear this, and they ask if
• 19:22
  we have a moral inability to obey God.
• 19:25
  If our hearts are so corrupt that we cannot freely choose
• 19:28
  him, why does God still command us to do things we cannot do?
• 19:32
  Isn't that cruel? That is the natural next
• 19:34
  question. They think, isn't that like
• 19:36
  commanding a blind man to read a book?
• 19:37
  Or commanding A paralyzed man to run a marathon.
• 19:40
  To answer that objection, Edwards provides A crucial,
• 19:43
  precise definition of what a command actually is.
• 19:47
  We have to understand the anatomy of a precept.
• 19:50
  OK, lay it out for us. The human soul is the target of
• 19:53
  a precept, and the will is the specific faculty of the soul
• 19:57
  that either complies with or rebels against that precept.
• 20:00
  When God issues a command, it requires a certain state or act
• 20:04
  of the will. The will is the focal point.
• 20:06
  Yes, the very fact that the will opposes the command or lacks the
• 20:11
  inclination to obey it is the moral inability.
• 20:15
  We need to spend some time here defining terms.
• 20:17
  We are dealing with two very different concepts, natural
• 20:20
  inability and moral inability. Let's break them down.
• 20:24
  Natural inability means you lack the physical or mental capacity
• 20:28
  to do something, regardless of how much you might want to do
• 20:31
  it. So like physics gets in the way.
• 20:32
  Right. If I command you to fly to the
• 20:34
  moon by flapping your arms, or if a blind person is commanded
• 20:37
  to see a beautiful painting, that is a natural inability.
• 20:40
  Edwards fully agrees that natural inability completely
• 20:43
  excuses a person. Because it's completely out of
• 20:46
  their hands. Right.
• 20:47
  You cannot be blamed for failing to do what you physically do not
• 20:51
  have the faculties to accomplish.
• 20:52
  But moral inability operates in a completely different category.
• 20:55
  It does. Moral inability means you lack
• 20:58
  the desire, the inclination, or the willingness to do something.
• 21:02
  You have all the physical faculties required, but your
• 21:04
  heart hates the command. You just don't want to do it.
• 21:07
  Moral inability does not excuse a person at all.
• 21:10
  In fact, moral inability is the very essence of their rebellion.
• 21:14
  The inability to love God is not a physical handicap, it is the
• 21:18
  sin itself. Let's map this onto a real world
• 21:22
  scenario so you can visualize it.
• 21:23
  OK, give me an example. Imagine a guy goes to a casino
• 21:27
  in Vegas and he gambles away his entire life savings at the
• 21:31
  roulette table. Every last penny is gone.
• 21:34
  The very next week the bank calls and demands his monthly
• 21:38
  mortgage payment. Oh boy, he checks his account
• 21:41
  and it is empty. He physically does not have the
• 21:43
  money. He has a very real inability to
• 21:45
  pay, but he cannot get on the phone and tell the bank manager
• 21:48
  it is fundamentally unjust for you to ask for this payment
• 21:51
  because I am unable to pay. It the bank manager would laugh
• 21:54
  at him. Right.
• 21:55
  Why does that argument fail? Because his inability is the
• 21:58
  direct result of his own fault. He squandered the funds.
• 22:02
  The bank's right to demand payment and his moral obligation
• 22:05
  to pay it remains entirely intact, regardless of his
• 22:08
  current bank balance. That illustrates the historical
• 22:11
  reality of the human race perfectly.
• 22:13
  How so? In the Garden of Eden, humanity
• 22:15
  possessed the moral capital, the righteous disposition to obey
• 22:19
  God perfectly. Through the Fall, humanity
• 22:21
  willingly squandered that capital and plunged the entire
• 22:25
  race into spiritual and moral bankruptcy.
• 22:27
  We gambled it all away. We did, but God's standard of
• 22:30
  perfect righteousness did not change change just because we
• 22:33
  bankrupted ourselves. Our moral inability to love Him
• 22:36
  perfectly is our own fault, and it consists entirely in our
• 22:39
  willful rebellion against Him. That is a harsh truth, but it
• 22:42
  makes so much sense. We do not obey because we do not
• 22:44
  want to obey, and you cannot stand before a holy God and use
• 22:48
  your intense hatred of Him as an excuse for failing to love Him.
• 22:51
  Knowing that humans fail these strict commands, a lot of people
• 22:55
  will retreat to a fall back position.
• 22:57
  They look for a theological loophole.
• 22:58
  There is always a loophole people try to find.
• 23:01
  They say, well, what if someone is genuinely trying their best?
• 23:04
  Doesn't God accept sincere intentions?
• 23:06
  Even if the person lacks the moral ability to fully obey?
• 23:10
  If they are putting in a sincere endeavor, surely a loving God
• 23:14
  counts that for something. Edwards anticipates this
• 23:17
  loophole, and he breaks down the concept of what he calls
• 23:19
  indirect willingness. We have to ask what people
• 23:22
  actually mean when they say someone is sincere but unable.
• 23:27
  Sincerity is a tricky word. It is Edwards illustrates this
• 23:30
  brilliantly with the example of a drunkard.
• 23:33
  Imagine a man who is deeply physically addicted to alcohol.
• 23:37
  He has a strong, overpowering desire to keep drinking.
• 23:40
  However, he also realizes he is spending all his money ruining
• 23:44
  his health and driving his family into poverty.
• 23:47
  So he wants to stop drinking, but only because he wants to
• 23:50
  save his money and his reputation, not because he has
• 23:53
  developed any actual love for the virtue of temperance.
• 23:55
  So his motivation is entirely financial and self preserving
• 23:58
  completely. He still loves the alcohol, he
• 24:00
  just hates the consequences of being broke.
• 24:02
  Right. So this man might make what
• 24:05
  looks to the outside world like a sincere endeavor to stop
• 24:07
  drinking. He might pour bottles down the
• 24:09
  sink. He might avoid the pattern.
• 24:11
  But his desire terminates on the money, not on the virtue.
• 24:15
  The motive is wrong. True sincerity in a moral and
• 24:19
  spiritual sense means the virtue itself is the direct object of
• 24:23
  the will. You seek holiness because you
• 24:25
  love holiness. You seek God because you love
• 24:27
  God. Which means the drunkard's
• 24:30
  sincere endeavor actually contains 0 actual virtue
• 24:34
  regarding temperance. None at all, and you cannot
• 24:37
  balance the scales of God's infinite justice by adding
• 24:40
  massive amounts of 0 value actions.
• 24:42
  You can't just pile on zeros. No.
• 24:44
  If you have a scale with a heavyweight of sin on one side,
• 24:47
  and you file 1000 actions onto the other side that are
• 24:49
  motivated entirely by self-interest and not by love
• 24:52
  for God, those actions have 0 moral weight. 1000 * 0 is still
• 24:57
  0. The scale does not move a single
• 24:59
  millimeter. Let's frame this with a familial
• 25:01
  scenario to make the emotional reality of this clear.
• 25:04
  I like these analogies. Let's hear it.
• 25:06
  Imagine a son who absolutely despises his wealthy father.
• 25:10
  He harbors deep, bitter hatred. He talks poorly about him behind
• 25:14
  his back. A really toxic relationship.
• 25:16
  Yeah, very toxic. But one day the son realizes
• 25:21
  that his obvious hatred might cause his father to write him
• 25:23
  out of the will. He wants the estate.
• 25:26
  The inheritance. So the son decides to sincerely
• 25:31
  try to act lovingly. He visits his dad every Sunday.
• 25:34
  He buys him expensive gifts. He speaks kindly to him at
• 25:36
  dinner, but internally his heart is still full of malice.
• 25:40
  His true target is the inheritance money.
• 25:42
  He is just putting on a show. Would any reasonable observer
• 25:46
  looking at the Sun's internal heart call those actions
• 25:49
  virtuous or loving? No, they would call it what it
• 25:51
  is, manipulation. They would call it hypocrisy.
• 25:54
  The motive always defines the action.
• 25:56
  It has to The action itself cannot rise above the principle
• 25:59
  from which it flows. If the foundational principle of
• 26:02
  the action is self-interest or a slavish fear of punishment, the
• 26:05
  action is not a virtuous act of love for.
• 26:07
  God it is just self preservation.
• 26:09
  That is why Edwards argue so forcefully that these indirect
• 26:12
  desires, these sincere endeavors that fall short of true love for
• 26:16
  God, do not excuse us or earn US any merit before a holy God.
• 26:21
  This systematic takedown dismantles all the standard
• 26:24
  excuses for moral inability. So let's pivot and look at the
• 26:29
  core definition of Armenian freedom one more time.
• 26:32
  Back to the brass scale. We keep coming back to this idea
• 26:34
  of liberty, of indifference. If humans must be completely
• 26:38
  neutral to be truly free, what does that actually look like in
• 26:41
  everyday life? It leads to an incredibly
• 26:44
  bizarre and disturbing view of human nature.
• 26:46
  For an action to be virtuous under Armenian logic, the heart
• 26:50
  must be indifferent at the exact moment of choice.
• 26:52
  Like perfectly balanced. Yes, the scale must be perfectly
• 26:54
  balanced, favoring neither good nor evil.
• 26:57
  Therefore, if you have a strong inclination toward doing good,
• 27:00
  if you actually love goodness and hate evil, that strong bias
• 27:03
  makes your action less free because you are not indifferent.
• 27:06
  And if it is less free? According to their rules, it is
• 27:09
  less virtuous. That completely destroys the
• 27:11
  concept of character building. It really does.
• 27:14
  It destroys the value of virtuous habits.
• 27:17
  If I spend years of my life developing a deep habit of
• 27:20
  kindness and generosity, my internal scale is heavily tipped
• 27:23
  toward kindness. I am no longer in equilibrium
• 27:26
  when I see a homeless person. Right, you naturally want to
• 27:28
  help. So according to this logic, my
• 27:31
  subsequent acts of kindness actually lack virtue because
• 27:34
  they flow from a biased, predetermined habit rather than
• 27:38
  a purely neutral choice. I'm being penalized for moral
• 27:42
  growth. It absolutely penalizes
• 27:44
  character. But Edwards points out an even
• 27:47
  darker side to this philosophy. What is that?
• 27:49
  He points out the horrific nature of demanding indifference
• 27:52
  to severe evils. If equilibrium is required for
• 27:55
  freedom, then you must maintain a state of internal neutrality
• 27:59
  even when faced with monstrous, horrific choices.
• 28:02
  Imagine you are walking near a fast moving river and you see a
• 28:05
  close friend fall in. They cannot swim.
• 28:07
  They're drowning, screaming for your help.
• 28:09
  A total crisis? If you pause on the bank,
• 28:12
  forcing yourself to remain completely indifferent, weighing
• 28:15
  the options with 0 bias in your heart towards saving them, isn't
• 28:18
  that state of indifference itself incredibly wicked?
• 28:21
  It is the absolute definition of depravity.
• 28:24
  Being in a state of mind where you are equally likely to murder
• 28:27
  someone as you are to help them is not the pinnacle of human
• 28:30
  freedom. No, it is the description of a
• 28:32
  monster. Exactly.
• 28:33
  A total monster. A truly virtuous person does not
• 28:37
  have a neutral will. When they see a friend drowning,
• 28:39
  their will is violently biased towards saving them.
• 28:43
  They are compelled by love, by empathy, and by.
• 28:45
  Duty. To demand that the will must be
• 28:48
  neutral in order to be genuinely free is to demand that we strip
• 28:51
  ourselves of all moral compass, all love of all compassion, and
• 28:55
  all righteous indignation. Is a terrifying way to view the
• 28:58
  world. Which brings us to the climax of
• 29:01
  this deep dive. If true freedom requires
• 29:03
  absolute neutrality, how does that affect the way God
• 29:06
  interacts with humanity? This is a huge, huge point.
• 29:09
  How do we make sense of the vast amounts of Scripture, the
• 29:12
  preaching of the prophets, and the severe warnings found
• 29:15
  throughout the biblical text? This is where Edwards delivers
• 29:17
  the final crushing blow to the Armenian system.
• 29:21
  We have to ask a functional question.
• 29:24
  How do motives and inducements work on the human mind?
• 29:27
  How do they persuade us? When you read a severe warning
• 29:30
  in the Bible, or hear a beautiful promise of heaven and
• 29:33
  a Sunday sermon, what is that information designed to do?
• 29:36
  It is designed to sway the mind. It is designed to create a bias.
• 29:39
  It is designed to tip the scales.
• 29:41
  A motive's entire job is to destroy equilibrium.
• 29:45
  Precisely. But if tipping the scales
• 29:48
  destroys the Armenian definition of freedom, then every single
• 29:52
  motive destroys virtue. Because it removes the
• 29:55
  indifference. Yes, Armenians will often point
• 29:57
  fingers at Reformed theology and accuse it of making God's
• 30:00
  warnings and invitations insincere.
• 30:03
  They argue, if God knows we are totally depraved and cannot
• 30:06
  choose him without a new nature, why does he invite us at all?
• 30:09
  It's a mockery. But Edwards turns the tables
• 30:12
  completely and puts him on the defensive.
• 30:13
  He does. He points out that if an
• 30:15
  invincible overwhelming motive destroys freedom, then a small
• 30:19
  motive destroys a small amount of freedom.
• 30:21
  It works on a proportional sliding scale, so any.
• 30:24
  Influence at all is bad for freedom.
• 30:26
  Right. Therefore, any preaching you
• 30:28
  hear, any warning about the judgement of hell, any beautiful
• 30:32
  promise regarding the eternal joys of heaven, actively works
• 30:36
  to destroy the listeners neutral free will.
• 30:39
  The irony here is staggering when you think about.
• 30:41
  It it really is. Under the Armenian system, God
• 30:44
  supposedly values this neutral, indifferent free will above all
• 30:50
  else in the universe. It is the crown jewel of human
• 30:53
  existence. They hold it up as the highest
• 30:55
  good. Yet he fills the Bible with
• 30:57
  thousands of pages of warnings, threats, promises, and
• 31:00
  passionate pleadings. And if those biblical motives
• 31:03
  actually work as intended, if they actually persuade anyone,
• 31:06
  they'll destroy the very neutral free will God is supposedly try
• 31:09
  and protect. It makes God's use of persuasion
• 31:12
  entirely contradictory and self defeating.
• 31:14
  If God truly wants us to remain in a state of perfect liberty,
• 31:17
  of indifference, He should never speak to.
• 31:19
  Us. He should just leave us alone.
• 31:21
  He should never offer a reward, he should never threaten A
• 31:25
  punishment because all of those things are explicitly designed
• 31:28
  to create a bias in our hearts. Edwards shows that the Armenian
• 31:32
  worldview collapses in on itself when you apply its own rules to
• 31:35
  how God actually communicates in Scripture.
• 31:38
  We have covered massive intellectual and theological
• 31:40
  ground today. Let's summarize the key
• 31:42
  takeaways from this deep dive. Let's do a quick recap.
• 31:45
  We have seen that defining freedom as a neutral liberty of
• 31:48
  indifference fails on every conceivable level.
• 31:52
  It makes God's eternal holiness devoid of praise.
• 31:55
  Right, the cosmic coffee machine.
• 31:56
  It makes Christ's guaranteed earthly obedience somewhat of a
• 32:00
  cosmic gamble. It creates A mathematical
• 32:02
  nightmare where hardened habitual criminals are
• 32:05
  technically less guilty than minor sinners.
• 32:07
  That was a wild realization. It excuses willful, hateful
• 32:10
  rebellion as mere natural inability.
• 32:13
  It values self interested sincerity over actual genuine
• 32:16
  virtue. It defines moral depravity as
• 32:19
  true freedom. And finally, it turns the entire
• 32:22
  Bible into a machine designed to destroy the very free will it
• 32:25
  supposedly champions. The conclusion we arrive at,
• 32:28
  which is the beating heart of Reformed theology and echoes the
• 32:30
  doctrines of the Westminster Confession, is that human beings
• 32:34
  are always choosing exactly what they want to choose.
• 32:36
  Our Desires Dr. The Bus. They do.
• 32:39
  Our choices are real, they have consequences, and they are not
• 32:42
  coerced by outside physical forces against our will.
• 32:46
  However, our wants, our highest, most governing desires, are
• 32:50
  dictated by our underlying nature.
• 32:52
  A bad tree bears bad fruit. Because it is in its very nature
• 32:56
  to do so, we are entirely free to act according to our desires.
• 33:00
  But because our desires are fallen and corrupt, we need a
• 33:03
  radically new nature in order to desire and act righteously.
• 33:07
  We need a heart transplant. We do.
• 33:09
  True virtue is not found in a neutral, uncaused choice
• 33:13
  hovering in a philosophical vacuum.
• 33:15
  True virtue is found in a heart that is completely captivated by
• 33:18
  and irrevocably biased toward the absolute goodness and glory
• 33:22
  of God. I want to leave you, the
• 33:24
  listener, with a final provocative thought to chew on
• 33:27
  as you go about the rest of your week.
• 33:28
  Something to ponder. We've established today that
• 33:31
  true freedom is acting according to your greatest desire.
• 33:36
  Consider the incredible biblical promise where God speaks to the
• 33:39
  prophet Ezekiel and says, I will give you a new heart and a new
• 33:43
  spirit I will put within you. Such a beautiful promise.
• 33:46
  Notice very carefully what God does not say in that verse.
• 33:49
  He does not promise to give you a repaired, perfectly neutral
• 33:53
  choosing mechanism. He does not promise to balance
• 33:56
  your internal scales so you can figure it out on your own.
• 33:59
  He bypasses the scales entirely. He promises to fundamentally
• 34:02
  change what you love at the deepest possible level.
• 34:05
  If God sovereignly determines what you love most, are you
• 34:08
  somehow less free? Or by having your desires
• 34:12
  finally aligned with the Creator of the universe, have you
• 34:15
  finally been liberated to choose the joy you were originally
• 34:18
  created for? That is a brilliant question.
• 34:21
  Think about that brass scale sitting perfectly still in a
• 34:23
  vacuum. It is doing nothing.
• 34:25
  It is experiencing nothing. Real freedom is not an unmoving
• 34:28
  scale. It is a scale heavily
• 34:29
  permanently tipped under the glorious, joyful weight of
• 34:32
  knowing and loving God. Amen to that.
• 34:35
  Thank you for joining us for this deep dive on reformed
• 34:37
  thinking. We highly encourage you to go
• 34:39
  find Jonathan Edwards Freedom of the Will and read the source
• 34:43
  text for yourself.