freedom does not exist in God or man. Sin was a necessity, and God was the author of it.? This is a denial that there is any such thing as character. The will can give itself a bent which no single volition can change, the wicked man can become the slave of sin, Satan, though without power now in himself to turn to God, is yet responsible for his sin. The power of contrary choice, which Adam had exists no longer in its entirety; it is narrowed down to a power to the contrary in temporary and subordinate choices. It no longer is equal to the work of changing the fundamental determination of the being to selfishness as an ultimate end. Yet for this very inability, because originated by will, man is responsible.
Julius Muller, Doctrine of Sin, 2:23 ? ?Formal freedom leads the way to real freedom. The starting-point is a freedom, which does not yet involve an inner necessity but the possibility of something else. The goal is the freedom, which is identical with necessity. The first is a means to the last. When the will has fully and truly chosen, the power of acting otherwise may still be said to exist in a metaphysical sense but morally, i. e.. with reference to the contrast of good and evil, it is entirely done away. Formal freedom is freedom of choice, in the sense of volition with the express consciousness of other possibilities.? Real freedom is freedom to choose the good only, with no remaining possibility that evil will exert a counter attraction. But as the will can reach a ?moral necessity? of good, so it can through sin reach a ?moral necessity? of evil.
(c) Park: ?The great philosophical objection to Armenianism is its denial of the certainty of human action. The idea that a man may act either way without certainty how he will act ? power of a contrary choice in the sense of a moral indifference which can choose without motive, or contrary to the strongest motive. The New School view is better than this, for it holds to the certainty of wrong choice, while yet the soul has power to make a right one. The Armenians believe that it is objectively uncertain whether a man shall act in this way or in that, right or wrong. There is nothing, antecedently to choice, to decide the choice. It was the whole aim of Edwards to refute the idea that man would not certainly sin. The old Calvinists believe that antecedently to the Fall Adam was in this state of objective uncertainty, but that after the fall it was certain he would sin and his probation therefore was closed. Edwards affirms that no such objective uncertainty or power to the contrary ever existed and that man now has all the liberty he ever had or could have. The truth in ?power to the contrary? is simply the power of the will to act contrary to the way it does act. President Edwards believed in this, though he is commonly understood as reasoning to the contrary. The false ?power to the contrary? is uncertainty how one will act, or a willingness to act otherwise than one
<- Previous Table of Contents Next ->
Was this article helpful?