Goodreads Review of Freedom of the Will by Jonathan Edwards

Freedom of the WillFreedom of the Will by Jonathan Edwards

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Absolutely brilliant!

Not any easy read by any stretch of the imagination. But what is given up in ease of ready is made up for in philosophical precision and leaving no stone unturned.

I can see how JE could be misunderstood as advocating a rather mechanistic view of human volition since he does argue for determinism. But in my understanding, that would be to misunderstand the fundamental premise of JE’s view–that man’s volitions, BECAUSE THEY ARE TRULY THE VOLITIONS OF MAN, are absolutely necessary as necessitated by man’s desire.

As JE himself says, “Nothing that I maintain, supposes that men are at all hindered by any fatal necessity, from doing, and even willing and choosing, as they please, with full freedom; yea, with the highest degree of liberty that ever was thought of, or that ever could possibly enter into the heart of any man to conceive.”

View all my reviews

Justin Taylor, “Day” in Genesis 1-2, and Pre-Evolution Interpretation

In a recent post at The Gospel Coalition (also see this older post), Justin Taylor discusses “Biblical Reasons to Doubt the Creation Days Were 24-Hour Periods.”

I’ve written about the creation debates before. And if you’ve talked to me in person about these matters, you’ve probably heard make something like the following comment:

One of the reasons (it would seem to be the main reason) interpretation of Genesis 1 and 2 and the nature of God’s creative work have become so stinking controversial is the arrival of evolutionary theories. Since Darwin, proposing anything besides a 24-hour-day-view of the “days” in Genesis 1 immediately became way more controversial than it was prior to Darwin. This is due to the fact that anti-macroevolution Christians view Genesis 1-2 as a battle ground. If you walk there now, you’re going to step on a land mine even if you were not the originally intended target.

Continue reading

Some Thoughts on the Conclusion of Job

The “non-conclusive conclusion” of the book of Job–no direct answer to Job’s complaint is provided; but rather, the conclusion is just to trust God–is not a cop-out after all, but an incredibly satisfying response if you understand the profundity and appropriateness of that conclusion. It’s appropriate because it’s consistent with the finiteness and humanness of humanity and recognizes the Godness of God. It may not be the most philosophically satisfying conclusion in that it does not explain suffering; but that is not the purpose of Job. Although it does not provide a philosophical answer to suffering, it does provide a legitimate answer nonetheless, and an answer I might say is even more satisfying than any philosophical answer–there is a purpose to suffering; and it is rooted in the wisdom of God even if access to or comprehension of that wisdom and purpose is beyond our reach. That it is beyond our reach, and that we are instead to reach to God for whom it is in reach, is the opposite of problematic. We don’t need to know the exact reason for suffering in order to know that there is a reason for suffering that is known, directed, and controlled by God.