Hence the convention is deeply destructive, because it denies any decisive role for who I am as a creature in my actions.Īs I read these sentences in Webster I found myself suddenly transported from the depths of his engagement with Thomas Aquinas and Francis Turretin into the midst our present madness. The result is that my choices end up amounting to nothing more than random actions. By insisting that my truly free choices must be detached from who I am it rejects any causal explanation of my choice. To this we might add with Jonathan Edwards that any account of human freedom as indeterminacy renders freedom itself meaningless. This convention is destructive because it insists on a kind of freedom that actually detaches and alienates me from who I am by denying the givenness of my created nature. As soon as who I am explains my choice, then my choice is no longer truly indeterminate and thus I am no longer free. We must be able to choose to be whatever we wish to be, irrespective of who we are. ![]() It is a convention because it is the habit of so much human thinking: we quickly assume that if we are to be free our choices must be indeterminate. He refers to the view of freedom that he rejects as a ‘destructive convention’. ![]() Webster defends the compatibility of God’s governance with true human freedom. Freedom is existence in accordance with created nature and toward created ends, not self-authorship or aseity.’ ( God Without Measure, 1:139). If this fails to commend itself, it is because it contravenes a destructive convention according to which true freedom is indeterminacy and absolute spontaneity or it is nothing at all. ![]() ‘God’s governance secures the creature’s freedom. Reflecting on God’s providence, John Webster writes:
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |