 |  |
Professor Gunther writes:
"In reality the world has no place for duty from the scientific point of view. The
cosmic process goes on inexorably. How ridiculous and aimless it must be in view of
this conception of things, to direct a man how he shall act. As if he could make the
slightest change in the exorable march of cause and effect."
"In a world like this there can be no `ought' and the ten commandments appear foolish."
It is a big step from Professors of Science, to the infidel Editor of The Clarion, but in
effect they say the same thing:
"The tramp who murders a child on the highway could not help doing it. The actions
of a man's will are as mathematically fixed as the motions of a planet in its orbit"
(Blatchford).
If this teaching were confined to the scientist, the philosopher and the infidel, we
should not need to give it any further attention. It is, however, the teaching of some who
claim to "preach the Word" and who believe that by this teaching they glorify God. One
thing, however, is true of all men whatever they may believe doctrinally. Nobody of
normal intelligence acts upon the supposition that man is not free and responsible. The
man who has spoken strongly in favour of determinism, denying the freedom of human
will, will most rightly, although most illogically, resent any attack upon his person or
property. His doctrine has no practical value, and he would indignantly brush aside the
excuse of the murderer or the thief if he pleaded irresponsibility or claimed
predetermination as the cause of his deeds.
To use the word "will" and at the same time to say that the will is not "free" is a
contradiction in terms. A will completely determined by some outside power ceases to
be a will at all; it would have to be called by some other name. The will represents
conscious action, and as such must be free. We do not and cannot speak of the will of a
motor car or even of a plant. Consciousness, personality and freedom of choice are
essential. However bound a man may be by sin and its consequences, he is still the
object of appeal, of invitation, of warning, and is addressed being free to choose.
While in many respects we hold the writings of John Calvin in high esteem, that part
of his creed that deals with the doctrine of eternal decrees, predestinating some to
salvation, and others just as irrevocably to damnation, justly merits the censure of
Aubrey L. Moore, who writes:
"Calvinism is not accidentally, but essentially immoral, since it makes the distinction
between right and wrong a matter of positive enactment*, and thereby makes it possible
to assert that what is immoral for man is moral for God."
(* - This question has been dealt with on pages 144-146)