On the Freedom of the Will: Part II: Section I (Refuting Arminian Free-Willism)

CCEL ^ | 1754 | Jonathan Edwards

[ksen]

On the Freedom of the Will

PART II

Section I: Showing the manifest inconsistence of the Arminian notion of Liberty of Will, consisting in the Will's self-determining Power.

Having taken notice of those things which may be necessary to be observed, concerning the meaning of the principal terms and phrases made use of in controversies concerning human liberty, and particularly observed what Liberty is according to the common language and general apprehension of mankind, and what it is as understood and maintained by Arminians; I proceed to consider the Arminian notion of the Freedom. of the Will, and the supposed necessity of it in order to moral agency, or in order to any one's being capable of virtue or vice, and properly the subject of command or counsel, praise or blame, promises or threatenings, rewards or punishments; or whether that which has been described, as the thing meant by Liberty in common speech, be not sufficient, and the only Liberty, which make, or can make any one a moral agent, and so properly the subject of these things. In this Part, I shall consider whether any such thing be possible or conceivable, as that Freedom of Will which Arminians insist on; and shall inquire, whether any such sort of Liberty be necessary to moral agency, &c. in the next part. And first of all, I shall consider the notion of a self-determining Power in the Will: wherein, according to the Arminians, does most essentially consist the Will's freedom; and shall particularly inquire, whether it be not plainly absurd, and a manifest inconsistence, to suppose that the Will itself determines all the free acts of the will.

Here I shall not insist on the great impropriety of such ways of speaking as the Will determining itself; because actions are to be ascribed to agents, and not properly to the powers of agents; which improper way of speaking leads to many mistakes, and much confusion, as Mr. Locke observes. But I shall suppose that the Arminians, when they speak of the Will's determining itself, do by the Will mean the soul willing. I shall take it for granted, that when they speak of the will, as the determiner, they mean the soul in the exercise of a power of willing, or acting voluntarily. I shall suppose this to be their meaning, because nothing else can be meant, without the grossest and plainest absurdity. In all cases when we speak of the powers or principles of acting, or doing such things we mean that the agents which have these Powers of acting, do them, in the exercise of those Powers. So where we say, valor fights courageously, we mean, the man who is under the influence of valor fights courageously. Where we say, love seeks the object loved, we mean, the person loving seeks that object. When we say, the understanding discerns, we mean the soul in the exercise of that faculty So when it is said, the will decides or determines, this meaning must be, that the person, in the exercise of: Power of willing and choosing, or the soul, acting voluntarily, determines.

Therefore, if the Will determines all its own free acts the soul determines them in the exercise of a Power of willing and choosing; or, which is the same thing, it determines them of choice; it determines its own acts, by choosing its own acts. If the Will determines the Will then choice orders and determines the choice; and acts c choice are subject to the decision, and follow the conduct of other acts of choice. And therefore if the Will deter mines all its own free acts, then every free act of choice is determined by a preceding act of choice, choosing that act. And if that preceding act of the will be also a free act. then by these principles, in this act too, the will is self-determined: that is, this, in like manner, is an act that the soul voluntarily chooses; or, which is the same thing, it is an act determined still by a preceding act of the will, choosing that. Which brings us directly to a contradiction: for it supposes an act of the Will preceding the first act in the whole train, dieting and determining the rest; or a free act of the Will, before the first free act of the Will. Or else we must come at last to an act of the will, determining the consequent acts, wherein the Will is not self-determined, and so is not a free act, in this notion of freedom: but if the first act in the train, determining and fixing the rest, be not free, none of them all can be free; as is manifest at first view, but shall be demonstrated presently.

If the Will, which we find governs the members of the body, and determines their motions, does also govern itself, and determines its own actions, it doubtless determines them the same way, even by antecedent volitions. The Will determines which way the hands and feet shall move, by an act of choice: and there is no other way of the Will's determining, directing, or commanding any thing at all. Whatsoever the will commands, it commands by an act of the Will. And if it has itself under its command, and determines itself in its own actions, it doubtless does it the same way that it determines other things which are under its command. So that if the freedom of the will consists in this, that it has itself and its own actions under its command and direction, and its own volitions are determined by itself, it will follow, that every free volition arises from another antecedent volition, directing and commanding that: and if that directing volition be also free, in that also the will is determined; that is to say, that directing volition is determined by another going before that; and so on, till we come to the first volition in the whole series: and if that first volition be free, and the will self-determined in it, then that is determined by another volition preceding that. Which is a contradiction; because by the supposition, it can have none before it, to direct or determine it, being the first in the train. But if that first volition is not determined by any preceding act of the Will, then that act is not determined by the Will, and so is not free in the Arminian notion of freedom, which consists in the Will's self-determination. And if that first act of the will which determines and fixes the subsequent acts, be not free, none of the following acts which are determined by it can be free.-- If we suppose there are five acts in the train, the fifth and last determined by the fourth, and the fourth by the third, the third by the second, and the second by the first; if the first is not determined by the Will, and so not free, then none of them are truly determined by the Will: that is, that each of them are as they are, and not otherwise, is not first owing to the will, but to the determination of the erst in the series, which is not dependent on the will, and is that which the will has no hand in determining. And this being that which decides what the rest shall be, and determines their existence; therefore the first determination of their existence is not from the Will. The case is just the same, if instead of a chain of five acts of the Will, we should suppose a succession of ten, or an hundred, or ten thousand. If the first act he not free, being determined by something out of the will, and this determines the next to be agreeable to itself, and that the next, and so on; none of them are free, but all originally depend on, and are determined by, some cause out of the Will; and so all freedom in the case is excluded, and no act of the will can be free, according to this notion of freedom. If we should suppose a long chain of ten thousand links, so connected, that if the first link moves, it will move the next, and that the next; and so the whole chain must be determined to motion, and in the direction of its motion, by the motion of the first link; and that is moved by something else; in this case, though all the links, but one, are moved by other parts of the same chain, yet it appears that the motion of no one, nor the direction of its motion, is from any self-moving or self-determining power in the chain, any more than if every link were immediately moved by something that did not belong to the chain.-- If the Will be not free in the first act, which causes the next, then neither is it free in the next, which is caused by that first act; for though indeed the Will caused it, yet it did not cause it freely; because the preceding act, by which it was caused, was not free. And again, if the Will be not free in the second act, so neither can it be in the third, which is caused by that; because in like manner, that third was determined by an act of the Will that was not free. And so we may go on to the next act, and from that to the next; and how long soever the succession of acts is, it is all one: if the first on which the whole chain depends, and which determines all the rest, be not a free act, the Will is not free in causing or determining any one of those acts; because the act by which it determines them all is not a free act; and therefore the Will is no more free in determining them, than if it did not cause them at all.-- Thus, this Arminian notion of Liberty of the Will, consisting in the will's Self-determination, is repugnant to itself, and shuts itself wholly out of the world.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

This is saddening. What may come will come, but the GRPL will note that I've seriously slowed down posting on religion threads. The GRPL will also note that I'm not one who is weak on doctrine.... Work this out, please. Whatever we need to do to make this forum work do, and do quickly. What's that that Paul wrote about them being without judging us? Think about it. -- RDB3

Rdb3 makes a great point here. One which I have been thinking about myself.

While we may have suffered from the Discipline of "Thou Shalt Not Hit The Abuse Button" which I myself have encouraged, I'm not sure that FReeper Calvinists really have all that much to complain about when it comes to the Religion Forum.

Just look at our Ranks, the GRPL order of battle....

• Ex-Catholics -- converted to the Biblical Doctrines of Grace and the Sovereignty of God.
• Ex-Arminians -- converted to the Biblical Doctrines of Grace and the Sovereignty of God.
• Ex-Mormons -- converted to the Biblical Doctrines of Grace and the Sovereignty of God.

I mean, really... it's not as though the Catholics and Arminians and Mormons ever succeed in converting Calvinists to their own cause. On the FR Religion Forum, Discipleship is a one-way street: When Calvinists fight, WE WIN.

So what are we really complaining about?

When the battle is joined, the Catholics and Arminians and Mormons never gain any for their cause. Whereas we Reformation Protestants have gained many, and lost none. The numbers of Calvinist Baptists and Calvinist Presbyterians have swelled as a result of Freeper Calvinist apologetics on this very Forum.

For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.

It occurs to me that FReeper Calvinists have no cause to complain about the management of the FR Religion Forum. How can we complain, when we are constantly victorious??

The FR Religion Forum has provided many Ex-Catholics, Ex-Arminians, and Ex-Mormons a WAY OUT of the humanistic religions of their forebears, and INTO the fraternal communion of Bible-Believing Baptist and Presbyterian Churches.

Hmm. That sounds good to me. Maybe we should cut Jim Rob and the Moderators some slack.

Maybe we shouldn't argue against Success.

[CARepubGal]

When you put the results in full view my brother, then the end result is a win for us. :-) And frankly, I find the fellowship of the GRPL to be a wonderful side benefit of being on FR. The brothers and sisters herein have forced me to think (and rethink) and really draw closer to the Lord. For that I am grateful. The Arminians I see with pity and a certain sense of sadness. :-(

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Great post. (Hope it doesn't get pulled).

[George W. Bush]

When the battle is joined, the Catholics and Arminians and Mormons never gain any for their cause. Whereas we Reformation Protestants have gained many, and lost none. The numbers of Calvinist Baptists and Calvinist Presbyterians have swelled as a result of Freeper Calvinist apologetics on this very Forum.

I grant your point. But it is in fact the Calvinists who give the entire Religious Forum its only merit and its most substantial original FReeper content.

We have to balance that contribution against the vast amount of Arminian and Roman and Mormon propaganda that finds a home here.

I suppose it would be hard for me to say that any harm is done.

[RnMomof7]

* Just look at our Ranks, the GRPL order of battle....
Ex-Catholics -- converted to the Biblical Doctrines of Grace and the Sovereignty of God.
Ex-Arminians -- converted to the Biblical Doctrines of Grace and the Sovereignty of God.
Ex-Mormons -- converted to the Biblical Doctrines of Grace and the Sovereignty of God.

I mean, really... it's not as though the Catholics and Arminians and Mormons ever succeed in converting Calvinists to their own cause. On the FR Religion Forum, Discipleship is a one-way street: When Calvinists fight, WE WIN.

Perhaps that is the reason why some posters appear not to want to stay with the issues, so they flame us, and as soon as we respond , someone hits abuse.

What I do not understand is why they post to Calvinists at all if they think we offend them ?? No one, after all, is mandated to read any threads or respond to any posts . (and that includes us)

[Ephesians210]

Re your post to me:Sorry, your post contains only noise and ignored words. You are a miserable failure. I am deeply saddened.
:)
BigMack

Woody asked:P.S. How did your post make it through without any deletion (or readmission)?

You replied:

You got me, I posted that as a joke and Ephesians210 took it the wrong way, sorry. I asked them to remove it.
BigMack

God says concerning your "joke"

Proverbs 26
18Like a madman who throws firebrands, arrows, and death, 19Is the man who deceives his neighbor, And says, "I was only joking!"

20Where there is no wood, the fire goes out; And where there is no talebearer, strife ceases.

==========================

Now, if I were to respond to one of your posts saying, "Your post is one as from a braindead neanderthal. You are a miserable failure. I am deeply saddened"

Would you seriously see that as a "joke"

Well, would you?

[Ephesians210]

Re: I think much of the gospel preached today is a PC gospel .

We do not want to hurt anyones feeling..so we let them remain in their error.
It has to do I fear with the need to be loved , saying something that sounds negative may make you look bad or cost you a friend ,
I do think carried to an extreme it place self above the gospel .

I agree, what in essence happens is one builds their own kingdom instead of building God's Kingdom.

I stated that the PC gospel isn't the Gospel at all, and that most are too concerned about what their friends, neighbors, family, etc will think of them than they are in standing for the Truth to a study group I have been meeting with to discuss our pastor's sermon series in Acts....they were highly offended.

And it was in the light of discussion of the sermon on Stephen's martyrdom after his magnificient defense of the Gospel and strong rebuke of the Sanhedrin, which got him stoned.

Obviously Stephen did not consider his "kingdom" to be that valuable.

Sadly, the sacrifice of Stephen for the truth, and my comments concerning the PC gospel, etc, went over their heads. And this group considers themselves to be really "great" Christians. I was tempted to read them Jesus's letter to the church of the Laodiceans and ask them if they were hot or cold.

[Ephesians210]

To CC Woody you said:You have been suspended three times, and there are ten separate infractions on your log.

Does the following fit your criteria for being a "personal attack":

Sorry, your post contains only noise and ignored words. You are a miserable failure. I am deeply saddened.

Yes or no?

[Religion Moderator]

Since the words you quoted were ended with an emoticon [ :) ] - you seem to have left that out of your quote - and there was no abuse report or complaint made, I let it go. I have no idea what any of that has to do with my quoted remarks to CCWoody.

While we're in a questioning mood, though, did you attempt to register more than two new identities while you were under suspension?

[Jean Chauvin]

"Since the words you quoted were ended with an emoticon [ :) ] - you seem to have left that out of your quote - and there was no abuse report or complaint made, I let it go."

For clarification, does this mean that all I have to do when I flame someone is put a little smiley face at the end and I'm good to go?

Jean

[Religion Moderator]

For clarification, does this mean that all I have to do when I flame someone is put a little smiley face at the end and I'm good to go?

No. For one thing the poster made clear in a later post that it was meant to be a joke (to which I think you replied), and secondly, this thread is in the backroom, where the rules are more leniently enforced.

[Jean Chauvin]

"No. For one thing the poster made clear in a later post that it was meant to be a joke..."

Again, for clarification, does this mean that all I have to do when I flame someone in the Smokey Backroom is put a little smiley face at the end and then claim at some later point that I was joking and I'm good to go?

BigMack's post that claimed he was joking came exactly 59 minutes and 53 seconds after the initial flame. Is 1 hour the limit to claim it is a joke?

Jean

[Jean Chauvin]

"(to which I think you replied)"

Nope.

Jean

[Religion Moderator]

What are you looking for - a license to flame?

Every post is judged, insofar as is humanly possible, on its own merits. I'm not about to make a ruling on some future possibility.

IIRC, between the time the post in question here was made, and the time I was made aware of it, the thread had been moved from the Religion Forum to The Smokey Backroom. Further, a lot happened on this thread which made this particular post fairly mild in comparison.

Instead of looking for ways to skate close to the line, why not try to live within the rules?

[Ephesians210]

Re: Since the words you quoted were ended with an emoticon [ :) ] - you seem to have left that out of your quote

That "emoticon" can mean many things, such as "smugness" by the poster of that insult, and is open to subjective interpretation. A plain statement of it having been a "joke" would have made it clear, instead of a subjective "emoticon".

- and there was no abuse report or complaint made, I let it go.

That wasn't the question. I did not ask why you let it go.

I'll restate the query:

Does the following fit your criteria for being a "personal attack":

Sorry, your post contains only noise and ignored words. You are a miserable failure. I am deeply saddened.

Yes or no?

I didn't hit the "abuse" button, because I'm not a whiner like some who will go un-named.

Again does the following meet your criteria for being a "personal attack":

Sorry, your post contains only noise and ignored words. You are a miserable failure. I am deeply saddened.

Yes or no?

A simple yes or no answer is all that is required. Either it does or it doesn't.

[Jean Chauvin]

With all due respect, I have had posts pulled -with no explanation- that have not even remotely been flames or attacks.

In contrast, I have seen blatant attacks go unchallenged.

I'm just wondering about what seems to be some inconsistancy.

Earlier this morning, you removed a post from Wrigley and instructed him to "Stop trying to start a flame war.".

I've seen the post and I talked to Wrigley -there was no way that post was remotely "baiting" -nor did Wrigley intend to "start a flame war".

It was a serious question put to Alamo-Girl in an attempt to get her to clarify her position.

Due to the fact that you removed his post and responded to him as you did, other readers who did not have the opportunity to read that post are left with the impression that Wrigley was playing games.

Yet, BigMack's taunting post remained because he included a smiley face and said he was joking an hour later.

I don't get it.

Jean

[Ephesians210]

Re: I have no idea what any of that has to do with my quoted remarks to CCWoody.

It doesn't. What it has to do with is the criteria you use as a Moderator, and whether that criteria is dealt with evenhandedly.

Proverbs 11
1 Dishonest scales are an abomination to the LORD, But a just weight is His delight.

[Ephesians210]

Re: Yet, BigMack's taunting post remained because he included a smiley face and said he was joking an hour later.

I don't get it.

I asked "BigMack" if I came out of the blue, him not having seen me before, and jumped into the middle of a discussion he was having with someone, and said this, "Your post is one as of a braindead neanderthal. You are a miserable failure. I am deeply saddened", would he take that as a "joke"?

No response from BigMack.

It amazes me that the Mod expected me to read into a "smiley face", BigMack's intentions. His words in the insult spoke much clearer than some subjective "emoticon".

[Jean Chauvin]

Remind me again....

...what was the egregious offense that got you suspended?

Jean

[Ephesians210]

For clarification, does this mean that all I have to do when I flame someone is put a little smiley face at the end and I'm good to go?

No.

If not, then why was my perfectly legitimate post that asked "xzins" not to post to me or else he would be ignored, removed, and a clear insult allowed to stand?

Also, if the "smiley face" does not negate the insult as you have admitted, then why did you previously use the defense that it was allowed to stand because of the "smiley face"? Sorry, but you seem to be contradicting yourself here.

For one thing the poster made clear in a later post that it was meant to be a joke
So, we can insult someone with a smiley face, and come back an hour later and say it was a joke, and it's perfectly, ok? That is what you are saying.

and secondly, this thread is in the backroom, where the rules are more leniently enforced.

Again, if that is truly the case, that the "rules" are "more leniently enforced" in the backroom, then why was my post stating that I didn't desire "xzins" to post to me and if he did he would be ignored deleted, under "more leniently enforced rules" and a clear insult allowed to stand?

It looks to me like a clear cut case of selective enforcement, personal bias, and unever scales.

Proverbs 11

1 Dishonest scales are an abomination to the LORD, But a just weight is His delight.