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

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.

Heres the issue gram ..there is NO evidence that the elect will ever deny Him.

Funny, but the author of Hebrews would disagree:

"For in the case of those who have once been enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift and have been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word of God and the powers of the age to come, and then have fallen away, it is impossible to renew them again to repentance, since they again crucify to themselves the Son of God, and put him to open shame. For ground that drinks the rain which often falls upon it and brings forth vegetation useful to those for whose sake it is also tilled, receives a blessing from God; but if it yields thorns and thistles, it is worthless and close to being cursed, and it ends up being burned" (Hebrews 6:4-8 NASB).

Now, let's get one objection out of the way to begin with: this isn't a 'hypothetical situation' like Spurgeon thought. "For in the case of..." means something vastly different than "If this were to happen...." It means that there is at least one case where this is a true situation, and that is what the author is writing about: that situation that has occurred. Second objection: These people weren't 'elect,' 'regenerate' or 'saved.' The evidence from vv. 4, 5, indicates otherwise.

"Enlightened" is from the Greek photizo, often used to refer to spiritual 'enlightenment,' or discovery of the truth. Tasted, in vv. 4 and 5 both, is used metaphorically to mean 'experienced,' as in the usage elsewhere, "Christ tasted death for every man" (Heb. 2:9). The 'heavenly gift,' if it has any meaning at all, means the gift of righteousness (Romans 5:17). "Partaker," metachous, means "share in, partner with," which brings to mind elsewhere where we are told that we are "partakers with Christ" (Heb. 3:9) and "partakers together with [Paul] of grace" (Philippians 1:7).

Also the phrase, "tasted the good word of God," I refer you back to my other statement that "tasted" means 'experienced;' and "the powers of the age to come," Greek 'dunemais te mellontas aionas,' is a reference to the Messianic age by the Jews. So the Septuagint interprets Isaiah 9:6. These are not the signs of people who are unregenerate. Wesley says, "Every child that is naturally born, first sees the light, then receives and tastes proper nourishment, and partakes of the things of this world. In like manner the apostle, comparing spiritual with natural things, speaks of one born of the Spirit as seeing the light, tasting the sweetness, and partaking of the things of the world to come."

For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a certain terrifying expectation of judgment, and THE FURY OF A FIRE WHICH WILL CONSUME THE ADVERSARIES. Anyone who has set aside the Law of Moses dies without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much severer punishment do you think he will deserve who has trampled under foot the Son of God, and has regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has insulted the Spirit of grace?" (Hebrews 10:26-29 NASB.)

Again, it is rather hard to take this to mean someone other than a believer ("...regarded as unclean the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified...").

"Therefore, do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God, you may receive what was promised. FOR YET IN A VERY LITTLE WHILE, HE WHO IS COMING WILL COME AND WILL NOT DELAY. BUT MY RIGHTEOUS ONE WILL LIVE BY FAITH; AND IF HE SHRINKS BACK, MY SOUL HAS NO PLEASURE IN HIM. But we are not of those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith to the preserving of the soul" (Hebrews 10:26-29 NASB).

Again, 'my righteous one...if he shrinks back" makes it clear that the danger is that the righteous one will shrink back, not a general 'anyone' (as the KJV mistranslates it). Also note that 'if' here is a third class conditional, which means that it is not a certain thing one way or the other that the righteous will shrink back.

"2Ti 2:10 Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory." Gram not all the elect ARE YET SAVED. Paul was talking about the YET unsaved elect that will respond to the gospel when it is preached..

I never disputed that. The dispute is over vv. 11-13, and how they relate to v. 10. Verses 11-13 say, "It is a trustworthy statment: For if we died with him, we shall also live with him; if we endure, we shall also reign with him; if we deny him, he also will deny us; if we are faithless, he remains faithful; for he cannot deny himself."

In this way it is very similar to the promise of God being long suffering until all the elect are saved.

Oh, you mean 2 Peter 3:9, "The Lord is...not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance"?

"2Ti 2:11 [It is] a faithful saying: For if we be dead with [him], we shall also live with [him]: 2Ti 2:12 If we suffer, we shall also reign with [him]: if we deny [him], he also will deny us:" This is a comparison in two groups , the elect that will risk suffering and the tares that grow along side the wheat until the harvest that is clarified in the following verse

Where do you pick that up from? There's nothing in the text that any of those instances of 'we' differ from one another in meaning.

1Jo 2:19 They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would [no doubt] have continued with us: but [they went out], that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. The unregenerate make themselves known.

Actually, John doesn't say that "the unregenerate make themselves known," he explains why a group of Gnostics (or proto-Gnostics, depending on when you see the origins of Gnosticism as a movement proper occurred) left their congregation. You're trying to make an ironclad rule out of one example. It never says they never were "of us," only that they were not at the time of their departure.

What does the word say? It says the ones that ARE NOT THE ELECT may leave no matter what the false doctrine or the year or century. It never says there were OF US because they never were..the US is the elect, not the folks that show up for church on Sunday

And? Strictly speaking, John says nothing about 'election' here. What he does say is that they were not 'of us' when they left. Nothing more.

Whenever I heard the word "proof texts " I know that the weight of scripture does not favor their position , so the pretense that because there is a collection of scriptures they are suspect.

Say what?

That is not a comfortable text for those that believe that God does not keep those that are his .

I feel quiet comfortable with it. Of course, I believe God keeps all those that are his--as long as they stay his. I also believe him when he says that "If we deny him, he will also deny us."

Thank you for your posts, Markofhumanfeet!

I think I saw a post of yours one time where you said you believe that everyone has a spark of the divine in them. After all the posts on this thread, would you say that you still believe that?

In Genesis 1:20 the term used for life (animal soul or that which is different from inert or non-living) is nephesh. But in Genesis 2:7 God breathed into Adam the breath of life (neshama) and he became a living soul. I believe all Adamic men have the breath of God. In the context I used it on this thread, at post 255, it was that I believe the breath of God cannot be killed.

Whether all men are Adamic is a whole ‘nother question. Personally, I do not believe that all men are necessarily Adamic. The term neshama is used again in context of “breath of life” in Genesis 7:22 with regard to the Noah flood, that all in whom was the “breath of life” died. Archeological and natural science evidence comports with the Noah timing, in that all civilization was destroyed seemingly simultaneously around 2300 B.C.: Comets and Disaster in the Bronze Age. Lurkers interested in the traditional Jewish teachings concerning nephesh and neshama, might want to check out Torah.org

So you do subscribe then to personal interpretation of Scripture, is that what you are saying?

I do not subscribe to mortal interpretations of Scriptures. To paraphrase from my previous posts on the subject:

I am a captive of the Word of God. I rely on the Holy Spirit who indwells me to guide my understanding of the Word. (I Corinthians 2) But I see the Word as much, much more than Scripture. The Word is alive, He was with God from the beginning (long before the Scriptures) and is God. Jesus is the Word made flesh (John 1). The Scriptures come alive within me when I read them. The Word is indeed bread and drink.

I am not gnostic. The knowledge I receive is not of myself but of the Word, through the indwelling of the Spirit (I Cor 2) and the Scripture (Acts 17:11).

The Bible used to be a book to me, Holy and inspired, but a book nevertheless which I studied with maps, concordances, commentaries and the ilk. But once I surrendered self-will and allowed myself to be led of the Spirit (Romans 8) - the Scriptures came alive within me. Now as my eyes pass over the text, the Truth of it comes alive within me. Whenever I need to know something, the verse which responds comes to mind, instantly.

I realize that some find my testimony offensive. I regret that they are offended, but my testimony stands.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.