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.

Indeed. I do not subscribe to the doctrine of any mortal whether Calvin, Arminius, the Pope, Joseph Smith, Billy Graham, Matthew Henry etc. (Mark 7) I rely on the Spirit Who indwells me:

AG: I appreciate your sensitivity to the Spirit. I agree that we should be lead by the Spirit. However, what I see is that you employ a distinct dualism in your approach to cosmology. On the one hand, in the natural, you rely heavily on the "doctrines" of mortal man. On the other hand, in the spiritual, you deny any doctrines of mortal man. This, it seems, is a result of your strong agreement with Platonism. Hopefully I will finish typing out my promised thread on the effects of dualism on Christianity, today, and we can discuss the postives and negatives of Greek dualism on Christian theology.

Dallas Willard, in his book Hearing God,delinates the objective and subjective pretty well, IMO.

I believe I can say with assurance that God's speaking in union with the human voice and human language is the primary objective way in which God addresses us. That is, of all the ways in which a message comes from outside the mind or personality of the person addressed, it most commonly comes through a human being....

The human spirit or the "still small voice." The final means through which God addresses us is our own spirit-our own thoughts and feelings toward ourselves as well as toward events and people around us. This, I believe, is the primary subjective way in which God addresses us. That is, of all the ways in which a message comes from within the experience of the person addressed (such as dreams and visions or other mental states), for those who are living in harmony with God it most commonly comes in the form of their own thoughts and attendant feelings.

Willard goes on to say that the subjective must always conform with the objective, FWIW.

Thank you for your reply!

How do you know which Spirit is leading you without first being grounded in the Word?

Being grounded in the Word of God is what it is about. The confirmation is love. All of 1 John 4 is posted at 721 but here are a few relevant excerpts:

We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error. Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.

No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given us of his Spirit.

You also said:

I do not see what you do in those verses. I am seeing the change from the old man to the new man but nothing whatsoever saying to rely on feelings alone.

Again, I am not speaking of “feelings” but being led of the Spirit. Romans 8:1-17 describes it as follows:

[There is] therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace. Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

And if Christ [be] in you, the body [is] dead because of sin; but the Spirit [is] life because of righteousness. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.

Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together.

Thank you for sharing your concerns!

Yes, and Satan is an expert at quoting scripture to rationalise away other scripture (see Matthew 4:5-6). Note: i am not accusing Alamo-Girl of this. The post is merely an exortation to steadfastness and dilligence in handling the Word of God properly.

You may accuse me of anything you wish. It does not matter. Any intended offensive by anyone towards me personally is already forgiven, and I will ever pray for and love others, unconditionally.

On the other hand, I would that everyone would err on the side of caution and not characterize the source of another’s Spiritual understanding.

Thank you so much for post and for your concern! This is great, having so many of you concerned.

I look forward to your essay and suggest that you also ping betty boop, marron, unspun and cornelis.

On the one hand, in the natural, you rely heavily on the "doctrines" of mortal man. On the other hand, in the spiritual, you deny any doctrines of mortal man. This, it seems, is a result of your strong agreement with Platonism.

Actually, this is not the result of my agreement with Plato. My interest in Plato stems from math and physics. There are two distinct and irreconcilable worldviews: Plato or Aristotle.

I am however discovering a lot of very interesting things about Plato's other philosophies. I now believe he was specially gifted by God - much like Alexander the Great - to prepare the world for the Gospel. Alexander normalized the language to common Greek and Plato argued for the existence of the non-corporeal, non-temporal, non-spatial.

However, I do very much draw the line between mortal wisdom and Spiritual leading. This is based on I Corinthians 2 and the following:

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: - 1 Timothy 6:20

Thank you for your reply and your concern! Why, are you afraid to tell those who follow a false doctrine thet they are?

I am quite happy to discuss Spiritual matters, the Scriptures and the Word of God at every viable opportunity. And I do not fear. However, I do not rail against any Christian's "denomination" or "doctrine" though I enjoy hearing them explained.

Our discussion however had to do, specifically, with whether or not to characterize the source of another’s Spiritual understanding.

On the strength of Jude and the 12^th chapter of the first three Gospels - I assert that we ought not to malign the source of another's Spiritual understanding.

I try diligently not to lean on my own understanding. (Proverbs 3:5)

You'll find that the passage in Proverbs is not an exhortation to discard your brain. But because I have to explain that, the conversation is pretty much over. Of course I agree with you when you say:

That pretty much sums up the difference between us.

I'll take that as a compliment.

Indeed. I do not subscribe to the doctrine of any mortal

Clearly Paul, Peter and John were mortals. Reviewing the quotations from Scripture that you provided I have to ask myself: Given your view of inerrancy and the doctrine of mortals, why bother? Why not just quote your spirit-led self?

CARepubGal gets it.

I agree that there is little point in continuing our discussion, but I would like to make one comment on Paul, Peter and John. If they were speaking doctrine of their own making, Christianity would not be here today:

Then stood there up one in the council, a Pharisee, named Gamaliel, a doctor of the law, had in reputation among all the people, and commanded to put the apostles forth a little space; And said unto them, Ye men of Israel, take heed to yourselves what ye intend to do as touching these men.

For before these days rose up Theudas, boasting himself to be somebody; to whom a number of men, about four hundred, joined themselves: who was slain; and all, as many as obeyed him, were scattered, and brought to nought. After this man rose up Judas of Galilee in the days of the taxing, and drew away much people after him: he also perished; and all, [even] as many as obeyed him, were dispersed.

And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

And to him they agreed: and when they had called the apostles, and beaten [them], they commanded that they should not speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go. – Acts 5:35-40

Thank you for your reply!

Do you believe that the Mormons worship the same God as Christianity? Do you view them as just another denomination?

I do not judge any being, including any mortal who calls himself Mormon or Catholic or Baptist or Jew or Eastern Orthodox or Muslim or whatever.

The judgments I make go to the beliefs or the incidents themselves. For instance, if a religious belief does not recognize Jesus Christ as the only begotten son of God, come to us from heaven and returned thereto - then I would declare such a belief as fatally flawed. Likewise, I would say that conversion by force is wrongful, etc.

When it comes to whether or not to listen to what a Christian has to say, I look to his fruits:

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?

Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit. A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither [can] a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit. Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them. - Matthew 7:15-20

I think the point of Cal and wrigley is that we are told in scripture

Jer 17:9 The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it?

We are warned by God

Pro 28:26 He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool: but whoso walketh wisely, he shall be delivered.

Ecc 9:3 This [is] an evil among all [things] that are done under the sun, that [there is] one event unto all: yea, also the heart of the sons of men is full of evil, and madness [is] in their heart while they live, and after that [they go] to the dead.

The problem is discernment. Many cults have been started when the founder thought he was being led by the Holy Spirit .

What we do know is the word of God is written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. What ever leading we feel comes from the Holy Spirit must line up with the word of God

God leads us and confirms our walk with illumination ...that is why persistant study is a requirement of our walk

No Christian should ever look on illumination as automatic. God has never promised to reveal precious and profound Biblical truths to any believer who will not search the Scriptures for himself. ( John 20:31, Acts 17:11, 2 Tim 2:15, 1 Peter 2:2.)

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.