Posted on 02/10/2004 10:46:05 AM PST by 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.
Amen, RnMom.
God's truth and glory are available to all who seek Him with an honest heart.
"Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing." - John 18:20.
It never ceases to amaze me. People seem to think there is something repugnant about God that we should not respond with joy when he draws us.
It often sounds like it is a great tragedy that God draws any one
It is beyond my understanding !
Is one exclusive from the other? Do you know the doctrine of your church ?
What you imply is that those qualities are not found as the fruit of the Spirit in the elect.
We do not force them into our lives as a work of the self, but instead see the acts of mercy as the result of His grace working in our lives. I think perhaps that is because we believe all thinks are by the grace and mercy of God ...including the fruit of our salvation.
It seems to me works of mercy and love could easily become prideful acts that bring the doer applause and not Christ in him..
Eph 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
You are struggling with that which most Christians both admit and don't admit. There is a level of "everyman" failure that we will share with others. But we really don't let others know the reality of our failures, because they are so real as to hurt others, and ourselves, and our relationship with our Lord.
You are very correct, and your words are a reminder that any doctrine which can be misused/used to divert our attention from true holiness, from the true demands of the Lord on our lives, is a doctrine with which we must be very careful.
Jesus does not tell us to "go and do likewise" because he was an extrovert and liked to flap his gums in the wind.
Indeed, if I were to rely on mortal man – any mortal man – myself included, I would be opening the door to error for all the reasons you state. But the indwelling of the Spirit is preceded by a loving surrender to God’s will; He fills the void with Himself. It is in that abiding that the Word of God comes alive. (John 15, 17) We cannot choose our own will and at the same time abide in Him. Jesus was so full surrendered to the Father’s will that He was the express image of the Father’s person (Hebrews 1:3).
The working of the Spirit is particularly magnified in the Gospel of John and is confirmed throughout the New Testament. I shall not repeat again all of the many references already quoted here, but will add this:
Truth has always been hidden in plain view.
You have truly said ”the problem is discernment.”
It was not GIVEN to them to believe
And the source of that holiness is ???? Our self effort? our decision ? our own works?
But as you have proven by your posts , you believe that scripture can be mis read (Calvinists can exchange scripture and correct your use all day long...yet you see us as having a false doctrine )
So how do you determine that it is you being led by the Holy Spirit not us??
1 John 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
He will lead us into all Truth by His wonderful provision of scripture, but also by the Holy Spirit, who will "call to our remembrance" and who will provide us in the necessary hour wisdom that cannot be refuted.
The Comforter when He comes will teach us all things. This is not opinion, nor is it feelings. John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Test the spirits whether they be of Christ for many false prophets have gone out into the world. Those who do not know the Holy Spirit should raise red flags for those with the gift of discernment.
3 John 1:4 I have no greater joy than to hear that my children walk in truth.
This solves many possible misconceptions as Jesus dealt with during His worldly ministry where He continually cautioned (verbally assaulted Matt 23) them for injecting their lawyeristic additions to the simple scriptural commandments.
Acts 17:11 11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
When we choose to stray a field in our assessments it may be wise to make a note of that. Many people on these boards do not "searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." so it is prudent to give out disclaimers.
It wouldn't have to always be formal, it could be something like, "Here is a provocative idea, what if..." or "I have only a thread of scriptural basis regarding this theory...", or "The following ideas I am about to present have been gathered from non-biblical documents...", or "I am not basing these next ideas solely on scripture..."
It is clear from Acts 17:11 and other passages in scripture that the one standard we can rely on as a measuring stick is the Bible itself. The Borean's had access to the indwelt Holy Spirit when they chose to check Paul's words with the scripture, and this seems to be the way that the Holy Spirit would have us verify other ideas regarding truth.
Where the Bible does not comment, feel free to entertain yourself to your hearts content, because:
2 Pet 1:2-4
2 Grace and peace be multiplied unto you through the knowledge of God, and of Jesus our Lord,
3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
One of the things I love about you is how great you are at keeping us on track in this regard. To remind us to always and everywhere give thanks to God, from Whom everything flows.
But, mom, I have to say it takes some cooperative work on my part to keep my life on track. I have to get out of bed in the morning and make it to church. I have to discipline myself to set aside prayer time each week. Etc, etc. I cannot be proud of these efforts because of course I am weak and easily seduced by the secular world around me. Just the knowledge of how easily I am seduced is enough to remind me of my weakness and need for reliance on God, in fact.
I am Baptist and if you know anything about us, we are nothing if not diverse. In this matter you will find every possible type. Hyper-calvinist, Calvinist with a petal or two missing, Arminians, and other things all together I suppose. Baptist are non-hierarchical, non-creedal.
reflecting, perhaps you would like to hear my personal testimony? Once, long again, my beloved husband and family and I were being injured in a most devastating way by a certain person. I sat at the table with my older brother - who has always helped me in my walk with the Lord - and I asked him how I could go about forgiving this person. The hurt I was feeling was robbing me of love, joy and peace.
His advise to me was to pray for this person all the same good things I pray for my daughter. He said I would not mean it at first, but if I kept it up faithfully, eventually I would.
He was right. It took about six months before I could really "let go" and "let God". But praise God, now, forgiving is as natural as breathing - and oh so very liberating!!! My love, joy and peace are untouchable.
I have said that I do not subscribe to any mortal interpretations whether Calvin, Arminius, the Pope, Joseph Smith, Billy Graham, Matthew Henry, et al. But I have no objections to those who do subscribe.
May God always abundantly bless and protect you and your loved ones.
In the past, I have used the term "musings" to describe when I'm introducing my own thoughts. For instance, in these three articles, the first is not my own but the last two are:
Evolution through the backdoor
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.