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.
Indeed, Attila Grandpierre is a strongly credentialed Hungarian astrophysicist. His specialty is solar physics.
Grandpierre's approach is quite unique for the very reason that he is not a scientific materialist like most in the American science community. Other Eastern European scientists are also not restricted in their approach to scientific inquiry.
Scientific materialism results in such conclusions as "consciousness and soul are an epiphenomenon of the brain". I do not, however, know what Grandpierre's personal religious views are.
I am reading all these post and links, we may be kindred spirits.
Me either, Alamo-Girl. But I do know that he does not regard mind and soul as epiphenomena. Whatever his personal religious views are, mind and soul are primary for him.
I asked about Thelma Moss since she "wrote the book" so to speak on Kirlian photography, and the article you linked about Grandpierre referenced Kirlian Photography, along with a lot of other "new age" aspects of some "old age" philosophies.
Interesting to see where they intersect.
Apparently Geller was one of Moss's earlier, better-known students, but he and Attila Grandpierre share many of the same googled sites.
Alas, they're all in Hungarian.
My God is so big that not one hair falls from my head, nor sparrow without HIS consent. My GOD CAUSES all things for the good of those that love Him AND ARE CALLED ACCORDING TO HIS PURPOSES
He does not have to wait on man to decide His next move and then be concerned that even that plan may not work if fickle man changes his mind again. This world is not a guessing game where God keeps his fingers crossed that man makes the right decision :>)
Calvinism limits God to his sovereignty, while deleting any accountability of His creatures. That kind of sovereignty implies God created evil. Not.
Calvinism makes God sovereign over all history and events past , present and future. In spite of the promise of the serpent to Eve He alone remains God , knowing the end from the beginning .
A balance between Arminianism and Calvinism is taught in scripture. Always remember there are two perspectives in reality. Our perspective locked into our time domain and God's perspective outside of that time domain in eternity.
How many times does the bible say "in the fullness of time?
Gal4;4 Mar 1:15, Act 1:7, Eph 1:10, Hbr 9:10,
It seems that God has an interest in time and measures events for us based on that
From God's perspective Christians are sinless because of the Lamb slain before the foundation of the world, however the Christians I know (including myself) commit sins daily. Two perspectives! 2 cents.
I do not believe it is correct to say He sees us as sinless. If He did there would be no reason for us to repent when we sin.
The Father sees us IN Christ . Covered with the righteousness of Christ .
Indeed, those Bibles placed by Gideon's impact so many lives. The local chapter always rejoiced when they were stolen!
And I agree that we are most likely kindred spirits!
I didn't know they were all Hungarian. Very interesting. You said:
Scripture, even the words of Christ stand in direct contradiction to that statement. Jesus, Paul, John, Peter and Jude were adamant about characterizing the source of another's "spiritual understanding" when those understandings are false and antichirst, even to call them "doctrines of demons".
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.
So, you do not judge Joseph Smith to have been a false prophet?
IN John 7:24, Jesus makes it plain that His sheep are to "judge", but to judge not by mere appearances, but instead to judge in accordance with a right standard.
John 7:24, "When you judge, do not judge by appearances, but judge with righteous judgment."
What do you suppose the right standard is?
I certainly agree with your assessment of the New Agers and your warning for people to stay away from the New Age movement!
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.