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.
Good to know you are more "righteous" than Paul, who "railed" against "false apostles" who spread false doctrine:
2 Corinthians 11
12But what I do, I will also continue to do, that I may cut off the opportunity from those who desire an opportunity to be regarded just as we are in the things of which they boast. 13For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles of Christ. 14And no wonder! For Satan himself transforms himself into an angel of light.
Your stance has no basis in Scripture.
Our discussion however had to do, specifically, with whether or not to characterize the source of another’s Spiritual understanding.Paul says false doctrines are characterized as having Satan and demons as their source.
1 Timothy 4:
1 Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, 2speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron,
Again, your stance is contradicted by the Word of God, therefore is of human invention.
On the strength of Jude and the 12th chapter of the first three Gospels - I assert that we ought not to malign the source of another's Spiritual understanding.
In the passage you quoted of Jesus warning of "false prophets who are wolves in sheeps clothing", is Jesus "maligning" the source of their "spiritual understanding"?
Was Jesus maligning the source of the Pharisee's spiritual understanding when He called them "sons of their father, Satan"?
Yes -- but I just thought he was your typical British socialist. The other couple dozen people there, however, regarded him as if he were some kind of "risen master". He was a real "guru" type -- sycophants all over the place.
This was back in the days when I was studying Bailey, at the behest of a friend who was hooked on dear Alice and also Madame Helena Blavatsky; and who idolized Creme. I met "Ben" on several occasions; but the most fun was a very long conversation we had at the conclusion of a so-called "group meditation."
He and I found ourselves in the kitchen, and somehow -- magically -- "Ben" produced a bottle of Dewars. :^) He and I proceeded to consume it, just we two. A tete-a-tete ensued. :^)
We had the loveliest time knocking back scotch and arguing with each other for the next few hours. We ended up draining the bottle. :^)
My friend was scandalized, apoplectic over this; and mad as hell at me for "monopolizing Ben" like that, when so many of his disciples wished to speak to their guru. (Hey, the scotch was his idea, and he clearly wanted to drink it!)
I don't think Ben was at all accustomed to encountering right-wing conservatives at his festivities. Needless to say, we didn't agree about a single thing. And even though he had this most annoying habit of blaming America for all the ills in the universe, it really was fun! (He is very charming -- twinkling blue eyes, like some kind of mischievous imp....)
You know that he is very active with a prominent NGO called Share International. They do a lot to keep things stirred up at the UN.
P.S.: I didn't last very long as a "Bailey student." :^)
Definitely "New Age" favors both -- and they do get the ear of the United Nations to a most troubling degree, usually for the purpose of blaming America for whatever "failure" in the world is their cause of the day....
Contrary to the "tolerant", "politically correct" Jesus you subscribe to, he does not exist. To not "object" to false doctrine, is to deny the Word of God.
Ephesians 5:11;
And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them.
Is it one in allignment with mistah jimah cartah by chance?
With or without the white sheet? :-)
Koszonom. 8~)
It's my experience that New Agers come in all shapes and sizes, some with prodigious mathematical skills.
Numbers have been important to the wandering mind for eons.
May I inquire: What is your experience with New Agers?
I do know Dr. Grandpierre has a profound interest in ancient cultures. I know that he was deeply disturbed by the communist regime's misappropriation and co-option of Hungarian cultural symbols, particularly folk art and music, that it "twisted" in such a way as to legitimize and prop up the state -- and he loudly complained about it at the time.
No, just sisters in spirit.
And? Are you trying to make a point in relation to any comments of mine? Perhaps in my comments referring to Joseph Smith being a false prophet?
If so, that isn't a matter of non-essentials or mere "wrongheadedness", but of absolute blasphemy.
Less than a bottle of Glenlivet, but more than a sip of Macallan. 8~)
Thank you for saying that about "Hammerskjold", one never knows what othrers will do in the name of a another who can not defend themselves. I always like Hammerskjold and felt let down after I learn of these thing. I also thought the crash was suspicious!
No, more in relation to the fact that you lumped Calvin, Arminius, Billy Graham, et al. in with him.
If so, that isn't a matter of non-essentials or mere "wrongheadedness", but of absolute blasphemy.
With regard to the FR Fifth Amendment's founder, I agree.
~looks like Robert Byrd~
With or without the white sheets?
LOL. Without. "With" is Krispy Kreme.
And that's only two K's. 8~)
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.