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.
It might make things easier if you had noticed that I was quoting another poster(the italics should be a hint), who "lumped" Joseph Smith in with the others, and not I.
Earlier A-G repeated that she does not follow the creeds of any man, and listed those names among them. (See her initial posts on this thread.)
LOL!!! :^)
Excellent analysis, marron! A classic example of this sort of thing is what Hitler did with the ancient lore of the German Volk, all shined up and made vivid to the imagination by Wagner a few decades earlier. The values of the ancient traditions were totally submerged in Hitler's brilliantly successful attempt to make German "folk culture" come alive in the German collective conciousness...with the result that truly horrific things could occur in one of the great Christian nations of Europe.
But I did single out Joseph Smith. Sheesh.
Apology accepted.
I say this with a smile on my face and no ill feelings toward you. Thank you for responding.:-)
Consider the Son of God who is outside time (inhabiting eternity) knowing all things that will happen, who then enters our time domain and reveals that He knows not the day or the hour.
Then consider the fact that Jesus set aside His "inhabiting eternity" to take on flesh and relate to us as a man. The Father, while Jesus was in the flesh revealed all things to His Son from eternity except the day or the hour of His second coming. This is a perfect example of how a man must rely on the Father in heaven for all good things; Jesus chose to limit Himself to that same condition. Jesus' perfect communion with God made Him superior to any other man who ever lived. Sinless and Blameless literally.
Jesus asked the Father in Gethsemane if there were any other way. If pure Calvinism were true, this would be play-acting by the Creator of the universe. I contend it was not. Jesus glorified the Father in heaven, and relied on the Father completely in His incarnate state and agreed to do the Fathers will.
Unfortunately, Calvinism clouds the waters of the example Jesus displayed of being empowered by the Father to lay down our wills, in order to do the Father's Will. Jesus was sinless not because He didn't sin (which He didn't), but because He perfectly did the Fathers Will on earth.
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.
Realization of His love for us leads us to repentance. Abiding in Christ disables a person from denying Christ's love, leaving us no longer a slave to sin. The regenerate heart enters into a mutual sanctification process with God, blessing both Him and us.
1. Calvinists have to deny the omniscience of Jesus. The Bible teaches things are different in our time domain than in eternity, therefore Jesus can chose to lay aside His omniscience to enter His created time domain (not knowing the day or hour).
2. Calvinists need not share the gospel with all the creatures of the world. The Bible teaches that as mud and wax respond differently to the light of God, one hardening the other softening, we can respond differently to the Holy Spirit's promptings in our life (prior to belief in Christ). If you chose to resist God as Pharaoh did, God will oblige you and turn up the heat to quicker harden your heart. If you chose to seek Him, His light will soften you toward repentance.
3. Calvinists believe God chooses you or does not choose you. The Bible teaches God will pursue you, but there comes a time where He gives you over to your flesh. Over and over in the Bible people make a choice against God and He gives them over. The Rich young ruler saddened Jesus, Judas was called friend till the end as Jesus continued to reach out to him, forgive them Father for they know not what they do... all foolishness without personal choice.
Salvation is a free gift that can be taken away by no man, nor achieved by any man, otherwise we could boast. Only those who freely submit to God's Will receive spiritual treasure in heaven. Again no chance to boast, all good things come from the Father in heaven.
Clearly God is sovereign and involved with every minuet detail in our universe, but this goes to the Free-Will argument, for He is a personal God He persuades us of His love by exhibiting it to us moment by moment. He is also powerful enough to take the threads of every decision His free-will creatures make (Imagine the branching of possibilities) and "CAUSES all things for the good of those that love Him AND ARE CALLED ACCORDING TO HIS PURPOSES".
"Causes" is a present tense word (from our perspective), not a past tense. He is intimately involved, to the minutest degree, with His creation. Praise Jesus Christ our savior.
Many thanks my friend. I scanned "The Eternity of God" article and found it very interesting. I look forward to perusing the other articles as well. These are well written, well thought out treatises on the subject (unlike my mishmash of ideas sloppily thrown together).
To find the articles, go to Grammarians profile page and choose links.
My caution about characterizing the source of anothers Spiritual understanding is based on the following Scripture:
But when the Pharisees heard [it], they said, This [fellow] doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils . Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy [against] the [Holy] Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the [world] to come. Matthew 12:24 through and ending with 31-32
The first is to not judge, lest I be judged:
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. Galatians 5:22-23
My bottom line:
I choose to love God absolutely and others, unconditionally. (Matthew 22:37-40)
I choose to not judge any being. (Matthew 7:1-2)
I choose to forgive without demanding an apology or vindication first (Mark 11:26).
The Holy Spirit has gifted all of us to a purpose in the body of Christ (I Corinthians 12). Some engage in spiritual warfare, others run the race, others evangelize, preach, care for the sheep and so forth.
All of these are noble service, but I have chosen instead to sit at Christs feet and hear the Word of God.
And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her. Luke 10:38-42
drstevej, just to underline what betty boop said, I consider her to be my sister in Christ!
A.: I do not judge Joseph Smith at all.
Seems to me the best thing is to leave the judgment to God.
A.: I do not judge Joseph Smith at all.
Seems to me the best thing is to leave the judgment to God.
God has already judged Joseph Smith and so do we, following the command of God to judge false prophets. By not judging false prophets and standing against their false doctrines, you do violence to the Cross.
No you don't. You don't love God's people or else you would not take the unBiblical stance of not pointing out false prophets and false teachers, exposing them and warning God's people about them.
Jeremiah 5 30"An astonishing and horrible thing
Has been committed in the land:
31The prophets prophesy falsely,
And the priests rule by their own power;
And My people love to have it so.
But what will you do in the end?
==============================
Jeremiah 14 13Then I said, "Ah, Lord GOD! Behold, the prophets say to them, "You shall not see the sword, nor shall you have famine, but I will give you assured peace in this place."' 14And the LORD said to me, "The prophets prophesy lies in My name. I have not sent them, commanded them, nor spoken to them; they prophesy to you a false vision, divination, a worthless thing, and the deceit of their heart. 15Therefore thus says the LORD concerning the prophets who prophesy in My name, whom I did not send, and who say, "Sword and famine shall not be in this land'--"By sword and famine those prophets shall be consumed!
==================================
Jeremiah 23
1 "Woe to the shepherds who destroy and scatter the sheep of My pasture!" says the LORD. 2Therefore thus says the LORD God of Israel against the shepherds who feed My people: "You have scattered My flock, driven them away, and not attended to them. Behold, I will attend to you for the evil of your doings," says the LORD.
====================================
Matthew 7;
(1) 15 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. 16You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?
=====================================
In order to "know them by their fruits", you have to first "judge" their fruit.
======================================
Matthew 24
10And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. 11Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. 12And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold.
=================================
In order to make yourself appear to be "good", "sweet" and "nice" in the eyes of men, you fail to judge rightly as Jesus commands in John 7:24. Your "love" is cold towards God's people. Woe unto you for seeking to please men and not God.
==============================
Luke 6
25Woe to you who are full,
For you shall hunger.
Woe to you who laugh now,
For you shall mourn and weep.
26Woe to you[1] when all[2] men speak well of you, For so did their fathers to the false prophets.
=====================================
No, you err, not on caution, but to make yourself seem to be "good", in the eyes of men. Woe unto you!
I don't know, Ephesians210, but I have great difficulty understanding this attitude. God calls us to love one another, not to judge one another. How do you know that God has already judged Joseph Smith? Do you understand your wisdom to be greater than the Lord's? I say, leave the issue to Him; for Joseph Smith is as much His child as you or I. God is Father to all men. It seems to me the judgment of the son is most properly left to the Father Himself.
My understanding is there is only one unforgiveable sin, and that is to sin against the Holy Spirit, which is Love. FWIW.
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.