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.
Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. – Matthew 7:1-2
That is one of the most misused and taken out of context passages in all of Scripture.
Why didn't you post the entire passage? If you had, you might see the context.
Matthew 7:
1 "Judge not, that you be not judged. 2For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. 3And why do you look at the speck in your brother's eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? 4Or how can you say to your brother, "Let me remove the speck from your eye'; and look, a plank is in your own eye? 5Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
6"Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.
===============================
Jesus is not making a prohibition against judging, the prohibition is against hypocritical judging. Notice that Jesus ends that passage with a command to make a judgment, by commanding that what is holy not be given to the dogs and swine. That command cannot be followed unless one makes a determination(judgment) of who are dogs and swine.
==================================
1 John 4
1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
==============================
That is an expressed command to make judgments concerning false prophets, yet you disregard all of Scripture that commands those judgments be made, acting as if God's Word contradicts itself, picking passages out of context of the entirety of God's Word that seem to agree with your own feelings, so you can appear to be pius. Woe unto you.
But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of stress. For men will be lovers of self,...holding the form of religon but denying the power of it....As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith; but they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men.
....he must hold firm to the sure word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to confute those who contradict it. For there are many insubordinate men, empty talkers and deceivers,...Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith.
Exactly, lockeliberty. The power of Christ is not the religious "form," it is to live in Love. Men are called, not preeminently to believe in a doctrine; we are called preeminently to live in Love -- to love God with all our heart and mind and soul and strength, and our neighbor as ourself. It seems to me the very definition of a "lover of self" is one who refuses to live in these two divine Laws.
How does man love God? He loves God by believing in his revealed truth. We must worship him in spirit and in truth. What you have done, and what liberal Christianity has done, is reverse the two commandments. You have made the love for neighbor greater than the love for God. The love for nieghbor is an outworking for the love of God and his truth. If we "love" our neighbor by refusing to point out to them that their unbelief is hatred toward God are we really loving our neighbor?
===========================
God calls us to love one another, not to judge one another.
Really? Tell me then what does the following passages say?
=========================
1 Corinthians 2:15
But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one.
=================================
1 Corinthians 5
11But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner--not even to eat with such a person. 12For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? 13But those who are outside God judges. Therefore "put away from yourselves the evil person."[1]
======================================
What
Maybe you have misunderstood what "judging", is. Maybe you have read things into God's Word that you want to see instead of what is actually being said.
Tell me what this commandment of Jesus means?
6"Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.(Matthew 7:6)
===============================
That is not suggestion, it is a command. Do you take that command seriously?
How can you follow that command unless you first determine(judge), who are dogs and swine?
How do you know that God has already judged Joseph Smith?
Because God has already said that heretics and false prophets will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
Do you understand your wisdom to be greater than the Lord's?
No, I follow God's Word, which is Wisdom.
I say, leave the issue to Him;
God says differently. I will believe God and not you.
for Joseph Smith is as much His child as you or I.
No, only the elect who have trusted in Christ have the right to be called the children of God.
God is Father to all men.
Not following the entire counsel of God's Word leads to false notions such as that.
John 1
11He came to His own,[1] and His own[2] did not receive Him. 12But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: 13who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
All others are sons of disobedience;
Ephesians 5
5For this you know,[1] that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. 6Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. 7Therefore do not be partakers with them.
========================
I'm not deceived by your empty words.
It seems to me the judgment of the son is most properly left to the Father Himself.
Joseph Smith was a false prophet and son of the devil. What "seems" to you, is not in allignment with God's Word.
===============================
Proverbs 14:12
There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.
Why does 1 John 3:11 say there are legitimate "children of God" and others are "children of the devil"? My understanding is there is only one unforgiveable sin, and that is to sin against the Holy Spirit, which is Love. FWIW.
Can you back that up with Scripture as opposed to mere subjective feelings? Make your case with Scripture, because mere opinions are worthless.
How?
When responding to what someone personally states, is it now a "personal attack" to respond to them "personally"????
Please explain to me, how your statement is valid. thanks.
How can you love God when you fail to heed to full counsel of His Word?
By questioning or impugning their motives for saying what they said. If you can refute what someone said, refute it. If you don't understand what someone said, question it. Speak to the comments of others; not to your assumed reasons for their having made those comments.
How can you love God when you fail to heed to full counsel of His Word?
Since no human being has ever not fail(ed) to head to [sic] full counsel of His Word, you are saying that no one has ever loved God, including yourself. Yet you feel free to accuse another person of such a failing as if you were perfect in "loving God".
Knock it off.
I didn't "question" her "motives", I made a category statement that her misappropriation, twisting and taking snippets of God's Word out of context, in favor of her own feelings reveals her desires, for Scripture says, "out of the abundance of one's heart, the mouth does speak".
Allow me to rephrase that then.
How are you loving God when you reject clear teaching of His Word in regards to determining(judging) false prophets and failing to warn God's people of them as did the Apostles and prophets of God?
How can you love God when you fail to heed to full counsel of His Word?
btw, that is an appeal to conscience, which had been preceeded by an appeal to God's Word as opposed to the subjective opinions offered.
I understand exactly what you are saying. There is a huge difference, a subtle one really, but huge as it works itself out, when someone operates from love. I'm not sure I'm a good example, but I recognize these people when I encounter them. To operate from love is not to deny scripture, it is completely another thing.
I think we have kicked this one around before. The scriptures are not some kind of taxidermy performed on a frozen god, God is in motion even now, moving among us, at work on all sides. There are people who operate from an awareness of the living God, and who simply love him. And find themselves drawn toward him inexorably.
When you meet people like this you can't help but note the difference.
It seems a little unfair to keep pounding on the poor Pharisees, they've certainly taken enough abuse over the centuries, but its useful to remember that these were not bad people, they were the most moral, and most scripturally knowledgeable men of the day. And they annoyed Jesus to no end. He would rather spend time with someone who lacked scriptural understanding but who operated from love as he himself did.
This of course does not meant that scripture is unimportant, it is very important, it provides a framework and a means of understanding what we observe if our eyes are open. It provides a means of knowing even what to look for, almost like a lens that lets you see things you might well otherwise have missed. I can't help but be suspicious of the motives of people who play fast and loose with scripture. But the point of it all is to get you to the elephant. Once you get hold, don't let go, even if the guy next to you argues with you... listen to him, read all you can from your elephant manual, but don't turn loose of the elephant.
I agree, as in the case of how Matthew 7:1, has been played falst and loose with here, by taking it as a snippet, out of the context of meaning in the entire passage, to try and make it agree with the posters own subjective feelings, and thus distorting God's Word.
Proverbs 24
24He who says to the wicked, "You are righteous,"
Him the people will curse;
Nations will abhor him.
25But those who rebuke the wicked will have
delight, And a good blessing will come upon them.
Proverbs 27
5Open rebuke is better Than love carefully concealed.
Proverbs 29:15;
The rod and rebuke give wisdom, But a child left to himself brings shame to his mother.
2 Timothy 4
1 I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will judge the living and the dead at[1] His appearing and His kingdom: 2Preach the word! Be ready in season and out of season. Convince, rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching. 3For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers;
Titus 1
12One of them, a prophet of their own, said, "Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons." 13This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, 14not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth.
Titus 2
14who gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from every lawless deed and purify for Himself His own special people, zealous for good works.
15Speak these things, exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no one despise you.
Are those passages to be taken seriously?
How do you arrive at this judgment, that I do not heed the full counsel of His Word? Do you know my heart? Do you know my soul? Do you know my mind? I would say in all humility: You do not. But God does. It seems the better part of wisdom not to presume too much about one’s fellows.
Well I see we’re off to a dandy start, Ephesians210: You begin by characterizing your “opponent” as “a subjectivist” – and I gather you do not intend that as a compliment.
I’ll be glad to tell you what some of the passages you wrote or cite mean to me (I can only get so much done on my lunch hour):
=================================
1 Corinthians 2:15
But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one.
=================================
Only God is “he who is spiritual”; Men are, with the best of will, imperfectly "spiritual": Man is weak, corrupt, prone to sin. God Is Perfect -- perfect Love, Wisdom, Will. These lines say to me that God judges all things; but no man can “rightly judge” Him. (Which I just did -- that is, I "judged Him." You can say whether I have done so "rightly" or not.)
===============================
6"Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.(Matthew 7:6)
===============================
You wrote: “How can you follow that command unless you first determine(judge), who are dogs and swine?”
Ah, there’s the rub! How do you determine this? Do you look deeply into a man and just see that he is a dog or a swine? Do you have the infallible wisdom to know these things?
Q.: How do you know that God has already judged Joseph Smith?
A.: Because God has already said that heretics and false prophets will not inherit the Kingdom of God.
And so God has told you that Joseph Smith is a heretic and false prophet? Or was it perhaps the case that a man has told you this?
Q.: Do you understand your wisdom to be greater than the Lord's?
A.: No, I follow God's Word, which is Wisdom.
And so you are saying that your human mind knows all the things that are in the Mind of God? That your wisdom is as great as His, so much so that it enables you completely to understand His mind, His purpose, His will?
I say, leave the issue to Him;
You wrote: “God says differently. I will believe God and not you.”
Then you agree with me!!! :^)
…for Joseph Smith is as much His child as you or I….
You wrote: “No, only the elect who have trusted in Christ have the right to be called the children of God.” Well then, what am I missing here? LDS follows Christ – unless I am very much mistaken. (Though maybe they aren’t following Him the way you think they should….)
Sorry Ephesians210, but I’m running out of time to write for now. Must get back to work. Will post this “as is” – I would have liked to continue, but here is where I must leave off for now.
Perhaps I’ll have a chance to continue a little later in the day. Thank you kindly for writing!
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.