Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

On the Freedom of the Will: Part II: Section I (Refuting Arminian Free-Willism)
CCEL ^ | 1754 | Jonathan Edwards

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.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 1,181-1,186 next last
To: OrthodoxPresbyterian; P-Marlowe; xzins; The Grammarian; connectthedots; Vernon; Revelation 911
Anybody have an answer for me?

First you have to show us where any of us said it was unfair.

81 posted on 02/10/2004 8:12:01 PM PST by Corin Stormhands (www.wardsmythe.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; betty boop; xzins
Er, if I may, I’d like to unravel the essay (at least as I understand it on first blush). I would sum it up as follows:

Everything is the effect of a cause and thus everything stems from a first cause, ergo there is no free will.

This is very similar to the concept of ‘strong determinism’ in science. Stephen Wolfram suggests that cellular automata is the unfolding mechanism in A New Kind of Science. Stephen Pinker suggests the concept of free will (and the soul) is only an epiphenomenon of the physical brain. He has written two books – one which attempts to debunk the “ghost in the machine” How the Mind Works and The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature.

Of course, these views are based on scientific materialism and metaphysical naturalism (atheism) and would not recognize God as the First Cause. Then again, such science avoids the fact of a beginning altogether.

My counter-argument to these assertions on the science threads, is that algorithm at inception is proof of intelligent design. IOW, if the scientific materialist or metaphysical naturalist wishes to believe that the physical realm is ”all that there is” and it is all strongly determined – atheism nevertheless fails on the fact of initial conditions, that there was a beginning (an informed beginning at that!).

Of course, on this forum, noone is arguing for scientific materialism or atheism – but those who favor strong determinism may wish to be aware of the meaning on the “outside”.

BTW, I agree that it is most helpful when concepts are plainly spoken.

82 posted on 02/10/2004 8:14:49 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
...I had good reason to hate Edwards and make up any stupid excuse to discount it, and him.

Now this sounds real familiar for some reason...where have i heard this before...Oh yeah, silly me, right here in some of these posts.

Ya suppose that this might be closely related to the level of maturity that we've seen recently?

83 posted on 02/10/2004 8:15:31 PM PST by Calvinist_Dark_Lord (I have come here to kick @$$ and chew bubblegum...and I'm all outta bubblegum! ~Roddy Piper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage; P-Marlowe; xzins
So, if you want to have libertarian free will, the second level act of will must itself be chosen by the will; we now have a third level act of will. Obviously, the same analysis applies to the third level act of will, and any more you might add. The acts of will go back in an infinite regression.

But what does any of this have to do with the price of matches in Geneva?

It appears to me to be just one more of those silly games of "logic" a couple of swarm members like to play. Games they say "prove their point" when they're so totally off base they make no sense.

And I'm sure they're all off on their private email lists having a jolly old laugh about ol' Corin not getting it (they've told me that's what they do).

But the fact is, ain't really nothin' here to get.

84 posted on 02/10/2004 8:18:50 PM PST by Corin Stormhands (www.wardsmythe.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: The Grammarian
Concerning Norman's lack of understanding Edwards, I addressed his first critique in post #74. Here's the rest:

Second, Edwards also misunderstands self-determinism as free acts caused by other free acts. Rather, it means simply that a self can cause something else to happen. That is, a free agent can cause a free action without that free action needing another cause ad infinitum.

I can only assume one of two things: either Norm didn't comprehend Edward's argument that all choices are based on previous inclinations, in which case we should all simply ignore his refutation; or Norm is explicitly rejecting such an obvious truth, and instead suggesting that a "free agent" can cause a "free action" without any previous desire or inclination to do so. If this is the case, then Norm is equating man with the creator in his ability to to create ex nihilo. How else can one make choices with neither motivation nor circumstance? Heck, I don't think even the Armenians here on FR would go so far.

Third, Edwards has a faulty, mechanistic view of human personhood. He likens human free choice to balancing scales in need of more pressure in order to tip the scales one way or the other. But humans are not machines; they are persons made in the image of God

This type of an argument is actually quite less than I've come to expect from Geisler. Edward's asserts that all choices are made by weighing desires and following the strongest inclination. Norman responds by calling that "mechanistic", and says people are "made in the image of God". How exactly do either of those refute Edward's argument? I'll defend Edwards by simply calling Norman's arguments irrational, and point out that Edward's assertions concerning the will must be true since people are made in the image of God.

Even the Calvinistic Westminster Confession of Faith declares that...

There's no sense in misrepresenting the Confession, Norm... Here's a link to the Confession's chapter: "On Free Will"

Time for bed...
85 posted on 02/10/2004 8:22:05 PM PST by SoliDeoGloria (The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge - Proverbs 1:7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Corin Stormhands; P-Marlowe; xzins; ksen; A.J.Armitage; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; George W. Bush
First you have to show us where any of us said it was unfair.

Alright, then, just so I'm clear:

True, or False?

86 posted on 02/10/2004 8:22:12 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; OrthodoxPresbyterian; Jerry_M; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; A.J.Armitage
Everything is the effect of a cause and thus everything stems from a first cause, ergo there is no free will.

***My counter-argument to these assertions on the science threads, is that algorithm at inception is proof of intelligent design. IOW, if the scientific materialist or metaphysical naturalist wishes to believe that the physical realm is ”all that there is” and it is all strongly determined – atheism nevertheless fails on the fact of initial conditions, that there was a beginning (an informed beginning at that!).***

That is not a counter argument to Edward's assertion. The first cause would be God. It is absurdly easy to demonstrate as well.

My problem with this whole line of discussion about the will is that it doesn't even address the fact that the will is not the determiner of man's eternal destination. His nature is. See John 3 for starters.

Woody.
87 posted on 02/10/2004 8:23:38 PM PST by CCWoody (Recognize that all true Christians will be Calvinists in glory,...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian; P-Marlowe; xzins; ksen; A.J.Armitage; Calvinist_Dark_Lord; George W. Bush
O.P., do you really give me so little credit? I'm not buying your house for a dollar either.

Good nite.
88 posted on 02/10/2004 8:25:09 PM PST by Corin Stormhands (www.wardsmythe.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Corin Stormhands
O.P., do you really give me so little credit? I'm not buying your house for a dollar either. Good nite.

Hey, I was just asking.

"Don't be so thin skinned".

Good night.

89 posted on 02/10/2004 8:26:32 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe
If stupid people can't understand it, then it is not worth understanding.

I'm too stupid to understand the mathematics of rocketry. Since our civilization now depends on communication satellites, I'd say it's highly worthwhile for some of those who can to understand it.

Because at least half the population of the world has an IQ of less than 100. And if God made his gospel only for the intelligent to understand, then I suppose a sure sign of election would be an IQ over 120, eh?

In the first place, no one ever said you have to be a subtle theologian to be saved (but the Apostle John did say you have to be orthodox, or rather, if you are saved orthodoxy naturally follows -- 2 John 1:9). Nor does anyone serious say you have to be a Calvinist.

Neither Calvinism nor basic orthodoxy requires any sophisticated thinking, just, "The bible says it, that settles it." (Notice I left out the part about "I believe it".) But if you want to go deeper you can, and some, elders, are positively required to by their position.

90 posted on 02/10/2004 8:27:14 PM PST by A.J.Armitage (http://calvinist-libertarians.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: nobdysfool
Excellently stated, nobdysfool.

Here is one of my favorite Blaise Pascal quotes:

“All men seek happiness. This is without exception. Whatever different means they employ, they all tend to this end. The cause of some going to war, and of others avoiding it, is the same desire in both, attended with different views. The will never takes the least step but to this object. This is the motive of every action of every man, even of those who hang themselves." (Pascal, p.113, quoted in Desiring God , p.173)
91 posted on 02/10/2004 8:29:09 PM PST by SoliDeoGloria (The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge - Proverbs 1:7)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
Thank you for your reply!

My counter-argument is for a science discussion, where the participants may be scientific materialists or atheists ... it is not for a theological discussion (such as to defend or debunk Edwards). Seems to me that people who do battle on the details of theology are already believers and do not need that line of argument. I just thought it might be helpful to anyone discussing the same issues on the general forum...

92 posted on 02/10/2004 8:29:38 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: OrthodoxPresbyterian
Jumping in - I will respond by saying the strict Calvinism does not paint God as unfair it paints Him unloving. It is contrary to the His declared and revealed nature. It is the saddest of false doctrines to me and of late have been wondering what set of variables inclines one to embrace Calvinism.
93 posted on 02/10/2004 8:36:45 PM PST by reflecting
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: Calvinist_Dark_Lord
Frankly, the sentences in the New Testament Greek are far more complicated...

Yeah, you have that exactly right, and the Greek destroys the Calvinistic...(heresy? apostasy?) o.k., you choose the term, and it is anything but Biblical!

94 posted on 02/10/2004 8:43:03 PM PST by Vernon (Sir "Ol Vern" aka Brother Maynard, a child of the King!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Thank you, AG.

Your summary is the most concise I've seen so far.

Since everything stems from a first cause that means there is no free will doesn't explain for me God's decision to grant free will.

God chose to make a rock, a duck, a tree, and a "free will" in man. My sense is that He made it properly.
95 posted on 02/10/2004 8:45:05 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army and Proud of It!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: reflecting
Jumping in - I will respond by saying the strict Calvinism does not paint God as unfair it paints Him unloving. It is contrary to the His declared and revealed nature. It is the saddest of false doctrines to me and of late have been wondering what set of variables inclines one to embrace Calvinism.

Why do you say that Calvinism paints God as being unloving?

And when you give your answer, consider this: According to the Bible, All men sinned in Adam and earned for themselves Spiritual Death and Eternal Damnation (Romans 3:10-12,23; Romans 5:12-14). And the nature of Spiritual Death is precisely this: that while a man remains Spiritually Dead, he will always reject God (Romans 8:5-8).

Thoughts?

96 posted on 02/10/2004 8:45:30 PM PST by OrthodoxPresbyterian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: CCWoody
Everything is the effect of a cause and thus everything stems from a first cause, ergo there is no free will.

Hmmmm...very mechanistic world isn't it? Kinda like a clock...or maybe a puppet?

97 posted on 02/10/2004 8:47:22 PM PST by Vernon (Sir "Ol Vern" aka Brother Maynard, a child of the King!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: Vernon; Frumanchu; Wrigley
Yeah, you have that exactly right, and the Greek destroys the Calvinistic...(heresy? apostasy?) o.k., you choose the term, and it is anything but Biblical!

So, are you ready to discuss your assertons concerning Acts 13:48 yet, or are you just here for more unsubstantiated assertions of dubious validity and value?

98 posted on 02/10/2004 8:51:10 PM PST by Calvinist_Dark_Lord (I have come here to kick @$$ and chew bubblegum...and I'm all outta bubblegum! ~Roddy Piper)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Corin Stormhands
In the first place, I was asked to re-present Edwards' argument, which is why I did.

In the second place, a game or not, unless the premises are false or the logical fallacious, the results of logic are infallibly true. So if you want to refute it, aim at the premises or the form the argument took, not at "silly games of logic". Otherwise you'll look like a snakehandling hick.
99 posted on 02/10/2004 8:52:48 PM PST by A.J.Armitage (http://calvinist-libertarians.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: xzins; P-Marlowe; betty boop
Thank you for your reply!

Oh, I certainly agree that we have free will. I was just trying to restate the essay as succinctly as possible.

I also agree that were are predestined. From God's view - outside of space/time - He sees the story all at once. From our view - inside of space/time - we see it one frame at a time.

It may sound like a contradiction that I say both statements are true. It is not, though. A more thorough explanation is in my post 34 on another thread.

100 posted on 02/10/2004 8:53:08 PM PST by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 1,181-1,186 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson