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.
First you have to show us where any of us said it was unfair.
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.
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?
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.
Alright, then, just so I'm clear:
True, or False?
Hey, I was just asking.
"Don't be so thin skinned".
Good night.
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.
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...
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!
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?
Hmmmm...very mechanistic world isn't it? Kinda like a clock...or maybe a puppet?
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?
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.
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.