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.
I tend to agree, with caveats about the use of expressions "aren't even Christians," and "perfectly acceptable forms of worship." The only perfectly acceptable form of worship of course is that in the Holy Spirit, sent in the name/authority/auspices of Christ --once again, on His terms, from His point of view. So fortunate that point of view is one where mercy would triumph over judgment.
Such is not to say that if some uneducated person's god is "Fufu" that God won't initiate and invite and weed through this person's response.
Also, we find doctrines taught by demons even in the Christian church and of course the traditions of other worship.
I know of someone who was diligently praying for someone's salvation and this person attests to having at one point heard back, words to the effect of, "you know some people aren't supposed to be saved." Perhaps this was a test; one can hope.
What a dreadful thing, to be found from Eternity as a rejector of one's Savior.
Jesus is the Door and the Gate. No one enters without His approval.
Rev 20: 11Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what he had done. 14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
It does not seem justified to me to say that everyone who is at this judgement is not in the book of life. The implication seems to be that some WERE in the book of life.
Interesting point. Goes with Romans 2:1-16, eh?
None of them will get in without Jesus OK, but they will probably be certified on the same basis as was Jethro and Melchizadek, imho.
The advantage for the Christian in this time of God's favor, though, is that we go immediately from death to life.
No, you have not gotten the "thrust" at all. The "thrust" is, that you have an un-Biblical, modernist, sentimental concept of what "love" is, and have relied on your own feelings than on God's Word for truth and practice.
Sorry to inform you, but you did "judge" me, and "judged" me wrongly as well, by "judging" me to be "infuriated", which is as far from the truth as the east is from the west.
You are free not to "judge"(in reality you judge all the time but can't admit it), but don't try and tell me that Christians are not to "judge" when God---not you---has clearly commanded the opposite.
btw, what you misjudged to be "infuriated", is a strong love for God and His Word.
Why did you judge me wrongly?
Re:. I do not know the doctrine of EPH 210, but I do know that no one can "force" anyone into their doctrinal position..I do not think ??? he was trying to insist on anything with you...
She totally missed the "thrust", which was that she was trying to say Christians are not to "judge", and in so doing, "judging" those who do, herself. The point I, and you, were making, is the same point that God's Word makes, that we are called to "judge", teachings, spiritual conditions, etc, and are called to judge with righteous judgment, that is to say, with a right standard, God's Word.
Then how can you make a judgment that Joseph Smith and Mormons are children of God when that right is reserved for the true believers in Christ Jesus, and them only?
I would suggest that you first study the LDS religion before making that judgment.
Re:On that basis, the tree looks to be pretty sound to me.
You have judged by mere appearances, which Jesus prohibits. "Fruits" are not just the things you mentioned, which when you look deeper, past the appearance, what you find is lots of problems in Mormonism, terrible sexism and racism, terrible treatment of widows and orphans, pedophilia, just to name a few, but "fruit", also is to believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and not a jesus of human invention, who had a prior existence on a planet, having been the product of the Mormon god and one of his celestial wives having celestial sex, creating jesus as a spirit being, along with his brother Lucifer.
By judging according to appearance, you do the Mormons a disservice, by not witnessing the truth of the Gospel.
So says the gospel according to Oprah, but not the Gospel of Christ.
Ya know, for someone who's only been on Free Republic for little more than a month, you're awfully confrontive....and....adept at posting, too.
I'm sorry, I didn't know there was a rule at FR that only old timers could be "confrontive and adept".
Allow me to inform you, that there are lots and lots of forums on the net.
btw, I've used that line at many other forums for years.
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.