The Will A Study of
Volitions in light of the Fall
By Jack Kettler
Definition of Volition:
A noun - the faculty or power
of using one's will.
Definition of the free will of
man:
The ability to make one’s own
decisions as to what one will do, choosing as
one pleases in light of one’s own sense of
right and wrong and the inclination one feels;
the ability to make willing choices that have
real effects. Sometimes called free will. *
Freedom of self-determination
and action independent of external causes. **
Are these two definitions
regarding free will biblical? Do they take
into account the fall of mankind into sin?
What about internal causes such as the sinful,
fallen nature of man? Can the sinful internal
will of man change how he responds to external
temptations or causes?
Consider the following
questions when studying the will of man and
his fall into sin:
1.Is the will fallen or free?
2.Is man dead in sin except for
the will?
3.Has sin changed the will? If
so, in what way?
4.If man’s will is free, was
man’s fall into sin only partial?
5.The will of man, chooses,
does the fall into sin change the choices that
are made?
6.Can a fallen man’s will
choose righteousness? If so, how can a man be
said to be fallen or dead in sin?
In the view of some, man is
not really spiritually dead. Man, according to
some popular beliefs, just needs an
opportunity and a little help. He can
recognize his condition, and call for help.
When help comes and assistance is provided,
man can climb up a ladder out of the problem
that faces him.
Unfortunately, much that
passes for correct teaching on man’s will is
complete prideful nonsense. What about the
Mormons view of man’s will? I am using Mormon
teaching on the topic as a discussion ploy to
stimulate consideration.
Are the Mormon leaders correct
in their view of free will?
Former Mormon leader, Joseph F.
Smith provides some interesting information
on this subject:
“Let us illustrate: A man
walking along the road happens to fall into a
pit so deep and dark that he cannot climb to
the surface and regain his freedom. How can he
save himself from his predicament? Not by any
exertions on his part, for there is no means
of escape in the pit. He calls for help and
some kindly disposed soul, hearing his cries
for relief, hastens to his assistance and by
lowering a ladder, give to him the means by
which he may climb again to the surface of the
earth. This was precisely the condition that
Adam placed himself and his posterity in.” (1)
The first man, Adam,
according to Mormonism, is aware of his
condition and is able to cry for help. When
the ladder is lowered down to him, he can
climb out of the pit. Is this the condition of
fallen man that is outlined in Scripture? Of
course not. This is simply a form of humanism
or works for salvation. This view of man's
condition was also known as Pelagianism.
Pelagius was a British monk. Man in this
system essentially saves himself by following
the example of Christ using his free will. In
the early church, Pelagianism was condemned as
heresy during the fourth century through the
theological debates with St. Augustineof Hippo.
Consider another Mormon leader
on free will:
Former Mormon apostle, LeGrand
Richards explains his understanding of human
free will:
“Thus all nations and people
have free agency and, according to their
choice, the Lord will do unto them.... If all
men are not saved, it will be because they, in
the exercise of their free will, do not accept
his gift of grace.” (2)
Richards believes that man,
though unsaved, has the power within himself
to exercise his free will. If a man does not
do this then he will not be saved. The
thoughtful reader should see that if the will
is free, there is an ability in man to help
save himself.
These two quotations from
Mormon leaders seem to be consistent with much
modern-day evangelicalism. In contrast, the
historic Protestant view teaches that man is
spiritually dead and unable to call for help
or even recognize his condition until
regenerated by the Holy Spirit.
The Scriptures that are most
cited when approaching the subject of
mankind’s fall and its effects are:
“But of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat
of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof
thou shalt surely die.” (Genesis 2:17)
“And God saw that the
wickedness of man was great in the earth, and
that every imagination of the thoughts of his
heart was only evil continually.” (Genesis
6:5)
“Behold, he putteth no trust
in his saints; yea, the heavens are not clean
in his sight. How much more abominable and
filthy is man which drinketh iniquity like
water?” (Job 15:15-16)
“The LORD looked down from
heaven upon the children of men, to see if
there were any that did understand, and seek
God. They are all gone aside, they are all
together become filthy: there is none that
doeth good, no, not one.” (Psalms 14:2-3)
“Behold, I was shapen in
iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive
me.” (Psalms 51:5)
“Because sentence against an
evil work is not executed speedily, therefore
the heart of the sons of men is fully set in
them to do evil.” (Ecclesiastes 8:11)
“All we like sheep have gone
astray; we have turned everyone to his own
way; and the LORD hath laid on him the
iniquity of us all.” (Isaiah 53:6)
“But we are as an unclean
thing, and all our righteousness are as filthy
rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our
iniquities, like the wind, have taken us
away.” (Isaiah 64:6)
“Can the Ethiopian change his
skin, or the leopard his spots? Then may ye
also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.”
(Jeremiah 13:23)
“The heart is deceitful above
all things, and desperately wicked: who can
know it?” (Jeremiah 17:9)
“The good man is perished out
of the earth: and there is none upright among
men: they all lie in wait for blood; they hunt
every man his brother with a net. That they
may do evil with both hands earnestly, the
prince asketh, and the judge asketh for a
reward; and the great man, he uttereth his
mischievous desire: so they wrap it up. The
best of them is as a brier: the most upright
is sharper than a thorn hedge: the day of thy
watchmen and thy visitation cometh; now shall
be their perplexity.” (Micah 7:2-4)
“There is none righteous, no,
not one.” (Romans 3:10-12)
“And this is the
condemnation, that light is come into the
world, and men loved darkness rather than
light, because their deeds were evil.” (John
3:19)
“Then Jesus said unto them,
Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat
the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his
blood, ye have no life in you.” (John 6:53)
“As it is written, there is
none righteous, no, not one: There is none
that understandeth, there in none that seeketh
after God. They are all gone out of the way,
they are together become unprofitable; there
is none that doeth good, no, not one.” (Romans
3:10-12)
“But we had the sentence of
death in ourselves that we should not trust in
ourselves, but in God which raiseth the dead.”
(2 Corinthians 1:9)
“And you hath he quickened,
who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein
in time past ye walked according to the course
of this world, according to the prince of the
power of the air, the spirit that now worketh
in the children of disobedience: Among whom
also we all had our conversation in times past
in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the
desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were
by nature the children of wrath, even as
others.” (Ephesians 2:1-3)
Do the above Scriptures leave
room for a partial fall of man? Is there a
part of a man still untouched by sin?
We will survey two well-known
Protestants who expound the normative view on
the topic of man’s will or volition. Is it
free or in bondage to sin? Note: Protestants
are not saying the will does not choose. If a
man is fallen, does his fallen nature change
his choices? When a man is redeemed and given
a new nature and indwelt by the Holy Spirit,
does this new reality effect man’s choices
differently?
The first Protestant
theologian will be Martin Luther. See link
below to get a PDF copy of Luther’s book Bondage
of the Will. Luther nailed a copy of his
95 Theses to the door of the Wittenberg Castle
Church. Without Luther, the Protestant
Reformation may never have happened. Some of
Luther’s questions in the 95 Theses dwelt with
the question if the will was free or enslaved.
Luther’s position that is expounded below are
some excerpts from
Bondage of the Will.
Martin Luther’s view of man’s
will is seen in his response to the Roman
Catholic Desiderius Erasmus’ promotion of
free will in his Diatribe against Luther at
the request of Pope Leo X.
De Servo Arbitrio
On the Bondage of the Will
(BOW)
1525 A.D.
Martin Luther
Selections:
(iv) Of the necessitating
foreknowledge of God (614-618)
It is fundamentally necessary
and healthy for Christians to acknowledge that
God foreknows nothing uncertainly, but that He
foresees, purposes, and does all things
according to His own immutable, eternal and
infallible will. This bombshell knocks
“free-will” flat, and utterly shatters it; so
that those who want to assert it must either
deny my bombshell, or pretend not to notice
it, or find some other way of dodging it.
Surely it was you, my good Erasmus, who a
moment ago asserted that God is by nature
just, and kindness itself? If this is true,
does it not follow that He is immutably just
and kind? That, as His nature remains
unchanged to all eternity, so do His justice
and kindness? And what is said of His justice
and kindness must be said also of His
knowledge, His wisdom, His goodness, His will,
and the other Divine attributes. But if it is
religious, godly and wholesome, to affirm
these things of God, as you do, what has come
over you, that now you should contradict
yourself by affirming that it is irreligious,
idle and vain to say that God foreknows by
necessity? You insist that we should learn the
immutability of God's will, while forbidding
us to know the immutably of His foreknowledge!
Do you suppose that He does not will what He
foreknows, or that He does not foreknow what
He wills? If he wills what He foreknows, His
will is eternal and changeless, because His
nature is so. From which it follows, by
resistless logic, that all we do, however it
may appear to us to be done freely and
optionally, is in reality done necessarily and
immutably in respect of God's will. For the
will of God is effective and cannot be
impeded, since power belongs to God's nature;
and His wisdom is such that He cannot be
deceived. Since, then His will is not impeded,
what is done cannot but be done where, when,
how, as far as, and by whom, He foresees and
wills...
I could wish, indeed, that a
better term was available for our discussion
than the accepted one, necessity, which cannot
accurately be used of either man's will or
God's. Its meaning is too harsh, and foreign
to the subject; for it suggests some sort of
compulsion, and something that is against
one's will, which is no part of the view under
debate. This will, whether it be God's or
man's does what it does, good or bad, under no
compulsion, but just as it wants or pleases,
as if totally free. Yet the will of God, which
rules over our mutable will, is changeless and
sure - as Boetius sings, “Immovable Thyself,
Thou movement giv'st to all;” and our will,
principally because of its corruption, can do
no good of itself. The reader's understanding,
therefore, must supply what the word itself
fails to convey, from his knowledge of the
intended signification - the immutable will of
God on the one hand, and the impotence of our
corrupt will on the other. Some have called it
necessity of immutability, but the phrase is
both grammatically and theologically
defective. (pp. 80-81,BOW)
(v) Of the importance of
knowing that God necessitates all things
(618-620)
I would also point out, not
only how true these things are (I shall
discuss that more fully from Scripture on a
later page), but also how godly, reverent and
necessary it is to know them. For where they
are not known, there can be no faith, nor any
worship of God. To lack this knowledge is
really to be ignorant of God - and salvation
is notoriously incompatible with such
ignorance. For if you hesitate to believe, or
are too proud to acknowledge, that God
foreknows and wills all things, not
contingently, but necessarily and immutably,
how can you believe, trust and rely on His
promises? When He makes promises, you ought to
be out of doubt that He knows, and can and
will perform, what He promises; otherwise, you
will be accounting Him neither true nor
faithful, which is unbelief, and the height of
irreverence, and a denial of the most high
God! And how can you be thus sure and certain,
unless you know that certainly, infallibly,
immutably and necessarily, He knows, wills and
will perform what He promises? Not only should
we be sure that God wills, and will execute
His will, necessarily and immutably; we should
glory in the fact, as Paul does in Romans 3:4
– “Let God be true, but every man a liar”, and
again, “Not that the word of God has failed,”
and in another place, “The foundation of God
standeth sure, having this seal, the Lord
knoweth them that are His.” In Titus 1:2 he
says: “Which God, that cannot lie, promised
before the world began”... If, then, we are
taught and believe that we ought to be
ignorant of the necessary foreknowledge of God
and the necessity of events, Christian faith
is utterly destroyed, and the promises of God
and the whole gospel fall to the ground
completely; for the Christian's chief and only
comfort in every adversity lies in knowing
that God does not lie, but brings all things
to pass immutably, and that His will cannot be
resisted, altered or impeded. (pp. 83-84, BOW)
(ix)That a will which has no
power without grace is not free (635-638)
You describe the power of
“free-will” as small, and wholly ineffective
apart from the grace of God. Agreed? Now then,
I ask you: If God's grace is wanting, if it is
taken away from that small power, what can it
do? It is ineffective, you say, and can do
nothing good. So it will not do what God or
His grace wills. Why? Because we have now
taken God's grace away from it, and what the
grace of God does not do is not good. Hence it
follows that “free-will” without God's grace
is not free at all, but is the permanent
prisoner and bondslave of evil, since it
cannot turn itself to good. This being so, I
give you full permission to enlarge the power
of “free-will” as much as you like; make it
angelic, make it divine, if you can! - but
when you add this doleful postscript, that it
is ineffective apart from God's grace,
straightway you rob it of all its power. What
is ineffective power but (in plain language)
no power? So to say that “free-will” exists
and has power, albeit ineffective power, is,
in the Sophists' phrase, a contradiction in
terms. It is like saying “'free-will' is
something which is not free” - as if you said
that fire is cold and earth hot. Fire
certainly has power to heat; but if hell-fire
(even) was cold and chilling instead of
burning and scorching, I would not call it
“fire”, let alone “hot” (unless you meant to
refer to an imaginary fire, or a painted one).
Note, however, that if we meant by “the power
of free-will” the power which makes human
beings fit subjects to be caught up by the
Spirit and touched by God's grace, as
creatures made for eternal life or eternal
death, we should have a proper definition. And
I certainly acknowledge the existence of this
power, this fitness, or "dispositional
quality" and "passive aptitude" (as the
Sophists call it), which, as everyone knows,
is not given to plants or animals. As the
proverb says, God did not make heaven for
geese! It is a settled truth, then, even on
the basis of your own testimony, that we do
everything of necessity, and nothing by
“free-will”; for the power of “free-will” is
nil, and it does no good, nor can do, without
grace. It follows, therefore, that “free-will”
is obviously a term applicable only to Divine
Majesty; for only He can do, and does (as the
Psalmist sings) “whatever he wills in heaven
and earth” [Psalms 135:6]. If “free-will” is
ascribed to men, it is ascribed with no more
propriety than divinity itself would be - and
no blasphemy could exceed that! So it befits
theologians to refrain from using the term
when they want to speak of human ability, and
to leave it to be applied to God only. They
would do well also to take the term out of
men’s mouths and speech, and to claim it for
their God, as if it were His own holy and
awful Name. If they must at all hazards assign
some power to men, let them teach that it be
denoted by some other term than “free-will”;
especially since we know from our own
observation that the mass of men are sadly
deceived and misled by this phrase. The
meaning which it conveys to their minds is far
removed from anything that theologians believe
and discuss. The term “free-will” is too
grandiose and comprehensive and fulsome.
People think it means what the natural force
of the phrase would require, namely, a power
of freely turning in any direction, yielding
to none and subject to none. If they knew that
this was not so, and that the term signifies
only a tiny spark of power, and that utterly
ineffective in itself, since it is the devil's
prisoner and slave, it would be a wonder if
they did not stone us as mockers and
deceivers, who say one thing and mean another
- indeed, who have not yet decided what we do
mean! Since, therefore, we have lost the
meaning and the real reference of this
glorious term, or, rather, have never grasped
them (as was claimed by the Pelagians, who
themselves mistook the phrase) why do we cling
so tenaciously to an empty word, and endanger
and delude faithful people in consequence?
There is no more wisdom in so doing then there
is in the modern foible of kings and
potentates, who retain, or lay claim to, empty
titles of kingdoms and countries, and flaunt
them, while all the time they are really
paupers, and anything but the possessors of
those kingdoms and countries. We can tolerate
their antics, for they fool nobody, but just
feed themselves up - unprofitably enough - on
their own vainglory. But this false idea of
"free-will" is a real threat to salvation, and
a delusion fraught with the most perilous
consequences. If we do not want to drop this
term [“free-will”] altogether - which would
really be the safest and most Christian thing
to do - we may still in good faith teach
people to use it to credit man with
“free-will” in respect, not of what is above
him, but of what is below him. That is to say,
man should realize that in regard to his money
and possessions he has a right to use them, to
do or to leave undone, according to his own
“free-will” - though that very “free-will” is
overruled by the free-will of God alone,
according to His own pleasure. However, with
regard to God, and in all that bears on
salvation or damnation, he has no “free-will”,
but is a captive, prisoner and bondslave,
either to the will of God, or to the will of
Satan. (pp. 104-107,BOW)
(x) Of God preached and not
preached, and of His revealed and secret will
(684-686)
As to why some are touched by
the law and others not, so that some receive
and others scorn the offer of grace that is
another question, which Ezekiel does not here
discuss. He speaks of the published offer of
God's mercy, not of the dreadful hidden will
of God, Who, according to His own counsel,
ordains such persons as He wills to receive
and partake of the mercy preached and offered.
This will is not to be inquired into, but to
be reverently adored, as by far the most
awesome secret of the Divine Majesty. He has
kept it to Himself and forbidden us to know
it; and it is much more worthy of reverence
than an infinite number of Corycian caverns!
Now, God in His own nature and majesty is to
be justify alone; in this regard, we have
nothing to do with Him, nor does He wish us to
deal with Him. We have to do with Him as
clothed and displayed in His Word, by which He
presents Himself to us. That is His glory and
beauty, in which the Psalmist proclaims Him to
be clothed [Ps. 21:5]. I say that the
righteous God does not deplore the death of
His people which He Himself works in them, but
He deplores the death which He finds in His
people and desires to remove from them. God
preached works to the end that sin and death
may be taken away, and we may be saved. "He
sent His word and healed them" [Ps. 107:20].
But God hidden in Majesty neither deplores nor
takes away death, but works life, and death,
and all in all; nor has He set bounds to
Himself by His Word, but has kept Himself free
over all things. The Diatribe is deceived by
its own ignorance in that it makes no
distinction between God preached and God
hidden, that is, between the Word of God and
God Himself. God does many things which He
does not show in His word, and He wills many
things which he does not in His Word show us
that He wills. Thus, He does not will the
death of a sinner - that is, in His Word; but
He wills it by His inscrutable will. At
present, however, we must keep in view His
Word and leave alone His inscrutable will; for
it is by His Word, and not by His inscrutable
will, that we must be guided. In any case, who
can direct himself according to a will that is
inscrutable and incomprehensible? It is enough
simply to know that there is in God an
inscrutable will; what, why, and within what
limits It wills, it is wholly unlawful to
inquire, or wish to know, or be concerned
about, or touch upon; we may only fear and
adore! So it is right to say: "If God does not
desire our death, it must be laid to the
charge of our own will if we perish"; this, I
repeat, is right if you spoke of God preached.
For He desires that all men should be saved,
in that He comes to all by the word of
salvation, and the fault is in the will which
does not receive Him; as He says in Matt.
23:37 “How often would I have gathered thy
children together, and thou wouldst not!” But
why the Majesty does not remove or change this
fault of will in every man (for it is not in
the power of man to do it), or why He lays
this fault to the charge of the will, when man
cannot avoid it, it is not lawful to ask; and
though you should ask much, you would never
find out; as Paul says in Romans 11: “Who art
thou that repliest against God?” [Romans
9:20]. (pp. 169-171, BOW)
(vi) Of the hardening of
Pharaoh (711-714)
This is why Moses generally
repeats after each plague: “And the heart of
Pharaoh was hardened, so that he would not let
the people go; as the Lord had spoken” [Exodus
7:13, 22; 8:15; 9:12]. What was the point of:
"As the Lord had spoken", but that the Lord
might appear true, as having foretold that
Pharaoh should be hardened? Had there been in
Pharaoh any power to turn, or freedom of will
that might have gone either way, God could not
with such certainty have foretold his
hardening. But as it is, He who neither
deceives nor is deceived guarantees it; which
means that it is completely certain, and
necessary, that Pharaoh's hardening will come
to pass. And it would not be so, were not that
hardening wholly beyond the strength of man,
and in the power of God alone, in the manner
that I spoke of above: that is, God was
certain that He would not suspend the ordinary
operation of omnipotence in Pharaoh, or on
Pharaoh's account - indeed, He could not omit
it; and He was equally certain that the will
of Pharaoh, being naturally evil and perverse,
could not consent to the word and work of God
which opposed it; hence, while by the
omnipotence of God the energy of willing was
preserved to Pharaoh within, and the word and
work that opposed him was set before him
without, nothing could happen in Pharaoh but
the offending and hardening of his heart. If
God had suspended the action of His
omnipotence in Pharaoh when He set before him
the word of Moses which opposed him, and if
the will of Pharaoh might be supposed to have
acted alone by its own power, then there could
perhaps have been a place for debating which
way it had power to turn. But as it is, since
he is impelled and made to act by his own
willing, no violence is done to his will; for
it is not under unwilling constraint, but by
an operation of God consonant with its nature
it is impelled to will naturally, according to
what it is (that is, evil). Therefore, it
could not but turn upon one word, and thus
become hardened. Thus we see that this passage
makes most forcibly against “free-will” on
this account that God, who promises, cannot
lie; and, if He cannot lie, then Pharaoh
cannot but be hardened.(pp. 211-212,BOW)
(xviii) Of the comfort of
knowing that salvation does not depend on
‘free-will’ (783)
I frankly confess that, for
myself, even if it could be, I should not want
“free-will” to be given to me, nor anything to
be justify in my own hands to enable me to
endeavor after salvation; not merely because
in face of so many dangers, and adversities,
and assaults of devils, I could not stand my
ground and hold fast my “free-will” (for one
devil is stronger than all men, and on these
terms no man could be saved); but because,
even were there no dangers, adversities, or
devils, I should still be forced to labor with
no guarantee of success, and to beat my fists
at the air. If I lived and worked to all
eternity, my conscience would never reach
comfortable certainty as to how much it must
do to satisfy God. Whatever work I had done,
there would still be a nagging doubt as to
whether it pleases God, or whether He required
something more. The experience of all who seek
righteousness by works proves that; and I
learned it well enough myself over a period of
many years, to my own great hurt. But now that
God has taken my salvation out the control of
my own will, and put it under the control of
His, and promised to save me, not according to
my working or running, but according to His
own grace and mercy, I have the comfortable
certainty that He is faithful and will not lie
to me, and that He is also great and powerful,
so that no devils or opposition can break Him
or pluck me from Him. "No one," He says,
“shall pluck them out of my hand, because my
father which gave them me is greater than all”
[John 10:28-29]. Thus it is that, if not all,
yet some, indeed many, are saved; whereas, by
the power of "free-will" none at all could be
saved, but every one of us would perish.
Furthermore, I have the comfortable certainty
that I please God, not by reason of the merit
of my works, but by reason of His merciful
favor promised to me; so that, if I work too
little, or badly, He does not impute it to me,
but with fatherly compassion pardons me and
makes me better. This is the glorying of all
the saints in their God. (pp. 313-314, BOW)
(xix) O faith in the justice
of God in His dealings with men (784-786)
You may be worried that it is
hard to defend the mercy and equity of God in
damning the undeserving, that is, ungodly
persons, who, being born in ungodliness, can
by no means avoid being ungodly, and staying
so, and being damned, but are compelled by
natural necessity to sin and perish; as Paul
says: “We were all the children of wrath, even
as others” [Eph. 2:3], created such by God
Himself from a seed that had been corrupted by
the sin of one man, Adam. But here God must be
reverenced and held in awe, as being most
merciful to those whom He justifies and saves
in their own utter unworthiness; and we must
show some measure of deference to His Divine
wisdom by believing Him just when to us He
seems unjust. If His justice were such as
could be adjudged just by human reckoning, it
clearly would not be Divine; it would in no
way differ from human justice. But inasmuch as
He is the one true God, wholly
incomprehensible and inaccessible to man's
understanding, it is reasonable, indeed
inevitable, that His justice also should be
incomprehensible; as Paul cries, saying: “O
the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and
knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His
judgments, and His ways past finding out!”
[Romans 11:33]. They would not, however, be
“unsearchable” if we could at every point
grasp the grounds on which they are just. What
is man compared with God? How much can our
power achieve compared with His power? What is
our strength compared with His strength? What
is our knowledge compared with His wisdom?
What is our substance compared with His
substance? In a word, what is all that we are
compared with all that He is? If, now, even
nature teaches to acknowledge that human
power, strength, wisdom, knowledge and
substance, and all that is ours, is nothing
compared with the Divine power, strength,
wisdom, knowledge and substance, what
perversity is it on our part to worry at the
justice and the judgment of the only God, and
to arrogate so much to our own judgment as to
presume to comprehend, judge and evaluate
God's judgment! (pp. 314-315, BOW) (3)
The second Protestant
theologian:
Selections from Freedom
of the Will, by Jonathan Edwards:
Jonathan Edwards is
considered the greatest of the American
Puritan theologians and philosophers. Some
remember him for his sermon: “Sinners in the
hands of an angry God.” Edwards had a
remarkable talent for learning and was
intensely interested in questions not only
theology but of science, philosophy, and
psychology. Edwards was the third president of Princeton University. He
was a theologian and yet a profound
philosopher. Perhaps, one of America’s
greatest philosophers.
Part I. Section I.
Concerning the Nature of the
Will.
It may possibly be thought,
that there is no great need of going about to
define or describe the Will; this word being
generally as well understood as any other
words we can use to explain it: and so perhaps
it would be, had not philosophers,
metaphysicians, and polemic divines, brought
the matter into obscurity by the things they
have said of it. But since it is so, I think
it may be of some use, and will tend to
greater clearness in the following discourse,
to say a few things concerning it.
And therefore I observe, that
the Will (without any metaphysical refining)
is, that by which the mind chooses anything.
The faculty of the will, is that power, or
principle of mind, by which it is capable of
choosing: an act of the will is the same as an
act of choosing or choice... (p.4)
Part I. Section II.
Concerning the Determination
of the Will.
By determining the Will, if
the phrase be used with any meaning, must be
intended, causing that the act of the Will or
choice should be thus, and not otherwise: and
the Will is said to be determined, when, in
consequence of some action, or influence, its
choice is directed to, and fixed upon a
particular object. As when we speak of the
determination of motion, we mean causing the
motion of the body to be in such a direction,
rather than another.
The Determination of the
Will, supposes an effect, which must have a
cause. If the Will be determined, there is a
Determiner. This must be supposed to be
intended even by them that say, The Will
determines itself. If it be so, the Will is
both Determiner and determined; it is a cause
that acts and produces effects upon itself,
and is the object of its own influence and
action...
It is sufficient to my
present purpose to say, it is that motive,
which, as it stands in view of the mind, is
the strongest, that determines the will. But
may be necessary that I should a little
explain my meaning.
By motive I mean the whole of
that which moves, excites, or invites the mind
to volition, whether that be one thing singly,
or many things conjunctly. Many particular
things may concur, and unite their strength,
to induce the mind; and when it is so, all
together are as one complex motive. And when I
speak of the strongest motive, I have respect
to the strength of the whole that operates to
induce a particular act of volition, whether
that be the strength of one thing alone, or of
many together. (p.5-6)
Part I. Section IV.
Of the Distinctions of
Natural and Moral Necessity, and Inability.
To give some instances of
this moral Inability. — A woman of great honor
and chastity may have a moral Inability to
prostitute herself to her slave. A child of
great love and duty to his parents, may be
thus unable to kill his father. A very
lascivious man, in case of certain
opportunities and temptations, and in the
absence of such and such restraints, may be
unable to forbear gratifying his lust. A
drunkard, under such and such circumstances,
may be unable to forbear taking strong drink.
A very malicious man may be unable to exert
benevolent acts to an enemy, or to desire his
prosperity; yea, some may be so under the
power of a vile disposition, that they may be
unable to love those who are most worthy of
their esteem and affection. A strong habit of
virtue, and a great degree of holiness, may
cause a moral Inability to love wickedness in
general, and may render a man unable to take
complacence in wicked persons or things; or to
choose a wicked in preference to a virtuous
life. And on the other hand, a great degree of
habitual wickedness may lay a man under an
Inability to love and choose holiness; and
render him utterly unable to love an
infinitely holy Being, or to choose and cleave
to him as his chief good. (p.11)
Part I. Section V.
Concerning the Notion of
Liberty, and of Moral Agency.
The plain and obvious meaning
of the words Freedom and Liberty, in common
speech, is the power, opportunity, or
advantage that any one has, to do as he
pleases. Or in other words, his being free
from hindrance or impediment in the way of
doing, or conducting in any respect as he
wills....
What has been said may be
sufficient to show what is meant by Liberty,
according to the common notions of mankind,
and in the usual and primary acceptation of
the word: but the word, as used by Arminians,
Pelagians, and others, who oppose the
Calvinists, has an entirely different
signification. — These several things belong
to their notion of Liberty. 1. That it
consists in a self-determining power in the
Will, or a certain sovereignty the Will has
over itself, and its own acts, whereby it
determines its own volitions; so as not to be
dependent, in its determinations, on any cause
without itself, nor determined by anything
prior to its own acts. 2. Indifference belongs
to Liberty in their notion of it, or that the
mind, previous to the act of volition, be in
equilibria. 3. contingence is another thing
that belongs and is essential to it; not in
the common acceptation of the word, as that
has been already explained, but as opposed to
all necessity, or any fixed and certain I
connexion with some previous ground or reason
of its existence. They suppose the essence of
Liberty so much to consist in these things,
that unless the will of man be free in this
sense, he has no real freedom, how much
soever, he may be at Liberty to act according
to his will. (p.11-12)
Part II. Section IV.
Whether Volition can arise
without a Cause, through the activity of the
nature of the soul.
Let us suppose, as these
divines do, that there are no acts of the
soul, strictly speaking, but free Volitions;
then it will follow, that the soul is an
active being in nothing further than it is a
voluntary or elecive being; and whenever it
produces effects actively, it produces effects
voluntarily and electively. But to produce
effects thus, is the same thing as to produce
effects in consequence of, and according to
its own choice. And if so, then surely the
soul does not by its activity produce all its
own acts of will or choice themselves; for
this, by the supposition, is to produce all
its free acts of choice volutarily an
electively or in consequence of its own free
acts of choice, which brings the matter
directly to the forementioned contradiction,
of a free act of choice before the first free
act of choice.— According to these gentlemen’s
own notion of action, if there arises in the
mind a Volition without a free act of the Will
to produce it, the mind is not the voluntary
Cause of that Volition; because it does not
arise from, nor is regulated by, choice or
design. And therefore it cannot be, that the
mind should be the active, voluntary,
determining Cause of the first and leading
Volition that relates to the afffair. — The
mind being a designing Cause, only enables it
to produce effects in consequence of its
design; it will not enable it to be the
designing Cause of all its own designs. The
mind being an elective Cause, will enable it
to produce effects only in consequence of its
elections, and according to them; but cannot
enable it to be the elective Cause of all its
own elections; because that supposes an
election before the first election. So the
mind being an active Cause enables it to
produce effects in consequence of its own
acts, but cannot enable it to be the
determining Cause of all its own acts; for
that is, in the same manner, a contradiction;
as it supposes a determining act conversant
about the first act, and prior to it, having a
causal influence on its existence, and manner
of existence...
Part II. Section V.
Showing, that if the things
asserted in these Evasions should supposed to
be true, they are altogether impertinent, and
cannot help the cause of Arminian Liberty; and
how, this being the state of the case,
Arminian writers are obliged to talk
inconsistently.
So that let Armninians turn
which way they please with their notion of
liberty, consisting in the Will determining
its own acts, their notion destroys itself. If
they hold every free act of Will to be
determined by the soul’s own free choice, or
foregoing free act of Will; forgoing, either
in the order of time, or nature; it implies
that gross contradiction, that the first free
act belonging to the affair, is determined by
a free act which is before it. Or if they say,
that the free acts of the Will are determined
by some other art of the soul, and not an act
of will or choice; this also destroys their
notion of liberty consisting in the acts of
the Will being determined by the will itself;
or if they hold that the acts of the Will are
determined by nothing at all that is prior to
them, but that they are contingent in that
sense, that they are determined and fixed by
no cause at all; this also destroys their
notion of liberty, consisting in the Will
determining its own acts. (p.18) (4)
Theological implications and
Scriptural conclusions:
The book of Romans tells us the
following:
Know ye not, that to whom ye
yield yourselves servants to obey, his
servants ye are to whom ye obey; whether of
sin unto death, or of obedience unto
righteousness? (Romans 6:16)
Verse fourteen of this
chapter says of those in Christ that we are no
longer under the dominion of sin. We were the
servant or slaves of sin. We yielded ourselves
to sin because this was the inclination of our
fallen nature. We are now the servants of
righteousness and no longer the slaves of sin.
Our innate, sinful natures have been
supernaturally changed.
The apostle Peter confirms this
when he says:
“…that by these ye might be
partakers of the divine nature...” (2 Peter
1:4)
The believer now has a new
nature. We still make choices or decisions.
Since we have a new nature, our desires have
been changed. We are now slaves of
righteousness.
Both the non-believer and the
believer make choices, but they are determined
by either a corrupt nature or a changed,
divinely regenerated nature. The will of man
can only be said to be free if it is
understood that this freedom is always in
accord with the desires of man's nature. The
believer is now a new creation in Christ. We
follow Christ because we love Him and want to
please Him. The Holy Spirit lives in the
believer and guides us and convicts us to do
what is right according to the Scriptures.
When a person chooses Christ,
one must ask, why did the person do this? Was
it his decision on his own, apart from God's
action? Or, does man act or choose for Christ
as a result of God changing his heart by the
power of Holy Spirit? The Scripture declares
that unbelievers are spiritually dead (not
just sick) and have hearts of stone. Christ,
through the work of the Holy Spirit, changes
our heart of stone into a heart of flesh. As
was said, unbelievers are spiritually dead
before Christ quickens us or makes us alive.
We are raised from the dead when Christ
regenerates us. Regeneration enables saving
faith and happens before we can exercise
saving faith. Regeneration proceeding faith is
Scriptural logical deduction or said another
way, a good and necessary consequence.
Remember, we were the
servants or slaves of sin. We yielded
ourselves to sin because this was the
inclination of our fallen nature. We are now
the servants of righteousness and no longer
the slaves of sin. Our sin natures have been
changed. As the apostle, Peter tells us that
“ye might be partakers of the divine
nature...” (2 Peter 1:4). The believer now has
a new nature. We still make choices or
decisions. But since we have a new nature, our
desires have been changed through the inward
work of the Holy Spirit. We are now slaves of
righteousness (though not yet perfectly) by
His grace.
And finally, both the
non-believer and the believer make choices,
but those choices are determined by either a
corrupt nature or a changed, regenerated
nature. The will can only be said to be free
if it is understood that this freedom is
always in accord with the desires of man's
nature. It can be said that the will is bound
in its original sin nature, yet free through
the redeeming power of Jesus. The believer is
now a new creation in Christ. We follow Christ
because we love Him and want to please Him.
The Holy Spirit lives in the believer and
guides us and convicts us to do what is right
according to the Scriptures.
In closing; Protestant
Confessional sources on man’s will:
Thirty-Nine Articles, X: “The condition of Man
after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot
turn and prepare himself, by his own natural
strength and good works, to faith, and calling
upon God. Wherefore we have no power to do
good works pleasant and acceptable to God,
without the grace of God by Christ preventing
us, that we may have a good will, and working
with us, when we have that good will.”
Heidelberg Catechism, Q. & A. 8: “Are we then
so corrupt that we are wholly incapable of
doing any good, and inclined to all
wickedness? Indeed we are; except we are
regenerated by the Spirit of God.”
Belgic Confession, XIV: “… we reject all that
is taught repugnant to this, concerning the
free will of man, since man is but a slave to
sin; and has nothing of himself, unless it is
given from heaven. For who may presume to
boast, that he of himself can do any good,
since Christ saith, No man can come to me,
except the Father, which hath sent me, draw
him? Who will glory in his own will, who
understands, that to be carnally minded is
enmity against God? Who can speak of his
knowledge, since the natural man receiveth not
the things of the spirit of God? In short, who
dare suggest any thought, since he knows that
we are not sufficient of ourselves to think
anything as of ourselves, but that our
sufficiency is of God? And therefore what the
apostle saith ought justly to be held sure and
firm, that God worketh in us both to will and
to do of his good pleasure. For there is no
will nor understanding, conformable to the
divine will and understanding, but what Christ
hath wrought in man; which he teaches us, when
he saith, without me ye can do nothing.”
Canons of Dordt, III/IV: 3: “Therefore all
men are conceived in sin, and by nature
children of wrath, incapable of saving good,
prone to evil, dead in sin, and in bondage
thereto, and without the regenerating grace of
the Holy Spirit, they are neither able nor
willing to return to God, to reform the
depravity of their nature, nor to dispose
themselves to reformation.”
Westminster Confession of
Faith, Chapter 9 - Of Free Will.
Section 1.) God hath endued
the will of man with that natural liberty,
that it is neither forced, nor by any absolute
necessity of nature determined, to good or
evil. (1)
(1) Mt 17:12; Jas 1:14; Dt
30:19.
------------------------------------
Section 2.) Man, in his state
of innocency, had freedom and power to will
and to do that which was good and
well-pleasing to God; (1) but yet, mutably, so
that he might fall from it.(2)
(1) Ecclesiastes 7:29; Ge
1:26. (2) Ge 2:16, 17; Ge 3:6.
------------------------------------
Section 3.) Man, by his fall
into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all
ability of will to any spiritual good
accompanying salvation;(1) so as, a natural
man, being altogether averse from that
good,(2) and dead in sin,(3) is not able, by
his own strength, to convert himself, or to
prepare himself thereunto.(4)
Section 4.) When God converts
a sinner, and translates him into the state of
grace, He freeth him from his natural bondage
under sin, (1) and by His grace alone, enables
him freely to will and to do that which is
spiritually good;(2) yet so as that, by reason
of his remaining corruption, he doth not
perfectly nor only will that which is good,
but doth also will that which is evil. (3)
(1) Col 1:13; Jn 8:34, 36.
(2) Php 2:13; Ro 6:18, 22. (3) Gal 5:17; Ro
7:15, 18,19,21,23.
------------------------------------
Section 5.) The will of man
is made perfectly and immutably free to do
good alone in the state of glory only. (1)
(1) Eph 4:13; Heb 12:23; 1Jn
3:2; Jude 24.
“Study to shew thyself
approved unto God, a workman that needeth not
to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of
truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)
Notes:
1.Joseph Fielding Smith,
Doctrines
of Salvation, Vol. 1, (Salt Lake City:
Bookcraft, 1990), pp. 126-127.
2.LeGrand Richards, A
Marvelous Work And A Wonder, (Salt Lake
City, Deseret Book Co. 1978), p. 345, 347.
3.Martin Luther, The
Bondage of the Will, (Old Tappan, New
Jersey, Fleming H. Revell Company) pp. 80-81;
83-84; 104-107; 169-171; 211-212; 313-314;
314-315.
4.Jonathan Edwards, The Works
Of Jonathan Edwards, Vol. 1, (Peabody,
Massachusetts, Hendrickson Publishing), pp.
4-6; 11-12; 18.
“To God, only wise, be glory
through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.” (Romans
16:27) and “heirs according to the promise.”
(Galatians 3:28, 29)
Mr. Kettler has previously
published articles in the Chalcedon Report
and Contra Mundum. He and his wife
Marea attend the Westminster, CO, RPCNA
Church. Mr. Kettler is the author of the book
defending the Reformed Faith against attacks,
titled: The Religion That Started in a
Hat. Available at:
www.TheReligionThatStartedInAHat.com
For more study:
* For a great source of
theological definitions go to Rebecca writes
at Rebecca Writes:
http://www.rebecca-writes.com/theological-terms-in-ao/