Free Willers are stupid

 "Want of understanding is called in the proper sense stupidity, and it is just dulness in applying the law of causality, incapacity for the immediate apprehension of the concatenations of cause and effect, of motive and action. A stupid person has no insight into the connexion of natural phenomena, either when they appear of their own accord or when they are intentionally controlled, in other words made to serve machines." - Arthur Schopenhauer, The World As Will and Representation, Page 22

Are free willers stupid? Of course, Arthur didnt' believe in the Bible alone.

The Natural man does not understand the Scriptures to be true

 "The natural man according to Paul does not understand the true significance of the words and deeds of his fellow-men; he does not use them to attest spiritual facts. The man who is in Christ, on the contrary, even when he uses ordinary means of information, is acquiring knowledge of spiritual relationships, relationships which exist in the new world. So it is also with the knowledge of Christ. The natural man may acquire a certain knowledge of Christ; he may learn what Christ said and did and what were the worldly circumstances of His life. But such knowledge is a knowledge according to the flesh; it does not attain to the true significance even of those facts which are learned." - J. Gresham Machen, The Origin of Paul's Religion, Page 56

It is not that one believes facts only and another does not believe facts only. The difference Machen is talking about is that one understands the facts and believes them in their true import, the other does not.

One must understand what is being represented in the Sacrament

"I am happy the mass now is held among the Germans in German. But to make a necessity of this, as if it had to be so, is again too much. This spirit cannot do anything else than continually create laws, necessity, problems of conscience and sin. To be sure, I have read in 1 Cor. 14 [:27-28] that he who speaks with tongues is to be  silent in the congregation when no one understands anything of what he says. One tends however to skip over the other words: 'Unless there is someone to interpret.' That is, St. Paul permits speaking with tongues, 'if at the same time it is interpreted,' so that one understands it. Therefore he also commands that they are not to prevent those who speak with tongues, etc. Now we administer the sacrament to no one unless he understands the words in the sacrament, as one well knows. So in this matter we do not act contrary to St. Paul, since we satisfy his intention. If we do not satisfy this spirit, who only looks at external works and has no regard for either conscience or intentions, it is of no importance. We attach no importance to his new articles of faith.

. . .

For whoever goes to the sacrament understanding those words in German or having them clearly in his heart: 'Take, eat; this is my body,' etc. [Matt. 26:26], which he has learned and borne in mind from a foregoing sermon, and thereupon and therewith receives the sacrament, he receives it rightly and does not merely hear speaking with tongues, but something which has real meaning. On the other hand he who does not comprehend or understand these words in his heart, nor thereupon receives the sacrament, such a one would not be helped if a thousand preachers stood around his ears and shouted themselves into a frenzy with such words. However for the mad spirit everything depends on external works and appearance, which out of his own head he would continually set up as necessary and as an article of faith, without God's commandment." -Martin Luther, Against the Heavenly Prophets, Pg. 219-220

Now Gordon Clark also says something similar when his writings. In What is the Christian Life? He says,

"It is therefore requisite to make a few more remarks on the efficacy of sacraments. Baptism and the Lord's Supper are ceremonies commanded by Christ. Therefore the church must administer them until Christ returns. They are signs: Baptism signifies purification, and the Supper pictures Christ's death. The sacraments are also seals which confirm our faith, and as such are means of grace. A seal, in earlier legal practice, showed that a document was genuine. If seals are no longer so widely used, at least they were familiar necessities in Biblical times (compare 1 Kings 21:8, Nehemiah 9:38, Isaiah 8:16, Jeremiah 32:10, Daniel 12:4). In the case of Abraham and his descendants, circumcision was the seal God placed on his promises. One might argue that God and God's promises do not need seals: nevertheless God used seals to strengthen our assurance.
However, if God has made no promises, if the document is blank, if there is nothing to seal, the seal obviously is useless. Hence with the seal there must also be the Scripture whose truth is thereby authenticated. Sacraments are not to be celebrated apart from the Word.
A magical formula operates of itself; it needs nothing further. Hence Romish worship most frequently has its sacraments without the Word, whereas Calvinism always stresses the sermon - the preaching of the Word. Without the Word the sacrament seals nothing. For a sacrament to be effective, it must be understood; and the more extensive the understanding the greater the effect. Suppose Nebuchadnezzar had sent a sealed document to the Chinese. Unless the Chinese had a translator, the document would mean nothing to them. This is why the Protestants from the first insisted on translating the Bible into the common languages, while the Roman church, until only a few years ago, opposed translations for the people. Incidentally, this is also why Paul insists that the miraculous gift of speaking in foreign languages, during the apostolic age, should not be used in public unless translation were given. Thus 'There is never any sacrament,' says Calvin, 'without an antecedent promise of God, to which it is subjoined as an appendix. . . . A sacrament consists of the  Word and the outward sign. For we ought to understand the word, not of a murmur uttered without any meaning or faith, a mere whisper like a magical incantation . . . but of the gospel preached. . .'" (Institutes IV xiv 3, 4). - Gordon H. Clark, What is the Christian Life?, Pg. 76

"As we have said above, the preaching of the Word is useless if it is not preached in an intelligible manner, and, likewise, if also what is expounded and declared to us, i.e. Jesus Christ with all His benefits, is not received by faith in the hearts of those who hear it. It must be understood that it is the same with Sacraments. For, if in receiving the Sacraments we do not bring faith, the sole means of receiving what is preached to us and represented by them, they are far from serving to our salvation. On the contrary, in the measure in which we misapprehend them or, rather, misapprehend Christ in them, they seal our damnation (1 Cor 10:5; 11:27-29; 1 Pet 3:21; Acts 15:8,9). However, in the same way as the Gospel does not cease to be, in its nature, the word of life and salvation, although unbelievers turn it into an odour of death and damnation, thus the Sacraments do not cease to be true Sacraments although they may be administered or received by unworthy persons, even reprobates. For the malice of men cannot change the nature of the ordinance of God." -Theodore Beza, The Christian Faith, pg. 48

Those who say emotions should be added give emotions the controlling position

"The quotations the complainants offer in their protest to prove their contention are very unconvincing. In fact, they frankly admit

From the viewpoint of abstract psychology, it is perfectly true that Reformed theologians have not been in complete agreement as to the number and names of the faculties of the human soul. In speaking specifically of the faculties of the human soul, Calvin mentions by name only the intellect and will (Institutes, Bk. I, Chap. XV, Sect. 6). Augustine refers to the perception, understanding, and will [The Text of a Complaint, 8].

And again, they admit: 'Calvin, who so clearly gives intellect a control over will, though not by virtue of that a primacy over will,' etc. (9). But they insist that 'the more recent theologians, however, seem to agree in large measure on the threefold distinction of intellect, emotions, and will' (8).
We may note here that the complainants express themselves very carefully: 'the more recent theologians seem to agree in large measure.' But even so the complainants are in error. It is far nearer to the truth to state that Reformed theologians have, generally speaking, been strongly opposed to the threefold distinction of intellect, will, and emotions, and have often expressed their fear of the danger of this distinction. The danger of this distinction, to which they usually pointed, is that the emotions in that case gradually assume a dominating and controlling position in the soul of man, and that, according to this trichotomous psychology, such experiences as love and hatred, sorrow and joy, repentance and remorse, in fact, all religion and morality are relegated to the emotions or feeling. And that would exactly be the deathblow to all true religion. Reformed theologians were, therefore, usually in favor of the dichotomous distinction of intellect and will, and ascribed the emotions partly to the intellect, and partly to the will. And again, it may be stated without fear of possible contradiction that Reformed theology usually favored the 'primacy of the intellect.'
I thought, and still think, that this was so well known that I could only be amazed when I discovered that some theologians of Philadelphia took the opposite stand." -Herman Hoeksema, The Clark-Van Til Controversy, Pg. 30 - 31

There are two faculties in the soul according to Calvin and Clark

"The second main point of the Complaint against Dr. Clark concerns, in the words of the complainants, 'his view of the relation of the faculty of knowledge, the intellectual faculty, to other faculties of the soul.' I have re-read the material the complainants offer on this point, and also its refutation in The Answer. I think that the points of difference between Dr. Clark and his accusers may, in the main, be summarized as follows:

1. The complainants hold to the trichotomous diviation or distinction of the human soul into its faculties, and apply this also to God. In the human soul they distinguish between intellect, emotion, and will. Dr. Clark prefers the dichotomous distinction of intellect and will, refuses to speak of emotion as a separate faculty, and considers the emotions as aspects of the intellect and will. And he, too, applies this distinction to God. . . .

The Answer makes plain that Dr. Clark does not dney the reality of emotions in God, but gives them a different connotation from that of the complainants, and assigns to them a position different from that which the latter assign to them, in relation to God's intellect and will. The complainants make of the emotions in God a separate faculty, next to, and on a level with intellect and will. Dr. Clark gives them a subordinate position, and explains them as aspects or functions of God's intellect and will. From The Answer we quote:

Dr. Clark never made any 'forthright denial of anything that might be called emotion in God.' Love or wrath 'might be called an emotion.' Dr. Clark did not deny love and wrath to God. He holds that while some people might call God's love and wrath emotions, it is better to classify them as volitions. In this Dr. Clark is in accord with a large section of theology and of literary usage [27].

It would seem, then, that the chief point of difference between the complainants and Dr. Clark may be stated thus, that the former hold to the trichotomous, the latter to the dichotomous, distinction as applied to human and 'divine psychology.' (I must not be held responsible for the latter term.)" -Herman Hoeksema, The Clark-Van Til Controvery, Pg. 24 - 26

John Calvin in his Institutes also says that man has two faculties consisting of intellect and will. There might be some out there who may want to discredit what I teach and say along with what Dr. Clark also taught and said in his writings. So I will quote Calvin himself.

"We are constrained to depart a little from the mode of instruction, because the philosophers, being ignorant of the corruption of nature proceeding from the punishment of the fall, improperly confound two very different states of mankind. Let us, therefore, submit the following division - that the human soul has two faculties which relate to our present design, the understanding and the will. Now, let it be the office of the understanding to discriminate between objects, as they shall respectively appear deserving of approbation or disapprobation; but of the will, to choose and follow what the understanding shall have pronounced to be good; to abhor and avoid what it shall have condemned. Here let us not stay to discuss those subtleties of Aristotle, that the mind has no motion of itself, but that it is moved by the choice, which he also calls the appetitive intellect." - John Calvin, The Institutes, I. XV. VII.