The Doctrine of Predestination
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”1 Arguably, this verse from Genesis is one of the most well known verses in the Bible aside from John 3:16. It is a universal Christian belief that God created the world and all of its inhabitants, making Him all-powerful. As Christians recognize God’s omnipotence, they also acknowledge that God is all-knowing. Although Christians in general recognize God’s omniscience, there is internal debate regarding how far this omniscience goes, specifically in regards to the doctrine of predestination and election. According to A Handbook of Christian Theology, written by Arthur A. Cohen and Marvin Halverson, predestination is defined as “a Christian theological doctrine developed commonly on the basis of the Old Testament conception of an elect people and the teaching... that God continues to redeem HIs people by choosing individuals to receive the gift of faith in Christ.”2 The understanding of this doctrine and the Biblical references in which it is mentioned vary greatly in the Christian community, but ultimately there are two major understandings named after two great Christian leaders, Calvanism, named after John Calvin, a French theologian who lived during the Protestant Reformation and was an incredibly influential pastor, and Arminianism, named after Jacobus Arminius, which was the Latinized name of the Dutch theologian Jakob Hermanszoon who also lived during the time of the Protestant Reformation.3 These two men were extremely influential in forming two of the leading Christian views of the doctrine of predestination. Generally, Calvin’s view leaned more towards the idea that the salvation of human beings is ultimately decided upon by God by...
... middle of paper ...
...ould ultimately reject Him. I believe that the death of Christ covered all sins and all people and that it is our choice to ultimately choose or reject this gift. I agree with the point made by Peter Laitres in his article that “believers need to spend much more time in THE Word of God, rather than reading and following men and books ABOUT the Word of God.”21 Ultimately, we are flawed beings with limited understanding. I remind myself constantly that God is totally outside of my understanding. He is outside of time, outside of gender, outside of everything that we can understand. Predestination is something that I feel we will not fully understand until we come face to face with God and until that happens, we should only focus on loving God and loving others instead of creating petty rivalry over certain doctrines which are agreed upon as unessential for salvation.
Calvinism taught the doctrine of determinism — that God holds absolute sovereignty over passive men; in contrast, Arminianism rejected this and presented a doctrine of free will that gave the individual personal responsibility for his or her salvation. People believed that sin was voluntary and could be rooted out of society, once acknowledged; as a result, people began to take personal responsibility for their actions and recognize their responsibility to improve society. Desire for personal redemption from sin arose from Arminianism, which taught that moral depravity was the choice of
The view of free will has been heavily debated in the field of philosophy. Whether humans possess free will or rather life is determined. With the aid of James Rachels ' article, The Debate over Free Will, it is clearly revealed that human lives are "both determined and free at the same time" (p.482, Rachels), thus, in line with the ideas of compatibilist responses. Human 's actions are based on certain situations that are causally determined by unexpected events, forced occurrence, and certain cases that causes one to outweigh the laws of cause and effect. The article also showcases instances where free will does exist. When human actions are being based on one 's emotions of the situation, desire, and simply that humans are creatures that are created to have intellectual reasoning. I argue, that Rachels’ article, provides helpful evidence on compatibilists responses that demonstrate free will and determinism actions come into play with each other.
“He has finally learned to love big brother” was how George Orwell in his novel 1984 described Winston, conversion to the party are represented by big brother at the end of the novel. It is easy to believe that at this instance, after torturous reeducation that Winston has endured, he has lost free will and no longer be able to freely choose to love big brother but was forced to, against hiss will. Therefore Winston was never free to love big brother, and in fact not free at all after his “reeducation.” But if we are to accept a definition of free will that stipulates that we are able to produce and act on our own volitions we must accept that Winston has retained and has chosen to love big brother out of his own free will.
3. Discuss the issue between Baron d'Holbach and William James on free will and determinism?
In I.17.1 of John Calvin’s work, Calvin argues that people do not need to worry about anything they do not understand because God takes care of everything. It is important to understand that this is not the beginning of Calvin’s Institutes of Christian Religion, because his points in chapter sixteen set the basis for his argument in this next section. Chapter sixteen on providence gives the foundation of
It has been sincerely obvious that our own experience of some source that we do leads in result of our own free choices. For example, we probably believe that we freely chose to do the tasks and thoughts that come to us making us doing the task. However, we may start to wonder if our choices that we chose are actually free. As we read further into the Fifty Readings in Philosophy by Donald C. Abel, all the readers would argue about the thought of free will. The first reading “The System of Human Freedom” by Baron D’Holbach, Holbach argues that “human being are wholly physical entities and therefore wholly subject to the law of nature. We have a will, but our will is not free because it necessarily seeks our well-being and self-preservation.” For example, if was extremely thirsty and came upon a fountain of water but you knew that the water was poisonous. If I refrain from drinking the water, that is because of the strength of my desire to avoid drinking the poisonous water. If I was too drink the water, it was because I presented my desire of the water by having the water overpowering me for overseeing the poison within the water. Whether I drink or refrain from the water, my action are the reason of the out coming and effect of the motion I take next. Holbach concludes that every human action that is take like everything occurring in nature, “is necessary consequences of cause, visible or concealed, that are forced to act according to their proper nature.” (pg. 269)
The power of acting without necessity and acting on one’s own discretions, free will still enamors debates today, as it did in the past with philosophers Nietzsche, Descartes, and Hume. There are two strong opposing views on the topic, one being determinism and the other “free will”. Determinism, or the belief a person lacks free will and all events including human actions are determined by forces outside the will of an individual contrasts the entire premise of free will. Rene Descartes formulates his philosophical work through deductive reasoning and follows his work with his system of reasoning. David Hume analyzes philosophical questions with inductive reasoning and skeptism with a strong systematic order. Neither a systematic philosopher nor a rigid thinker, Nietzsche offers his own nihilistic spin on the topic of free will. The three different approaches of free will by Nietzsche, Hume, and Descartes all obtain their strong suits as well as their pitfalls. Nietzsche insists free will is created by theologians and therefore denies its existence, while Descartes embraces free will, and Hume individualizes the meaning of free will.
Hypothetically speaking, if there was a machine in the world that could able project the image of a person choosing to do tomorrow. Wouldn’t that entail tomorrow this person must do what was known in advance? In the end, despite the planning and deliberating, this person must choose exactly as the machine projected. The question we have to ask ourselves is this: “Does free will exist, or it just merely an illusion?” But, no machine with such capability existed in this world, and the only one with such power is God. The argument of God’s omniscient and human free will has gone for thousands of years, the core of this argument is if God was claimed to be all-knowing, hence in possession of infallible foreknowledge of human actions, therefore, humans should not have free will. The concept of God is all-knowing and human have free will is inherently contradictory, therefore, they cannot coexist. This argument implicated predestination and often resonated with the dilemma of determinism, because God was supposed to have given mankind free will.
In John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion he spends a great deal of time expounding his doctrine of God's Divine providence in all of creation. He explains not only how God continually governs the laws of nature, but also how God governs man's actions and intentions to bring about His own Divine Will. Calvin believes that God's providence is so encompassing in creation that even a man's own actions, in many ways, are decreed by God. Because of this belief there arises the question, "Does Calvin leave room for the free will of man?"
A foundational belief in Christianity is the idea that God is perfectly good. God is unable to do anything evil and all his actions are motives are completely pure. This principle, however, leads to many questions concerning the apparent suffering and wrong-doing that is prevalent in the world that this perfect being created. Where did evil come from? Also, how can evil exist when the only eternal entity is the perfect, sinless, ultimately good God? This question with the principle of God's sovereignty leads to even more difficult problems, including human responsibility and free will. These problems are not limited to our setting, as church fathers and Christian philosophers are the ones who proposed some of the solutions people believe today. As Christianity begins to spread and establish itself across Europe in the centuries after Jesus' resurrection, Augustine and Boethius provide answers, although wordy and complex, to this problem of evil and exactly how humans are responsible in the midst of God's sovereignty and Providence.
“Please tell me: isn’t God the cause of evil?” (Augustine, 1). With this question to Augustine of Hippo, Evodius begins a philosophical inquiry into nature of evil. Augustine, recently baptized by Saint Ambrose in Milan, began writing his treatise On Free Choice of the Will in 387 C.E. This work laid down the foundation for the Christian doctrine regarding the will’s role in sinning and salvation. In it, Augustine and his interlocutor investigate God’s existence and his role in creating evil. They attempt not only to understand what evil is, and the possibility of doing evil, but also to ascertain why God would let humans cause evil. Central to the premise of this entire dialogue is the concept of God, as relates to Christianity; what is God, and what traits separate Him from humans? According to Christianity, God is the creator of all things, and God is good; he is omnipotent, transcendent, all-knowing, and atemporal- not subject to change over time- a concept important to the understanding of the differences between this world and the higher, spiritual realm He presides over. God’s being is eidos, the essence which forms the basis of humans. With God defined, the core problem being investigated by Augustine and Evodius becomes clear. Augustine states the key issue that must be reconciled in his inquiry; “we believe that everything that exists comes from the one God, and yet we believe that God is not the cause of sins. What is troubling is that if you admit that sins come from… God, pretty soon you’ll be tracing those sins back to God” (Augustine, 3).
Predestination: the doctrine of the Bible, says that God has a purpose and He is working all things out according to His own will and purpose. Predestination teaches that God neither does nor permits anything except what serves. His purpose, this means that GOD IS the SELF-GOVERNING of the world, the one who does all things as he wills. (Houdmann.2013)
The central assertion of Calvinism canons is that God is able to save from the tyranny of sin, from guilt and the fear of death, every one of those upon whom he is willing to have mercy. God is not frustrated by the unrighteousness or the inability of men because it is the unrighteous and the helpless that he intends to save. In Calvinism man, in his state of innocency, had freedom and power to will and to do that, which is good and well pleasing to God; but yet mutably, so that he might fall from it. This concept of free choice makes Calvinism to stand supreme among all the religious systems of the world. The great men of our country often were members of Calvinist Church. We had the number of Presbyterian presidents, legislators, jurists, authors, editors, teachers and businessmen. The revolutionary principles of republican liberty and self-government, taught and embodied in ...
The scientific approach seeks the immediate cause of an event to what led to what. Scientist assume this as determinism, the idea that everything happens has a cause or determent that one could observe or measure. This view is an assumption, not an established fact but the success of scientific research attests to its value. Does it apply to human behavior? After all we are part of the physical world and our brains are made of chemicals. According to the determinist assumptions, everything we do has causes. This view seems to conflict with the impression all of us have that “I” am the one who makes the decisions about my actions like what to eat or what to buy; I am in doubt right up to the last second. The decision could have gone either way which I wasn’t controlled by anything and no one could have predicted what I would do. The belief that behaviors is caused by a person's independent decision is known as free will.
Human nature is about free will, and using one’s free will for good acts. We know free will exists because living things are being changed day after day. Any act, from walking across a room to deciding to eat a meal, is because of free will. We are given free will and with that, the ability to create our own, unique path in life. Free will provides human beings with freedom, judgement, and responsibility. Every human being is born with the capability to live a good, just life. However it is just as possible to live an immoral life led by bad choices. This notion of endless options in life is made possible by God’s gift of free will. No two human lives will ever be the same, because no two people will ever have the exact same experiences their entire lives. Every human being is shaped by experience, which comes from our actions, which are results of free will.