...If religious determinism or predestination is true, then how is there free will? In order to answer that question, I will attempt to perform a comparative analysis that reflects the difference between predestination and freedom. Moreover, I will provide an example of each and reflect how these theories are applicable for today's society. According to Thiroux and Krasemann (2012), predestined is, “A religious version of determinism that states essentially that because God knows all, He has also foreordained everything to happen the way it has from the beginning. Human beings are completely determined by a supernatural power.” Does this mean that human beings cannot make any choices since everything has been predestined, programmed, “predetermined” by God almighty? If, for example, He has decided that I will live in poverty for my entire life, then I would live in poverty; despite my college education and efforts. This would mean that I have absolutely no say in the matter because I am predestined by a supernatural being. The theory of predestination was most strongly presented by the Protestant minister and theologian John Calvin (1509-1564), who said that individuals can do nothing to ensure their own salvation (Thiroux & Krasemann, 92). I have a problem with this theory. Because there is no proof that there is such a being and He created the world and is undeniably all-powerful and all-knowing (Thiroux & Krasemann, 12). Some people believe that humans have...
Words: 608 - Pages: 3
...Using material from Item A and elsewhere, assess the contribution of religion to social change. (18 marks) Weber found that religion could cause social change, such as the Calvinism and capitalism. The Calvinists believed in predestination, so God had already chosen the elect to go to heaven and the individuals who hadn’t, could not do anything to change that. They believed that God was far above and beyond this words and greater than any mortal, that no human could possibly claim to know his will. This left the Calvinists feeling an ‘unprecedented inner loneliness’. When this is combined with the doctrine of predestination, this created a salvation panic amongst the Calvinists. They also believed in asceticism; self-discipline and self-denial. Refraining from a life of luxury. So, instead of spending a lot of money, they put money back into their business. And they believed in the idea of a vocation or calling. Before Calvinism, the idea of a religious vocation (a calling to serve God) meant renouncing everyday life to join a convent or monastery. Weber called this otherworldly asceticism. Calvinists knew God’s plan for humanity, which came from the Bible and it revealed that that they were put on Earth to do glorify God’s name by our work. So, for the Calvinists, this meant constant, methodical work in an occupation and not a monastery. However, work could not earn salvation; this was simply...
Words: 912 - Pages: 4
...Calvinism and Arminianism The purpose of this paper is to compare two theological positions, namely Calvinism and Arminianism. These are two positions on either side of the extreme concerning free will and predestination. There are those who believe that we have the free will to love and obey God or deny God, and there are those who believe that God, in his sovereignty, has predetermined who will be saved or who will not be saved and neither group is willing to budge. Both sides claim to have the support of Scripture, and both have specific verses that are twisted and manipulated to show support and reasoning. The problem is that both sides appear, on some levels at least, to be right. The question that can be answered from a comparison of these two views is this: What are the basic differences between Calvinism and Arminianism, as well as, their relation to theology, biblical evidence and worldviews? This research paper covers the five key points or articles of Calvinism and Arminianism, as well as, the history, view of God and biblical evidence or support for each position. History The history of Calvinism and Arminianism dates back to the 16th century, where a man named John Calvin was born in 1509. John Calvin was a son of a lawyer and born in Noyon, France where he developed a love for theology and literature. In 1523 he went to the University of Paris where he studied theology, yet in 1528 he went to Orleans and a year later Bourges to study law. With Calvin’s...
Words: 2202 - Pages: 9
...HU 4640 Week 5 Analysis Freedom vs. Predestination Maynard Azurin July 21, 2014 ITT Online What is predestination? Predestination is believed to be a doctrine which God determines if a person will go to Heaven or Hell. This gives everyone in society an opinion towards their beliefs to teaching what choices we have in accepting Christ. Predestination is also the belief that everything that will happen have already been decided by God or fate and cannot be changed (Webster (2014). Predestination. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/predestination.) What is freedom? Many of us in today’s society see freedom or free-will as to being liberal. Freedom is not just being free as it is more of being free to what you have to express in what you believe and do. Many call freedom as “free as a bird” but to an extent in certain ways. Freedom can be simplicity, such as relaxing to live as well as others. Freedom also gives us the ability to make decisions without other influences from other people or governments. In today’s religious views, freedom teaches us the facts of God’s plan for salvation that every individual person has a choice to make, to either accept or reject God’s gift of salvation (Bennet (2009) http://www.freewill-predestination.com). Christians today see life towards destiny. We live and die after we live our lives. Fate is usually a predetermined course of events beyond our control. Whatever happens, happens, and there is nothing we...
Words: 569 - Pages: 3
...I. Introduction Predestination is a Christian doctrine, which falls under the larger philosophical rubric of determinism. Calvinists especially adhere to the doctrine of predestination. There are two aspects to the Calvinist belief in predestination. The first declares that God basically has ordained everything that occurs, or will occur. In regard to salvation, the Calvinist code of predestination is more specific: Scripture teaches that there are certain people – ‘the elect’ – who are chosen by God, through Christ, to be called to Christianity, and thus be saved for eternity. Calvinist interpretations of predestination often get into trouble over issues of free will; indeed, some interrogate the notion of God’s omniscient power to create all events and actions, given the fact that humans clearly possess the power of free will. II. Part One a. Theological Definition Predestination is a Calvinist doctrine, which governs the degree of control which God exercises over the affairs of human beings, and, indeed, all things that occur on Earth. Calvinist predestination insists that God basically has determined all things which have occurred, and will occur. A second meaning is also accorded to predestination by Calvinists. ‘Predestination,’ in this sense, refers to the notion that God gave to some grace, which grants them eternal salvation, while to the remainder is allotted eternal damnation, owing to their sins. The former state is referred to as ‘unconditional...
Words: 1021 - Pages: 5
...Calvinism and Arminianism Abel Bermea, Jr. Liberty University ENG /101 August 29, 2006 The purpose of this paper is to compare two theological positions, namely Calvinism and Arminianism. These are two positions on either side of the debate concerning free will and predestination. There are those who believe that we have the free will to love/obey God or hate/deny him, and there are those who believe that God, in his sovereignty, has predetermined who will be saved and who will not be saved and neither group is willing to budge. Both sides claim to have the support of Scripture, and both have specific verses they will undoubtedly point to as an "I told you so." The problem is that both sides appear, on some levels at least, to be right. The question that can be answered from a comparison of these two views is this: Which one of these positions offers the more sensible, biblical account? Let’s look at a simple syllogism that sums up the argument of the Arminian (free will advocate). Premise 1: God desires that all men be saved. Premise 2: All men are not saved. Conclusion: Man, by exercising his will, has interfered with God's desire. Calvinists agree with the first premise, and even the second premise. But they come to a very different conclusion. Here is what the Calvinist argues: Premise 1: God desires that all men be saved. Premise 2: All men are not saved. Conclusion: It is not God's chief desire that all men be saved; he has another desire which is stronger, and...
Words: 1229 - Pages: 5
...Does man have free will? This question has been asked within the church since its inception. If man’s will is free then in a sense there is a part of creation that exists outside of God’s control, bringing His sovereignty into question. If man does not have free will his significance as the height of the created order is lessened. The question is further clouded by the fact that the Bible seems to support both ideas; that man is free and wholly responsible for his actions and that God is sovereign over every action within his creation. Paul Tillich describes the issue writing, “The question is whether the moral imperative is dependent on the divine grace for its actualization, or whether divine grace is dependent on the fulfillment of the moral imperative.”[1] This debate has been the cause of much disagreement throughout the history of the church. Brought to the forefront of debate by Augustine, arguing for the sovereignty of God, and Pelagius, arguing for the free will of man, the discussion over the relationship between God’s control and man’s ability has continued to this day. Later, during the reformation, Calvinists and Arminians continued the debate over the role man plays in the salvation process. This disagreement has caused Roger E. Olson to write, “We need to shoulder the responsibility of choosing between Calvinism and Arminianism. That does not mean choosing between Christianity and something else. It means choosing between two respectable interpretations...
Words: 3179 - Pages: 13
...HU4640: Ethics Teresa Wright ITT Technical College 04/13/15 Renee Primack Freedom vs. Predestination Freedom is a metaphysical one having to do with the nature reality. The comparative that I attempt to analysis the theories or freedom and predestination that today’s society agree with. Human happiness and freedom are incompatible. Having freedom is knowing power to get you what you want and when to receive. What is needed is not freedom (Dostoyevsky's, 1821-1881). Freedom has to be earn by the way we respect morally the conscious of a human being control the action of acting out or being in control of self-control. Predestined according to (Krasemann, 2012), predestined is a religious version of determinism that state essentially that because God knows all, He has also foreordained everything to happen the way it has from the beginning. Predestination | | | Provide an example of each and reflect how these theories are applicable for today's society. Submission Requirements: Submit your answer in no less than 500 words in an MS Word document. Cite sources in APA format | | Some people believe that humans have the “free will” to choose their actions without being preordained to follow a certain course. What is free will and what determines it? For me, free will is the ability to make choices according to your desire. We choose our goals, values, beliefs, careers, friends, lovers, and moral position. Simply put, free will pertains to choices that we...
Words: 267 - Pages: 2
...The Calvinist/anti-Calvinist controversy The theological implications of Doctor Faustus have been the subject of considerable debate throughout the last century. Among the most complicated points of contention is whether the play supports or challenges the Calvinist doctrine of absolute predestination, which dominated the lectures and writings of many English scholars in the latter half of the sixteenth century. According to Calvin, predestination meant that God, acting of his own free will, elects some people to be saved and others to be damned – thus, the individual has no control over his own ultimate fate. This doctrine was the source of great controversy because it was seen by the so-called anti-Calvinists to limit man's free will in regard to faith and salvation, and to present a dilemma in terms of theodicy. At the time Doctor Faustus was performed, this doctrine was on the rise in England, and under the direction of Puritan theologians at Cambridge and Oxford had come to be considered the orthodox position of the Church of England.[20] Nevertheless, it remained the source of vigorous and, at times, heated debate between Calvinist scholars, such as William Whitaker and William Perkins, and anti-Calvinists, such as William Barrett and Peter Baro.[21] The dispute between these Cambridge intellectuals had quite nearly reached its zenith by the time Marlowe was a student there in the 1580s, and likely would have influenced him deeply, as it did many of his fellow students...
Words: 829 - Pages: 4
...(1560-1609) was the lightning rod of controversy that helped to generate this movement. Arminius was a Calvinist of impeccable credentials. He had traveled to Geneva to study with Calvin’s successor, Theodore Beza. When he returned to Holland, he enjoyed a wide and favorable reputation. He was asked to refute the teaching of Dirck Koonhert, a Dutch Calvinist who had questioned Calvin’s view of election. After careful study of scripture and the writings of Koonhert, Arminius surprised everyone by declaring he thought Koonhert was right. Because Arminius was a professor at the University of Leiden, his opions were open to public debate. He did not reject predestination; instead he questioned its basis. Although he remained solidly Calvinist in nearly every other way, Arminius had come to the conclusion that predestination takes place on the basis of God’s foreknowledge of who will later have faith in Christ and who will not. This position seems to presume human beings have free will. Francis Gomarus, another professor at Leiden, led his opponents, claiming to be true Calvinists. Gomarus insisted God simply predestines all as an expression of his sovereign will. The controversy quickly assumed political overtones, as Arminius also believed that the state ought to have greater control over ecclesiastical matters than Calvin had allowed. Arminius died in 1609, and in 1610 his followers issued a document known as a Remonstrance outlining their position. For this reason they...
Words: 273 - Pages: 2
...Jean Leon Iragena Dr. MacMaster IDST 1128-02 Spring Project March 24, 2011 The Truth behind Free Will: Luther vs. Erasmus The notion of free will is one of the most complex notions to define and to understand; it is defined differently according to one’s interpretation of the scriptures, especially the Bible. Both Martin Luther and Desiderius Erasmus, influenced by their faith and beliefs, write respectively against and for free will. Both try to adequately answer the questions: Does man have free will? If yes, why and how? If not, how? Possible answers to these questions given by both authors and some scholars who write against or for each one of these opponents’ arguments highlight, especially, the differences in the conception of man’s free will. Luther and his supporters view free will as an imaginary or impossible and dangerous thing to have; Erasmus and his supporters defend that the existence of man’s free will is irrefutable for it is in human nature itself as the Bible says it. In spite of some of Luther’s good ideas that prove man’s absence of free will and Erasmus’ excellent interpretation of the Bible, neither of them fully responds to the human yearning of knowing the concept of free will. After a thorough and wise analysis of the defense and abnegation of man’s free will of these authors, I find it impossible to fully deny or prove the existence of man’s free will. It is important to take into...
Words: 3561 - Pages: 15
...for centuries would be Calvinism and Arminianism. There has been opposing views by churches and other theologians that has caused much controversy over these two doctrines. Calvinism is based on the theological beliefs and teachings by John Calvin and Arminianism is based on the views of Jacobus Arminius. Arminius was once a strict Calvinist who studied under John Calvin and later studies led him to doubt and reject many of the Calvinistic doctrines. To label oneself as either a Calvinist or Arminianist would need to fully understand each of their doctrines. PART ONE Calvinism ”The theological system of John Calvin and his followers marked by strong emphasis on the sovereignty of God, the depravity of humankind, and the doctrine of predestination.” -Merriam-Webster Dictionary John Calvin was a great reformation theologian who lived from 1509-1564. “The system of Calvinism adheres to a very high view of scripture and seeks to derive its theological formulations based solely on God’s word. It focuses on God’s sovereignty, stating that God is able and willing by virtue of his omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence, to do whatever He desires with His creation. It also maintains that within the Bible are the following teachings: That God, by his sovereign grace predestines people into salvation; that Jesus died only for those predestined; that God regenerates the individual where he is then able and wants to choose God; and that it is impossible for those who are redeemed to...
Words: 2421 - Pages: 10
...Fabian Salazar Phil.1301 8:00-9:30 TuThurs Prof. Smith Free Will Free will can be perceived as a quality one is born with no matter what your background is. But then again what is free will? And do we all have it? This strikes a huge argument with many outlooks on either the possibility of having free will or the possibility of not having free will. Ranging from Determinists such as Albert Einstein and Libertarians such as John Locke to everyday people such as me who truly believe that we are indeed free. We can conclude that there is a possibility for free thanks to these following premises and principles. According to the Principle of Alternate Possibilities one can choose to do one or the other. Therefore if given two possibilities it is in the power of the individual to either choose to go one way or the other. If I was given the possibility of eating a burrito or a salad I would make a choice depending on the way I felt that day. It could also be based on past habits, information about how healthy both choices are, belief, or my own eating habits. This option can be seen as being determined or free will, but in this instance we will pretend I chose whatever I chose freely. The argument above is both valid and sound. It is valid because both of my premises are true in any circumstance therefore there is no way of proving it false. The soundness is proven when we line up both premises and it gives us a conclusion. One can also conclude that there is no possibility...
Words: 587 - Pages: 3
...There is much thought about whether or not we hold free will within us, but isn’t it true that we are freely questioning if we have free will at this very moment? If we have the ability to question free will, in which we are freely questioning, does that make us free? In Boethius’s, The Consolation of Philosophy, Book V presents the problem of freedom and God. Boethius refers to freedom as “freedom of the will” and God’s divine foreknowledge as “God’s Providence”. Boethius then presents a sequence of arguments that state that freedom of the will and divine Providence are incompatible. Boethius’s first proposition is, “If God knows the future, then the future is determined,” (PHL 150 Discussion, September 16, 2015). Thus, anything God’s foresees happening, must happen. Boethius is also trying to explain that God essentially foreknows the future eternally. Thus, God knows all the actions, wishes, and desires of mankind. Then his second proposition is that, “If the future is determined, then we don’t have free will,” (Ibid). Essentially, if God knows all the actions, wishes, and desires of mankind, then all of those are bound to happen. Therefore, if it must happen, there is no free will. Boethius’ final proposition is that, “God does know the future,” (Ibid). This simply alludes to God’s foreknowledge of our lives. Boethius’ concludes with statement that, “We don’t have free will,” (Ibid). Having free will, and having a free action means that the action was not predetermined. Furthermore...
Words: 713 - Pages: 3
...Critically asses the view that we are not responsible for our evil actions. Some may argue that we are not responsible for our evil actions because all our actions are determined by prior causes this is known as hard determinism. Take a murderer for instance, hard determinists would argue it was determined that the murderer would kill and he had no choice in doing otherwise. However an issue with this approach is that hard determinism is stating that no-one can be held morally responsible for evil actions because they had no choice in deciding otherwise. This means people could potentially get away with the most cold- blooded crimes and fear no sense of retribution. Although I recognise if the world was determined noone would be held responsible for their evil actions, this would however still make the world become a very chaotic immoral world. If determinism was true then this means all the horrible things that happen in the world had to happen, this is a very pessimistic view of the world. Furthermore if everything was determined it would make some people question what is the purpose of life, if we ultimately have no free will. Therefore some may use this point to argue that everything can’t be determined. Furthermore others may argue by accepting responsibility for our evil actions and wrong doings we can become better people and learn from our mistakes however if no one is being held responsible for their evil actions, this would make some people question the kind of world...
Words: 1703 - Pages: 7
