...Eldredge poses that God saves us in every possible way, using the example of Jack saving Rose in the Titanic (Eldredge 71). He is partially correct, but his reasoning needs some clarification to make complete sense in the infinite nature of God. In order to comprehend how complete salvation is possible, the human timeline must be considered in tandem with infinity. Complete salvation is perfection. For example, a computer program can be perfect if it accomplishes all of its goals, the syntax is correct, and it executes in the most efficient manner possible; however, humans require free will in order to produce a real love as described by Eldredge (Eldredge 51). As a result, humans cannot be completely saved in our time because of the need for the choice of evil. There is hope: saved humans will become perfect in the infinite heavenly realm established by God in the death of our world. We will then be saved in every way possible....
Words: 510 - Pages: 3
...Consider how far free will is a satisfactory explanation for the existence of evil in a world created by God To a certain extent the concept of free will is indeed a satisfactory explanation for the existence of evil in a world created by God. John Hick, in his book, Evil and The God of Love - states that God gave us free will to develop and become perfect. Hick argues that we are born as immature and imperfect, therefore we develop virtues in order to become more in God’s likeness; we develop these virtues by suffering. This suffering therefore is caused by pain, so arguably evil is the cause of our developing characteristics that enable us to reach heaven and to become one with God. Furthermore, Augustine puts forward the argument that evil is the result of human free will, and not God’s own doing. Augustine sheds light on The Fall,where it is stated that God gave Adam and Eve free will. However, they chose to abuse this, as they supposedly ate the forbidden fruit. Thus, resulting in the ‘lapse’ of mankind. However, if God had not permitted the possibility of evil, as humans we would be restricted to have free will. Catastrophic events such as the Holocaust show clear indications of evil on large scales, caused by arguably human misuse of free will decision making. If God were to stop such events, he would arguably be having to choose and draw lines between different occurrences of evil, such as larger scale events as opposed to an individual murder. God cannot be said to...
Words: 797 - Pages: 4
...MAN’S FREE WILL A PAPER SUBMITTED TO DR. TODD S. BUCK IN PARTIAL FULFILLLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CLASS SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY I THEO 525 BY JOHN S. POPE JR LYNCHBURG, VIRGINIA May 11, 2013 Table of Contents Introduction Definition of Theodicy……………………………………………………………………….2 Divine Providence..............…………………………………………………………………..3 God’s Sovereignty/Man’s Free Will………………………………………………………...5 Conclusion…...………………......……………………………………………………….....10 Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………...12 The human race is afflicted by kidnappings, poverty, murder and oppression. The question men have struggled with is how can a good God allow such evil to continue? On a moral level, an even better question would be is the evil man experiences at the hands of other men, a result of God’s divine plan or the effect of man’s free will? Answering these questions is important because uncovering the reason for ongoing evil has challenged some to the point, they have denied their faith and joined a corps of atheists who promote the idea that the presence of suffering, pain and evil are the best testament to a non-existent God. When arguing against the existence of God, one might be presented with attempts to use His divine attributes of omnipotence (all powerful), omniscience (all knowing) and omnibenevolence (all good) against Him. The dilemma of the presence of evil in the midst of a creation that God deemed good (Genesis 1:31) would appear to make God seem...
Words: 3692 - Pages: 15
...on the existence of an omnipotent God, however like Augustine, we struggle to understand how evil comes into being. Evil corrupts our free will and enables us to sin, but if God is all-powerful and all good, how can he allow this to happen? “Whence comes evil? Was there a certain evil matter out of which he made these things? Did he form and fashion it, but yet leave within it something that he would not convert into good? Why would he do it? Was he powerless to turn and change all this matter so that no evil would remain in it, even though he is all powerful?” As these questions found their way into Augustine’s mind, they also manage to exist and remain unanswered for most people today. However Augustine addresses these questions by justifying evil in this world with God’s creation of free will. By granting us free will God makes us responsible for our wrongdoings, as a result of this we can knowingly choose either right or wrong. In the infamous biblical passage on the creation of original sin, God accommodates men by giving Adam and Eve all the necessities of life: partnership, water, food and land. However, despite God’s warning Eve chose to eat the fruit from the tree of life. The serpent persuades Eve who later convinces Adam to eat from the tree. From this persuasion and act from men, original sin is born. Men are now born with a predisposition to sin; in other words, they can knowingly choose what places them further away from God. Choosing the lesser good, in Adam...
Words: 3329 - Pages: 14
... 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 account Luther’s argument and Erasmus’ before making a decision about the concept of free will. First of all, we...
Words: 3561 - Pages: 15
...the existence of god meaningful or meaningless? B.2. The theists say that god’s existence is meaningful because there would be nothing now; no motion and no existence, since he is the primary cause of all things and the primary mover. B.3. The atheists say that god’s existence is meaningless because believing in the existence of a god would be irrelevant since if this god, whom we assume that has free will, also gave us the same free will, then humans would just comply to his knowledge of the future thus humans’ free will contradicts an omniscient god or an all knowing god and from this, we can say that god is dead. C. Thesis Statement Therefore, the question of god is meaningless because humans have free will so their decisions are independent of god, and that he creates or promotes conflict. II. Body A. Argument 1: Humans have free will so their decisions are independent of god A.1. Introduction - Definition and concept of free will: capacity of rational agents to choose a course of action from among various alternatives 1. God created a universe, which is random a) Randomness is a requirement for free will b) Life and universe as a game simulation (“The Sims”) c) Determinism is impossible for god because if god knows everything that we’ll do and every event that will happen to us, then it seems that we have no free will because of the plans laid out for us. 2. Free will as being the source of our actions a) God cannot control the...
Words: 661 - Pages: 3
...Arguments have been made for thousands of years whether god allowing free will is a positive or a negative. Many evil actions have taken place and people blame god for not stopping it. In contrast to that many good actions have occurred and people thank god. My thesis is God is all loving but does not interfere with any actions that occur he only provides us with free will. Is free will a gift or a curse? Free Will as a Negative Moral evil is from intent of person to person. In addition, moral evil can cause natural evil to occur, for example global warming. A corporation contributing to global warming might not care that they are hurting the environment. In result of hurting the environment a complete type of animal might be killed off....
Words: 1940 - Pages: 8
...of human-like life. How can God create an entire planet and then destroy it just as quickly? What are the characteristics of this God? Is this God worthy of our worship? How does God allow for such evil? John Hicks: Father Tom, it seems like you have come across the problem of evil. Sarah: What do you mean of the problem of evil? Is evil not a consequence of the devil? A fallen angel who wants all of God’s followers to turn to him instead? The Devil: Yes, Sarah you are correct. I am the source of all evil; the one who causes the pain and suffering in the world today. JH: Sarah, do not listen to him. He is not as powerful as God. His power is not enough to cause all of the evil on the world. S: Then what is the “problem of evil”? JH: God is known as all powerful, all knowing, all good. If God exists, and if he is all powerful then he is able to change and eliminate evil. If God is all knowing then he has full knowledge of all evil that occurs in the world. If he is all good then he wants to create a freedom from evil. But, evil exists. So, if evil exists then God isn’t all powerful, all knowing and/or all good, or God does not exist. FT: Without God, there would be no problem of evil. God created all things, so God created evil; natural and moral. S: What do you mean by natural and moral evil? Are their different types of evil? JH: Moral evil is a wickedness that is one person inflicting evil onto another person or onto one self. FT: God created people so that means...
Words: 994 - Pages: 4
...question, are we free? Some people such as hard determinists believe that we are not responsible for our actions, and so are not free due to other aspects in our lives. Others, such as the libertarians, believe that we are totally free and should therefore be responsible for our actions. An assessment of these views will show that we are clearly responsible for our actions and that we therefore, have free will. According to Judeo-Christian teachings, God is omnibenevolent, omniscient and omnipotent. For theological determinists God’s omniscience means that he has foreknowledge of everything that will happen in the future. This would mean that our paths are predestined and that we are unable to choose any other action than the one God has already seen, or planned for us. This would remove any sense of free will we have, as we could not make any choice other than the one god has already seen and chosen for us, so we could therefore not be responsible for our actions. This is very similar John Calvin’s beliefs, which sparked from his rejection of the catholic church and the idea that you could earn your way into heaven. Calvin believed that humans are predestined as to whether they go to hell or heaven. This would mean that no amount of good deeds or repentance could get you to heaven as you are predetermined and have no free will about the choice. Although these theories bring up valid points to the idea of free will and how it fits in with our understandings of God, there are major...
Words: 944 - Pages: 4
...Philosophy’. Within this book it consists of a dialogue between Lady Philosophy and Boethius as characters discussing many topics such as; the problem of evil; the relationship between divine foreknowledge and human free will. Boethius had many discussions and views example of these are; the idea of divine foreknowledge; eternity the two types of necessity and to prove that God rewards and punishes justly. Boethius concept of God links to the idea of the Platonic God. God is not part of the temporal world and as a result of this; time does not pass for him as it does for us. This links in with Aquinas’s view of divine foreknowledge is different for us to God. This is a traditional concept of God who is wholly; simple; immutable and perfect. This can be argued to be a realistic view of God because the idea of change and perfection is questioned today therefore if God was in time this would mean God is not perfect as being able to change makes being lose what they once had. Firstly, in the Book ‘The consolation of philosophy’ Boethius argued that God knows the past; present and future. Boethius described this as God’s foreknowledge however; Boethius argued that although God has this foreknowledge he does not cause the future to happen. Boethius argues that God sees our timeline of our life as it is progressing in one timeline. Boethius used the example of a man walking down the street and the sun shining in the sky; even though you see both of these at once and the same time...
Words: 929 - Pages: 4
...existence of God today would be the problem of evil. Not only is it a problem for Christians, who want to provide a defense for their faith, but it is also a problem for Christians, who being faced with suffering and pain on account of evil, and without knowing the thoughts or intentions of God, wish to reconcile the two ideas together. In spite of Mackie’s Logical Argument of Evil proving, some would say, that it is not possible for both God and evil to exist, I believe that it is in fact possible that they exist simultaneously. My reason for believing so stems from the Free-Will Defense, coupled with a deeper understanding and more clearly defined description of the attributes of God and how they work together. I will also highlight scripture that incorporates both the existence of evil as well as the existence of God, who remedies the evil into a greater good, reiterating a point made in premise 4 of Plantinga’s Free Will Defense. In order to walk you through my thought process, I will start with a basic outline of Mackie’s Logical Argument, as well as include why this is a problem for theists. I will then define some ambiguous terms in his argument, and shed some light on the culture-saturated definitions of Christian lingo used in the argument. And finally, I will present the Free-Will Defense and show how this paired with the previous information, along with accounts of evil in scripture, work hand in hand to point us to a more clear understanding of the coexistence of God and evil...
Words: 2028 - Pages: 9
...THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY NORTHERN CALIFORNIA CAMPUS DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY AND HUMAN FREE WILL IN REFORMED THEOLOGY, OPEN THEISM AND MOLINISM AN EXAMINATION OF THE VIEWS OF PAUL KJOSS HELSETH, GREGORY BOYD AND WILLIAM LANE CRAIG A RESEARCH PAPER PRESENTED TO PROFESSOR RODRICK K. DURST IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY II, L-1212-11 BY ROBERT MCNAIR BOX # 685 MILL VALLEY, CALIFORNIA MAY 9, 2014 Contents Introduction 1 Paul Kjoss Helseth and the Reformed (Calvinist) Position 3 Gregory Boyd and the Open Theism Position 7 William Lane Craig and the Molinist Position 12 Conclusion 17 Bibliography 22 DIVINE SOVEREIGNTY AND HUMAN FREE WILL Introduction Scripture presents two seemingly irreconcilable concepts that are both expressly affirmed in the Bible as co-existent and true: divine sovereignty and human free will. That Scripture teaches the doctrine of divine providence cannot be denied. The very act of creation was the result of God’s providence, as the created order resulted solely from His will and power. Simply, the world did not have to be; it came to be as a matter of divine choice. As a result, our world is contingent; it has no independent existence, but exists “moment to moment only in and through and unto God (Neh. 9:6; Ps. 104:30; Rom. 11:36; Heb. 1:3; Rev. 4:11).”1 In other words, the world and everything in it is entirely dependent on God for its being as God actively “works all things according to the counsel of his will” (Eph. 1:11...
Words: 6547 - Pages: 27
...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 that is to only save some. This simply does not work logically. Whereas the Arminian’s conclusion is consistent with their starting premise, the Calvinist’s conclusion is contradictory to their starting premise. Their argument starts with "God desires...
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
...Hegel’s notion on the concept of right is that first, we must try to understand within ourselves human behavior as to the actions of other people. Individual, for Hegel, are aware of freedom. We express it from our own acts of our will. He said that “only as thinking intelligence, will is free will.” For according to him, there is more to “goodness” than merely obeying the laws of our countries and keeping contracts. Morality for him has to do with those acts for which human beings can be held responsible, for Hegel, the essence of morality is located within a person’s purpose. Moral responsibility, then, begins with the acts that can be designated to a free will, a will that intends the act. Also the stoic philosopher Epictetus said that moral Philosophy was a form of an act, where each person is an actor/ actress in a drama, he means that an actor does not chose a role, it is the author or the director who does the picking. In the drama of the world it is God who is the author or the director, who will pick out whom the person will be portraying and what to portray and or how he or she will be situated in the story, people have no choice because it is God who is responsible for the...
Words: 4495 - Pages: 18
