Saint Augustines Election Vs Free Will - Essay Example

? St. Augustine’s Election Vs Free Will Introduction In the biblical teaching, the vital thought is that human are saved by the elegance of God and God alone is the principle of election. The policy of election denotes to God’s choice of particular number of people out of tumbled humankind who obtain every virtues of Christ’s liberating work and thus be truthfully, essentially and perpetually saved. It is believed that election is the absolute aim of God regarding the identification of those sinners who are to be saved or not (Schwertley, 2005). On the basis of this opinion, various theologians such as St. Augustine had developed writing about election of God and free will of human. According to St. Augustine sin is the consequence of free will of human. In the words of Allen (2003), “According to St. Augustine's free will theodicy (AFWT), moral evil attends free will”. It is also believed that God has created human with the eligibility of enjoying free will. Free will in this sense denotes having the capability to cooperate with God, i.e. to do the right as well as wrong thing. Thus, unlike other beings such as plants and animals, human beings are different as they are free to make their choices. However, the major question concerning this context can be recognized as based on the perplexity that if humans have the capability to make every decision in their life. The passage of Roman 9:16 depicts that God who demonstrates kindness to human is much prevalent rather than human will. Thus, while human hold the ability to enjoy certain free will, they are not entirely free which further indicates that ultimate consequence is not dependent on humans (Knight, 2010). The paper intends to describe the election on the free will as explained by St. Augustine based on the religious beliefs affirmed in the Bible. Thus, the objective of the paper is to develop a rational understanding about human free will from a religious point of view. Biblical Criticism St. Augustine is also known as Austin being regarded as one of the greatest ‘Fathers of Church’. He was known as a renowned philosopher who later became familiar as an outstanding leader of Christian conviction (Coptic Church, 2005). His idea of election has been drawn from the ‘doctrine of salvation’. On one hand, his religious opinions about the characteristics of Church and the rites significantly impacted the development of Roman Catholic spirituality. On the other hand, his religious opinions about the characteristics of real sin exhibits the utter requirement of elegance in the salvation of determined preparation of several central policies of Western Christendom. St. Augustine’s theodicy stated that the election of God is not unfair. According to him, the offenders are not eligible to enjoy the right of elegance from God. The decision of God as to about extending the elegance is entirely within God’s independent will and privilege. Above all, St. Augustine assumed his thought on election is simply reflecting the rich philosophy of the passage of Roman 9 (Allen, 2003). St. Augustine firmly accepted that God’s elegance was the most prominent basis of salvation. He has termed that if a person is destined, his ‘free choice’ seem to be extracted at best trivial. He further stated that everything which exists is developed by God and yet God cannot be reflected as the origin of sin. St. Augustine’s theodicy of human free will also provides the central and crucial solution by stating that the free will of human is the responsible source of sin. Apparently, it can be depicted that human conduct sinful activities in harmony with the decision condensed by their thoughts and thus are led by their free will. Based on this notion, in his theory, St. Augustine perceives no exclusiveness between free will and celestial support. However, it is often considered that God was negligent by providing will to the human who had brought evil. St. Augustine also depicted that although sin happens by free will, human must not believe that God delivered such a capacity to conduct evil activities. According to him, the only reason human are provided with free will is that they cannot prosper without freedom. The logic of his statement is that man cannot select the good deeds without possessing the capability to elect by free will. Thus, to utilize the free will for any other means apart from good reasons can be considered as a perversion for which only the individual will is responsible (Allen, 2003). The criticism in this regards have widely been conducted so as to recognize the extent by which the will of human is actually free. It is a consideration which is inevitably destined to the interrogation of God’s foresight. It is being argued that if God’s awareness includes being outhouse to human’s decision to certain activities before it happens, it is doubtful to proclaim that human make an appropriate choice through free will. Thus, from a pious point of view, it can be argued that the theodicy of humans having free of will developed by St. Augustine is destined to the interrogation of God’s foresight. However, St. Augustine also argued that foresight of God does not indicate casualty. He had stated that when people remember past events, they restrict those repeat occurrences and correspondingly, God does not induce to the future occasions to occur through the foresight. Stating precisely, it can be affirmed that St. Augustine considers the thought of human to human interface in his ideology. For instance, even if a person already knows his/her child would snip cookies, it does not confine the choice for the child to not rip-off them (cookies). Similarly, God forces no human to conduct sin. This further indicates that even if they (God) foresee, humans would conduct evil through their own free will. In this way, St. Augustine’s statements concluded that human’s will is truthfully free and therefore be considered as guilty for their election to conduct evil activities (Peterson, 2006). St. Augustine has ultimately specified hitherto that God is not directly accountable for the occurrence of evil acts. According to him, human free will is the ‘origin of evil’. God have provided this free will for the use of good activities. God’s foresight also lives symphonically with human’s free will adjudging sinners as their evil acts are the consequence of free will. He has described that free will is what every person selects to pursue and ascribe them with their activities. He had also stated that soul is tainted by evil and strained with sin. In addition to these instances, St. Augustine’s description of free will is quite lenient and positive. St. Augustine had tried to provide solution to the opposition of Christianity which is dependent on sinful activities. He intended to tell that a strong will is essential to proclaim that the mind has not dejected from its position to regulate good activities and from its right direction except by free will (Allen, 2003). Free Will in Roman 9:16 With emphasis to his theodicy of human free will, St. Augustine has often been regarded as the inventor of present ‘Roman Catholicism’ which further acted as the key basis of many position of Calvinism. Roman 9:16 is particularly apparent on the importance of mercy. In the passage, it is not human seriatim or will that counts, but deific mercy. It tells that everything depends on God when it comes to elect human to be merciful or sinned. According to the passage in the Holy Bible, God leaves those dissents against him to the unavoidable outworking of the wrongful activities. In this context, it can be stated that God is accountable to provide human with the will which can lead to certain negative outcomes. However, on a positive note, Roman 9:16 elaborates about mercy of God to the elected person stating that God, along with giving mercy to human, is able to suppress it (Knight, 2010). St. Augustine supports the passage, Roman 9:16 and believes it to be real. He had also depicted that God display mercy and coarsens those who desire such based on their deeds. However, the mercy of God is conducted impartially, in accordance with the virtues concealed inside human. He painfully stated that God do not subjectively reinforce ‘pharaoh’, in fact humans are ultimately liable for hardening ‘pharaoh’. St. Augustine had constantly affirmed that God’s appeal of a human leads anything that a human can conduct. The Roman 9:16 passage says that ‘it is not the one, who have free will, nor the one who operate, but the God who has mercy’ (Pack, 2008). This statement denotes it is the God who makes election for human for displaying mercy, thus Gods’ will is all which eventually matters the most above all humans’ will. However, it is argued that only mercy of God alone cannot serve for the activities of human, unless the free will is active. Roman 9:16 depicts that God does not actively engage in something which can make ‘pharaoh’ into sinful human being (Reasoner, 2005). According to Roman 9:16, the purpose of God is perpetual and is associated with elegance. Roman 9:16 passage depicts that when a human is justified by God’s elegance who has offered his body as a living and sacred detriment as well as who is providing the divine gifts the God has provided them, can experience an outflow of authorized divine living (MacArthur, 1994). According to St. Augustine, the ‘dominion of God’ and honest human duty and freedom should be maintained, if justice is to be restored (Papal Encyclicals, 1988). To abbreviate the subject, human free will is to seriously compromise the Christian understanding of the way in which God rationalizes human. The basic ideas of St. Augustine in accordance with the Roman passage 9:16 is that natural freedom do not permit human to conduct activities due to necessity but as a subject to freedom. Through evil activity, the free will of human can be destabilized or debilitated but not eradicated or demolished. Thus, restoring human will necessitates operation of divine elegance. In this context, it can be stated that free will exist, but is highly distorted by evil activities. The free will of human is subjective toward evil. St. Augustine had claimed that free will of human truly happens in sinners but is conceded by sin. Thus, in relation to both Roman 9:16 and St. Augustine’s theodicy, humanity possesses entire free will and is completely liable for its own sin. The characteristics of human are basically free and well developed and are not debilitated by weakness. Based on the notion that for God to interfere any direct way to impact human decision is equal to compromise human honor, St. Augustine further described that humanity is universally impacted by iniquity (Coptic Orthodox Diocese of the Southern United States, 2012). Discussion The association between free will and God’s acts is considered as one of the most aggravated matter in philosophy. The functions of God and free will of human seems substitute. For instance, if the foresight of God is certain or God is the reason for every activity or his elegance is essential for selecting the good, it is difficult to illuminate how the will of human can be free. On the other hand, if it is appealed that choices of human is free, it seems denial of God in any portion of human activity. Thus, it denotes that God is not sagacious or almighty. The matter of free will of human also plays a vital role in other cross ethical puzzle, i.e. problem of evil. For instance, if human have free will, God cannot to be accused or acclaimed for their (humans) activities. On the other hand, if human has no free will, God might be responsible for moral sin, either by instigating it himself or by punishing human who are not accountable for sin (Brown, 2005). St. Augustine had written much on the topic of election of God and free will of human. Based on his writings, it has further been argued that in earlier periods he focused on human free will, but in later days he stated that human are not free and God’s selection is permanent. It can be admitted that St. Augustine at times imply a conflict between God’s activities and human’s free will as when he stated that excessive desire is the reason of moral sin. In order to know the position of St. Augustine regarding free will and election of God, it is vital to define these two aspects from two viewpoints, i.e. logical and religious. From the logical perspective it can be stated that St. Augustine exercises a negative philosophy by demonstrating that God’s functions cannot impend the human free will. On one hand, from any application of religious thinking regarding the world, it becomes certain that God is the creator of it and on the other hand from logical thinking it is also evident that humans do enjoy ‘free will’ or else they would not have been able to act liberally. Thus, it can be stated that human are in no manner bound either to domain God’s existence by eliminating free will or to maintain the free will by rejecting the heavenly foresight. Human hold both truths and admit them in conviction and honesty. It is in this context that St. Augustine’s work on election of God and human free will exposed with the challenge of the sin. Despite human will, the other clarification for evil is generated by God. From a logical point of view it can be stated that if humans witness dearth of ‘free will’, evil is not the responsibility of human. Hence, the rejection of free will can have serious effect for the trust in God, i.e. if evil is not the fault of humans, humans should not also be chastised for it (Brown, 2005). Free will of human is inferred in every ethical decision, whether the decision is God’s or that of human’s. Rewards and penalties, either by human or by God would be unfair if those rewarded or chastised were not liable for their activities. Thus, the moral, political and religious live would be illogical and entirely devoid of honesty without free will. The ‘freedom of choice’ is to reject the importance of any ethical decision. Therefore, the occurrences of evil irrespective of the existence of free will cannot be termed as sin. Besides, the overall argument in the context of free will is that it would be unfair for God to penalize sin unless the committer of evil is not free (Brown, 2005). However, in this regard, St. Augustine described that there is no inconsistency between God’s foresight and free will of human. He assumed that God has foresight of everything that would occur in upcoming days. To tell the truth, the insight into God’s foresight which seems to threaten the free will of human, St. Augustine attempted to establish that human have their own free will and thus God is not the reason for evil. However, there are several contradictory views about human’s free will and God’s relationship with the choices human make. St. Augustine had constantly demanded that God is the reason of all except the evil activities of human. He depicted that any virtues of human which are not derived from God are evil virtues, where the good virtues are considered as gift of God. Yet, there are several contradictory views against his logical thoughts, i.e. if God is the reason for every good thing including good virtues, it is obvious that He freely confers upon human and provides authority to perform tasks of ardent charity (Brown, 2005). In this regards, it has also been argued that free will of human is impossible as God is regarded to have foresightedness towards human activities. Free will is considered as the authority to be divergent or impose self-willpower and if God already knows that, it certainly cannot be termed as free (Couenhoven, 2007). There are two extreme opinions on the enquiry of Gods’ election and free will. Some emphasis on the ‘authority of God’ to the level that human beings simply act as puppets and their activities are limited to God’s independence, while others believe that God does not have complete control and understanding about the activities deciphered by humans. It is believed that every person is elected (chosen) before born which finish up in the infinity. It denotes that God plan for sinners to collapse and redeem the earth. Concerning this particular notion, the statement of Roman 9:16 depicts that God never force the offender to conduct evil activities, rather it is the free will of sinner which ascents humans toward sin. The will of human is inevitable by evil and is restricted in the cell of venality and mischief brought on by their sinful activities. From the discussion of Roman 9:16 and St. Augustine, it is well understood that sinful human is free to elect their sinful activities and are not inspired by God. Human always select the type of sin which appeals to them, but that is the boundary of their freedom. Based on this concern, it can be affirmed that humans cannot elect the redemption, decency and religiousness unless God allows them. In present days, when people search for answers about the issue concerning free will, it is apparent that irrespective of Gods’ will, human also have certain freedom to select activities to be performed. Conclusion St. Augustine is commonly believed to be among the early supporters of free will decision, but his thought about free will has been deeply misled. St. Augustine continuously excluded the thought that God is liable for the arrival of evil in modern society, even though he acknowledged the fact that God has His control over humans. Through his writing, he had depicted that God is the cause of each action and human has the freedom to make their choices. St. Augustine claims on free will of human and refutes that God’s foresight takes it away. With reference to his perspective it is understood that the evil choices of human activities are always unrestricted from God. However, his truths about God and free will have created contradictory views among the mind of people. In actual means, it can be stated that there are no hypothetical reason which can prove humans are not free and it is true that human’s free choices cannot escape from God’s foresightedness. However, it can be sated that God’s action of elegance and human actions of free will can harmonize with each other. References Allen, R. F. (2003). St. Augustine's Free Will Theodicy and Natural Evil. Ars Disputandi, 3. Brown, M. (2005). Augustine on Freedom and God. The Saint Anselm Journal, 2(2), 50-65. Coptic Church. (2005). Saint Augustine. Retrieved from http://www.copticchurch.net/topics/synexarion/augustine.html Coptic Orthodox Diocese of the Southern United States. (2012). The Freedom of the will. Retrieved from http://www.suscopts.org/messages/lectures/soterlecture3.pdf Couenhoven, J. (2007). Augustine's rejection of the free-will defence: an overview of the late Augustine's theodicy. Religious Studies, 43(3), 279-298. Knight, G. R. (2010). Exploring romans: A devotional commentary. Review and Herald Pub Assoc. MacArthur, J. F. (1994). Romans 9-16, Volume 17. United States: Moody Publishers. Peterson, B. (2006). Augustine: advocate of free will, defender of predestination. The Journal of Undergraduate Research. Pack, D. C. (2008). The bible’s difficult scriptures explained. United States: The Restored Church of God. Papal Encyclicals. (1988). Libertas praestantissimum. Retrieved from http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13liber.htm Reasoner, M. (2005). Romans in full circle: a history of interpretation. United States: Westminster John Knox Press. Schwertley, B. (2005). Chosen by God: the doctrine of unconditional election. Retrieved from http://www.reformedonline.com/view/reformedonline/Chosen%20by%20God.htm Read More