Augustine advocated for both free will and predestination in his theology. In his early works like De Libero Arbitrio, he argued that God is not responsible for evil since humans have free will to choose good or evil. Later, during the Pelagian controversy, Augustine asserted that while humans have free will, God's grace is ultimately what enables salvation, which he began describing as predestination. Throughout his career, Augustine sought to reconcile these concepts and maintained that free will and predestination work together harmoniously.
McCloskey argues against several common arguments for the existence of God in his article "On Being an Atheist". He rejects the cosmological, teleological, and design arguments. He also claims that the existence of evil in the world disproves an all-powerful, all-good God. Additionally, McCloskey asserts that atheism is a more rational and comforting belief than faith in God. The response paper critiques McCloskey's arguments, pointing out logical flaws and inconsistencies. It defends theistic arguments and addresses the problem of evil by distinguishing types of evil and arguing that moral evil can coexist with free will.
This document discusses arguments for and against the existence of God from both a Christian and atheist perspective. It summarizes the views of H.J. McCloskey, an atheist author who argues that there are no undisputed proofs or signs of intelligent design in the world. Christians counter that while proofs have limitations, taking a cumulative case approach provides good reasons to believe in God. The problem of evil and pointless suffering is a major objection of atheism, though Christians believe God allows free will and that evil serves greater purposes unknown to humans. Overall, the document analyzes theological debates around origins and design without making a definite conclusion.
Intro to Apologetics for a multi-week home group course by a BEd and Biola MA Apologetics grad. An overview of the Christian view of evil and suffering including definitions, traditional approach, historical development, current understandings, objections and responses, a better alternative, and the atheists' dilemma.
The document discusses the problem of evil and different perspectives on reconciling the existence of evil with an omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good God. It describes moral and natural evils and examines the evidential and logical problems of evil. It then outlines several possible responses to the problem, including theodicies explaining evil as necessary for free will (Augustinian) or spiritual development (Irenaean), transforming the meaning of evil, process theology, atheism or evolutionary explanations for the distribution of pain and pleasure.
The document discusses the philosophical problem of evil - how can a completely good, all-knowing, and all-powerful God allow evil to exist in the world? It outlines several theistic explanations, including: 1) Evil as non-being, where evil is an absence rather than positive thing; 2) Dualism, where an opposing evil power exists; and 3) Moral theory, where God limits evil by nature but allows free will which can lead to suffering. It highlights the need to understand Augustine of Hippo and Irenaeus' attempts to explain how God's love is compatible with suffering and evil in the world.
This document contains a discussion between several individuals about the interpretation of biblical passages related to original sin and the nature of Christ. There is a debate around whether certain traditional doctrines are essential aspects of Christianity or open to alternative interpretations. While some views expressed seem heterodox, others argue the passages can support multiple reasonable interpretations.
God created humans with inherent value, but mankind has rebelled against God through sin. In Romans 2, Paul teaches that no one can claim self-righteousness or excuse their sins, as God will judge all people based on their deeds. Recent events highlight mankind's suppression of truth about God and sin. Funerals being held for aborted babies in the Netherlands show how sin distorts logic to excuse rebellion against God's law valuing life. Rising anti-Semitism in Europe coincides with growing Muslim populations, as fears are unconsciously expressed through solidarity with Muslims and antagonism towards Jews, similar to Stockholm Syndrome where victims bond with their abusers. All will be judged by God unless they repent and turn to Christ for salvation.
McCloskey argues against several common arguments for the existence of God in his article "On Being an Atheist". He rejects the cosmological, teleological, and design arguments. He also claims that the existence of evil in the world disproves an all-powerful, all-good God. Additionally, McCloskey asserts that atheism is a more rational and comforting belief than faith in God. The response paper critiques McCloskey's arguments, pointing out logical flaws and inconsistencies. It defends theistic arguments and addresses the problem of evil by distinguishing types of evil and arguing that moral evil can coexist with free will.
This document discusses arguments for and against the existence of God from both a Christian and atheist perspective. It summarizes the views of H.J. McCloskey, an atheist author who argues that there are no undisputed proofs or signs of intelligent design in the world. Christians counter that while proofs have limitations, taking a cumulative case approach provides good reasons to believe in God. The problem of evil and pointless suffering is a major objection of atheism, though Christians believe God allows free will and that evil serves greater purposes unknown to humans. Overall, the document analyzes theological debates around origins and design without making a definite conclusion.
Intro to Apologetics for a multi-week home group course by a BEd and Biola MA Apologetics grad. An overview of the Christian view of evil and suffering including definitions, traditional approach, historical development, current understandings, objections and responses, a better alternative, and the atheists' dilemma.
The document discusses the problem of evil and different perspectives on reconciling the existence of evil with an omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good God. It describes moral and natural evils and examines the evidential and logical problems of evil. It then outlines several possible responses to the problem, including theodicies explaining evil as necessary for free will (Augustinian) or spiritual development (Irenaean), transforming the meaning of evil, process theology, atheism or evolutionary explanations for the distribution of pain and pleasure.
The document discusses the philosophical problem of evil - how can a completely good, all-knowing, and all-powerful God allow evil to exist in the world? It outlines several theistic explanations, including: 1) Evil as non-being, where evil is an absence rather than positive thing; 2) Dualism, where an opposing evil power exists; and 3) Moral theory, where God limits evil by nature but allows free will which can lead to suffering. It highlights the need to understand Augustine of Hippo and Irenaeus' attempts to explain how God's love is compatible with suffering and evil in the world.
This document contains a discussion between several individuals about the interpretation of biblical passages related to original sin and the nature of Christ. There is a debate around whether certain traditional doctrines are essential aspects of Christianity or open to alternative interpretations. While some views expressed seem heterodox, others argue the passages can support multiple reasonable interpretations.
God created humans with inherent value, but mankind has rebelled against God through sin. In Romans 2, Paul teaches that no one can claim self-righteousness or excuse their sins, as God will judge all people based on their deeds. Recent events highlight mankind's suppression of truth about God and sin. Funerals being held for aborted babies in the Netherlands show how sin distorts logic to excuse rebellion against God's law valuing life. Rising anti-Semitism in Europe coincides with growing Muslim populations, as fears are unconsciously expressed through solidarity with Muslims and antagonism towards Jews, similar to Stockholm Syndrome where victims bond with their abusers. All will be judged by God unless they repent and turn to Christ for salvation.
This document discusses the biblical teaching on humanity being created in God's image according to Genesis. It argues that being made in God's image gives humanity an inherent purpose and self-worth, in contrast to the view of evolution that sees humanity as having no inherent purpose. It explores what it means to bear God's image based on biblical passages, including having dominion over creation and being in close relationships. It describes how sin defiled and marred God's image in humanity but that restoration is possible through Christ, though the effects of sin remain part of the human experience as believers fight against their fallen nature.
The document discusses the philosophical problem of evil and various attempts throughout history to reconcile the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. It covers Epicurus' argument that evil is incompatible with the existence of gods, Augustine's theodicy that evil originated from free will and is a result of original sin, and William Rowe's evidential argument from evil.
The document discusses two traditional theodicies - the Irenaeus theodicy and the Augustine theodicy - that attempt to reconcile the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent God with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. The Irenaeus theodicy argues that suffering exists to allow humans to evolve spiritually and grow closer to God, while the Augustine theodicy asserts that evil arises from corruption or malfunction and is also used to punish sin and maintain moral balance. However, both theodicies are problematic as they cannot adequately explain how a perfect creation by an all-powerful God could go wrong or malfunction.
The document discusses several philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God. It outlines the moral, ontological, cosmological, teleological, causal, and pragmatic arguments for God's existence. It also discusses empirical, subjective, and problem of evil arguments against God's existence. The problem of evil argues that the co-existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God with evil in the world is unlikely or impossible.
This document discusses and compares the perspectives on free will within Christianity and Hinduism. In Christianity, it examines various theological solutions to reconciling free will with divine attributes such as predestination and foreknowledge, including Augustine's compatibilism, Boethius' denial of divine temporality, Ockham's distinction between hard and soft facts, and Molina's doctrine of middle knowledge. In Hinduism, it discusses the metaphysical downgrading of morality, the compatibilist agenda in reconciling karma and free will, challenges to libertarian karma, and the paradox of the victim and perpetrator regarding free will and moral responsibility.
Although darkness and evil only existed as concepts in original consciousness, Lucifer believed that it had already manifested. God told Lucifer of evil, but Lucifer believed that it was real because it was a concept in his mind, so he manifested it and that’s our battle. God created us to do something but we're coming up with our own concepts so therefore we’re manifesting something against the sovereignty of God.
- The universe exists because God spoke it into existence out of nothing according to the biblical creation account. How we view origins shapes our entire worldview.
- The Genesis creation story describes God bringing order from chaos over six days by speaking light, land, plants, stars, animals and humanity into being.
- Humanity is uniquely made in God's image to have dominion over creation and enjoy relationship with our Creator, explaining why we and the universe exist.
The radical, revolutionary concept of grace power pointLatimerMinster
The document discusses the concept of grace in Christianity, describing it as God offering salvation through Jesus Christ alone rather than through human works or merit. Grace is defined as "everything for nothing to those who don't deserve anything." The presentation explores how grace should motivate Christians to live gratefully and extend grace towards others.
Augustine's anthropology viewed humanity as created in God's image but fallen from grace. He believed that while humans have free will, we are restless due to our separation from God and inability to attain satisfaction on our own. For Augustine, true freedom and fulfillment can only be achieved through God's grace. He saw the human condition as fundamentally flawed due to things like desires of the flesh, but that love and opening ourselves to God's grace allows for spiritual growth and progress, if not perfection. Overall, Augustine placed God at the center of human nature and purpose, with our identity and fulfillment found through relationship with our Creator.
Augustine of Hippo proposed a theodicy to address the problem of evil. He argued that (1) evil came about as a result of free will when Lucifer and angels rebelled against God and (2) when Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating the forbidden fruit. Augustine saw the world as originally good but evil entered through the misuse of free will. He believed evil was a privation or lack of goodness rather than a substance. Natural evil resulted from humans upsetting the order of the universe. Later critics argued that Augustine's view did not align with modern theories of evolution and the nature of evil.
L8 ethics of thomas aquinas and augustineArnel Rivera
This document summarizes the views of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas on the origin of good and evil. It explains that for Augustine, evil is not a created thing but rather an absence of good, as God created all things good. Moral evil arises from misdirected love away from God. Aquinas built on Aristotle's virtue ethics and agreed morality is found through natural law and reason, but added divine law from God's revelation. Both saw all good coming from God alone.
This document discusses several philosophical perspectives on the problem of evil and how they relate to the existence and nature of God. It examines views such as Augustine's hierarchy of being, Irenaeus' argument that suffering enables growth, Aquinas' view that evil is the absence of good, and free will defenses put forth by Plantinga and others. The document also considers objections like the evidential problem of evil and process theodicy. Overall, it analyzes philosophical attempts to explain why an omnipotent and good God would allow the intense human and animal suffering that exists in the world.
This document provides a summary and comparison of the views of Augustine, Pelagius, and Aquinas on the doctrine of original sin. It discusses their perspectives on the state of man before the fall and the effects of the fall. For Augustine, man was created good but lost his free will and ability to not sin due to the fall, which corrupted all of humanity. Pelagius believed man was created neutral and unaffected by the fall, retaining free will. Aquinas' view synthesized Augustine and Pelagius, holding that the fall diminished but did not destroy human nature or free will.
Dr. John Oakes is taught a class on Answering the Hard Questions at the 2015 International Christan Evidence Conference at York College in York, Nebraska, June 19-21. He gave a brief overview of the Christian world view before launching into the Christian answer to the questions both believers and non-believers often struggle with, such as the Trinity, the problem of evil, the problem of suffering, the problem of violence in the Old Testament and the problem of Hell. Notes and power point are here:
1) The document discusses philosophical arguments regarding the problem of evil and suffering in the world and how it relates to the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent God.
2) It examines theodicies proposed by St. Irenaeus and St. Augustine that attempt to reconcile God's attributes with the existence of evil. Irenaeus' theory involves human evolution towards God, while Augustine argues that evil stems from free will and is ultimately part of God's just system.
3) Critics argue that these theodicies cannot logically reconcile an all-powerful God with the existence of unnecessary suffering, and question whether free will outweighs immense pain.
A christian ethical enquiry into the concept of the humanAlexander Decker
1) The document discusses the Catholic Church's view of the human person as presented in the Second Vatican Council.
2) It outlines three key principles that the Council saw as forming the divine elements of the human person: that humans are made in God's image, have a spiritual soul, and are by nature social beings meant to live in community.
3) Respecting the dignity and rights of the human person should be the top priority of all organizations and political systems, according to the Catholic social teaching presented in the document.
A christian ethical enquiry into the concept of the humanAlexander Decker
1) The document discusses the Catholic Church's view of the human person as presented in the Second Vatican Council.
2) It outlines three key principles that the Council saw as forming the divine elements of the human person: that humans are made in God's image, have a spiritual soul, and are by nature social beings meant to live in community.
3) Respecting the dignity and rights of the human person should be the top priority of all organizations and societies according to Catholic social teaching, as degrading or oppressive treatment of people violates their special status as beings created in God's image.
This document discusses various controversies around advertising including whether it influences consumer choice, affects product value, or makes people buy things they don't need. It also discusses the economic and social impacts of advertising. On the economic side, it notes advertising allows for more effective competition, keeps consumers informed, and stimulates competition. From a social perspective, it acknowledges criticisms of advertising being manipulative or deceptive in the short-term and proliferating stereotypes or impacting values in the long-term. The document advocates for socially responsible advertising that promotes harmony. It also outlines various government and non-government bodies that regulate advertising.
Working Capital and Sources of Short-Term FundAvone Lumanao
The document discusses the financing policy and sources of working capital for firms. It defines working capital and explains why it is important for companies. It identifies three approaches to financing working capital: conservative, maturity matching, and aggressive. It also discusses how Philippine firms finance working capital and the sources of short-term funds available, including bank loans, trade financing, and receivable factoring. The key aspects are determining the appropriate financing strategy for a firm's working capital needs and the various short-term sources available, particularly bank loans.
This document discusses human behavior in organizations. It defines human behavior as any conscious or unconscious acts that reflect a person's thoughts, feelings, emotions, and state. Human behavior is influenced by cultural anthropology, psychology, and sociology. Studying human behavior helps understand ourselves and others to improve relationships and organizational productivity. Key variables that affect human behavior in work include work design, performance appraisal, communication, and organizational structure. The document also discusses models of human behavior in organizations and principles like Thorndike's law of effect.
This chapter discusses the evolving meaning of the term "philosophy" from its origins to modern usage. Originally used by Herodotus to describe those who pursued knowledge and investigated nature, like Solon, the term came to be associated with Socrates and his followers in ancient Greece. Early Greek philosophers like Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes engaged in speculative physical theories about the fundamental constituents of the world, marking a turn away from mythological explanations. While their theories seem crude today, they represented an important shift toward a scientific approach. The meaning and scope of "philosophy" has changed over time, but it now generally refers to a group of disciplines involving reflective thought on fundamental problems of reality,
Plato is one of the most influential philosophers in history known for establishing philosophy as a rigorous examination of ethical, political, metaphysical and epistemological issues. He wrote primarily in dialogue form, most featuring Socrates, to explore profound questions in an open-ended way that invites further thought. While Plato is associated with key doctrines like the theory of forms, his works often raise puzzles about these ideas and leave interpretations unfinished, showing philosophy as a living subject. Plato's indirect style through dialogue makes attributing views to him difficult, but he transformed intellectual thought in a lasting way.
This document discusses the biblical teaching on humanity being created in God's image according to Genesis. It argues that being made in God's image gives humanity an inherent purpose and self-worth, in contrast to the view of evolution that sees humanity as having no inherent purpose. It explores what it means to bear God's image based on biblical passages, including having dominion over creation and being in close relationships. It describes how sin defiled and marred God's image in humanity but that restoration is possible through Christ, though the effects of sin remain part of the human experience as believers fight against their fallen nature.
The document discusses the philosophical problem of evil and various attempts throughout history to reconcile the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. It covers Epicurus' argument that evil is incompatible with the existence of gods, Augustine's theodicy that evil originated from free will and is a result of original sin, and William Rowe's evidential argument from evil.
The document discusses two traditional theodicies - the Irenaeus theodicy and the Augustine theodicy - that attempt to reconcile the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent God with the existence of evil and suffering in the world. The Irenaeus theodicy argues that suffering exists to allow humans to evolve spiritually and grow closer to God, while the Augustine theodicy asserts that evil arises from corruption or malfunction and is also used to punish sin and maintain moral balance. However, both theodicies are problematic as they cannot adequately explain how a perfect creation by an all-powerful God could go wrong or malfunction.
The document discusses several philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God. It outlines the moral, ontological, cosmological, teleological, causal, and pragmatic arguments for God's existence. It also discusses empirical, subjective, and problem of evil arguments against God's existence. The problem of evil argues that the co-existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent God with evil in the world is unlikely or impossible.
This document discusses and compares the perspectives on free will within Christianity and Hinduism. In Christianity, it examines various theological solutions to reconciling free will with divine attributes such as predestination and foreknowledge, including Augustine's compatibilism, Boethius' denial of divine temporality, Ockham's distinction between hard and soft facts, and Molina's doctrine of middle knowledge. In Hinduism, it discusses the metaphysical downgrading of morality, the compatibilist agenda in reconciling karma and free will, challenges to libertarian karma, and the paradox of the victim and perpetrator regarding free will and moral responsibility.
Although darkness and evil only existed as concepts in original consciousness, Lucifer believed that it had already manifested. God told Lucifer of evil, but Lucifer believed that it was real because it was a concept in his mind, so he manifested it and that’s our battle. God created us to do something but we're coming up with our own concepts so therefore we’re manifesting something against the sovereignty of God.
- The universe exists because God spoke it into existence out of nothing according to the biblical creation account. How we view origins shapes our entire worldview.
- The Genesis creation story describes God bringing order from chaos over six days by speaking light, land, plants, stars, animals and humanity into being.
- Humanity is uniquely made in God's image to have dominion over creation and enjoy relationship with our Creator, explaining why we and the universe exist.
The radical, revolutionary concept of grace power pointLatimerMinster
The document discusses the concept of grace in Christianity, describing it as God offering salvation through Jesus Christ alone rather than through human works or merit. Grace is defined as "everything for nothing to those who don't deserve anything." The presentation explores how grace should motivate Christians to live gratefully and extend grace towards others.
Augustine's anthropology viewed humanity as created in God's image but fallen from grace. He believed that while humans have free will, we are restless due to our separation from God and inability to attain satisfaction on our own. For Augustine, true freedom and fulfillment can only be achieved through God's grace. He saw the human condition as fundamentally flawed due to things like desires of the flesh, but that love and opening ourselves to God's grace allows for spiritual growth and progress, if not perfection. Overall, Augustine placed God at the center of human nature and purpose, with our identity and fulfillment found through relationship with our Creator.
Augustine of Hippo proposed a theodicy to address the problem of evil. He argued that (1) evil came about as a result of free will when Lucifer and angels rebelled against God and (2) when Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating the forbidden fruit. Augustine saw the world as originally good but evil entered through the misuse of free will. He believed evil was a privation or lack of goodness rather than a substance. Natural evil resulted from humans upsetting the order of the universe. Later critics argued that Augustine's view did not align with modern theories of evolution and the nature of evil.
L8 ethics of thomas aquinas and augustineArnel Rivera
This document summarizes the views of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas on the origin of good and evil. It explains that for Augustine, evil is not a created thing but rather an absence of good, as God created all things good. Moral evil arises from misdirected love away from God. Aquinas built on Aristotle's virtue ethics and agreed morality is found through natural law and reason, but added divine law from God's revelation. Both saw all good coming from God alone.
This document discusses several philosophical perspectives on the problem of evil and how they relate to the existence and nature of God. It examines views such as Augustine's hierarchy of being, Irenaeus' argument that suffering enables growth, Aquinas' view that evil is the absence of good, and free will defenses put forth by Plantinga and others. The document also considers objections like the evidential problem of evil and process theodicy. Overall, it analyzes philosophical attempts to explain why an omnipotent and good God would allow the intense human and animal suffering that exists in the world.
This document provides a summary and comparison of the views of Augustine, Pelagius, and Aquinas on the doctrine of original sin. It discusses their perspectives on the state of man before the fall and the effects of the fall. For Augustine, man was created good but lost his free will and ability to not sin due to the fall, which corrupted all of humanity. Pelagius believed man was created neutral and unaffected by the fall, retaining free will. Aquinas' view synthesized Augustine and Pelagius, holding that the fall diminished but did not destroy human nature or free will.
Dr. John Oakes is taught a class on Answering the Hard Questions at the 2015 International Christan Evidence Conference at York College in York, Nebraska, June 19-21. He gave a brief overview of the Christian world view before launching into the Christian answer to the questions both believers and non-believers often struggle with, such as the Trinity, the problem of evil, the problem of suffering, the problem of violence in the Old Testament and the problem of Hell. Notes and power point are here:
1) The document discusses philosophical arguments regarding the problem of evil and suffering in the world and how it relates to the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent God.
2) It examines theodicies proposed by St. Irenaeus and St. Augustine that attempt to reconcile God's attributes with the existence of evil. Irenaeus' theory involves human evolution towards God, while Augustine argues that evil stems from free will and is ultimately part of God's just system.
3) Critics argue that these theodicies cannot logically reconcile an all-powerful God with the existence of unnecessary suffering, and question whether free will outweighs immense pain.
A christian ethical enquiry into the concept of the humanAlexander Decker
1) The document discusses the Catholic Church's view of the human person as presented in the Second Vatican Council.
2) It outlines three key principles that the Council saw as forming the divine elements of the human person: that humans are made in God's image, have a spiritual soul, and are by nature social beings meant to live in community.
3) Respecting the dignity and rights of the human person should be the top priority of all organizations and political systems, according to the Catholic social teaching presented in the document.
A christian ethical enquiry into the concept of the humanAlexander Decker
1) The document discusses the Catholic Church's view of the human person as presented in the Second Vatican Council.
2) It outlines three key principles that the Council saw as forming the divine elements of the human person: that humans are made in God's image, have a spiritual soul, and are by nature social beings meant to live in community.
3) Respecting the dignity and rights of the human person should be the top priority of all organizations and societies according to Catholic social teaching, as degrading or oppressive treatment of people violates their special status as beings created in God's image.
Similar to Augustine advocate of free will defender of predestination (9)
This document discusses various controversies around advertising including whether it influences consumer choice, affects product value, or makes people buy things they don't need. It also discusses the economic and social impacts of advertising. On the economic side, it notes advertising allows for more effective competition, keeps consumers informed, and stimulates competition. From a social perspective, it acknowledges criticisms of advertising being manipulative or deceptive in the short-term and proliferating stereotypes or impacting values in the long-term. The document advocates for socially responsible advertising that promotes harmony. It also outlines various government and non-government bodies that regulate advertising.
Working Capital and Sources of Short-Term FundAvone Lumanao
The document discusses the financing policy and sources of working capital for firms. It defines working capital and explains why it is important for companies. It identifies three approaches to financing working capital: conservative, maturity matching, and aggressive. It also discusses how Philippine firms finance working capital and the sources of short-term funds available, including bank loans, trade financing, and receivable factoring. The key aspects are determining the appropriate financing strategy for a firm's working capital needs and the various short-term sources available, particularly bank loans.
This document discusses human behavior in organizations. It defines human behavior as any conscious or unconscious acts that reflect a person's thoughts, feelings, emotions, and state. Human behavior is influenced by cultural anthropology, psychology, and sociology. Studying human behavior helps understand ourselves and others to improve relationships and organizational productivity. Key variables that affect human behavior in work include work design, performance appraisal, communication, and organizational structure. The document also discusses models of human behavior in organizations and principles like Thorndike's law of effect.
This chapter discusses the evolving meaning of the term "philosophy" from its origins to modern usage. Originally used by Herodotus to describe those who pursued knowledge and investigated nature, like Solon, the term came to be associated with Socrates and his followers in ancient Greece. Early Greek philosophers like Thales, Anaximander, and Anaximenes engaged in speculative physical theories about the fundamental constituents of the world, marking a turn away from mythological explanations. While their theories seem crude today, they represented an important shift toward a scientific approach. The meaning and scope of "philosophy" has changed over time, but it now generally refers to a group of disciplines involving reflective thought on fundamental problems of reality,
Plato is one of the most influential philosophers in history known for establishing philosophy as a rigorous examination of ethical, political, metaphysical and epistemological issues. He wrote primarily in dialogue form, most featuring Socrates, to explore profound questions in an open-ended way that invites further thought. While Plato is associated with key doctrines like the theory of forms, his works often raise puzzles about these ideas and leave interpretations unfinished, showing philosophy as a living subject. Plato's indirect style through dialogue makes attributing views to him difficult, but he transformed intellectual thought in a lasting way.
The document summarizes Plato's Allegory of the Cave from Book VII of The Republic. It describes prisoners chained in an underground cave seeing only shadows projected on a wall from a fire behind them. If released, they would be blinded by the real world outside. The allegory represents how ignorant people perceive reality based on illusions rather than truth, and how philosophical reasoning can lead to enlightenment about real forms rather than their shadows. The philosopher-kings who leave the cave and gain understanding would be best at governing the state, though they may not desire to rule.
The document outlines 6 rules for determining the validity of categorical syllogisms:
1) A valid syllogism has only 3 terms.
2) The middle term must be distributed in at least one premise.
3) Any term distributed in the conclusion must be distributed in the premises.
4) A valid syllogism cannot have two negative premises.
5) If a premise is negative, the conclusion must be negative.
6) Particular propositions cannot be drawn from universal premises.
Following these 6 rules is sufficient to determine whether a categorical syllogism is valid or invalid.
Kant's Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals discusses the difference between things that are unconditionally good and those that are good only under certain conditions. Kant argues that a good will is the only thing that is unconditionally good. He also discusses the difference between acting from duty versus acting for other reasons like reward or inclination. Kant proposes the categorical imperative as the moral law: to act only according to maxims that one can universalize as applying to all people. He provides examples of actions that fail the categorical imperative test by either not being universally applicable or by being actions one could not consistently will to be universalized.
Nicomachean ethics by aristotle summaryAvone Lumanao
1) Aristotle begins his Nicomachean Ethics by hypothesizing that all people aim for the highest good or happiness. He aims to test this hypothesis by examining human action and determining what constitutes the highest good.
2) Aristotle analyzes different conceptions of the good life, such as a life of pleasure or honor. He determines that virtue must be the highest good since it alone is good in itself.
3) Aristotle defines virtue as a mean between deficiencies and excesses of emotions and actions. He provides a chart of intellectual and moral virtues. Developing virtue requires habituating good actions and avoiding deficiency and excess.
1. Plato wrote primarily in dialogue form, depicting philosophical discussions between historical figures in various social settings.
2. His dialogues often raise philosophical puzzles and questions without providing definitive answers, drawing readers into thinking further about the issues.
3. Plato is considered one of the most influential philosophers for introducing ideas like the theory of forms - that perfect, eternal ideas or forms exist beyond the imperfect sensory world. However, his works also express uncertainty about some doctrines and leave open questions for further exploration.
This document provides an introduction and overview of the book "An Introduction to Philosophy" by George Stuart Fullerton. It outlines the scope and purpose of the book, which is to explain what philosophy is, describe the main problems philosophers address, outline important philosophical doctrines, and argue that studying philosophy has value. The introduction also provides some biographical information about the author and encourages readers to consider the philosophical perspective presented throughout the book.
The Hope of Salvation - Jude 1:24-25 - MessageCole Hartman
Jude gives us hope at the end of a dark letter. In a dark world like today, we need the light of Christ to shine brighter and brighter. Jude shows us where to fix our focus so we can be filled with God's goodness and glory. Join us to explore this incredible passage.
Why is this So? ~ Do Seek to KNOW (English & Chinese).pptxOH TEIK BIN
A PowerPoint Presentation based on the Dhamma teaching of Kamma-Vipaka (Intentional Actions-Ripening Effects).
A Presentation for developing morality, concentration and wisdom and to spur us to practice the Dhamma diligently.
The texts are in English and Chinese.
The forces involved in this witchcraft spell will re-establish the loving bond between you and help to build a strong, loving relationship from which to start anew. Despite any previous hardships or problems, the spell work will re-establish the strong bonds of friendship and love upon which the marriage and relationship originated. Have faith, these stop divorce and stop separation spells are extremely powerful and will reconnect you and your partner in a strong and harmonious relationship.
My ritual will not only stop separation and divorce, but rebuild a strong bond between you and your partner that is based on truth, honesty, and unconditional love. For an even stronger effect, you may want to consider using the Eternal Love Bond spell to ensure your relationship and love will last through all tests of time. If you have not yet determined if your partner is considering separation or divorce, but are aware of rifts in the relationship, try the Love Spells to remove problems in a relationship or marriage. Keep in mind that all my love spells are 100% customized and that you'll only need 1 spell to address all problems/wishes.
Save your marriage from divorce & make your relationship stronger using anti divorce spells to make him or her fall back in love with you. End your marriage if you are no longer in love with your husband or wife. Permanently end your marriage using divorce spells that work fast. Protect your marriage from divorce using love spells to boost commitment, love & bind your hearts together for a stronger marriage that will last. Get your ex lover who has remarried using divorce spells to break up a couple & make your ex lost lover come back to you permanently.
Visit https://www.profbalaj.com/love-spells-loves-spells-that-work/
Call/WhatsApp +27836633417 for more info.
Sanatan Vastu | Experience Great Living | Vastu ExpertSanatan Vastu
Santan Vastu Provides Vedic astrology courses & Vastu remedies, If you are searching Vastu for home, Vastu for kitchen, Vastu for house, Vastu for Office & Factory. Best Vastu in Bahadurgarh. Best Vastu in Delhi NCR
The Book of Ruth is included in the third division, or the Writings, of the Hebrew Bible. In most Christian canons it is treated as one of the historical books and placed between Judges and 1 Samuel.
A Free eBook ~ Valuable LIFE Lessons to Learn ( 5 Sets of Presentations)...OH TEIK BIN
A free eBook comprising 5 sets of PowerPoint presentations of meaningful stories /Inspirational pieces that teach important Dhamma/Life lessons. For reflection and practice to develop the mind to grow in love, compassion and wisdom. The texts are in English and Chinese.
My other free eBooks can be obtained from the following Links:
https://www.slideshare.net/ohteikbin/presentations
https://www.slideshare.net/ohteikbin/documents
The Enchantment and Shadows_ Unveiling the Mysteries of Magic and Black Magic...Phoenix O
This manual will guide you through basic skills and tasks to help you get started with various aspects of Magic. Each section is designed to be easy to follow, with step-by-step instructions.
A375 Example Taste the taste of the Lord, the taste of the Lord The taste of...franktsao4
It seems that current missionary work requires spending a lot of money, preparing a lot of materials, and traveling to far away places, so that it feels like missionary work. But what was the result they brought back? It's just a lot of photos of activities, fun eating, drinking and some playing games. And then we have to do the same thing next year, never ending. The church once mentioned that a certain missionary would go to the field where she used to work before the end of his life. It seemed that if she had not gone, no one would be willing to go. The reason why these missionary work is so difficult is that no one obeys God’s words, and the Bible is not the main content during missionary work, because in the eyes of those who do not obey God’s words, the Bible is just words and cannot be connected with life, so Reading out God's words is boring because it doesn't have any life experience, so it cannot be connected with human life. I will give a few examples in the hope that this situation can be changed. A375
A375 Example Taste the taste of the Lord, the taste of the Lord The taste of...
Augustine advocate of free will defender of predestination
1. T H E O L O G Y
Augustine: Advocate of Free Will, Defender
of Predestination
Brandon Peterson
The relationship between God and mankind has been one of distress and apparent
contradiction. The story of the Fall in the third chapter of Genesis gives an account of our present
existence, which is marked by the fundamental separation of man and his Creator, each of whom
reside on a different side of a barrier of sin. The barrier, which Genesis tells us was built by
Adam’s fault, poses two major issues for the Judeo-Christian tradition. The first is that the side
on which man resides, removed from the source of goodness and fulfillment, is permeated by
evil, suffering, and sin. An archetypal question arising from this situation is how God, who is
both omnipotent and maximally good, can permit the existence of such evil, and furthermore,
how evil can even exist since the beneficent Creator is the source of all. The second profound
issue concerns the reunification of God and humans: how is the barrier of sin broken and the gap
bridged; who is active in traversing it?
One of the formative teachers in the Christian tradition made it his life’s ambition to
answer these questions, along with innumerable others. Saint Augustine, the great philosopher,
theologian, and bishop of Hippo, is remembered as an authority concerning these two issues.
Relatively early in his life, he approached the problem of evil from a Neo-Platonist perspective,
famously asserting that evil is truly a lack of goodness and is a reality not on account of God, but
on account of human free will. Later in his life, Augustine addressed the issue of reunification of
God and mankind in the midst of the heated Pelagian controversy. While his opponents claimed
that the very free will which Augustine earlier championed was the efficient lynchpin of our
salvation, Augustine firmly declared that God’s grace was salvation’s source and eventually
began to use the term “predestination” to describe the deliverance of man from his plight.
While Augustine is acknowledged as a Church Doctor and one of the most respectable
and influential thinkers to have ever written, it is difficult to comprehend how any intellectual
could argue so fervently for concepts as dissimilar as free will and predestination. The two, it
seems, are mutually exclusive. If a person is predestined, his free choice appears to be rendered
rather illusory, or at best, trivial. This has led some of his readers to conclude that there existed
two Augustines, “the earlier teacher, who proclaimed the freedom of the will; and the later
Doctor of Grace and defender of Predestination.”1
Augustine, however, was not as inconsistent as
one might think. By considering passages from his De Libero Arbitrio, De Civitate Dei, and the
Enchiridion, it becomes apparent that Augustine’s carefully formulated answers to the problem
of evil and the source of reunification are not contradictory. Furthermore, while Augustine
2. adjusts his formulation of the will’s attributes as time progresses, his principles and overall
schema do not change so much as do his audience and the social context in which he is writing.
In his last years, Augustine is comfortable maintaining the verity of both predestinarian grace
and free will, and even ventures to say that they work together.
Free Will and the Problem of Evil: 388-395
The problem of evil presented a challenge to Augustine from early in his life. Indeed, as
he recalls in his Confessiones, it was the dualist explanation of the presence of evil that led
Augustine to involve himself with the Manichees.2
This group spoke of a dualistic universe in
which supreme good battled supreme evil, and denied the existence of a single, all-powerful, and
beneficent God. For them, the problem of evil was not a problem at all, since evil was a
fundamental part of their schema. However, Saint Ambrose’s teaching led Augustine to study
Neo-Platonist philosophy, in which he learned “that the problem of evil could be solved without
supposing evil to be a positive, independent principle.”3
Armed with this philosophy and a
formulation of human free will, Augustine set out to argue that the benevolent Christian God is
in no way responsible for the evil evident in the world.
It is important to recognize that, following the Neo-Platonist Plotinus, Augustine
recognizes evil not as a positive reality, but rather as a privation of good. Since God, the ultimate
Good, is the source of being from which all else receives its being, evil is simply the lack of
being, just as coldness is truly a lack of heat. Evil things are removed farther from God on the
cosmic scale of being, and thus, evil itself does not exist. However, Augustine is still compelled
to account for God’s allowance of the “lack of good” to occur.
Augustine’s De Libero Arbitrio, or On Free Will, is a dialogue with a historical friend
named Evodius. Augustine begins by quickly establishing the issue he wishes to explore: “We
believe that everything which exists is created by one God, and yet that God is not the cause of
sin. The difficulty is: if sins go back to souls created by God, and souls go back to God, how can
we avoid before long tracing sin back to God?”4
It is at this point that Augustine offers his basic
and essential solution by appealing to human free will as the blameworthy source of sin. Clearly,
humans do evil in agreement with the decisions rendered by their minds. However, “since what
is equal or superior does not make a mind the slave of passion, if it is in control and virtuous, on
account of its justice, while what is inferior cannot do this on account of its weakness…nothing
makes a mind give way to desire except its own will and free choice.”5
Appealing to a hierarchy
of nobility (a Neo-Platonic emanatory notion), Augustine argues that nothing, whether nobler or
less noble than a mind, can cause the mind to will evil; so nothing but the will itself can be the
source.
The early sections of the De Libero Arbitrio tell us an important fact about the human
will: it was intended for good. Evodius prompts this discussion by declaring, “I want to know
whether that very free choice, by which we have concluded that we have power of sinning, ought
to have been given us by Him who created us.”6
Ironically, here Augustine asks for God’s
providential help in answering Evodius’s question regarding the power of free will!7
Even in this
small instance in his early writing, Augustine sees no exclusivity between free will and divine
assistance. Anyway, the consideration at hand is whether it was irresponsible of God to have
given us a will which brings about evil. Augustine answers that simply because “sin occurs
through free will, we must not suppose God gave man free will for the purpose of sinning.”8
3. Rather, it “is sufficient reason why it ought to be given, that man cannot live rightly without it.”9
The proper and intended use of free will is to choose the good. To use free will in any other
manner is a perversion for which, as was discovered before, only the will is liable. Again, since
he had good intentions (which Adam spoiled), God is not to blame even for giving humans a
will, despite the fact that it may be used for evil.
Another interesting result from this discussion does not concern God’s liability, but the
will itself. Augustine claimed that without the will, “man cannot live rightly.” He affirms in yet
another place, “We could not act rightly except by this free choice of will.”10
The logic here is
simple: man cannot choose the good without having the ability to choose. However, it is
significant to note that the language he uses implies (yet never definitively states) that man can,
in his present state, choose some form of good. This notion will be quite different in later years,
and it is, indeed, one aspect of Augustine’s thought that he adjusts over time.
Evodius is not prepared to acquit God quite yet in the discussion. They have yet to
consider the extent to which man’s will is truly free, a consideration which is inexorably bound
to the question of God’s foreknowledge. It is a classic difficulty: if God’s omniscience includes
being privy to a man’s decision before it occurs, how can it be maintained that the man makes a
genuine choice, since he will inevitably choose what God knows? Boethius will later address the
dilemma by arguing that God cannot be thought of as if he were within the realm of time, but
Augustine argues without appealing to God’s eternality. He accomplishes this by asserting that
knowledge does not imply causality. “When you remember past events you do not compel them
to have happened, and in the same way God does not compel future events to happen by His
foreknowledge of them.”11
Elaborating, he considers the idea of foreknowledge in human-to-
human interaction, as would be the case of a mother knowing her child would steal a cookie, if
given the chance. However, her knowledge does not restrict the choice of her child.
You would not necessarily compel a man to sin by foreknowing his sin. Your foreknowledge
would not be the cause of his sin, though undoubtedly he would sin; otherwise you would not
foreknow that this would happen. Therefore these two are not contradictory, your
foreknowledge and someone else’s free act. So too God compels no one to sin, though He
foresees those who will sin by their own will.12
Since there is no direct causal relation between foreknowledge and a person’s choice, Augustine
concludes that it is safe to assert that one’s will can truly be spoken of as free, and accordingly,
blameworthy for its election to sin.
We should consider one more passage of the De Libero Arbitrio. “Do not be troubled by
the blame accorded to sinful souls, and do not say in your heart it would have been better had
they never existed. They are blamed in comparison with themselves, when it is realised what
they would be, if they had chosen not to sin.”13
This passage references the important theme of
God’s justice, which Augustine asserts strongly in his later writings concerning predestination.
He tells us not to “be troubled” by the fact that sinners are guilty (and will be punished
accordingly), for it is by their own choice that they are deserving of judgment. However, the
final sentence offers an interesting insight into Augustine’s mind at the time: “when it is realised
what they would be, if they had not chosen to sin.” The passage seems to indicate that sinners
had an alternate future, a notion at which a predestinarian would cringe. This observation would
give credence to an argument that Augustine was closed to predestinarian notions at the time and
that he later turned his opinions one hundred and eighty degrees to accommodate the theory.
However, the conclusion to which Augustine refers—an alternate future for each individual who
4. exists after the Fall—cannot be maintained satisfactorily, since there is the possibility that
Augustine here refers to an alternate future for humanity which preceded the Fall, a future which
may not be a self-contained possibility for Adam’s descendants.
What Augustine has definitively stated thus far is that God is not culpable for the
presence of evil. For the will is the source of evil, God gave the will for the use of good, God’s
foreknowledge coexists harmoniously with man’s free will, and God is just in judging sinners,
since their sin is the result of free will. As one may notice, Augustine’s notion of the will in De
Libero Arbitrio is rather unrestrained. “It lies in the will what each man chooses to seek and
attach himself to.”14
The will is not described here as damaged, weak, or lacking power (as it will
clearly be described in the approaching decades). On the other hand, Augustine does give a
preview of coming attractions, so to speak, by mentioning that the soul is “corrupted by sin”15
and “stained with sin.”16
Apart from these instances, Augustine’s depiction of the will is very
permissive and optimistic. It must be remembered, however, that in this work, Augustine is
attempting to, without implicating God, “answer the Manichaean objection to Christianity”17
which is based on evil, and a strong will is necessary to assert that “the mind is not cast down
from its position of control, and from its right order, except by the will.”18
Augustine never goes
so far as to preclude the possibility of limitations of the will; he simply refrains from mentioning
any, which, considering his purpose, is a wise decision.
Freedom and God’s Election: De Civitate Dei, c. 415
One of Augustine’s most well-known and monumental works is De Civitate Dei, or City
of God. Written in the thirteen-year period between 413 and 426, this work addresses issues so
diverse that it “can almost serve as a handbook for Christian thought,”19
though it would indeed
be a very large handbook. Included in this collection is discussion of the human will. Over the
twenty-five years or so between this work and De Libero Arbitrio, Augustine’s thinking evolved
in many areas, as noted by Augustine scholar Gerald Bonner: “In 396 or 397 there occurred a
major development in his thought….he suddenly came to understand the message of St Paul
expressed in the words: What have you that you did not receive? If then you received it, why do
you boast as if it were not a gift?”20
Satisfied with his refutation of the Manichean concept of evil, Augustine turned to God’s
grace, the topic addressed in the passage from the ninth chapter of Romans cited by Bonner.
While many believe that Augustine’s formulations of grace and predestination were developed in
the midst of his arguments with Pelagian theologians, his reading of Romans 9 had a formulaic
influence that far preceded the first whisperings of Pelagius. The implications are evident in a
passage from his De diversis quaestionibus VII ad Simplicianum (written shortly after De Libero
Arbitrio), in which he maintains his stance regarding God’s culpability from De Libero but adds
a new twist. God does not compel any person to sin, “He simply does not bestow his justifying
mercy on some sinners…He decides who are not to be offered mercy by a standard of equity
which is most secret and far removed from human powers of understanding.”21
This statement
seems strikingly “anti-Pelagian” for the time it was written and, even more interestingly, sounds
shocking given the defense he gave of free will just years before. However, this radical
juxtaposition of thought in no way stopped Augustine from making the assertion. Passages from
De Civitate Dei will shed some light on the details in Augustine’s ante-predestinarian attitude,
which, it turns out, is not at odds with free will.
5. In the fifth book of De Civitate Dei, written between 414 and 418, Augustine once again
visits the idea of God’s foreknowledge, this time inspired by Cicero’s denial of its existence.22
Setting the tone for the discussion to follow, he writes of God as the “most high, who is most
rightly and most truly believed to know all things before they come to pass, and to leave nothing
unordained; from whom are all powers, although the wills of all are not from Him.”23
The
terminology “ordained” has found its way into Augustine’s language, but not at the expense of
the freedom of wills, all of which “are not from” God. He continues, “We assert both that God
knows all things before they come to pass, and that we do by our free will whatsoever we know
and feel to be done by us only because we will it.”24
Although it sounds identical thus far,
Augustine’s argument about foreknowledge and free will is not a replica of that in De Libero
Arbitrio. He delves deeper into it, establishing, paradoxically, a closer relationship between such
knowledge and human freedom.
Cicero objected that if God had foreknowledge of future events, he must also have
foreknowledge of the efficient causes leading up to those future events. If this is so, he reasoned,
a series of efficient causes, beginning now, must necessarily exist in this world as well as in
God’s knowledge. This series of causes would guarantee the occurrence of any future event and
inevitably render the will a slave to the efficient causes. Augustine does not agree: “But it does
not follow that, though there is for God a certain order of all causes, there must therefore be
nothing depending on the free exercise of our own wills, for our wills themselves are included in
the order of causes which is certain to God, and is embraced by His foreknowledge, for human
wills are also causes of human actions.”25
Where before Augustine simply denied that
foreknowledge causes an action, he here suggests that God’s knowledge includes the future free
choice of the will. Foreknowledge and free will are then fundamentally and harmoniously
connected, since the will is a validly efficient cause known by God. Augustine has begun to
move God’s power and man’s choice into closer relationship with one another while maintaining
the validity of each.
Augustine continues in his reiteration of arguments in De Libero Arbitrio in the twelfth
book (written before 418) by affirming, once again, that evil originates in the will and not in
God. God did not create a naturally sinful human race, he writes. “It is not nature, therefore, but
vice, which is contrary to God.”26
Augustine is wary of speaking of any “sinful nature” belonging
to humans, since “nature” is created and talk of “sinful nature” would once again bring up the
problem of evil. He even avoids talk of habitually sinful actions as “nature”, preferring the term,
“second nature”: “Even the vice which by the force of habit and long continuance has become a
second nature, had its origin in the will.”27
Vice finds its source in the will, not in created nature;
the only relationship that vice has with nature is that, through sin, it distorts nature. The
culpability for evil, in agreement with his earlier writings, still rests squarely on the will and not
on God.
A crucial issue in the development of his schema of grace and predestination is the cause
of an evil will. Augustine proposes an example to illustrate his query. Consider “two men, alike
in physical and moral constitution,” who are tempted to an evil (Augustine uses illicit bodily
pleasure in his hypothetical situation). One submits to temptation and sins, “while the other
steadfastly maintains a modest restraint of his will.” In this situation, what brings about the evil
will in the one and not the other? Could it be the flesh of the one, he asks? No, he reasons; both
men had flesh. Could it be their dispositions? It could not be, since they were assumed to have
like moral constitutions.
6. If both are tempted equally, and one yields and consents to the temptation, while the other
remains unmoved by it, what other account can we give the matter than this, that the one is
willing, the other unwilling…? And what causes this but their own wills…?...However
minutely we examine the case, therefore, we can discern nothing which caused the will of one
to be evil.28
Augustine draws his conclusion regarding the efficient cause of an evil will: “There is
none. For what is it which makes the will bad, when it is the will itself which makes the action
bad? And consequently the bad will is the cause of the bad action, but nothing is the efficient
cause of the bad will.”29
This may seem like a “cheap” solution, or even a capitulation on the part
of Augustine in his search for an answer. In fact, though, it is a pivotal conclusion in the context
of his Neo-Platonic background. “Nothing is the efficient cause of the bad will” is a specific
reference to evil, which is both the privation of good and the lack of being. It is nonsensical,
therefore, to inquire about a cause of an evil will:
Let no one, therefore, look for an efficient cause of the evil will; for it is not efficient, but
deficient, as the will itself is not an effecting of something, but a defect…Now, to seek to
discover the causes of these defections—causes, as I have said, not efficient, but deficient—is
as if some one sought to see darkness, or hear silence. Yet both of these are known by us…not
by their positive actuality, but by their want of it.30
It becomes even more apparent that God cannot be considered to cause an evil will, since he is
Being and evil is merely a privation. We cannot seek the cause of an evil will; the very starting
point must be the will, which freely chooses evil, and in doing so, turns away from God. As
interesting and perplexing as the issue of choosing evil is, the truly illuminating aspect of
Augustine’s thought here is the counterpart of the will and what it means to choose good.
While “nothing” is the cause of an evil choice, a truly “good” choice is participating in
Being, and since this Being is the source of all good, he must also be the source of a good
choice.Augustine begins, “the nature of God can never, nowhere, nowise be defective.”31
God is
the perfect wellspring of goodness. Earlier Augustine argued that God did not create a sinful
human nature, but good nature that was damaged by admitting “nothingness” as one of its
sources. Concerning non-perfect natures Augustine explains, “the more being they have, and the
more good they do (for then they do something positive), the more they have efficient causes.”32
The cause of good things in humans is God, and, as Augustine argues in the next section, this
includes the free human will.
In the ninth section of the twelfth book, Augustine considers angels, which, like humans,
have wills. Supplementing his earlier claim that nothing is the cause of evil wills, he writes that
one cannot deny a cause of a good will. “As to the good will, if we should say that there is no
efficient cause of it, we must beware of giving currency to the opinion that the good will of the
good angels is not created, but is co-eternal with God.”33
Such a conclusion is clearly
unacceptable, since only God is eternal. Like humans, angels must have been created with a good
will, the cause of which is God.
We are driven to believe that the holy angels never existed without a good will or the love of
God. But the angels who, though created good, are yet evil now, became so by their own
will….These angels, therefore, either received less of the grace of the divine love than those
who persevered in the same; or if both were created equally good, then while the one fell by
their evil will, the others were more abundantly assisted.34
7. Angels who chose the good were assisted by God in doing so, by virtue of the fact that it was a
good choice. But Augustine makes the startling assertion that they were “more abundantly
assisted” than those angels who chose evil (through their own will, since that choice has nothing
as its cause). God elected a group to which to offer more abundant assistance; this position is
nothing short of predestinarian.
We must remember, though, that God is still not the cause of any evil, since that evil
came from the will, which is free. The will can choose the good or the bad: in choosing the good,
it is being fueled by God, who is the source of goodness, while in choosing the bad, it does so on
its own accord, separate from God and relegating itself to a lesser state of being. Choosing to sin
is a free action insofar as nothing but the willing being is responsible for the decision, while
choosing the good (through the assistance of God) is free since it is participating in Being to a
fuller extent, not bound by the restraints of nothingness.
In the fifth and twelfth books of De Civitate Dei, Augustine used his Neo-Platonist
background to both defend the freedom of the will and flesh out his earlier assertion that God
“simply does not bestow his justifying mercy on some sinners.” This assertion will be even more
fully explored by examining God’s justice in his next writings, but as for now, Augustine has
provided an explanation as to why righteous souls must be elected by God: they could not be
righteous apart from his involvement, since anything apart from his involvement is wicked and
of lesser being. “For, as He is the creator of all natures, so also is He the bestower of all powers,
not of all wills; for wicked wills are not from Him, being contrary to nature, which is from
Him.”35
Weakness of the Will: The Enchiridion, 421-422
The final years of Augustine’s life, which ended in 430, were filled with heated debates
with the Pelagians. Pelagius himself was offended by Augustine’s remark in the Confessiones,
“Grant what Thou does command, and command what Thou wilt.”36
Pelagius believed the
remark degraded man’s free will, through which, he argued, humans could independently choose
the good. This view, obviously incompatible with Augustine’s opinions, sparked a fierce debate
which shaped the tone of the bishop’s later works. While the debate with Pelagius himself was
occurring concurrently with the writing of books five and twelve of De Civitate Dei (and ended
with Pelagius’ condemnation in 418), the controversy continued to escalate with Julian of
Eclanum in the last decade of Augustine’s life. In these years, Augustine made some of his
boldest proclamations regarding predestination. However, as we have seen, the groundwork for
Augustine’s predestinarian schema was present even before 400: his theory of predestination did
not originate with the Pelagian controversy. Rather, his predestinarian ideas were heavily
explored, accented, and developed as a result of it.
Shortly after 420, Augustine wrote a work called the Enchiridion. The work was written
upon request of a Roman named Laurentius, who desired a handbook of Christian doctrine that
answered various questions. In this work, which was written in the midst of the Pelagian debate
concerning wills, Augustine treats the matter of wills quite thoroughly. With the controversy
brewing in the back of his mind, Augustine emphasizes the power of God in relation to human
beings, stresses God’s justice in relation to our sinfulness, and steadfastly maintains that God is
not culpable for the presence of evil in creation.
8. Augustine’s writing in the work clearly has an anti-Pelagian tone, specifically in the
following passage, in which he speaks of the will as damaged to a much greater extent than he
has in the previous two works we have addressed.
Can [sinners] be restored through the merit of their own works? God forbid. For what good
work can a lost man perform, except so far as he has been delivered from perdition? Can they
do anything by the free determination of their own will? Again I say, God forbid. For it was
by the evil use of his free-will that man destroyed both it and himself. For, as a man who kills
himself must, of course, be alive when he kills himself, but after he has killed himself ceases
to live, and cannot restore himself to life; so, when man by his own free-will sinned, then sin
being victorious over him, the freedom of his will was lost.37
Augustine’s manner of speaking must be considered carefully when interpreting a passage such
as the one above. Although his words express the idea that man’s will has been obliterated
completely, this is far from the point Augustine is making, and in fact, he speaks otherwise just
sentences later. It must be remembered that Augustine was a professor of rhetoric and he writes
as a rhetorician speaks, using flamboyant images and words to make his point against an
adversary. The will which Augustine speaks of as “destroyed” is the will which can freely
choose to love God, for apart from God’s grace, fallen man cannot accomplish such a feat. This
does not necessarily mean, however, that man does not have any will, nor does it mean that
man’s will is not free. Augustine argues that one’s freedom depends on who, or what, he is
serving:
He is freely in bondage who does with pleasure the will of his master. Accordingly, he
who is the servant of sin is free to sin. And hence he will not be free to do right, until,
being freed from sin, he shall begin to be the servant of righteousness. And this is true
liberty, for he has pleasure in the righteous deed; and it is at the same time a holy
bondage, for he is obedient to the will of God.38
Sinners are free only insofar as they can sin, since they are slaves to sin. But the righteous are
redeemed and slaves of Christ, their master, and so through Christ, they are free to do good,
which is “true liberty.” He later expounds upon this notion: “We shall be made truly free, then,
when God fashions us, that is, forms and creates us anew, not as men—for He has done that
already—but as good men, which His grace is now doing, that we may be a new creation in
Christ Jesus.”39
It is the grace of Christ that transforms us, and this is given by God to the elect. Thus,
only through God’s election may the wills of men become good. Augustine, with Pelagian
opponents in mind, mentions that some deny that God would change the will of a person. To
them he responds, “Why are we taught to pray for our enemies, who are plainly unwilling to lead
a holy life, unless that God may work willingness in them?”40
He pushes the point further, stating
that not only can God change one’s will, but it is only through God’s work that a will can
become good. “Now against [sins of ignorance and weakness] it is our duty to struggle; but we
shall certainly be beaten in the fight, unless we are helped by God, not only to see our duty, but
also, when we clearly see it, to make the love of righteousness stronger in us.”41
As in De
Civitate Dei, Augustine makes God’s mercy the central lynchpin in a man’s choosing of the
good, so much so that “the mercy of God is necessary not only when a man repents, but even to
lead him to repent.”42
Man, as the result of sin, is described here as incredibly feeble, so feeble
9. that he cannot even begin to repent on his own. Thus, those to whom God does indeed grant
mercy must be chosen and destined to receive it from the beginning of time.
Augustine’s predestinarian ideas, while fitting with his Neo-Platonic background and
logical reasoning, present two very problematic concerns, both involving the very issue
addressed in his De Libero Arbitrio, namely, God’s goodness despite the presence of evil. The
first is that with man’s weakness so heavily brandished, Augustine seems to portray a God who
is rather arbitrary and cruel in choosing only some to save and others to leave for perdition.
Indeed, what kind of good God would choose to save only some of his children? Augustine
addresses the problem by citing an idea he discussed even in De Libero: God’s justice.43
God is not only wholly good; he is wholly just as well. Since man turned away from God
in Adam, God would be completely fair in allowing the whole race to suffer damnation, and we
could not complain of injustice. God is also merciful, and this explains his salvation of those he
elects. “When He [changes the evil wills of men] He does it of mercy; when He does it not, it is
of justice that He does it not, for ‘He hath mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He
will He hardeneth’.”44
Some people, Augustine explains, have trouble understanding why, as
Scripture tells us, Yahweh “loved” Jacob but “hated” Esau.45
“It seems unjust that, in the absence
of any merit or demerit, from good or evil works, God should love the one and hate the other.”46
But this is not so, he claims, for “who but a fool would think that God was unrighteous, either in
inflicting penal justice on those who had earned it, or in extending mercy to the unworthy?...He
who said, ‘I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy,’47
loved Jacob of His undeserved
grace, and hated Esau of His deserved judgment.”48
God cannot be said to be less good simply
because he allows some to perish, for it is on their own account that they are perishing.
Augustine actually uses the free-will defense from De Libero to defend God’s justice in a
predestinarian schema.
The second problematic issue related to God’s goodness and predestination comes from
Saint Paul, who Augustine has been citing so often in his own defense. Paul famously writes of
God: “Who will have all men to be saved.”49
However, if this will for universal salvation were
true (along with man’s weakness and God’s power), God would not allow any to be damned and
would bestow his grace upon all. Augustine notes that theologians usually solve the dilemma
with the response that God’s universal salvific will does not prevail since in many cases, man
himself does not will it (and chooses evil instead). However, this response gives Augustine’s
“weak” man too much influence over omnipotent God, an imbalance of power that Augustine is
not willing to surrender in the midst of the Pelagian controversy.
Rather than restricting God’s omnipotence, Augustine proposes that we “are rather to
understand the Scripture [1Tim 2:4] as meaning that no man is saved unless God wills his
salvation: not that there is no man whose salvation He does not will, but that no man is saved
apart from His will.”50
Augustine then suggests that we should pray for God to will our salvation,
and “it was of prayer to God that the apostle was speaking when he used this expression.”51
The interpretation is quite a stretch, and even Augustine seems to implicitly recognize
that this is so; he offers another possible interpretation of the verse: “We may understand by ‘all
men,’ every sort of men. And we may interpret it in any other way we please, so long as we are
not compelled to believe that the omnipotent God has willed anything to be done which was not
done.”52
As long as God’s omnipotence is protected, Augustine seems to be fine with any
interpretation we want to give Paul’s problematic verse!
Clearly, Augustine’s arguments are carefully formulated so as to avoid Pelagian readers
citing his own words against him. In previous works, such as De Civitate Dei, he had maintained
10. consistently that God’s grace was the critical factor in salvation, but his relentless insistence on
God’s absolute omnipotence seems to be the trait of a battle-hardened Augustine. It is fascinating
to note that he ensures that his position does not conflict with his early claim that God is never
the source of evil, since his insistence on God’s power might resurrect the Manichean objection.
“The will of the Omnipotent is never defeated; and His will never can be evil; because even
when it inflicts evil it is just, and what is just is certainly not evil.”53
He still guards God from
culpability, but his defense now is centered less on the human will and more on God’s justice.
Despite the shift of focus, he has never come close to denying his original claims that man can
freely choose evil in his fallen state and that he is responsible for doing so.
There are parts of the Enchiridion that sound quite frightening to the modern Catholic
ear, the scariest of which have not yet been addressed. Near the end of the “handbook,”
Augustine begins to use language that sounds surprisingly Calvinist, prefiguring the later notion
of “double-predestination,” the idea that God not only elects some for salvation but actively
elects the rest for damnation. This notion is due undeniably to Augustine’s escalation of God’s
absolute omnipotence. At one point, Augustine writes of “those whom in His justice He has
predestined to punishment,” and “those whom in His mercy He has predestined to grace.”54
In the
same section, he seems to say that punishing of the “non-elect” was God’s will from the very
beginning, so by acting badly, the damned are actually accomplishing God’s will. “In the very
fact that they acted in opposition to His will, His will concerning them was fulfilled.”55
Bonner
notes that “Augustine’s conviction of the absolute power of God would not admit that it could
ever be defeated by the human will; even those who seem to reject God are in fact fulfilling His
purposes.”56
A Single Augustine
It is here that one really begins to question whether this is the same Augustine who wrote
so movingly of God’s love in the Confessiones, the Augustine who considered God the epitome
of goodness. The fact is, however, that there was only one Augustine, and his vastly different
approaches came from the same brilliant mind. The incongruity in his thought is not evidence of
schizophrenia; rather, it is a window into the different environments in which Augustine wrote.
Augustine the rhetorician is keenly aware of his audience, and he is formulating his words with
his listeners in mind. It would be as inconsistent to claim that in the last few passages Augustine
is writing to inspire converts as it would be to argue that he wrote the soul-moving sections of
the Confessiones to counter the Pelagians. Augustine writes with a goal, and his goal in the end
of the Enchiridion is to ensure that his handbook can in no way be read by heretics to say that
God is lacking power. Bonner addresses the dilemma with much insight: “It may be that some
will…be tempted to think of two Augustines, with two different theologies.” Bonner continues to
say that to do so would be to make a terrible mistake. If Augustine seems different, he explains,
it is because one is simply seeing “the other side of the medal. Augustine is concerned both with
the heights to which man can be raised by God’s grace, and the depths into which he has fallen
through his own sin. There is, indeed, an underlying unity in Augustine’s thinking.”57
The underlying unity is that Augustine is acutely aware of the fact that without God, man
is lost. Man was created by God for God, and although man has fashioned an abyss of sin that
separates himself from his Maker, it has been bridged, but from the side of God. From this
foundation springs the free-will defense of the De Libero that man is responsible for evil, and the
11. necessity of grace so heavily emphasized in his later writings, which alludes to the truth that the
disparity has been recompensed by God. Which aspect of Augustine’s thought, which “side of
the medal,” we discover depends on Augustine’s audience and the current controversy in which
he is engaged.
In De Libero Arbitrio, De Civitate Dei, and the Enchiridion, Augustine exhibits many
different aspects of his thought. He convincingly argues, to the disparagement of the Manichees,
that the Christian God can indeed be the source of all and yet remain inculpable for the presence
of evil, since human will freely chooses the evil by abusing its freedom. In the other two works,
he vigorously argues, following his Neo-Platonic philosophical training, that salvation, the
reunification of man and the ultimate Good, can only be born of the ultimate Good; so man must
be actively chosen and given the grace to accomplish this. The two assertions, man’s freedom to
choose evil and his pure reliance on God’s grace for salvation, are never at odds with each other,
although their resulting notions of free will and predestination seem, at least superficially,
inharmonious. However, Augustine was clearly comfortable with both, though he usually
championed one more that the other in any given argument. Three years before his death, in his
De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio (which also defends both free will and predestination), Augustine
makes a fascinating assertion which attests to the unity of the two notions:
Nevertheless, lest the will itself should be deemed capable of doing any good thing
without the grace of God, after saying, ‘His grace within me was not in vain, but I have
laboured more abundantly than they all,’ [Paul] immediately added the qualifying clause,
‘Yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me.’ In other words, Not I alone, but the
grace of God with me. And thus, neither was it the grace of God alone, nor was it he
himself alone, but it was the grace of God with him.58
It is no wonder that this philosopher, theologian, and mystic, who wrote so voluminously
on such a diversity of issues, possessed the brilliance to formulate a generally cohesive schema
which acknowledges unity in the most disparate of ideas. It was Augustine, after all, who spent
much of his life speaking so eloquently of the unity between two fundamentally disparate entities
in our world: gracious God and his fallen man.
Notes
1
Bonner, Gerald. God’s Decree and Man’s Destiny (London: Variorum Reprints, 1987), xii.
2
Augustine. Confessiones, trans. F.J. Sheed (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1993), 3.7.
3
Augustine, De Libero Arbitrio, trans. Dom Mark Pontifex (Westminster: Newman Press, 1955),
Introduction, 4.
4
Ibid., 1.2.4.
5
Ibid., 1.11.22.
6
Ibid., 1.16.35.
7
Ibid.
8
Ibid. 2.1.3.
9
Ibid.
10
Ibid., 2.18.47.
11
Ibid., 3.4.11.
12
Ibid.
12. 13
Ibid., 3.5.12.
14
Ibid., 1.16.34.
15
Ibid., 3.5.12.
16
Ibid.
17
Ibid., Introduction, 8.
18
Ibid., 1.16.34.
19
Wilken, Robert Louis, The Spirit of Early Christian Thought (New Haven: Yale University
Press, 2003), 189.
20
Bonner, God’s Decree and Man’s Destiny, “Augustine and Pelagianism in Light of Modern
Research”, 17.
21
Qtd. in Bonner, God’s Decree and Man’s Destiny, 17.
22
Augustine references Cicero’s De Divinatione, ii.
23
Augustine, De Civitate Dei, trans. Marcus Dods (New York: Random House, 1993), 5.8.
24
Ibid., 5.9.
25
Ibid.
26
Ibid., 12.3
27
Ibid.
28
Ibid., 12.6.
29
Ibid.
30
Ibid., 12.7.
31
Ibid., 12.8.
32
Ibid.
33
Ibid., 12.9.
34
Ibid.
35
Ibid., 5.9.
36
Augustine, Confessiones, 10.29.
37
Augustine. Enchiridion in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 3, trans. J.F. Shaw, ed. Philip
Schaff, (1887), 30.
38
Ibid.
39
Ibid., 31.
40
Ibid., 32.
41
Ibid., 81.
42
Ibid., 82.
43
Augustine, De Libero, 3.5.12
44
Augustine, Enchiridion, 98.
45
Mal 1:3, c.f. Rom 9.13.
46
Augustine, Enchiridion, 98.
47
Ex 33.19, c.f. Rom 9.15.
48
Augustine, Enchiridion, 98.
49
1Tim 2.4.
50
Augustine, Enchiridion, 103.
51
Ibid.
52
Ibid.
53
Ibid., 102.
54
Ibid., 100.
55
Ibid.
13. 56
Bonner, God’s Decree and Man’s Destiny, xii.
57
Ibid., “Christ, God, and Man in the Thought of St. Augustine,” 293.
58
De Gratia et Libero Arbitrio, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 5, ed. Philip Schaff,
(1887), 12.