Since the 16th century, men have fought over two different theories for how we can find salvation. Those two ways are predestination and free will. Predestination comes from the teachings of a reformer by the name of John Calvin, who started the philosophy of Calvinism. A Calvinist believes that the human is totally and always sinful. They also believe that God chose those who are elect and those who are not. Along with that a Calvinist believes in what is called “limited atonement”, or the thought that God did not send his son to earth to take the sins of all mankind but only those select few. That is the basic explanation of a Calvinistic worldview, but we only want to examine one part of their philosophy and that is whether we are predestined for heaven or hell. Webster’s Dictionary defines predestination as such, “the doctrine that God in consequence of his foreknowledge of all events infallibly guides those who are destined for salvation”. On the total other end of the spectrum comes another philosophy, and that is free will. Free will comes from the beliefs of Jacobus Arminius, who started Arminianism. This philosophy believes that the human gets to choose whether to accept of deny Christ’s salvation. They also believe that Christ’s death was for all mankind but did not secure everyone’s salvation. We want to look at the first part of their philosophy and that is, humans have a choice to accept Christ. Free will is defined in Webster’s Dictionary as the “freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention”.
The controversy that stirs between these two philosophies is the fact that God chooses people to be elect, where as people choose to go to God. They are complete opposites. People look at predestination as “unfair” because God chooses some and does not choose others. This brings us to a very big question that has been on the mind of many. Is there a middle ground between free will and predestination, or are we as humans looking at this problem in the wrong point of view all together?
7 comments:
Overall a solid couple of paragraphs. btw i love the intro lol
Very detailed and full of information. Hooks the from the beginning.
I agree with Zech, nice intro its interesting and very detailed. you have your way with words.
Zman! Awesome way to start with the intro paragraph. Talking about the history of where it came from sort of grabbed me so I think Weisman will like it haha
Your paragraphs show that you put a lot of thought into it through the detail of it. Great start to a interesting essay.
Nice work Z. You showed a lot of depth and insight. Good work on the research. You laid down a lot of background, nice. This should be a good paper.
You have a lot of good information in your paragraphs. You have a good hook at the begining. I can tell you put a lot of work into it. :)
Post a Comment