WJEC/Eduqas RS for A2/Yr2: Religion and Ethics (DRAFT)

WJEC / Eduqas Religious Studies for A Level Year 2 and A2 Religion and Ethics

who takes the initiative by guiding human beings, and a human being themselves who must respond to God’s guidance.

Key quote Free will is in all good works always assisted by divine help. (Pelagius) God has limited his control in correspondence with man’s freedom. (Arminius)

There are many implications of the above free will theories for religious belief, which in many ways are the opposite of the implications for hard determinism. Some of which are addressed below. The implications for God’s omnipotence Monotheistic religions such as Islam, Judaism and Christianity, attribute the quality of omnipotence to their deity. Omnipotence

Many Christians believe that sin is inherited from Adam.

is the quality of having unlimited power. The concept of free will can seem to question God’s omnipotent nature. This is because humanity’s free will is an illustration that God does not have the omnipotent quality to execute an eternal predestination plan for all human beings. This point was highlighted by Augustine. Augustine reacted angrily to the free will teachings of Pelagius because his libertarian theology, according to Augustine, seemed to diminish the omnipotent nature of God. This is because Pelagius’ theories made it possible, according to Augustine, for a human being to decide freely whether to be morally good or sinful. The implication of this was that a human being would then be able to tell an omnipotent deity whether to give them salvation. That, argued Augustine, was an intolerable denial of God’s omnipotence, an insult to His divine majesty. This point is further supported by theologian Johnathan Edwards, who argued that the concept of free will was incompatible with individual dependence on an omnipotent God. This is because if a human being could choose, their own response to God’s salvation would become partly dependent upon a human being; therefore, reducing God’s omnipotent nature. Therefore, according to Augustine, if Pelagius is right that human beings do have free will, then God cannot be omnipotent. Pelagius would have contested this, however. A consideration of libertarian arguments seems to extend the above arguments. For example, Sartre believed that humanity’s free will not only illustrated there was no omnipotent God controlling human choice but was, indeed, a clear illustration there was no God at all. As Sartre states: ‘There is no God, so man must rely upon his own fallible will and moral insight.’ However, it can be argued that the above points do not illustrate that free will diminishes God’s omnipotent nature. Perhaps instead they show that God illustrates an omnipotent nature in different ways. For example, as we have seen, Arminius argued that within all human beings God has placed his guiding Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit encourages, but does not force, human beings to do good works. It could be argued that only an omnipotent God could have the power to do such a thing for all human beings, especially when balancing omnipotent and omnibenevolent characteristics.

DRAFT

4.28 Brie y explain why if a human

being has free will can God not be omnipotent.

142