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

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

However, the above line of argument could be countered. This is because human free will does not allow for God to use miracles, as an answer to prayer. This is because miracles, by their nature, involve God compromising human free will. This is illustrated by Aquinas’ theory on miracles, when he distinguished between a deity carrying out miracles directly, which he called a primary cause miracle, and indirectly, which he called a secondary cause miracle. A primary cause miracle is where God acts directly in the world to bring about a miracle; and a secondary cause miracle is where God works a miracle through a human agent. However, both types of miracle involve God pre-determining an outcome. For example, in Joshua 10:13 in the Judeo- Christian Bible, it is stated that God made the sun and moon stand still so that Joshua could defeat the enemies of Israel. Therefore, God was clearly predetermining the outcome of a major event, with a miracle. Therefore, overriding any ideas that this event was of the result of the free will decisions by those human beings involved. Therefore, free will theory is clearly incompatible with miracles. Even with C.S. Lewis’ definition of miracle that God is an interactive God that, even today, continues to introduce new laws of nature. As Lewis states: ‘nature behaves in accordance to fixed laws, and that a miracle is God introducing a new law…’ Therefore, a miracle is no more than God interacting with this world by introducing new laws of nature. However, the very nature of God introducing new natural laws strongly suggests that God is somehow compromising human free will. Therefore, no matter which way a miracle is defined it still compromises human free will. Therefore, if God does wish human beings to have the gift of free will then He cannot initiate miraculous events. This, therefore, limits the use of prayer because God cannot use miracles to answer a human being’s free will prayer, thus potentially reducing the relevance of prayer. The degree to which beliefs about free will can be reconciled with beliefs about predestination This issue is asking candidates to consider whether there is any middle ground between the religious concepts of free will and predestination. Or does a religious believer have to accept one of free will or predestination? Candidates could approach the above issue from several lines of argument. One line of argument is that it appears clear from the theological arguments between Augustine (predestination) and Pelagius (free will) in the 5th century and/or Calvin (predestination) and Arminius (free will) in the 17th century that there is no middle ground between predestination and free will. Therefore, a human being cannot believe in both predestination and free will. This line of argument was supported by the historical outcome of both the above theological debates. For example, at the Council of Carthage in 418. In the 3rd, 4th and 5th centuries, ‘Councils of Carthage’ were assembled by the Catholic Church to discuss theological matters of great importance. In 418 one such Council of Carthage fully approved Augustine’s predestination ‘Doctrine of Original Sin’ and denounced the contrary view of Pelagius. Therefore, the Council of Carthage did not support that free will could be reconciled with beliefs about predestination. Another example that could be used is to consider the Synod of Dort in 1619. The Synod of Dort was an international meeting, organised by the Dutch Reformed Church, to settle a divisive controversy between the predestination arguments of Calvinism and the free will arguments of Arminianism. The Synod concluded with a rejection of the Arminian view and the acceptance of all five of the Calvinist points, namely; total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and the perseverance of the elect. Therefore, the Synod of Dort did not support that free will could be reconciled with beliefs about predestination. However, the above line of argument could be countered with a deeper look at some of the theological arguments presented. For example, in Augustine’s Doctrine of Original Sin he concedes that a human being is born with free will. He argued human

DRAFT

Specification content The degree to which beliefs about free will can be reconciled with beliefs about predestination. AO2 Activity Now you’ve read through this line of argument can you do the following: 1. For each line of argument try to evaluate whether or not you think this is strong or weak. 2. Think of any questions you may wish to raise in response to the arguments. 3. Can you evaluate here by drawing a mini conclusion about the degree to which free will makes the use of prayer irrelevant. This activity will help you to start thinking critically about what you read and help you to evaluate the effectiveness of different arguments and from this develop your own observations, opinions and points of view that will help with any conclusions that you make in your answers to the AO2 questions that arise.

150