F - The implications of free will on religious belief

• The concept of free will has many important theological implications for religious belief.

• There are many implications of the above free will theories for religious belief, which in many ways are the opposite of the implications for predestination (which we have already studied

How can the concept of free will seem to question God’s omnipotent nature?

• The implications for God’s omnipotence

• The concept of free will can seem to question God’s omnipotent nature.

• This is because humanities free will is an illustration that God does not have the omnipotent quality to execute an eternal predestination plan for all of humanity.  

• This point was highlighted by Augustine. 

• Augustine reacted angrily to the above free will teachings of Pelagius because it seemed to diminish the omnipotent nature of God. 

• This is because Pelagius theory made it possible, according to Augustine, for a mere moral agent to decide freely whether to be morally good or sinful.

• The implication of this was that a person 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. 

How does Arminius free will defence diminish his omnipotent nature?

• The implications for God’s omnipotence

• Moreover, one implication of Arminius free will defence of God is to diminish His omnipotent nature.

• For example, in Arminius own free will theory he makes it clear that the God given Holy Spirit placed inside all humanity does not override humanities own will i.e. the Holy Spirit does not force itself on to people; it acts only as a God given moral guide.

• Is this only because God does not have the omnipotent nature to predestine moral agents with His Holy Spirit? 

How does a consideration of libertarian arguments add to diminishing God’s omnipotence?

• The implications for God’s omnipotence

• Furthermore, a consideration of libertarian arguments seems to extend the above argument. 

• For example, Sartre believed that humanities 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 (weak) will." 

However, how can it be argues that free will does not diminish God’s omnipotent nature?

• The implications for God’s omnipotence

• 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 His omnipotent nature in different ways.

• For example, as we have seen, Arminius argued that within all humanity God has placed his guiding Holy Spirit.

• The Holy Spirit encourages, but does not force, moral agents to do good works.

• It could be argued that only an omnipotent God could have the power to do such a thing for the whole of humanity, especially when balancing His omnipotent nature with His omnibenevolent nature.

How does the concept of free will support God’s omnibenevolent nature?

• The implications for God’s omnibenevolence

• The concept of free will does seem to support God’s omnibenevolent nature. 

• Firstly, free will theory opens up the possibility that all people can achieve salvation by freely following God’s laws. 

• This is a much better illustration of God’s omnibenevolence than the doctrine of predestination.

• This is because predestination theory, as stated by both Augustine and Calvin, shows that God only appears to predestine some people, therefore only some will ascend to heaven. 

• The rest, the reprobates, will not be saved by God and will inevitably descent to hell. 

• This can be seen to have grave implications for God omnibenevolent nature. 

• This is because God is punishing and rewarding certain moral agents on behaviour only He had control over. 

• However, free will theory can defend God against such accusations and thus support God’s omnibenevolent nature. 

• This point is illustrated by Pelagius, he argued that when Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, to create the ‘original sin’, God would not punish all of humanity for the sin of Adam and Eve. 

• Pelagius argued an omnibenevolent God would not punish all humanity through no direct fault of their own.   

• Therefore, Pelagius argued that ‘the fall’ remained Adam and Eve’s sin alone.

• Therefore, according to Pelagius, an omnibenevolent God, was allowing people not to be predestined by inherited sin and thus all had the ability, within themselves, to achieve salvation. 

How can free will theories make prayer valuable?

• The use of prayer

• A further implication of free will theory, for religious belief, is the value of the use of prayer.

• If a person’s life is free willed then, it could be argued, this supports the meaningfulness of prayer.

• This is because prayer can be used to build a rapport with a God, to either seek His guidance on the right moral path or to seek His forgiveness for sin.  

• Pelagius argues that humanity is not able to fulfil God’s moral eternal law without divine aid. 

• As Pelagius stated since humans have the free will to choose to do good, they will ask for divine aid and this could be enhanced with prayer.

• The same could be argued with Arminius theory that the HolySpirit acts as a guide for humans. 

• The work of the Holy Spirit in a person’s life could be enhanced by prayer. 

How does free will theory have an effect on the belief in miracles?

• The existence of miracles

• The acceptance of free will theory has a fundamental effect on the belief in miracles.

• This is because if God has granted humanity free will then miracles cannot occur.

• The reasoning behind this is that God encouraged miracles and by their nature are predetermining an outcome.   

• 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.

• However, both types of miracles involve God pre-determining an outcome. 

• Therefore, free will theory is clearly incompatible with miracles. 

• Indirect - Jesus healing people, Moses parting the Red Sea.

• Direct - God healing you

How does free will theory suggest that God is not responsible for evil?

• The link between God and evil

• Free will theory could suggest that God is not responsible for evil.

• Free will gives humans the ‘will’ to choose to do good or to sin.

• Therefore, free will theory makes it clear that the responsibility for evil acts is humankinds not God’s.

How does Irenaean theodicy support the idea that God is not responsible for evil?

• The link between God and evil

• his idea is supported by the theodicy of Irenaeus.

• Irenaeus argued God created humanity imperfect.

• God did this because He made humankind's task in life to develop into God's perfection. 

• Irenaeus backs up this with the teaching ‘God said “Let us make man in my image and after in my likeness.”

• Irenaeus interpreted this to mean being made in God’s image meant God made humanity possessing potential qualities of God’s perfection e.g. a sense of morality.   

• However, to actualise these qualities, of God’s perfection, humanity must freely make moral decisions; every moral decision where a person chooses to do good develops that individual into God’s perfection/likeness.  

• Therefore, Irenaeus argues, God had to grant humans genuine and total freewill so they could choose to be like God. 

• However, genuine free will opens the possibility of people not only choosing to be good but also choosing to be morally evil. 

• Humans did use their freewill to disobey God, causing moral evil in the world to develop, but this is not God’s responsibility. 

• This is because, Irenaeus claims, moral evil is a necessary part of life because it enables humans to develop. 

• Without it decisions in life would have no real value. 

• Virtues such as courage and perseverance could never be developed if there were no challenges in life.  

So, how does the theodicy show that God isn’t responsible for evil?

• The link between God and evil 

• Therefore, God can never step in to stop potential moral evil occurring because this would compromise human freedom and stop humanity having the potential to develop in God’s likeness.

• Therefore, Irenaeus, in his theodicy, is clearly supporting the idea that free will means that humanity is responsible for the moral evil not God.