4D&4F implications of predestination, determinism, free will and libertarianism

Augustine - gods omnipotence

choosing becomes aribituary
if humans had free will then we an choose to be morally good enabling us to dictate our eschatoglocial fate which denies gods power

Calvin - gods omnipotence

elect predestined by god alone and his will
only able of a ominpotent being

predestination- gods benevolence

god saves us from our own desires that lead us to hell - predestining ensures some end up in hell
sin is so offence god is just in sending us all to hell but through his grace, John 3:16 and his love we can be saved

augustine - prayer

Prayer = cooperation of gods will
we should seek a deeper understanding of god

Calvin - prayer

faith without prayer is nothing/not genuine
communication with god

predestination - miracles

pre-planned events because an all knowing god would knew it would happen and be necessary
doubts miracles that come spontaneously from prayer - predestination means these would be impossible

arminius view of predestination and link between good and evil

points out that by predestining all human life then god must be responsible for all moral evil eg. the holocaust
arminius tries to defend gods benevolence because of this

Calvin - link between good and evil

Calvin states god doe snot predestine people to be evil but whether a particular person will seek forgiveness for a sin - elects can still commit sins but cannot resist seeking forgiveness in Jesus atoning power
moral evil Is humanities fault as god only predestines what the person will do once they have committed sin

aminius - gods omnipotence

people have the power to resist gods grace so god does not have irresistible grace - diminish power

Pelagius - gods omnipotence

people earn their place in heave by doing good works
god chooses not to have irresistible grace as removes free will - sacrifice power over love

free will - gods benevolence

god limits his power (supported by scripture) to allow for unconditional love
means anyway can be saved theoretically but not practically

arminius - prayer

suggest god abides to the will of our petition
arminius doesn't see this an issue as god has the middle knowledge, prayer aligns with gods will
relationship with god isn't one sided it is not unreasonable for god to answer our prayers in the same way a parent would act in a certain way if their child ask (ask is not unreasonable)

miracles - free will

removes free will as how can one refute god if he's acting infant of them

Pelagius - prayer

humans cannot fulfil gods moral law without divine aid
divine aid is to guide people down the righteous path which is developed through prayer

arminius - link between god and evil

wanted to defend god not being repsonsible for evil
free will gives the individual the freedom to choose to do good works or to sin

Pelagius - link between god and evil

ability to do evil make the good part better as it is voluntary and dependent
supported by iraneous theodicy who justifies why god allows for both moral and natural evil
stopping moral evil compromises human freedom and therefore stopping development of perfection