This thesis examined the difference between Calvinism and Wesleyan as well as theological controversy and historical consideration about God's sovereignty and human's free will. Is it possible that God's sovereignty coexists with human's free will! In fact, it is very difficult to understand this my...
This thesis examined the difference between Calvinism and Wesleyan as well as theological controversy and historical consideration about God's sovereignty and human's free will. Is it possible that God's sovereignty coexists with human's free will! In fact, it is very difficult to understand this mysterious issue which has never been solved clearly in history. It is because the more emphasis is put on God's sovereignty, the less place to stand human's free will has; on the contrary, if it is said that there is human's free will, it will damage God's absoluteness. This very interesting subject made me study it with curiosity. As a method of study, in first, chapter 2 dealt with recent hot issue and many theological controversies. Incompatibilism is a theory that human's freedom cannot coexist in God's sovereignty. In fact, compatibilism makes little problem if one side is abandoned. The typical claim is deism and pantheism. Meanwhile, compatibilism has a problem about the coexistence of human's free will in God's sovereignty. This claim of compatibilism includes the most basic classical theism and open theism. Classical theism has been adopted as orthodoxy. However, this classical theism came into question by recent many modern theologians. It is because the attribute of God looks like too merciless monarch. It emphasized not the form of merciless monarch but the form of God of love, considering that sovereignty and cause of everything belong only to God. So it's trying to transform the attribute of God and solve the conflict in order to respect the freedom given to human. As a result, it restricted or reduced God's ability and process theologians even changed the attribute of God from classical theism. It led to say that God isn't omniscient and omnipotent for every parts and restricts himself for the decision of future, and it ended up to make human's decision an area that even God cannot know. This made a risk to cause the form that God is in face of danger and God's fall to incompetence. In chapter 3, we examined the history of this controversy following theological controversy. Actually, the controversy about God's sovereignty and human's freedom started from the old days. If you search for the history of this controversy, you will know that it started from Augustin . This issue of human's freedom didn't make any problem before Augustin. Then it became the controversy about free will by Pelagius, followed by the controversy with Augustin being against him. Augustin said human's free will was not completely ruined but lost the freedom not to commit a sin. The original sin of Adam made every human fall into an existence who cannot help committing a sin; now, human came to be unable to make right choice without God's help. The second historical controversy lay between Erasmus and Luther. Erasmus asserted free will and God's sovereign interact with each other. As a humanist, he emphasized human's responsibility. And if human has no free will, he thought, he cannot to be blamed. Largely thinking about the nature of God, he put an emphasis on human's responsibility though he didn't deny God's transcendent grace completely. On the other hand, Luther made an assertion on the bondage of the will. Luther started to write against Erasmus like Augustin's refutation to Pelagius. Luther confines redemption only to God over human's power and desire. He says it is deceptive that human uses a term 'freedom', and human has no freedom for choice related to redemption or curse and he is rather a captive and a slave subordinated to God's will or satan's will. The third historical controversy lay between successors to Calvin and Arminius. Arminius lived as Calvinist, too. But he faced up to problem caused in predestination and came to be in a serious worry. So he ended up to give up for the reason that he was decided to be disputer with Kotenhert. After then, Arminius criticized the predestination strongly, because it was not biblical but philosophical. The predestination declares we must understand in Christological way, and it was imbiblical and improper to make God creator of sin with deity decision, while human must not make himself savior. Lastly, both free wills of Calvin and Wesley were summarized in chapter 4. Calvin is a synonym of double predestination. Though not centering on the predestination, he is the most famous predestinarian. Calvin thought a term 'free choice' could be accepted as Augustin had prescribed, but it was proper not to use it because it could be misunderstood. Calvin says the will that Pigius understood to be free, that is, the ability to choose good and evil, it is not compelled in a meaning that we don't regard it as free, not being led by outdoors stimulus, and instead, it is of self-decision in terms of our depending spontaneously and at our disposal. However, Calvin too declares that the will is in servility by its corruption and subordinated in necessity of crime. It is that the depravity of human influenced every side of human nature and depraved human beings are in servility. But there will be no good will in human beings until God's favor works. Total depravity makes human beings themselves have no free will to good. Meanwhile, Wesley thought as follows: Human beings created as God's form had been perfect in freedom of choice but depravity made them lose their freedom; However, God didn't keep human beings losing it, and recovered partially human's freedom with good-deed grace, universal grace; Since good-deed grace recovered their ability to choose the opposite, human beings can continue to obey God's calling. Wesley thinks everyone has free will recovered supernaturally by good-deed grace. It is that good-deed grace gives human beings their desire to please God, the reason makes them know God's law, and they can discover their sin and distinguish good and bad through the laws. In the traditional predestination, there are constant controversies about G
This thesis examined the difference between Calvinism and Wesleyan as well as theological controversy and historical consideration about God's sovereignty and human's free will. Is it possible that God's sovereignty coexists with human's free will! In fact, it is very difficult to understand this mysterious issue which has never been solved clearly in history. It is because the more emphasis is put on God's sovereignty, the less place to stand human's free will has; on the contrary, if it is said that there is human's free will, it will damage God's absoluteness. This very interesting subject made me study it with curiosity. As a method of study, in first, chapter 2 dealt with recent hot issue and many theological controversies. Incompatibilism is a theory that human's freedom cannot coexist in God's sovereignty. In fact, compatibilism makes little problem if one side is abandoned. The typical claim is deism and pantheism. Meanwhile, compatibilism has a problem about the coexistence of human's free will in God's sovereignty. This claim of compatibilism includes the most basic classical theism and open theism. Classical theism has been adopted as orthodoxy. However, this classical theism came into question by recent many modern theologians. It is because the attribute of God looks like too merciless monarch. It emphasized not the form of merciless monarch but the form of God of love, considering that sovereignty and cause of everything belong only to God. So it's trying to transform the attribute of God and solve the conflict in order to respect the freedom given to human. As a result, it restricted or reduced God's ability and process theologians even changed the attribute of God from classical theism. It led to say that God isn't omniscient and omnipotent for every parts and restricts himself for the decision of future, and it ended up to make human's decision an area that even God cannot know. This made a risk to cause the form that God is in face of danger and God's fall to incompetence. In chapter 3, we examined the history of this controversy following theological controversy. Actually, the controversy about God's sovereignty and human's freedom started from the old days. If you search for the history of this controversy, you will know that it started from Augustin . This issue of human's freedom didn't make any problem before Augustin. Then it became the controversy about free will by Pelagius, followed by the controversy with Augustin being against him. Augustin said human's free will was not completely ruined but lost the freedom not to commit a sin. The original sin of Adam made every human fall into an existence who cannot help committing a sin; now, human came to be unable to make right choice without God's help. The second historical controversy lay between Erasmus and Luther. Erasmus asserted free will and God's sovereign interact with each other. As a humanist, he emphasized human's responsibility. And if human has no free will, he thought, he cannot to be blamed. Largely thinking about the nature of God, he put an emphasis on human's responsibility though he didn't deny God's transcendent grace completely. On the other hand, Luther made an assertion on the bondage of the will. Luther started to write against Erasmus like Augustin's refutation to Pelagius. Luther confines redemption only to God over human's power and desire. He says it is deceptive that human uses a term 'freedom', and human has no freedom for choice related to redemption or curse and he is rather a captive and a slave subordinated to God's will or satan's will. The third historical controversy lay between successors to Calvin and Arminius. Arminius lived as Calvinist, too. But he faced up to problem caused in predestination and came to be in a serious worry. So he ended up to give up for the reason that he was decided to be disputer with Kotenhert. After then, Arminius criticized the predestination strongly, because it was not biblical but philosophical. The predestination declares we must understand in Christological way, and it was imbiblical and improper to make God creator of sin with deity decision, while human must not make himself savior. Lastly, both free wills of Calvin and Wesley were summarized in chapter 4. Calvin is a synonym of double predestination. Though not centering on the predestination, he is the most famous predestinarian. Calvin thought a term 'free choice' could be accepted as Augustin had prescribed, but it was proper not to use it because it could be misunderstood. Calvin says the will that Pigius understood to be free, that is, the ability to choose good and evil, it is not compelled in a meaning that we don't regard it as free, not being led by outdoors stimulus, and instead, it is of self-decision in terms of our depending spontaneously and at our disposal. However, Calvin too declares that the will is in servility by its corruption and subordinated in necessity of crime. It is that the depravity of human influenced every side of human nature and depraved human beings are in servility. But there will be no good will in human beings until God's favor works. Total depravity makes human beings themselves have no free will to good. Meanwhile, Wesley thought as follows: Human beings created as God's form had been perfect in freedom of choice but depravity made them lose their freedom; However, God didn't keep human beings losing it, and recovered partially human's freedom with good-deed grace, universal grace; Since good-deed grace recovered their ability to choose the opposite, human beings can continue to obey God's calling. Wesley thinks everyone has free will recovered supernaturally by good-deed grace. It is that good-deed grace gives human beings their desire to please God, the reason makes them know God's law, and they can discover their sin and distinguish good and bad through the laws. In the traditional predestination, there are constant controversies about G
※ AI-Helper는 부적절한 답변을 할 수 있습니다.