Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Scripture hold before us two great counter-truths – first, God's absolute sovereignty (cp Rome. 9, 20ff.), and secondly, man's responsibility. Our intellects cannot reconcile them. [4] A logical formulation of this argument might go as follows: [1] God knows choice "C" that a human would claim to "make freely". It is now necessary that C.
In a 1955 article in the philosophy journal Mind, J. L. Mackie tried to resolve the paradox by distinguishing between first-order omnipotence (unlimited power to act) and second-order omnipotence (unlimited power to determine what powers to act things shall have). [15]
Alvin Plantinga in 2004. Alvin Plantinga's free-will defense is a logical argument developed by the American analytic philosopher Alvin Plantinga and published in its final version in his 1977 book God, Freedom, and Evil. [1]
Conversion or regeneration in the strict sense of the term is the work of divine grace [106] and power [107] by which man, born of the flesh, [108] and void of all power to think, [109] to will, [110] or to do [111] any good thing, and dead in sin [112] is, through the gospel and holy baptism, [113] taken [114] from a state of sin and spiritual ...
Epicurus was not an atheist, although he rejected the idea of a god concerned with human affairs; followers of Epicureanism denied the idea that there was no god. While the conception of a supreme, happy and blessed god was the most popular during his time, Epicurus rejected such a notion, as he considered it too heavy a burden for a god to have to worry about all the problems in the world.
Calvin, however, held to the belief in predestination and omnipotence, the fall is part of God's plan. Luther saw evil and original sin as an inheritance from Adam and Eve, passed on to all mankind from their conception and bound the will of man to serving sin, which God's just nature allowed as consequence for their distrust, though God ...
As modern philosopher Richard Swinburne puts the point, this horn "seems to place a restriction on God's power if he cannot make any action which he chooses obligatory... [and also] it seems to limit what God can command us to do. God, if he is to be God, cannot command us to do what, independently of his will, is wrong." [24]
English Reformed Baptist theologian John Gill (1697–1771) staunchly defended the five points in his work The Cause of God and Truth. [48] The work was a lengthy counter to contemporary Anglican Arminian priest Daniel Whitby, who had been attacking Calvinist doctrine.