There are literally thousands of philosophical and theological essays, articles and texts written on Augustine's view of free will or free choice of will. The most striking thing about these various articles, essays and texts is that few seem to be able to agree on what Augustine was saying. Indeed, so much variance on the interpretations of St. Augustine's writings exists it makes one wonder if the same texts were being read. Part of this is due to Augustine's own ambiguity in his writings. On free will, Augustine argues free will most certainly exists and argues that people can choose to be good, or good will as he puts it, or chose evil. He also argues that those who are saved have been predetermined to be saved by God prior to birth. This is the very ambiguity that has created such debate on what Augustine means by free choice of will. He asserts that man can choose a life of good will, but also argues that if God has not chosen this soul for salvation then the choice to be good has no relevance towards his salvation. Conversely, those who act in a wretched manner but chosen by God for salvation will still be saved regardless of their actions.
It is in his insistence that evil actions are at their root a matter of free will where Augustine makes the most sense and is the least ambiguous. By asserting this, he has also distanced evil from the cause of God. It is not God who is the source of evil as all his creations are good, it is in the act of free will and the choice to commit evil that belongs to humanity, or even the angels, and not to God. However, Augustine's insistence that the actions of good are by the grace of God seems to contradict his own assertions on free will. While God should take no blame for evil, God receives all the credit for good regardless of the actions of people who have acted in accordance with good will. Thus people are to blame for the evil they cause but deserve no credit for the good they do.
Augustine has also argued that because of desires and passions peoples ability to act upon their own free will has been greatly diminished. He considered lust to be one of the greatest sins of all and that so many people are afflicted by lust and so willingly give into it is offered as evidence of the feebleness of free will. Where St. Augustine makes salient points on how desires of the flesh are in direct conflict with the spirit, his argument that by the grace of God we behave in a good manner is in direct conflict with his insistence that evil his an action of free will. If God makes us be good, why then, can not the devil make us do it, when we behave badly? If people are truly to have free will, of which Augustine insists we do, then both actions, good or evil, must be the choices of ours and ours alone regardless of any predetermined salvation by God.
freedom of choice
There isn't really one argument against free will but a prominent one is the fact that the God of abrahamic religions (judaism, christianity, islam) is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. Which means that he is everywhere knows everything and is all powerful. So logically if Gods knows everything that will happen and his will is infallible then that immediately cancels the concept of free will because he would know every choice you make and when you will make it meaning you wouldn't have had free will in the first place. Hope that answers your question :)
to establish the main points of the argument.
The claim is the argument you plan to prove.
(Apex) To establish the main points of the argument.
free the President from the demands of a second-term campaign.
unified argument
The main argument
the crux of your argument.
A balanced argument presents multiple perspectives on an issue, acknowledges opposing views, supports claims with evidence or reasoning, and strives for fairness and objectivity in its presentation. It aims to provide a comprehensive and nuanced discussion of the topic at hand.
Theire main argument was that the Constitution binds the states much like England binded the states. In their eyes, why go back to be bound if they just fought a war to be free?
Theire main argument was that the Constitution binds the states much like England binded the states. In their eyes, why go back to be bound if they just fought a war to be free?