Introduction and Review of Related Literature
In the article; religion as a Dimension in Man’s spiritual Life by Paul Tillich, I came across with this phrase that, “With respect to God, man is a receptive and only receptive. He has no freedom to relate to the doctrine of the Bondage of the Will.” I get enterested to the word Will which I think present in the human mind and perhaps, in God.
In this paper, I want to discuss and present the difference between the will ‘of God’ and of man. According to the Encyclopedia, the philosophical meaning of the will is that, will is usually paired with reason. It is considered as the faculty of choice and decision. Whereas the reason is that o fdeli8veration and argument. The rational act would be an exercise o fthe will performed after due deliveration. Likewise, Philosophers have often thought that persons are resposible only for those action which they have the option either to do or not to do or to will or not to will. But, if all acts, including the acts of will, are predetermined, then, this option does not apppear or exist.
Why is it that man is inclined to Religion/Belief? Is it because o f his will? Is it the will that propels man to hold tightly to it. According to the Bible, God willed that man should be left in the hands of his own counsel, sothat he might of his own accord seek his creator, (Sir 15:14 & gs17§1). Moreover, he has to exercise his reason so as to be able to fully will.
In terms of willing, are we free to make up our minds or whether lo rnot “making up our mind” is really a need or our mind is not causually “made up” they must be randomly and hence not freely “made up.” So, what is really the truth that would back up to this confusion? I try also to talk about in this paper the difference between “willing will” and willed will” in relationship to its “necessity” of the will which is a doubtful chains according to R. Young, (1975).
If the will of man is not freely will then, we may come to think that someone or something greater did exist. Is it not? Does it say that the uncausable exists? Obviously it does... Scotus in developing his conception of the will as a rational potency (according to Aristotle’s conception of distinction between rational and non-rational powers), does make an atempt to define “contigincy” in a strict logical or temporal sense. Speakin gof Scotus’ proof that, the first effecient cause (God) is endowed with free will; and that whether he causes, he causes contgency, and that only will, expains contigent existence (as something positive) in purely logical terms, (R.J. Kreyche, 1965).
According to R.J. Paine, (1981) that those who say that, “blessedness is consist not in the will but in will. They are wrong , for it is consisted only in the will, it would not be one. However, working and becoming are one.”
The Divine Will
In this chapter let us begin with this phrase saying that, “all thing shave flowed out of God’s will. Accordingly, God’s will is so noble and that the Holy Spirit is flowing from His will without a medium. And that His will savor him only in his unity where God’s peace is is for the goodness of all created things, (R.J. Paine, 1981). One other point is of crucial importance: particular danger exist in predicating intellect and the will of God, in so far we might easily be mislead into thinking that intellect and will in God are “distinct” power are they are in man. In God there is no real distinction o ffaculties or power, because whatever exists in Him is identical with His being according to (R.J. Kreyche, 1965).
Whether There is Will in God
Let us gegin with the truth that God has a full and perfect knowleedge of Himself, and consider that God is absolute Goodness and His own end: from all of this then follows immediately that God has the perfect love of Himself. R.J. Kreyche, 1965). Furthermore, He conceices within Himself a will, and this will is love according to...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document