Destiny, “Destiny is not a matter of chance, it is a matter of choice, it is not a thing to be waited for, it is a thing to be achieved.” (William Jennings Bryan). Macbeth is a victim of his own desire. The witches played with Macbeth’s mind. They can predict, and they can suggest, but they do not necessarily control or tell Macbeth what to do. Free will is the power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate. Lady Macbeth urges Macbeth, against his will, to take out any and every obstacle that is in his way so that he can fulfill the prophecy from the witches. Throughout the play, Macbeth’s actions go from being a brave, heroic man to being an evil, cowardice man. As he made each choice, he slowly began to realize that he was digging himself deeper, creating more problems.
During the play, the witches are referred to as the “weird sisters.” Macbeth was influenced by what the witches’ told him about his future. The things the witches told Macbeth led him to become obsessed with power. It led him to literally losing his mind. His conscious was right on his shoulders.
Lady Macbeth had Macbeth wrapped around her finger. At the begging of the play, Macbeth would have been considered a brave, heroic man, but Lady Macbeth turned him into an evil, coward man. She had him “brainwashed” to carry out of the evil deeds so she would not have it on her hands. Lady Macbeth did not want to wait to be queen so she sped up the process. She thought if she could talk Macbeth down and making him feel bad about himself or less of a man, it would work, and it did. Free will come in to play when they start murdering people to get things done quicker. For instance, the first murder was King Duncan. Lady Macbeth was more at fault for this one, but Macbeth is still the one who actually stabbed Duncan while he was sleeping. To go even farther, he killed the two chamberlains to cover himself up. Making that choice leads up to the play being free will instead of fate.
Macbeth became obsessed with his power, which led him to kill more innocent people. For example, the second person Macbeth killed was his best friend Banquo. The witches told him that he would become king, but his family would not carry out through generations. They told Banquo that he personally would not become king, but his sons would one day. He let the strong, powerful strength of “free will” get in the way of his daily life. This comes to show that Macbeth was so selfish and greedy that he would go to the extent of killing his best friend. The third person, of the six killed, during the play, was MacDuff’s wife and son. Once again, he murders these innocent people all to further his reign of King.
Macbeth would have been considered a nobleman at the beginning of the play, but as the play moves on, Macbeth there is a contrast in Macbeth’s character. He makes more decisions more readily and hastily, and more importantly, on his own. Along the way, he betrayed his allegiance to the king, his family and friends all for his own grain. Therefore, we learn from Macbeth that ambition is a double-edged sword, it motivates you to do your best and strive to your goal, but at the same time can allow you to lose sight of what life is all about.
In this essay, I will be discussing and evaluating the treatment and inclusion of the idea of free will within the play Oedipus The King By Sophocles as well as Medea By Euripides.
These are both two very old plays which include a plot which is intertwined with the constant influence of Fate and therefore, can be used in order to debate the influence of destiny and whether or not the characters have “Free Will”. This is an important point as Free will is very prominent in both plays and as a construct in society both when the plays were originally performed as well as in current day.
Firstly, Within Oedipus The King, Fate or Prophecies tend to become reality and this is mentioned frequently throughout. Oedipus was initially performed in ancient Greece and written by the Playwright Sophocles. The play was written based off of a well known myth that was centered around the topic of fate and whether it is possible to alter ones fate or if in fact it is impossible to impact the outcome of someone’s destiny. One such example of fate within Oedipus The King, Taylor et al.(2008, p. 15.) is when Teiresias states “This is because you are all blind To what I can see. I can’t tell you. The truth is painful. My secret. And yours.” This is directly linked to the fate of Oedipus as Teiresias is forewarning about the inevitable fate of him bedding his mother and subsequently losing his sight at his own hands. This is shown in the use of words such as “blind” and the theme of sight throughout the greater extract on this page. Teiresias next says that “ I’m saving you from Agony. And myself. Don’t ask me again, don’t waste your time. I shall tell you nothing.” This shows the way in which fate is handled and feared within ancient Greek society. Teiresias is a well respected prophet of Apollo whom is being consulted by Oedipus. And within these two quotes we can see that Teiresias knows of Oedipus’ fate but he is fearful to tell of it as Teiresias is hopeful that by not telling Oedipus, he can affect fate. Treating Fate as this overbearing force of nature is how the ancient Greek society perceived it to be. Regarding the reveal of Oedipus’ fate “You were marked for suffering, from the day you were born”, Oedipus The King. Taylor et al (2008.p, 44.). This is said by the shepherd revealing the plot by his parents Laius and Jocasta to have him killed during infancy in order to prevent the tragic events of Oedipus’ prophecy from unfolding. This shows the audience that even the will of the highest nobles of society (Laius and Jocasta) could not affect and alter the result of fate and the predetermined destiny. As the narrative shows that it is not possible to alter the result of one’s fate, it could be argued that Oedipus does not have free will as his actions are already predetermined to reach the same tragic end. This thought is what makes the play such an iconic and true Greek tragedy as it would resonate with the then audience at the festival of Dionysus in which it would have originally have been performed. “If we give ourselves up to a full sympathy to the hero, there is no question that the Oedipus Rex fulfils the function of a tragedy and arouses fear and pity in the highest degree.” Barstow, The Classical Weekly vol.6, No.1 (Oct 1912, p2-4 .) Within this journal by Marjorie Barstow, she believes that Oedipus is the “Ideal tragic hero of Aristotle” in relation to Aristotle’s The Poetics and the idea of “fatalism”. Within Oedipus The King, the tragic downfall of someone of such high status and so in favour of the gods can directly speak to the then very religious audience at a religious festival and warn them of fate and the results of attempting to go against the will of fate.
When looking at Medea, we see society’s view but flipped as at the time of it’s first performance, many would be able to resonate with Jason as the audience would be male due to beliefs about women at the time preventing them from attending. Also, the societal viewpoint on women in ancient Greece would make Medea seem even more insane for being driven to seemingly alter her own fate and choose to commit infanticide. Within Medea, Euripides. (p. 46) “All I did for you and how you did for me. You thought you’d kick me from your bed and laugh at me, unpunished. Wrong!”. This shows that the play is presenting the blame of infanticide on Jason for him driving Medea to the point of derangement in which she became capable of killing their children. Medea, much like Oedipus was a myth on which the play was based and created. This meant that the audience were very much aware of the story of Medea, but within the play, the way in which Medea chooses her plan of revenge as a result of her personal feelings of betrayal and being disregarded. The way in which Medea was treated by Jason was normal within ancient Greece, but Jason largely impacted the outcome of their fate by his choice to replace Medea with another woman. However, again within Medea, Euripides. (p. 26) “ O Zeus! Justice of Zeus! Light of the Sun! My enemies are in power… Now my enemies will pay, and pay.” Within this we see Medea call upon the gods as she is in a position where she can enact her revenge against Jason and Kreon. This shows us that the gods have an influence upon Medea and the gods are referenced, called upon and mentioned throughout the play. The intervention of the gods in Medea’s plan for revenge makes it much more likely that she was destined to reach the end she eventually does where she triumphs over Jason and escapes upon a chariot drawn by a dragon. Much like Oedipus, we can infer that Medea does not necessarily have free will since the gods have pre-determined an eventual outcome for Medea to kill her children. Therefore the way in which fate is treated is much more religiously linked yet seemingly individually shaped in the way one gets to their destined end. This contrasts with Oedipus The King, Taylor et al.(2008), in which we see Oedipus attempt to avoid the prophecy by leaving his adopted parents, only to stumble into his real father on the crossroads and subsequently partially complete his fate. This shows that Oedipus is shown to lack the free will to change his own life as he tried to go against the prophecy yet due to the lack of free will, he ended up where fate deemed him to be. In Oedipus The King, fate is much more feared and is almost used to scaremonger the audience as even Teiresias is scared to make Oedipus aware of what fate has in store for him.
In summary, Oedipus and Medea both include fate and therefore a questionable viewpoint on the free will of the protagonist and when compared with each other we can see the differing representations of fate. Within Oedipus The King we see a more overbearing and eerily controlling fate that seemingly prevents the opportunity of free will presented through the oracle of Apollo thus giving the prophecy legitimacy. Also, the fact that Oedipus attempted to use his free will to prevent completing his fate yet was unsuccessful makes the portrayal of fate to be all powerful and there to be an absence of free will to the character of Oedipus. In Medea however, the fulfilment of her fate is partially made by her derangement as a result of Jason’s prior actions. Yet, the frequent comments towards the gods does suggest that there was an intervention in the destined fate of Medea and therefore she does in fact have more free will than Oedipus. This is due to her own decision to arrive at committing Infanticide despite potentially having been partially caused by the gods on which Medea calls before going through with the act. Both plays handle fate and free will in similar ways due to societal views and beliefs at the time and as such both are very fate-centric tragedies in their own rights.
In the play “Oedipus Rex”, Sophocles shows a hidden connection between man’s free will and fate which the greek accepted to guide the universe amicable reason. A man was allowed to pick and eventually considered liable for his own behavior. Both the idea of fate and free will had an integral impact on Oedipus’ fall. In spite of the fact that he was a casualty of fate, he was not constrained by it. Oedipus was fated from birth to marry his mom and to kill his dad. This prophecy, as cautioned by the prophet of Apollo at Delphi was not open to more than one interpretation and can not be avoided. These events would happen, regardless of what he may have done to maintain a strategic distance in order to avoid it. His past activities were controlled by fate, yet what he did in Thebes, he did as such of his own volition.
From the earliest starting point of this catastrophe, Oedipus took numerous activities leading his very own destruction. Oedipus could have trusted that the plague would end, yet out of empathy for his enduring individuals, he had Creon, the brother of Queen Jocasta go to Delphi. At the point when he learned of Apollo’s promise, he could have been in a calm and peaceful manner examined the homicide of the previous King Laius. Yet in his quickness, he energetically curses the killer, and in this way, unwittingly curses himself, “I curse the doer, whether he worked alone or evaded us with accomplices, that he wear out his unlucky life as badly as he himself is bad. And I pray, if he should be known to me and share in my hearth among my family, that I suffer all that I called upon these” (Lines 252-258). As Oedipus wishes misfortune upon the killer, he does that to himself. He trusts and predicts that the killer’s life would be long and anguishing. Sophocles shows a connection between man’s free will and fate by having Oedipus carry out his own prophecy starting with his personal desire to seek out the killer of King Laius.
Oedipus’s venture looking for Laius’ killer has only helped the prophecy become a reality. His obliviousness, pride and callous journey for reality added to his devastation. After threatening Tiresias, a blind prophet of Apollo in Thebes, an unequivocal model can be seen when Oedipus was told that he was at fault for Laius’ homicide. Oedipus got maddened and considered the visually impaired prophet a liar. Oedipus figured he could conquer the divine beings. However, all his activities drew him nearer to his fate. After uncovering the reality of his introduction to the world from the shepherd, Oedipus shouts out, “Let it all burst out, if it must! As for me, though it be small, I wish to know my stock. But she, since a woman is proud of such things, she is troubled by this low birth of mine. But I deem myself the child of Chance, who gives good things, and I will not be dishonored. She is my mother, and my brothers, the Months, have seen me both small and great. Being born what I am, I could never be another, so I should seek out my descent” (Lines 1103- 1212). While Oedipus’s fate of killing his father and sleeping with his mother is sealed, he only learns that he has fulfilled his fate through persistent searching. Oedipus’ unwavering drive to reveal the reality with regards to Laius’ homicide and the secret encompassing his own introduction to the world, drove him to the heartbreaking acknowledgment of his horrendous deeds. Therefore, it is the fault of Oedipus’s own will that the tragedy is discovered, and not the fault of fate.
Sophocles supports fate by featuring to the audience the decline that Oedipus encounters. The chorus indicates the unexpected results in loss of respect and support, saying, “The generations of man— while you live, I count you as worthless, equal to nothing. For who, what man wins more happiness than just its shape and the ruin when that shape collapses?” (Lines 1216-1222). Oedipus acknowledges his fate and never again attempts to keep away from it. The achievements of Oedipus generally don’t pile up too much in contrast with the bigger issues of fate set against him. Oedipus demonstrates to be a person who needs to come to such an acknowledgment in the fiercest of habits. At last, his very own feeling of joy was a deception, broken by the truth of what defied him. He couldn’t consider himself to be a human with physical sight. Consequently, blinds himself, so as to become more noteworthy in vision into his own feeling of his place in the world. This draws out the situation of Oedipus just as the thematic reality that oversees the play. Sophocles’ vision of mankind is one in which nearsightedness rules, reflecting how people see the issue of their own bliss as being genuine, yet in fact is simply frustrated. The way in which Oedipus’ processed his thoughts in executing his dad, Laius, and wedding his mom, Jocasta, doesn’t detract from the awful idea of the wrongdoings. Oedipus is tolerating the full weight of his actions and realizes that he should be at fault for his wrongdoings. Along these lines, Oedipus’s annihilation was brought about by his freedom. However, his lamentable fate came about on account of the idea that no matter how many attempts he had to change his fate, his destiny was already shaped by the divine beings in human issues. So as to support a ‘moral lesson’ to not defy the divine beings and dodge your fate.
Throughout the hundreds of years, individuals have considered the impact of celestial power, condition, hereditary qualities, even stimulations, as deciding how free an individual is in settling on moral decisions. The ancient Greeks recognized the job of fate as a reality outside the person that forms and decides human life. In current occasions, the idea of fate has built up of sentimental predetermination. There are numerous spirits with whom we have gone into soul contracts with more than a few lifetimes. Together we consent to run into each other regularly. Frequently these spirits have a lot to show us in soul-development terms – that is a piece of the agreement and there’s no uncertainty we regularly do our most noteworthy development seeing someone. In any case, that experiencing these spirits is fated or part of our predetermination, we generally have an unrestrained choice. We can pick whether we engage with them or not, and to what extent we stay in the relationship. Soul agreements can be changed whenever. For there is just a single uncommon perfect partner who can make us really upbeat. All of us have numerous unique soul associations with others fashioned over numerous lifetimes. It’s unmistakably no better to have a fate or a development conviction. We have a bound for development conviction that works over all parts of our lives. At the point when we consider ourselves to satisfy a fate that remembers development for all parts of our lives – including our connections, we set up a conviction framework that permits genuine bounty for every one of us.
For us as individuals to have free will it suggests that as human beings, we have the ability to express and elect our own personal choices. Whereas the notion of fate entices the idea that our lives are simply determined by physical or divine forces. When focussing on the treatment of free will and fate in relation to Greek tragedies, one can recognise that this theme was often established as the driving forces of conflict. In ancient Greece, the lives of people seemed to be determined by the concept of fate; it was common belief that your fate was set for you from the moment you were born into existence – you couldn’t escape your destiny. Focussing on the main dramatists, Euripides and Sophocles, we can explore whether tragedies were created using the divine powers of the three fates, the Moirai, spinning, measuring and cutting each person’s destiny (Ancarola, 2018). Or, whether the power of free will prevailed and people could choose how they wanted to live their lives. Through studying Medea and Oedipus the King, this essay will seek to find out in what ways the playwrights have used precise influences of destiny and significant personal choice, to further develop the lives and paths of their characters.
Medea by Euripides is a Greek tragedy that follows the main protagonist’s journey of revenge against her unfaithful husband, Jason – after leaving her and their two children for King Creon’s daughter, Glauce. In Medea, the characters make multiple references to the gods as the cause of struggle. A key piece of dialogue takes place between Medea and the Tutor, where they discuss the golden crown and robe that has been laced with a fatal poison. They boast that this package has been successfully delivered to Jason’s new mistress the Princess of Corinth. One line said by Medea is most striking, “I have no choice old man, none at all. This is what the gods and I have devised, I and my foolish heart”. (Euripides, 2003, p.77). The ‘gods’ that Medea refers to could be Eros, Aphrodite and Hera, who, in the myth of Jason and the Golden Fleece, are the engineers of Medea’s love for Jason. (Wood, 2011). The declaration of “I have no choice old man, none at all…I and my foolish heart” (Euripides, 2003, p.77) suggests that Medea has conceded her free will and that she could in fact blame the gods for the outcome, as her malevolent plans stem from the artificially encouraged love that she has for Jason.
The significant personal choice made by Medea of killing her own children undoubtedly demonstrates her power to do as she pleases. Filicide is an unearthly act and Medea states “I am well aware how terrible a crime I am about to commit, but my passion is the master of my reason, passion that causes the greatest suffering in the world” (Euripides, 2003 p.78). This passage reinforces the concept of independent thinking and free will in the play. Regardless of Medea’s own doubts of killing her children, her human nature and uncontrollable need for revenge is so strong, she has conceded to the prospect of killing her children. Additionally, during Medea’s soliloquy which debates the future of her children, no vows were made and there was no invocation of the gods to assist her this the decision, it was her own free will that brought her to this unnatural decision.
Contrary to the seemingly obvious display of free will concerning the murder of her children, in the ending of Medea, Euripides indicates interference from the gods that provides evidence of tampering from the divine. Through the improbable use of Deus ex Machina, a term originally coined in ancient Greek, plays as stage machinery used to bring deities to intervene in action (Collins, 2016). Medea makes her exit in a ‘chariot drawn by dragons’ and exclaims “Such is the chariot that the Sun, my father’s father, has given to me, to keep me safe from enemy hands” (Euripides, 2003, p.84). Medea’s ability to leave the country, freely and unpunished for her actions illustrates the gods overlooking her vicious acts yet still protect her. Touching on the creation of Greek Tragedy, Aristotle in The Poetics states that “the unravelling of the plot…must arise out of the plot itself, it must not be brought about by the Deus Ex Machina – As in the Medea” (Butcher, 2011, 23%), which undeniably hints that he was distinctly unimpressed with the ending scene in Medea, due to Euripides’s use of the aforementioned stage device. However, developing on the initial discussion of the treatment of fate in this particular Greek Tragedy, Ruth Scodel (2010 p.131) declared that “Like a god, she flies, and she speaks as only gods ordinarily speak” in reference to the Deus Ex Machina, which proposes that Euripides may have used this manoeuvre to display the indisputable contribution from gods in the play.
Oedipus the King, written by Sophocles, clearly portrays the popular belief in ancient Greece that fate will indefinitely control all aspects of life, despite the presence of free will. Throughout the play Sophocles uses the concept of free will and fate as a vital part of Oedipus’ ruin. In the opening episode Creon announces “The ruler of this land, my lord, was Laius…He met with violent death – and now the oracle speaks clear: we must exact revenge upon his murderers” (Sophocles, 2015, p.18), which sets the motion that Oedipus must find out the truth behind the previous Kings murder in order to cure the curse that feasts upon Thebes. The presence of divine rulers is established quickly within the story as the ‘oracles’ have given the precise remedy to Oedipus’ problems. Unaware that the ancient prophecy that he was destined to wed his mother and kill his father, from the Oracle of Apollo at Delphi, has already come to pass, Oedipus begins a journey and through his self-determination and free will, transitions from ignorance to knowledge that inevitably leads him to his destiny.
The treatment of free will in Oedipus the King can be explored through the fatal flaw that presents itself within the character of Oedipus. The fatal flaw is represented in The Poetics by the Greek word Hamartia “which covers getting something wrong or making a mistake in the most general sense … and includes errors made in ignorance or through mis-judgement” (Heath, 1996, 20%). Oedipus’ fatal flaw is his erroneous judgement and subsequently, his ultimate downfall comes from a series of ill-fated miss-judgements that are made as he incessantly aims to do the right thing. The idea of Oedipus presenting Hamartia throughout the play provides a ground to believe that free will plays an important underlying theme throughout the play. Oedipus has the power in himself to not only make choices but to act and as Knox states “For the plot of the play consists not of the actions which Oedipus was “fated” to perform, or rather, which were predicted; the plot of the play consists of his discovery that he has already fulfilled the prediction. And this discovery is entirely due to his action” (1996 p.149). Even though this ultimately shows that Oedipus is able to make a range of independent choices and influence the actions in the play, this demonstration of free will can be hindered by certain pieces of the plot that highlight the involvement of destiny and the gods.
An example of the fatal flaw that displays Oedipus’ free will is when he makes the decision to find out about his past. Even after Jocasta pleads with him to look no further, Oedipus professes “That is impossible: when I have got such clues as these, I must reveal my origins” (Sophocles, 2015, p.55). His determination to find out the truth and the independent choice he makes to do so is what unearths his ‘origins’, and ultimately leads him to the recognition that he has already fulfilled the prophecy he was destined for and thus begins his destruction.
In his translation of Oedipus the King, Oliver Taplin notes that “Human lives are their own lives, then, with only rare interventions or interferences from outside superhuman powers. And yet they always (of course) end up doing what the gods have determined, or the oracles have foretold, or the curses have called down” (2015 p.7).
In conclusion, I think the above statement sums up the representation and deliverance of fate and free will in both the Greek tragedies discussed in this essay. Throughout both texts, fate and the gods are seen to be at fault for causing problems or interfering with the characters’ lives. As seen in the prophecies laid out in Oedipus or the gods having influenced Medea’s behaviour through her love for Jason, the involvement of destiny, fate and divine powers are prominent. However, we mustn’t forget that the choices made by the characters are of their own mind and heart, offering the figurative idea of free will as they make their own decisions. In the end, I believe that it is their own decisions in life that ultimately fulfil their illusion of what their fate may be.
Bibliography
Ancarola, G. (2018). The Moirai, the Fates of Greek Mythology. Available from: https://greece.greekreporter.com/2018/03/17/the-moirai-the-fates-of-greek-mythology/ [Accessed 28 Dec. 2018]
Aristotle. (1996) The Poetics. Translated by M. Heath. London: Penguin Classics. [Kindle Edition]
Aristotle. (2011) The Poetics. Translated by S. H. Butcher. CreateSpace Independent Publisher. [Kindle Edition]
Collins English Dictionary, (2016). Available from: https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/deus-ex-machina [Accessed 22 Dec. 2018].
Euripides. (1996). Medea and Other Plays. Translated by J. Davie and R. Rutherford. London: Penguin Classics.
Knox, B., (1982) Introduction to The Three Theban Plays by Sophocles. London: Penguin Classics.
Scodel, R. (2010). An introduction to Greek tragedy. Cambridge University Press.
Sophocles. (2015). Oedipus The King and Other Tragedies. Translated by O. Taplin. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wood, M. (2011). BBC – History -Ancient History in depth: Jason and the Golden Fleece. Available from: http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/greeks/jason_01.shtml [Accessed 1 Jan. 2019].
In Oedipus Rex, written by Sophocles, the play shows an intertwined interaction of man free will coexisting with fate which at the time Greeks at the time believed guided everything and everyone else in a balanced purpose. Women and men were free to make and decided their own decisions and at the end was ultimately held accountable for their own actions.
The concepts of both fate and free will played an important part in Oedipus’ destruction. Even though he was a victim of this fate that was placed on him, he was not controlled by it. Oedipus since the beginning was destined from birth to one day marry his real mother and to murder his real father. This prophecy, as warned by the oracle of Apollo at Delphi was unconditional and inevitably would come to pass, no matter what he may have done to avoid it. His past actions were determined by fate, but what he did in Thebes in present, he did so of his own free will.
From the beginning of this play, Oedipus took many, many actions leading to his inevitable downfall. Oedipus could have waited for the plague to end, but out of compassion for his suffering people and can’t bear to see them that way , he had sent Creon to go to Delphi to consult the oracle of Apollo. After when Oedipus learned of Apollo’s word from Creon, he could’ve investigated the murder of the King Laius, his father, more calmly and precise but in his carelessness, he passionately curses the murderer, and in doing so, unknowingly curses himself because he’s the murder. “Upon the murderer I invoke this curse whether he is one man and all unknown, or one of many may he wears out his life in misery or doom! If with my knowledge he lives at my hearth, I pray that I myself may feel my curse.” (Oedipus Rex)
So as for Sophecles’ Greek audience to have some relation to Oedipus, the tragic figure of the play, he had to have some flaws or error of ways. This kind of brought the character down to a level relative to us, placing or invoking in them this type of fear that whatever “it could happen to them.” And Oedipus is certainly not one without flaws. His pride, ignorance, insolence and disbelief in the gods, and unrelenting quest for the truth ultimately contributed to his destuction. When Oedipus was told, that he was responsible for the murder of his father, he became angry and called the ancient oracle a liar. He ran away from his home, Corinth, in the hopes of outsmarting the gods divine will and trying to escape his fate. Just as his father, Oedipus sought out different ways to escape the inescapable fate told by the oracle of Apollo. The chorus warns us of man’s need to have reverence for the gods, and the dangers of too much pride. “If a man walks with haughtiness of hand or word and gives no heed to Justice and the shrines of Gods despises may an evil doom smite him for his ill-starred pride of heart!- if he reaps gains without justice and will not hold from impiety and his fingers itch for untouchable things. When such things are done, what man shall contrive to shield his soul from the shafts of the God?” (Oedipus Rex)
Oedipus’ inflexible desire to uncover the truth about Laius’ murder and the mystery surrounding his own birth, led him to the tragic realization of his horrific deeds. Even though Teiresias, Jocasta and the herdsman tried to stop him from pursuing the truth in the fear of how he’ll react. For example a part of the last conversation between Jocasta and Oedipus. After realizing that the prophecy had come true, Jocasta begs him to just let the mystery go unsolved for once. Oedipus is still not able to stop his relent on his quest for the truth, even under his wife’s pleading. For it is in his own vain that he must solve the final riddle, the riddle of his own life.
Upon the discovery of the truth of his actual birth from the herdsman, Oedipus knew that his predestined fate had really come to pass and he feels horrible about it. The chorus then sings an ode on the sorrow of life and the tragic fate to which even the most honored, like Oedipus are ultimately subject. “What man, what man on earth wins more happiness than a seeming and after that turning away? Oedipus you are my pattern of this, Oedipus you and your fate! Luckless Oedipus, whom of all men I envied not at all. (Oedipus Rex)
At the end of Oedipus’s tragic story, when he gouges out his eyes, the chorus asks him what god urged him to blind himself. Oedipus replied, “It was Apollo, friends, Apollo, that brought this bitter bitterness, my sorrows to completion. But was the hand that struck me was none but my own.” (Oedipus Rex) In the end he claimed full responsibility for his actions. He was guilty the murder of his father and marrying his mother, but maybe the real sin lyes in his overzealous ways to raise himself to the levels of the gods by trying to escape his fate. But, ultimately, Odipus was judged for it, causing a reversal of fortune in his prosperous life.
In Homer’s The Odyssey, there were multiple power struggles between various gods, including Athena and Poseidon in regards to Odysseus, the protagonist hero. Throughout the story Odysseus is confronted with multiple events that change how long it takes for him to return home to his family. Does Odysseus have free will and is capable of determining his own fate or are the gods controlling that for him? This essay will identifying three incidents in which Odysseus determines the course of events in his life including: His confrontation with the cyclops, Polymorphus(book 9), Odysseus’s choice on whether to become immortal with Calypso or leave the island(book 5), and the choice to withhold the full prophecy of Tiresias from his shipmates . I will also dissect three incidents in which Odysseus’s fate was controlled by the gods which include: Poseidon’s ability to delay Odysseus from returning home, Athena persuading Zeus to allow Odysseus to leave Calypso’s island, and Athena erasing the memory of the suitor’s families who were slain by Odysseus during his return.
In book 9 of The Odyssey, Odysseus and his comrades encounter Polyphemus, the cyclops, who is also Poseidon’s son. His shipmates want to just grab what they need from the cave they encountered but Odysseus insisted they wait for whoever owned the cave to return. Polyphemus, the owner of the cave, finds Odysseus and his men in the cave and traps him in his home. When asked his name by the cyclops, Odysseus cleverly replies “Nobody” is his name. Odysseus then offers his wine in order to get the Cyclops drunk so he could form a plan of escape. While passed out in a drunken state, Polyphemus is stabbed in the eye, which then bursts leaving him blind. Polyphemus cried out in pain. The cyclops’s friends hear his screams of pain and come to investigate. When asked if he was alright, Polyphemus stated that “Nobody” was hurting him because he was under the impression that that was Odysseus’s name. The other cyclops left thinking everything was fine and Odysseus and his men finally were able to escape the Cyclops’s cave. Odysseus’s mistake upon leaving the island, was pridefully announcing his actual name to the Cyclops. Polyphemus then calls out to his father Poseidon asking him to create difficulty for Odysseus on his way home. This decision ultimately caused Odysseus to lose not only all of his men but it also ends up taking another 10 years for him to get home.
Poseidon, furious that his son had been blinded, decides to avenge his son, Polyphemus. Poseidon cursed Odysseus with a long and painful trip home. Odysseus encounters many trials at the hands of Poseidon on the way home. In one trial, Poseidon creates a storm that destroys a raft built by Odysseus.(book 5). If it hadn’t been for his fate (already decided by the gods) and the help of the sea nymph Ino, he might have died in Poseidon’s storm. Poseidon is the main contributing factor on why Odysseus takes years to get home versus weeks. The only thing stopping Poseidon from completely destroying Odysseus is his fate, decided by the gods, which was to ultimately arrive home from Troy.
After Odysseus was granted freedom, by Zeus, from the nymph Calypso he built a raft and stocked it with supplies for the voyage. Calypso attempted one last time to keep Odysseus on the island. She offered Odysseus immortality and the choice to stay with her or to leave the island, face tough trials along the way home, and to remain mortal. Odysseus chose mortality and to leave the island to venture back home even if it meant more trials by the gods. (Book 5). Odysseus chose hardship over contentment. A lot of men, including Achilles, would have chosen to become immortal, thus becoming more “godlike”, Odysseus on the other hand, chose to remain mortal.
Athena asked Zeus to tell Calypso to release Odysseus as prisoner and allow him to leave her island, Ogygia. Even though Odysseus was able to leave the island he was only able to due to Athena’s influence on Zeus. Zeus ultimately sent Hermes to inform Calypso that Odysseus is to be allowed to leave Ogygia. Athena stepping in to help was primarily due to her fondness of Odysseus. Without her help, Odysseus might have remained on Ogygia forever and it would have been unlikely he would have gotten to travel home if Calypso had her way. Once again his fate was in the hands of the gods.
In book 11, Odysseus encounters the blind prophet, Tiresias who tells him his future, including that if Helios’s cattle were harmed his men would not survive the trip home. Poseidon creates a storm that pushes Odysseus and his men towards Helios’s island (book ?). His men insist that they stop there to rest even though Odysseus advises against it. Odysseus informs them that they must not touch Helios’s cattle but he neglects to tell them that they will die if the cattle are harmed. Because he refuses to tell the men about the prophecy it is almost like he is choosing the fate where he has to journey home alone. If he would have told his men the full prophecy, maybe it would have prevented Helios’s cattle from being harmed no matter how hungry his shipmates were.
In the end of the Odyssey, Athena chooses to prevent any more fighting by forcing the suitors’s families and Odysseus into a pact of peace. She threatening that Zeus will be angry if they do not agree to stop fighting. Out of fear of the wrath of the gods they all agree to the pact of peace. In the end this action by Athena helped him by preventing any retaliation and further suffering for Odysseus and he is finally able to live in peace as King. If she had not forced this pact of peace the back and forth retaliation might have endured until ultimately there was noone left to fight.
Throughout Odysseus’s life he makes several decisions that determine his own fate: the battle with the cyclops, Polyphemus, choosing the life of a mortal man instead of immortality with Calypso, and the decision to omit an important part of the prophecy to his men Making a different choice in these instances could have saved him and his men plenty of suffering. Even though these were instances in which Odysseus was able to choose of his own free will, these were minuscule decisions compared to the god’s grand scheme choosing the path for Odysseus. Decisions like Poseidon’s will to keep Odysseus away from home, Athena’s influence over Zeus which allowing Odysseus’s from Calypso island, and Athena’s ability to force peace on immortal men were enormous life altering changes by the gods. From beginning to end, The Odyssey it appeared the gods primarily controlled Odysseus life, and even gave him warnings of the inevitable future he would face if an action was not avoided, such as Helios’s cattle not being left unharmed. These events illustrate that Odysseus does not have free will over his life and is why so many mortals in the Odyssey respect the gods and provide many offerings. The mortals believe the gods have the ability to change their faith dramatically and in The Odyssey that proves to be true.
Is there free will in the human life? In the short stories Oedipus Rex by Sophocles, The Tragedy of Macbeth by William Shakespeare, and “The Guest” by Albert Camus portrays how the exercise of free will leads to downfall. By the ideas of a higher superior, Oedipus, Macbeth, and the Arab in The Guest are able to independently decide their course of life which will eventually lead to their ruins. Oedipus exercises free will within the restriction of greater limiting forces. Macbeth heard his prophecy from the three witches and acts on his own which leads to his own downfall. Daru created two paths for the Arab to choose from which will lead him to be punished for exercising his free will. These works may answer the question whether there is free will or not.
In Oedipus Rex by Sophocles, portrays an individual who has limited free will but continues to exercise . Oedipus reaches out to anyone that knows about King Laius’s death. Many of the people he questioned gave him a vague answer. As he draws closer to the answer, Jocasta tries to stop him from continuing his “crime solving”.
“Oedipus: …Is that the man this shepherd means?Jocasta: Forget this herdsman. Forget it all.This talk is a waste of time.” (Sophocles 348, ll. 999-1001). His desire for truth kept pushing him to continue his search, leading to his downfall. The entire time Oedipus was capable to stop looking for his troubled answer. However he made the independent decision to continue. Oedipus’s downfall . Oedipus puts a lot of time to find out who killed the King. When Oedipus learns about his prophecy, he thought he got away from it by running away from his adopted parents which he thought were his biological parents. Though Jocasta does not believe the fate that her son would kill her husband would happen because her husband had left him out to die. When she found out otherwise, she killed herself as she cannot face the public. When Oedipus found out, he reacts by stating, “It was true! All the prophecies! -now, O Light, may I look on you for the last time” (Sophocles, 354, ll. 1117-1120). Before he knew he was the killer, he cursed whoever killed King Laius. He realized he was the killer, he felt the need to punish himself. He does not have to punish himself but he does so on his own will.
In the play, Oedipus did not ask to be born in the fate that he will kill her father and marry his mother. Oedipus’s act of free will is determine by his knowledge of his fate and not by fate itself. He has free will to change how his life goes. His choices brought the prophecy to life. He made his own decision to run away from the prophecy. With his free will, he does have the power to decide for himself what he should do for his prophecy. He claims to run away from home to protect his parents but rather runs away to protect himself from feeling contrite. “As I wandered farther and farther on my way To a land where I should never see the evil Sung by the oracle” (Sophocles 337, ll. 755-757). He admits to Jocasta when he found out about his prophecy and he strongly express that he should not see his prophecy come true.
In The Tragedy of Macbeth by William Shakespeare portrays an individual’s desire that does not relate to fate but free will. Macbeth uses fate as an excuse to execute his plan to fulfill his desires. His prophecy is to become king but it does not say how. “If chance will have me king, why, chance may crown me Without my stir” (I, IV, ll. 157-159). When he took matters in his own hands it is hard to tell if being king is the result of fate. His prophecy did not require him to do anything to be king, but the fact that he did do something shows that he freely decided on his decision.
Macbeth’s free will causes destruction to himself and others around him. Every choice he makes on his own desire, will merely affect others harshly. He encountered the witches that told him to beware of Macduff. “Beware Macduff, beware the Thane of fire. The power of man, for none born of women, shall harm Macbeth.” (III, i, ll. 75-76). He immediately ordered the murderers to kill Macduff’s wife and child. Though the prophecy told Macbeth to beware of Macduff, it does not tell Macbeth how to act. Macbeth’s decision to kill Macduff’s family is led by his own choice and fate has nothing to do with it.William Shakespeare shows how the overuse of free will cause by obsessive desires leads to a tragic downfall. Macbeth’s desires to act upon his prophecies leads to his defeat. He is influence by the Witches and Lady Macbeth to act upon his prophecies. “When you durst do it, then you were a man; And to be more than what you were, you would be so much more the man” (I, VII, ll. 49-51). Lady Macbeth persuades him to make his prophecy come true. Though he is also responsible to his own downfall because he denies to listen to his conscience which tells him to consider his ways and paths that is slowly causing his downfall.
In “The Guest” by Albert Camus portrays a unique individual that merely has two different options that changes his way of life. The Arab was given two paths from Daru the schoolmaster. One path is to be punish in jail, another path is to be free where he will be taken care of. The Schoolmaster could tell the Arab would choose to go to jail before giving him these two choices. “Daru with heavy heart made out the Arab walking slowly on the road to prison” (Camus 1256). The Arab chooses to go to jail on his own will.
Freedom is connected to humans choosing course of action. Camus shows how independent actions can help find value in life. The Arab was given two options to make on his own and he chooses to go to jail. The Arab chooses to be punished for his wrong doing in order to redeem himself and give value and meaning in his life. Camus shows a hidden meaning behind Daru’s kind actions that influence The Arab to want great values in his life. He shows this by Daru feeding the Arab and eating with him.“The meal was over, the Arab looked at the schoolmaster. “Are you the judge?”
“No, I’m simply keeping you until tomorrow.”
“Why do you eat with me”
“I’m hungry (Camus 1253).”
The quote describes Daru’s kind actions towards the prisoner (the Arab). This is consider a kind act because Daru goes against society’s view by treating a prisoner like a friend.
“The Guest” by Albert Camus, shows how free will can be frightening and can cause feeling of isolation. When Daru gives the Arab free will, Camus shows a hidden feeling where Daru feels isolated when he learns the Arab has chosen the path to punishment. Camus describes isolation and loneliness in this narrative: “Daru hesitated. The sun was now rather high in the sky and was beginning to beat down on his head. The schoolmaster retraced his steps at first somewhat uncertainly then with decision. When he reached the little hill he was bathed in sweat. He climbed it as fast as he could and stopped. Out of breath at the top. The rock-fields to the south stood out sharply against the blue sky but on the plain to the east a steamy heat was already rising. And in that slight haze Daru with heavy heart made out the Arab walking slowly on the road to prison (Camus 1256).” Daru felt uneasy when he learns the Arab took the path to jail. In the works of Oedipus Rex by Sophocles, Macbeth by William Shakespeare, and “The Guest” by Albert Camus, free will is available to anyone with great desires to change their course of life. They were influenced by others to act on their free will. Free will can lead to destruction and it can also lead to greater values in life. In Oedipus and Macbeth portrays the use of free will leads them to destruction. The Guest shows how choosing destruction to redeem oneself can add values in life. We were not able to see their life if they did not act upon their prophecies. Every choice they make independently, will be about fulfilling their desires. The question can be answer with they do have free will. The power of having free will can have many effects but the point is always the same.
The concept of free will is a frequently discussed issue these days. The emergence and popularization of democratic values all around the world raised the question of social and political pressures that used to be overlooked in the past. In philosophy, the concept of free will is defined as an individual’s ability to choose how to act in particular situations; the presence of free will assumes the existence of multiple alternatives among which a person could choose (Free Will, 2010).
The following is a social life situation I would like to review in order to discuss my perception of a free will limitation example in the contemporary world. The limitation occurred when I was invited to a friend’s birthday party that was held at a club. Trying to enter the club my other friend and I were stopped by the security person who told us we were not allowed in due to our inadequate appearances. Namely, our clothes did not match the dress code – I was wearing a “wrong” pair of trousers (jeans), and my friend had “wrong” shoes on (sneakers). In other words, our desire (free will) to wear particular clothes was compromised by the rules developed in particular communities. As a result, we ended up feeling insulted personally and facing an uncomfortable choice – having to go back home and change. At some point, we had decided not to come back at all but were pressured by another social belief that refusing to attend one’s birthday party would offend the host. We had to inform the host, and as they lived not so far away from the club, the solution was to take us to their home where we could borrow more socially acceptable clothes and shoes. In other words, we ended up obeying the rules and changing our behavior to meet the social expectations.
In philosophy, the question of free will is argued about because of differing opinions as to which behaviors are to be considered as dictated by free will (Free Will, 2010). For instance, violence is a part of human nature; so, is there any alternative to it, can it be eliminated from the society, and should the individuals be given a choice as to their desire to act violently? (Cohen, 2013). The absolute free will for everyone could easily result in a total chaos due to the clash of choices and desires among the individuals. That is why, in the modern societies there are rules that force persons to compromise and limit their initiatives. For instance, social contract theory explains that some of the freedoms of an individual are to be given up for the sake of other freedoms to be protected by the law (Friend, n. d.). In other words, an individual cannot go and murder whoever they dislike, but at the same time they are protected from being attacked by the others. However, the question is whether or not the limitations of all behaviors fall under the social contract explanation.
The society has many reasons to dictate one’s choices of clothes (religious, ethical, aesthetic), and overall, there is not much difference in dress codes for a church or a club. It is the type of authority that dictates the rules that makes one obey or reject them (religious leaders are considered higher than the club owners). An individual’s decision as to following or rejecting the rules is personal, however, it results in particular conditions. For instance, refusing to obey the rules and change clothes to enter a club, I would preserve my pride by would have to face the dissatisfaction of my friend who had a party. That way, free will and alternatives exist in the modern world, but they are very superficial and multiple that regardless of one’s desires, the choice they make matches the social expectations.
I am going to analyze the theme of free will in the book written by Saint Augustine “City of God” as it is an imprescriptible symbol of religious text, aspects of morality, and the interpretation of the Bible. Augustine’s theories of free will are based on the ability to exercise choice. Free will is an attribute of the saint people, prophets and ordinary people.
The aspect of free will can be considered from different points of view and according to different principles. Thus, there are several definitions of the aspect of free will; it can be considered to be any action, decision or choice made voluntarily or the state of freedom to make choices that are not the result of divine intervention or caused by some prior actions.
So, we can view the aspect of free will in the book “City of God” by Saint Augustine as a choice of some people to do something by their own will and the actions of people which are not caused by ‘divine intervention’; thus, people are free to choose their own way and to act in a self-determined manner. The major aspect of this very issue is the freedom of choice.
Thereby the title of the fifteenth chapter of the first book gives us a vivid example which can be analyzed from the point of view of both aspects: “Of Regulus, in whom we have an example of the voluntary endurance of captivity for the sake of religion; which yet did not profit him, though he was a worshipper of the gods” (Augustine 19).
The actions being made according to the person’s free will are rejected to be done for the sake of something, all the more for the sake of religion. The actions or decisions made because of free will must not be predetermined by some reasons, especially the religious ones.
A person, whether it is an ordinary man or a general, can bear any kind of challenges from fate but the ‘voluntary endurance of captivity is not the feature of free-will action. I know the only reason why a person can suffer captivity; it does not presuppose free will; it is weakness.
Only a weak person can suffer some hardship in order to tell them that this all was for the sake of religion. Religion is the matter of different kinds of people: weak and strong, and their faith can be weak and strong, as well as their actions can be caused by different reasons.
The saint people suffered hardship not for the sake of religion, but for the sake of ideas and beliefs; they wanted to achieve certain goals or get to know more about life, the reasons for our living on this planet, and the gospel truth. These people are worthy of the respect of all people in the world.
And the people who claim that their actions are caused by the religious aspects are to be disrespected. Moreover, the Roman general who was captured, Marcus Attilius Regulus is said to get no profit from religion, “though he was a worshipper of the gods” (Augustine 19). I cannot stand such people as they are always searching for some kind of profit.
To err is human. People make their decisions of free will; their actions may be good or bad, conditioned by good or bad intentions. Thus, all the good deeds of the saint people and all the sins made by the evil men are the result of our free will. Religion is the matter of every person, but everyone understands it in his/her own way
Free will is accepted by the Holy Church and allows people to make their choice. And the most important thing here is to believe in miracles, to have faith in God, and to act according to religious and moral principles which are common for all the people; all these actions are caused by free will.
People are given the most precious gift of life; God gave it to them; they do not seem to protect and save this enormous gift. Thus, the book was written by the Saint Augustine “City of God” is a specific interpretation of the sacred Scriptures. I would rather call it an attempt to interpret the Bible because from my point of view Bible is one of the most contradictory documents or sources about human beings and God, religious principles and different beliefs; ways to reach the goals and miracles.
Bible can be interpreted in a great number of different ways by different people, and all the variants would differ from one another because religion is the matter of every person individually. People are free to choose God, and Augustine represented the notion of the only God instead of a number of gods which existed in Roman religion. At the very beginning of the book, the author explains his reasons for having decided to write such a work.
Is it possible that the Holy church accepted free will as the symbol of a sinful action? The church is the domain of God as it is said in the Bible and interpreted in the book “city of God” written by Saint Augustine. This institution can encourage people to make good actions with good intentions. And the price of free will is the possibility to make a mistake and make a bad thing.
Can the Holy church provoke bad actions? The Bible in all its interpretations claims that free will is not bad when it is used with good intentions, but it is sinful to make bad actions by free will because free will is given to the people as a gift to make their own choice.
One of the purposes of the gift of free will is that God tries to check the will of the people, to allow them to choose and to err. It is strange to realize the fact that free will can cause sinful actions. Free will is the freedom of choice and the freedom of action given to the people in order to check their intentions and the results of their thoughts.
The thing is that Saint Augustine wanted to explain the religious and moral aspects and values of Christianity to people of other religions, mainly to Romans who had a great number of different gods and obeyed other rules of living. The author of “City of God” tries to describe relations of Christianity to other religions and to Christian philosophy, religion, God, and other diverse religious matters. The themes raised in the book concern spiritual aspects of life, meaning of life, free will, destiny, and human nature. I think that the aspect of free will is a vague and contradictory notion that can be easily refuted as well as supported.
Works Cited
Augustine, Saint. City of God. Toronto: Random House, 1993.
The debate of free will versus predestination is one of the most controversial topics in philosophy and a key topic in religious quarters. Most philosophers claim that free will and predestination are the fundamental discussions in Christian circles, since the topics relate to the teachings of sin and grace. The protagonists of free will claim that responsibility is unavoidable and an alternative to free will is tantamount to spiritual paralysis.
Predestination is a form of religious determinism whereby all events have been planned by God. In addition, predestination is viewed as divine foreknowledge of all that ought to occur with respect to salvation of some people whilst ignoring the rest. Apparently, these debates have caused some believers to generate the feeling of helplessness, while others have faltered on their beliefs on a Supreme God. However, this article will show that predestination interrupts free will. The theme will support the claim that Christians should have the privilege to exercise free will.
Free will
The free will of individuals is based on the motives of the mind. Christianity holds that initially humanity was devoid of the debilitating sinful nature. It embraces the idea of individual responsibility, and thus it claims that an individual’s deeds whilst responding to all that interacts with him/her lead to personal weakness or goodness. People have the freedom to adhere to the doctrines and guidance of God. In addition, when individuals choose to respond righteously, God rewards them with His grace (Geisler 13). When individuals act against the teachings of God, He punishes them for their wrong deeds.
The protagonists of free will acknowledge that God is always aware of the choices that people intend to make and the consequences thereof. However, Christianity affirms that God’s awareness does not inhibit human beings from sinning or acting righteously. The free will of humankind is vested in the choice to determine one’s actions. The protagonists of predestination, who are also referred to as Calvinists, argue that God has the control of the free will to occur and He predetermines the results of any action.
This assertion does not interfere with the free will as predestination protagonists argue. The prior knowledge of God about people’s deeds must not be seen as fatalism. In addition, Christians do not lack the capability to command their actions. Christians can control and be responsible for their actions by the will of God (Ely 35).
It is difficult to articulate how responsibility can exist in human beings in the absence of free will. For an obligation to be met, ability must exist. If an individual decides to take a particular decision, s/he has the ability to do so. Therefore, the will should always be guided to act free, choose the good, and practice it. In this case, sin remains as a deliberate action and free will is the determining factor in wrongdoing. Human beings are capable of living life free of sin provided they decide to do so.
Avoiding sin does not need the intervention of the divine workings of the Holy Spirit or being aware of the supernatural powers of the almighty God. As newborns enter this world, they are not bound by sin. They are in a position of neutrality and it is upon them to make free decisions (Ely 39). The Calvinists claim that such position hugely belittles the real scope of sin as well as rejecting the grace of God in the redemption from sin.
Contrary, even when the doctrine of grace in salvation is preached to the wrongdoer, it determines if s/he will be saved or not. The protagonists of predestination claim that such is the working of the Holy Spirit. However, if that assertion is the ultimate case, why do some receive the grace, while others miss it? Therefore, it is only through free will that one will accept or reject salvation.
Predestination
The protagonists of predestination argue that free will has been bound to sin such that it cannot achieve righteousness. Calvinists perceive the grace as a necessity and hold that salvation can only happen when grace is present (Renault 41). Claiming that grace is a necessity from beginning to end and denying any efforts by the individual infringes on the very essence of salvation. Arguing that grace is predetermined or willed by God entirely makes it easy to refute such claims and question why some people receive the grace if not out of their will.
Christians should be proud of their ability to make good decisions like accepting salvation rather than being made to believe that they are called and chosen. Claiming that if a human hand had part in people’s salvation would make them boast and demean God’s honor is a misguided statement meant to interrupt free will. It is morally right for Christians to show pride for what they have achieved in Christ since this aspect serves to differentiate them from the sinners; however, they must acknowledge the role of God’s power, which enables them to accomplish anything.
However, this aspect implies that as much as salvation depends on one’s free choice, God’s intervention is inevitable. This assertion explains why some people have the grace and others out of choices decide to remain sinners. Some people believe in salvation, and thus the grace of God is availed to them. Sinners are offered the grace too, but they do not believe in it or accept salvation.
Therefore, from a Christian point of view, it is necessary to acknowledge that human beings have a part to play no matter how little it is. Consequently, assuming that human beings are bound by sin and entirely saved by grace with nothing to account of themselves weakens the responsibility of man.
Predestination protagonists acknowledge that people have free will, but only on things that they refer as non-essential. For instance, they have choices of the kind of the lifestyle that they lead. Human beings can decide the kind of clothes to wear, but in making choices on salvation, they lack free will. In most fundamental areas, people have no free will. Renault suggests that individuals lack free will in many physical and intellectual areas and so is spiritually. However, by acknowledging that Adam had the free will, which he lost, and men became bound by the sin is misleading since every person at birth is sinless.
The role of the Holy Spirit is intervening and facilitating human beings to believe and prepare their wills to receive the grace. Consequently, those who are not ready to believe have the choice to remain sinners. The mind is not predetermined, but it chooses the most favorable course of action. God is holy and sovereign as illustrated in the Bible. Therefore, anybody who chooses the grace has to acknowledge God’s holiness and confess his or her sins. Anybody willing to come to Christ can do so and this perception underscores humans’ denial to come to Christ not until the Holy Spirit intervenes and they choose to believe.
God wants all people to be saved; however, it is erroneous for anyone to want Christians to believe that God chooses some and let others perish. The teachings of predestination that human beings have no choice on salvation weaken the sense of responsibility concerning the willingness or rejection of salvation.
Predestination teachings imply that God has no power to save everyone. This teaching is sacrilegious and misleading to Christians since they believe in powerful God worth worshiping for His ability to save all from eternal damnation. From the predestination perspective, a believer may easily lose track of salvation and be entirely lost. Therefore, Christians should always be encouraged to hold on to their belief in the grace (Geisler 39).
Conclusion
Human beings should realize the revelations of God, as it is essential to understand and generate the belief in salvation so that He can fill them with His Holy Spirit that provides empowerment to Christians. Christians should be guided by free will and responsibility for their actions. After using the free will appropriately, the workings of the Holy Spirit will reside in individuals as they experience salvation. As Christians, understanding that everything comes from God is important. However, people should acknowledge that God has given them free will to practice it with freedom and His divine workings intervene in their lives.
Works Cited
Ely, Ezra. Calvinism and Hopkinsianism: A Contrast, Bedford: Applewood Books, 2009. Print.
Geisler, Norman. Chosen but Free: A Balanced View of God’s Sovereignty and Free Will, Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2010. Print.
Renault, Alexander. Reconsidering Tulip: A Biblical, Philosophical, and Historical Response to the Reformed Doctrines of Predestination, Morrisville: Lulu Press, 2010. Print.