Salvation is being saved or protected from harm or being saved or delivered from some dire situation. In religion, salvation is stated as the saving of the soul from sin and its consequences.
The [Calvinist–Arminian] debate centers around soteriology, or the study of salvation, and includes disputes about total depravity, predestination, and atonement.
Christians influenced by Jacobus Arminius, such as Methodists, believe that while God is all-knowing and always knows what choices each person will make, he still gives them the ability to choose (or not choose) everything, regardless of whether there are any internal or external factors contributing to that choice.
Arminius argued that depraved, sinful man can choose his own eternal salvation.
Calvinist Protestants embrace the idea of predestination, namely, that God chose who would be saved and who would be not saved prior to the creation.
Calvin argued that depraved, sinful man cannot choose much of anything when it comes to eternal salvation.
So where is bionic headed?
Freedom is for Everyone
Just as Arminians believe about salvation…
So it has been suggested at this site, and often suggested by libertarians generally. It is laughed at by others – even by advocates of libertarian theory.
Are some cultures, as opposed to others, predisposed (or pre-destined if you will) for being accepting of a generally libertarian society? Are some cultures more conducive toward peaceful cooperation than others? Or are all – no matter culture, background, upbringing, lifestyle – equally constitutionally fit toward freedom and liberty, all in equal portions?
I was challenged several months ago on this topic. Are all cultures equally predisposed toward liberty? Is a libertarian society possible absent first realizing proper cultural soil? If not, what implications can be drawn from this? This was in the context of immigration – why let in people who have no clue and no desire to move toward freedom? How will this advance the possibility of realizing a libertarian society?
The struggle for me has come from my focus on the individual:
[Methodological Individualism] amounts to the claim that social phenomena must be explained by showing how they result from individual actions, which in turn must be explained through reference to the intentional states that motivate the individual actors. It involves, in other words, a commitment to the primacy of what Talcott Parsons would later call “the action frame of reference” (Parsons 1937: 43–51) in social-scientific explanation. It is also sometimes described as the claim that explanations of “macro” social phenomena must be supplied with “micro” foundations, ones that specify an action-theoretic mechanism (Alexander, 1987).
I have slowly been moving away from not really even thinking about the issue (libertarianism can sprout in any soil vs. the right soil – culture – is a necessary pre-condition), toward concluding the latter. This week may have finally solidified my intellectual move.
The implications inherent in my moving toward this view are significant, and some quite difficult for me to fully embrace. Not least of all is one very personal implication….
I was once strongly challenged (you might say rebuked) for my assertion that labelling people in groups is the first step toward genocide, a topic not too distant from my heart. “You are being politically correct!!!!!” came the call. After years of chewing on this, I have slowly come to understand the meaning of this rebuke.
In any case…culture perhaps determines the possibility of achieving a libertarian society; some cultures are more conducive toward achieving such an end than others.
It struck me how this position is philosophically consistent with my view about salvation. Not that this matters much….
Now I am rambling. Enough said.