We run our website the way we wished the whole internet worked: we provide high quality original content with no ads. We are funded solely by your direct support. Please consider supporting this project.
What is the difference between “libertarian” and “compatibilistic” freedom?
Question: I often hear philosophers and theologians talk about “libertarian” and “compatibilistic” freedom. What do these terms mean?
Answer: A person who holds to “libertarian” freedom believes that an agent (human or angelic) is truly free and morally responsible for their choices only if it resides in an agent’s power to determine his or her own choices. Their decisions, in other words, can’t be completely determined by causes outside of themselves. Given any choice an agent makes, a libertarian holds that the agent must have had the power to choose differently if their choice is to be truly free and morally responsible. This is sometimes called “the power of contrary choice.” It is also sometimes referred to as “incompatibilistic freedom,” since the belief is that free will is incompatible with determinism.
By contrast, a person who holds to “compatibilistic” freedom believes that an agent (human or angelic) can be said to be truly free and morally responsible for their choices if there is no obstacle to their choosing what they want, even though what they want is completely determined by causes outside of themselves and even though their choices are completely determined by what they want. In other words, compatibilists believe that free will is compatible with determinism.
Category: Q&A
Tags: Free Will, Predestination, Q&A, Responding to Calvinism
Topics: Free Will and the Future, Providence, Predestination and Free Will
Related Reading
How do you respond to 2 Samuel 17:14–15?
“Absalom and all the men of Israel said, ‘The counsel of Hushai the Archite is better than the counsel of Ahithophel.’ For the Lord had ordained to defeat the good counsel of Ahithophel, so that the Lord might bring ruin on Absalom.” This passage is sometimes cited to support the view that God ordains all…
Does the Open View Undermine God’s Sovereignty?
A common objection to the concept of a risk-taking God is that it seems to undermine God’s sovereignty. If any particular individual can opt out of God’s plan, then every individual could conceivably opt out of God’s plan, and it seems that God’s entire plan for world history could ultimately fail. Some have argued that…
Is Open Theism Incompatible With a Chalcedonian Christology?
Question: The Chalcedonian Creed says Jesus was “fully God and fully human” and that these “two natures” remained distinct in the Incarnation, even though Jesus was one united person. I’m told that part of the reasoning behind the concern to keep Jesus’ humanity distinct from his divinity was to protect the “impassibility” of the divine…
What happens to babies who die?
The Bible does not directly address the issue of what happens to babies who die before being able to make a decision for or against Christ. People have thus had to arrive at conclusions about this matter on the basis of other beliefs they hold to be true. The majority of evangelicals today assume that…
How can we determine what is and is not “open” about the future?
Question: You believe that the future is partly open. You’re writing has pretty much convinced me this is true, but I’ve still got some serious questions about it. For example, how does anyone determine what part is open and what part is not? If we can’t determine what is and is not open, isn’t the…