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
Tragedy Strikes and Coherence Goes Out the Window
I encourage you to read Aurora shooting inspires various perspectives on God and belief, written by Electa Draper and published on the front page of the Denver Post Monday. The article shows how differently believers process tragedies, and illustrates the centrally important role one’s picture of God plays in these responses. For today, I’d like…
Isn’t God “changing his mind” an anthropomorphism?
Question: Traditionalists argue that passages that refer to God “changing his mind” are anthropomorphic, depicting God in human terms. Open Theists take these passages literally, however. But if you’re going to take these passages literally, it seems you should, for consistency’s sake, also interpret passages about God “coming down” from heaven literally (e.g. Gen. 11:5;…
How do you respond to Isaiah 48:3–5?
The Lord proclaims to his idolatrous people, “The former things I declared long ago, they went out from my mouth and I made them known; then suddenly I did them and they came to pass. Because I know that you are obstinate, and your neck is an iron sinew and your forehead brass, I declared…
What did Jesus mean when he said he came not to bring peace, but a sword (Mt 10:34)?
Given Jesus’ uniform teaching about loving enemies and abstaining from violence, and given that his followers were known for their refusal to engage in violence for the first three hundred years of church history, it’s obvious that Jesus wasn’t saying he came so that his disciples would use swords. The context of Jesus’ comment makes…
When God Regrets
The openness of the future is illustrated in the Bible’s depictions of God as grieving the outcome of decisions he himself has made. Regarding the incredible wickedness of humanity before Noah, for example, we read, “The Lord was sorry that he had made humankind on the earth, and it grieved him to his heart” (Gen…
Isn’t Open Theism outside of historic orthodoxy?
The Church has never used one’s view of divine foreknowledge as a test for orthodoxy. And while the open view has always been a very minor perspective, it has had its defenders throughout Church history and it has never been called “heresy” (until in mid 1990s when some started using this label). According to some…