Summary of text [comment] pages 84 and 85
[A second co-opposition composes the vertical axis.
This is: Thought3V(2 and deed2(1V).
This vertical co-opposition intersects the horizontal co-oppositions of either responsibility3H(2 & freedom2(1H)) or words3H(2 & bondage2(1H)).
My heart2 is the single actuality that arises from the congruence of two co-oppositions.]
[Responsibility tends to exclude the normal context belonging to words, and visa versa.]
[Freedom and bondage are exclusively opposed even though they are both exercises of the heart2(1H).
What does this imply?
Since exclusion is a property of the realm of normal context, each of these terms co-oppose an independent normal context.
Freedom2(1H)) co-opposes responsibility3H(2.
Bondage2(1H)) co-opposes words3H(2.]
Summary of text [comment] pages 84 and 85
Schoonenberg joins the term “heart” with the terms “free” and “bondage”. The heart may be free or in bondage to sin, law or death.
Summary of text [comment] pages 84 and 85
[Ah, what about the prior models?
Free will is a term that belongs to both the intersections of ‘my heart2’ and ‘what is good and what is bad2’.
Free will associates to the potentials of each vertical axis, something that I may choose1V and conscience1V.
Similarly, free choice belongs to the single actuality of ‘my heart’2 and what is good and what is bad2.]
[What does this observation imply?
Did the word “free” shift within a changing symbolic order?]
Is there a difference between the terms free will and free choice?
Augustine wrote of a free will in contrast to a slave will, even though both retained free choice.
Anselm contrasted simple choice (arbitrium) and Christian liberty (libertas). This does not quite fit Augustine’s opposition of free and slave wills.
Summary of text [comment] pages 84 and 85
Scriptures tell of the ‘heart’. Church doctrine tells of ‘free will’.
In the pagan Greek and Roman world, the ‘heart’ had ‘free choice’ (libertum arbitrium).
So, the terms became confused.
[Common use of the term ‘free will’ shows that speakers do not readily distinguish between these two associations.
May I? gets confounded with can I?.
One question is theological. The other is practical.]
