[My inability to escape my bondage refutes the common use of the term ‘free will’. I cannot change my path. I do the deeds that I do not want to do.
It seems as if my bondage2(1H)) becomes my disposition1H (in another intersection).]
Summary of text [comment] pages 84 and 85
[When words3H(2 are twisted by sin, bondage2(1H)) withers the heart2.
My heart fixates on the bondage that will kill me2H1H)).]
Summary of text [comment] pages 84 and 85
[Law enters through thought3V(2 then influences deeds2(1V)).
Sin enters through words3H(2 then produces bondage2(1H).]
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?]
