# Libertarian Freedom in Glory



## dissidentcynic (Nov 13, 2009)

Do those that believe libertarian free will allowed the fall to happen believe there will be the same type of libertarian freedom in heaven? I have heard some reformed folks take jabs at Arminians and say that the implications of libertarian free will (especially if God 'has' to give) is that we could introduce sin into heaven. Is this an accurate accusation, or just an assumption? I am unfamiliar with the Arminian position, I am only familiar with compatibilism.


----------



## toddpedlar (Nov 13, 2009)

dissidentcynic said:


> Do those that believe libertarian free will allowed the fall to happen believe there will be the same type of libertarian freedom in heaven? I have heard some reformed folks take jabs at Arminians and say that the implications of libertarian free will (especially if God 'has' to give) is that we could introduce sin into heaven. Is this an accurate accusation, or just an assumption? I am unfamiliar with the Arminian position, I am only familiar with compatibilism.



In heaven, we will be in a state of glory - we will be, as Augustine put it, non posse peccare - not able to sin. We will freely choose (just as we freely choose here, just as Adam freely chose in the garden) but our freedom will be limited to what our nature dictates (just as it is here, just as Adam freely chose in the garden). Our nature will be fully perfected - and we will have no desire whatsoever to sin. 

If, by libertarian free will, what is meant is that a person is free to choose whatever - and is not even bound by his nature - then of course that is not ever true of any being whatsoever (even God), and wherever - even in the Garden. Adam did not have libertarian free will in the Garden. His nature was such that he could sin or not sin - and therefore the whole range of possibilities was open to him. God's nature is such that He cannot sin - so all that He does is sinless and perfect. God does not have libertarian free will any more than we do.


----------



## dissidentcynic (Nov 13, 2009)

Thank you for clarifying, I appreciate it.


----------



## Ron (Nov 13, 2009)

There is no formal agreement among Arminians on this matter. First let’s define LFW as the metaphysical notion that supposes that a moral agent can choose between alternatives with equal ease. Now I’ll address two compatible views within the Arminian framework. 

LFW does not require that one be able to choose contrary to his nature but it does require that one can choose contrary to what he will. So, an Arminian can consistently maintain that an unregenerate sinner can choose x or not-x, but both choices would be according to the person’s nature. So, with respect to choices in heaven, an Arminian can maintain that it would be metaphysically _impossible_ for one to choose to sin (in heaven) but LFW would still be maintained, which implies that men would be able to choose with equal ease between righteous choices.

For those Arminians who believe that men can choose contrary to their nature in heaven (and therefore sin), they maintain although men can sin in heaven, God chose to instantiate a world in which no saved sinner ever exercises such a choice.

Ron


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Nov 13, 2009)

This is a good book on the subject:

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Willing-Believe-Controversy-over-Free/dp/0801064120/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258122603&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: Willing to Believe: The Controversy over Free Will (9780801064128): R. Sproul: Books[/ame]


----------



## dissidentcynic (Nov 13, 2009)

Thanks Ron, I was looking for a philosophical statement of the Arminian position, and you did just that. I would never want to use a straw man in a discussion with anyone. Evangelicals are known for using straw mans against people they do not like. It is not about always proving myself right, but lining myself up with the truth in God's Word.


----------

