7309	Forums / Theology Forum / Orthodoxy - Chesterton	on: June 24, 2007, 12:47:24 PM
MBG, There will always be conflict between those who emphasize one of these truth's to the exclusion or at least trivializing of the other. God is sovereign and yet man is responsible. The trivializing of mans responsibility does not come from a lack of balance of truth, but from a misunderstanding of truth and misapplication of that truth. When we are  discussing free will, we are tempted to think of it as if it were a balance of weights. And if there is anything that is out of balance then there cannot possibly be freedom in the will. Today we think of freedom as independence. We are declared independent of God in order to be free to choose God. Its our way of declaring our autonomy. Thus we consider the concept of dependence as being co- dependent. Because we believe that in order for a person to be responsible he must be able to exercise free will without compulsion. And any cause to will is compulsion which is being co dependent.So that co dependence is the opposite of independence , a paradigm without coercion.The fact is that those who are in need and those who meet the need are one and the same, just under different circumstances. Here is an example to make this a little easier to understand.  Take for instance an economical example. Capitalism.  There are those who believe that in order to increase the budget you need to raise taxes, that is it is a 0 -sum proposition. The other side believes you need to lower taxes to increase growth which will make more tax payers. Now there are is a paradigm of suppression or weight of effect that will directly effect a persons well being that comes as a result of implementing these philosophies. It has the same weight or effect of suppression with how we view freedom of choice in the human soul. If we believe that liberty of choice is a balance between good and evil , or that the will is under no necessity to choose one way or the other , then we are creating a philosophy that will work out in effects of suppression. My view of this is that you are saying that in order to be free to choose you need to be under the domination of the objects of the choice. Or in order for you to be without coercion your choosing at some point must not be presently coerced , because that would mean that there would be no freedom. But choosing is desiring one thing over another so that there is never a choice without coercion or a cause. Because if there is no cause then there would be no reason to choose. Something cannot come from nothing . Now if we are under no obligation to choose then we are not choosing. If the will does not have a cause then there is no will to choose. So that the object of choice then comes to the for front as the coercing power. I am saying that this is really bondage rather than freedom. If your system of thinking involves this equilibrium freedom then the person who disciples you will be the coercing power for you to choose. In other words if you want your equilibrium then in order for you to have that paradigm your going to be in bondage to another person or object.I am saying that balance in this way leads to no cause and no effect so that in the autonomy of equilibrium we lose our liberty from the activity of the Spirit and the word to another person that is our equal. Choice always has a cause, being the strongest desire of the soul so that freedom involves our direct relation in a causal sense to the Spirit and the word rather than being in bondage to another person or the power of an object. We experience freedom by the spiritual cause of desire alone in our choices. All these other paradigms are secondary.