Free will/Calvinism in a nutshell

[Melanie]

No: HPFGUIDX 78564

<delurk>

Del Doriane wrote:

> I liked it so much when the principle of free agency 
> was thus pointed out in CoS. And I hated it so much when 
> the Prophecy  came along in OoP, and destroyed everything.  

I thought I would chime in here (even though I'm a lay person, not a 
theologian. :)

First, it's important to understand the difference between 
foreknowledge and predestination. Arminian Christians (free-will 
proponents) believe that, while God knows what will happen to us, He 
does not *make* it happen. Likewise, one could look at the Prophecy in 
OotP as an instance of magical foreknowledge that does not force Harry 
to take any course of action, but simply predicts future events. In 
this case, Harry is still a free agent. 

For example, I can predict that my husband, when offered a Slim Jim, 
will choose to eat it. My "foreknowledge" :) does not mean he did not 
make a free choice.

So, in my view, there is still room for free will in stories dealing 
with time travel and predictions of the future.

And Catlady wrote:
> Long ago, one wise and clever listie (whose name I have 
> unfortunately forgotten) pointed out that Dumbledore, in that famous > CoS scene, did *not* say that it is our choices that *make* us what 
> we are. He said: "It is our choices, Harry, that show what we truly 
> are, far more than our abilities." SHOW what we truly are. SHOW what 
> we were and are *destined* to be, because we never had a choice 
> about which choice we would choose: it was fixed from the beginning.

Wow, that was a great catch by that clever unnamed listie. :) Sounds 
like Dumbledore's something of a Calvinist (at least as far as 
believing in predestination goes). Consequently, I'd like to shift 
gears and try to explain predestination in a way that hopefully makes 
some sense and will allow us to make peace with the concept.

Proper Calvinism does not claim that humans do not make choices. It 
posits that humans do not *freely* make choices. There is a 
difference. It was (convincingly) explained to me this way: when I get 
up in the morning and decide what to wear, I do not choose from an 
infinite number of choices. The number of choices is finite. However, 
I still make a choice willingly -- the fact that my number of choices 
was limited does not mean that I am not willingly making a choice and 
therefore responsible for that choice. 

Now, narrow down the range of choices even further. Let's say that, at 
any given moment in my life, I have only one real choice -- even 
though it seems to me like I have several. I make my choices 
willingly, therefore I am responsible for my choices. Even though I 
was not actually *free* to choose the things I did *not* end up 
choosing, I made all my choices willingly.

I'm sure someone out there can explain it better, but I hope that made 
sense.

Melanie
</delurk>