Libertarian freedom is generally thought to include a freedom of choice that is self-determined and not caused by events outside the control of the agent. Thus, given a choice between competing alternatives, the individual can choose either way, and once a choice has been made, it is asserted that the agent could have chosen otherwise.
Compatibilist freedom is generally thought to include a freedom of choice that is self-determined but may, in some instances (or in all instances), be causally determined by events outside the control of the agent. As Feinberg has put it, “an action is free even if causally determined so long as the causes are nonconstraining,” by which he means that the causes can be sufficient to bring about an action, but not contrary to the individual’s will, desires, or wishes.
Compatibilist freedom is generally thought to include a freedom of choice that is self-determined but may, in some instances (or in all instances), be causally determined by events outside the control of the agent. As Feinberg has put it, “an action is free even if causally determined so long as the causes are nonconstraining,” by which he means that the causes can be sufficient to bring about an action, but not contrary to the individual’s will, desires, or wishes.
Of course, the meaning of self-determination in each view is somewhat different. In libertarianism, it means both that the choice was made by the individual and that it was not caused by anything outside the individual. By contrast, compatibilism uses the language of self-determination to mean that the choice was made by the individual in accordance with his or her will, desires, or wishes, but there are sufficient causes for the action, and those causes are either external or internal to the individual.
So in libertarian freedom, if given the same condition as it is, he/she could have choose the otherwise. For example, in the court when the judge asks the suspect why he murdered this person. The reason that the suspect gives why he kills will be also the same reason why he didn't kill, because in liberalistic freedom, the given the same condition, he would have choose the otherwise, namely he won't kill. So in liberalistic freedom, there is no reason/cause/will/desire to do something. There is no cause/desire behind an action. This makes man's action an arbitrary choice, man just do something, without a desire that drives that action.
But in compatibilist freedom, an action is influenced by a cause (either external or internal), but still consider as a free action, since the decision was made by the individual. People will choose what to do what his desire wanted to do the most. So we, who are born as sinful men, will do what our sinful desire want to do the most, that is sinning, (in this case original sin is an internal cause that drives the human's action) and since it is a free action done by us, we are still accountable to God for what we have done.
Few examples for the parallel / symmetrical of both actions by God and man.
Genesis 45:4-8, Acts 2:23, 4:27-28, Isaiah 10:5-13, 2 Peter 1:20-21.
I think the first few examples are quite clear. God uses sinful men as His tool to fulfill His wills, yet men still accountable to God for what they done. For the last example, if we think like a libertarian, then how can we be sure that the Scripture's writers will writing the Word of God, since if left on their on, they can do otherwise, that is act on their own free will, and write what they want to write. But if we think like a compatibilist, we can be sure that God is the one that making the Scripture's writers, to write His Word. In this case, God is the external cause that drives the human's action.
This sounds a bit academic / philosophical initially, yet this profound theology / doctrine explains the mystery of God's sovereignty and the accountability of man (though sounds like a paradox, but both are compatible truth) and it has huge impact on our life, and how we view God and everything else. Yet bear in mind that knowing this truth doesn't make us a better christian than other christians. The thief on the cross is unlikely to know about all these, yet Jesus says that he will be with Him in paradise on that day itself.
But in compatibilist freedom, an action is influenced by a cause (either external or internal), but still consider as a free action, since the decision was made by the individual. People will choose what to do what his desire wanted to do the most. So we, who are born as sinful men, will do what our sinful desire want to do the most, that is sinning, (in this case original sin is an internal cause that drives the human's action) and since it is a free action done by us, we are still accountable to God for what we have done.
Few examples for the parallel / symmetrical of both actions by God and man.
Genesis 45:4-8, Acts 2:23, 4:27-28, Isaiah 10:5-13, 2 Peter 1:20-21.
I think the first few examples are quite clear. God uses sinful men as His tool to fulfill His wills, yet men still accountable to God for what they done. For the last example, if we think like a libertarian, then how can we be sure that the Scripture's writers will writing the Word of God, since if left on their on, they can do otherwise, that is act on their own free will, and write what they want to write. But if we think like a compatibilist, we can be sure that God is the one that making the Scripture's writers, to write His Word. In this case, God is the external cause that drives the human's action.
This sounds a bit academic / philosophical initially, yet this profound theology / doctrine explains the mystery of God's sovereignty and the accountability of man (though sounds like a paradox, but both are compatible truth) and it has huge impact on our life, and how we view God and everything else. Yet bear in mind that knowing this truth doesn't make us a better christian than other christians. The thief on the cross is unlikely to know about all these, yet Jesus says that he will be with Him in paradise on that day itself.
