Closer look at Soft Libertarian-ism

TomFL

Well-known member
This is YOUR definition...

Available to what?

Available as an option


By your own definition the “character” and/or “nature” determines the “set of options” available! In your MODEL, what are the options available to... if not to the “Will”?

I sense an error of Circular Reasoning coming!

And I sense you still avoid addressing what you have been asked to addreds from the the beginning

And you ignored the question of God's freedom

Did God have a huge gap in his decision processes ?

Was creation determined for him ?

Did he have no other option ?

Was God's decision determined or just random chance ?

Is it impossible for God to create a creature with a limited amount of his capability

Why is it you cannot/willnot defend you determined /random chance model ?
 

TomFL

Well-known member
<sigh>

More insults by you... And ZERO Biblical support for your ridiculous claims.
Maybe that's why nobody buys your worthless theology.
You really are making me laugh

You need a bible verse to tell you a man deposition is a part of himself

and not external to him ?

BTW there was no insult
 

Theo1689

Well-known member
You really are making me laugh

You need a bible verse to tell you a man deposition is a part of himself

I need a Bible verse to support ANY claim you make.

Lurkers: Does everyone see the blatant double standard here?
This poster DEMANDS we provide "Bible verses" for ANYTHING we claim.
But he feels the "privilege" to simply claim his outlandish claims are "obvious", and don't need any support.

Must be nice to never have to defend your beliefs.
 

TomFL

Well-known member
I need a Bible verse to support ANY claim you make.

Lurkers: Does everyone see the blatant double standard here?
This poster DEMANDS we provide "Bible verses" for ANYTHING we claim.
But he feels the "privilege" to simply claim his outlandish claims are "obvious", and don't need any support.

Must be nice to never have to defend your beliefs.
Even a basic definition ?

the innate or essential qualities or character of a person or animal.See also human nature.
"it's not in her nature to listen to advice" ·

Hello

You are running on empty Theo

and the Lurkers are seeing you put your foot in your mouth
 
Last edited:

Theo1689

Well-known member
Even a basic definition ?

the innate or essential qualities or character of a person or animal.See also human nature.
"it's not in her nature to listen to advice" ·

Secular definitions are not always accurate for theological issues.

So yes... "Even a basic definition".

Hello

You are running on empty Theo

and the Lurkers are seeing you put your foot in your mouth


<Chuckle>

Nope... Lurkers are seeing two things:

1) You never have Biblical citations for your outrageous claims;

2) You engage in a double standard of always demanding your opponent provide Scriptures, but you never having to.
 

TomFL

Well-known member
Secular definitions are not always accurate for theological issues.

So yes... "Even a basic definition".




<Chuckle>

Nope... Lurkers are seeing two things:

1) You never have Biblical citations for your outrageous claims;

2) You engage in a double standard of always demanding your opponent provide Scriptures, but you never having to.
You really are making me laugh

I produce more bible for my arguments than most any other poster

You really have gone off on the deep end making such a statement

While You mostly refuse to answer

this was more a philosophy issue than a theology issue

And you were given both a English and Greek reference

2. natural characteristics or disposition

William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature : A Translation and Adaption of the Fourth Revised and Augmented Edition of Walter Bauer’s Griechisch-Deutsches Worterbuch Zu Den Schrift En Des Neuen Testaments Und Der Ubrigen Urchristlichen Literatur (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979), 869.

here is another word translated nature hupostasis

2B the substantial quality, nature, of a person or thing.

James Strong, Enhanced Strong’s Lexicon (Woodside Bible Fellowship, 1995).

A man's characteristic or disposition would not be something external to himself

it would be a part of who he is

That this needs to be explained to you is rather mind boggling
 
Last edited:

Sketo

Well-known member
TomFL said:
The nature is not external to the man
This is YOUR definition...
TomFL said:
soft libertarianism contends a person’s character simply determines what sets of choices are available.
Available to what?
TomFL said...
Available as an option
“Available as an option”... to what?

TomFL said:

Whether Gods “nature” allowed him to create or not create
By your own definition the “character” and/or “nature” determines the “set of options” available! In your MODEL, what are the options available to... if not to the “Will”?

I sense an error of Circular Reasoning coming...

TomFL will now deflect!
 

TomFL

Well-known member
This is YOUR definition...

Available to what?


“Available as an option”... to what?

For a descision that should have been obvious
By your own definition the “character” and/or “nature” determines the “set of options” available! In your MODEL, what are the options available to... if not to the “Will”?

I sense an error of Circular Reasoning coming...

TomFL will now deflect!
That is what you did and have not addressed

And still do not address

If you want to remind the readers you have never addressed or attempted to defend your determism or random chance view have at it

And I sense you still avoid addressing what you have been asked to address from the very beginning

You ignored the question of God's freedom

Did God have a huge gap in his decision processes ?

Was creation determined for him ?

Did he have no other option ?

Was God's decision determined or just random chance ?

Is it impossible for God to create a creature with a limited amount of his capability

Why is it you cannot/will not defend you determined /random chance model ?

BTW you have not produced anything to deflect from

The man Sketo the man
 

Sketo

Well-known member
TomFL said:
The nature is not external to the man
This is YOUR definition...
TomFL said:
soft libertarianism contends a person’s character simply determines what sets of choices are available.
Available to what?
TomFL said...
Available as an option
“Available as an option”... to what?
For a descision that should have been obvious
:cool:
TomFL said:

Whether Gods “nature” allowed him to create or not create
By your own definition the “character” and/or “nature” determines the “set of options” available! In your MODEL, what are the options available to... if not to the “Will”?

I see your error of Circular Reasoning above...
 

TomFL

Well-known member
This is YOUR definition...

Available to what?


“Available as an option”... to what?

:cool:

By your own definition the “character” and/or “nature” determines the “set of options” available! In your MODEL, what are the options available to... if not to the “Will”?

I see your error of Circular Reasoning above...
Then point it out

You have not shown anything circular

and then deal with that you have been running from

Did God have a huge gap in his decision processes ?

Was creation determined for him ?

Did he have no other option ?

Was God's decision determined or just random chance ?

Is it impossible for God to create a creature with a limited amount of his capability

Why is it you cannot/will not defend you determined /random chance model ?

BTW you have not produced anything to deflect from

The man Sketo the man
 

Sketo

Well-known member
Satan libertarianly already chose what he became. Thus there is no inconsistency.
So Lucifer’s “character” or “nature”, before he fell, allowed sin into the “set of options”, available for his will, to choose from?

Why would Lucifers “nature”, before he fell, permit sin as an option?

This is about to get interesting
 
Last edited:

Sketo

Well-known member
Then point it out
What makes the final choice among the “set of choices” determined by the “character” or “nature”?
Please answer this question with either “man”, “agent”, or “person” and you prove “circular reasoning”!
TomFL said:
The nature is not external to the man
This is YOUR definition...
TomFL said:
soft libertarianism contends a person’s character simply determines what sets of choices are available.
Available to what?
TomFL said...
Available as an option
“Available as an option”... to what?
TomFL said:
For a descision that should have been obvious
“For a decision” chosen by what?

By your own definition the “character” and/or “nature” determines the “set of options” available! In your MODEL, what are the options available to... if not to the “Will”?

I see your error of Circular Reasoning above...
You have not shown anything circular
Above you will se your circular reasoning!
Mans “nature” creates a “set of options” to be decided by...
...Mans “nature” creates a “set of options” to be decided by...
...Mans “nature” creates a “set of options” to be decided by...
...Mans “nature” creates a “set of options” to be decided by...
...Mans “nature” creates a “set of options” to be decided by...
...Mans “nature” creates a “set of options” to be decided by...
...Mans “nature” creates a “set of options” to be decided by...
and then deal with that you have been running from

Did God have a huge gap in his decision processes ?
No!
Was creation determined for him ?
No!
Did he have no other option ?
Yes! Neither were sin!
Was God's decision determined or just random chance ?
Determined? Absolutely... but NOT AS YOUR “NEUTRAL STRAWMAN” SUGGESTS!
Is it impossible for God to create a creature with a limited amount of his capability
No! He did but they are not “morally neutral” as your strawman suggests!
Why is it you cannot/will not defend you determined /random chance model ?
Because I don’t believe in “your determinism strawman” or “Soft Libertarian random chance-ism”!
BTW you have not produced anything to deflect from
Except for your “circular reasoning” above!
The man Sketo the man
:cool:
 

Kampioen

Member
So Lucifer’s “character” or “nature”, before he fell, allowed sin into the “set of options”, available for his will, to choose from?

Why would Lucifers “nature”, before he fell, permit sin as an option?

This is about to get interesting
God created Satan's nature libertarian perhaps?

God didn't trust His angels, indicating libertarianism.

Job 4:18 Behold, he put no trust in his servants; and his angels he charged with folly:
 

Sketo

Well-known member
God created Satan's nature libertarian perhaps?
What does this mean? How does this answer...

So Lucifer’s “character” or “nature”, before he fell, allowed sin into the “set of options”, available for his will, to choose from?

Why would Lucifers “nature”, before he fell, permit sin as an option?
 

Kampioen

Member
What does this mean? How does this answer...

So Lucifer’s “character” or “nature”, before he fell, allowed sin into the “set of options”, available for his will, to choose from?

Why would Lucifers “nature”, before he fell, permit sin as an option?
Why not?

I don't know what you're getting at.
 

TomFL

Well-known member
What does this mean? How does this answer...

So Lucifer’s “character” or “nature”, before he fell, allowed sin into the “set of options”, available for his will, to choose from?

Why would Lucifers “nature”, before he fell, permit sin as an option?
He had a libertarian free will and used it to sin
 

TomFL

Well-known member
What makes the final choice among the “set of choices” determined by the “character” or “nature”?
Please answer this question with either “man”, “agent”, or “person” and you prove “circular reasoning”!

This is YOUR definition...

Available to what?


“Available as an option”... to what?

“For a decision” chosen by what?
By the man Sketo as I told you previously

to make a decision

Based character, circumstances, mood, outside influences

A host of things



By your own definition the “character” and/or “nature” determines the “set of options” available! In your MODEL, what are the options available to... if not to the “Will”?

I see your error of Circular Reasoning above...

Above you will se your circular reasoning!
Mans “nature” creates a “set of options” to be decided by...
...Mans “nature” creates a “set of options” to be decided by...
...Mans “nature” creates a “set of options” to be decided by...
...Mans “nature” creates a “set of options” to be decided by...
...Mans “nature” creates a “set of options” to be decided by...
...Mans “nature” creates a “set of options” to be decided by...
...Mans “nature” creates a “set of options” to be decided by...

Hello

There is nothing circular there

It is a simple statement

Perhaps you do not know what a circular argument is
 

Sketo

Well-known member
So Lucifer’s “character” or “nature”, before he fell, allowed sin into the “set of options”, available for his will, to choose from?
He had a libertarian free will and used it to sin

Why not?
I don't know what you're getting at.
Why would Lucifers “nature”, before he fell, permit sin as an option?

In SLF-ism Gods “nature” does not allow sin as an option in the final “set of options” available for the “Will” to choose from!

Are you saying God create Lucifer with a “nature”, different than Gods “nature”... a “nature” that allows sin into the “set of options” available for the will to choose from?

Does this mean that, in SLF-ism, God is the first cause of Lucifers first sin?
 

TomFL

Well-known member
So Lucifer’s “character” or “nature”, before he fell, allowed sin into the “set of options”, available for his will, to choose from?



Why would Lucifers “nature”, before he fell, permit sin as an option?

In SLF-ism Gods “nature” does not allow sin as an option in the final “set of options” available for the “Will” to choose from!

Are you saying God create Lucifer with a “nature”, different than Gods “nature”... a “nature” that allows sin into the “set of options” available for the will to choose from?

Does this mean that, in SLF-ism, God is the first cause of Lucifers first sin?
I believe this was answered elsewhere however

No but in Calvinism he is

Lucifer rebelled, Adam sinned . Man fell and refuses to believe all because God determined it to be so

Why would Lucifer nature allow him to sin

Ask God who chose to crate him with that option

and of course Lucifer's nature is not the same as God's who is holy and cannot sin
 

Sketo

Well-known member
I believe this was answered elsewhere however

No but in Calvinism he is

Lucifer rebelled, Adam sinned . Man fell and refuses to believe all because God determined it to be so

Why would Lucifer nature allow him to sin

Ask God who chose to crate him with that option

and of course Lucifer's nature is not the same as God's who is holy and cannot sin

TomFL said:
God created Satan and Adam with the capability to sin... God does not have that "capability"
You are saying God determined that Satan, and Adam, would be “capable” of sin!
So, you agree, God is the “first cause” of their “nature” allowing sin!

So sense, in your system, God did not create them “like” God, sin was allowed into the final “set of options”!
Now can you answer for “second cause”?
What caused Lucifer and Adam’s “will” to land on the sin option in the “set” instead of the non-sin option?
I’m sure the “will” didn’t flip-a-coin and it just happened to randomly land on the sin option... so what caused the “will” to land on sin?
 
Last edited:
Top