Soft Model of Libertarian Free Will

T

TomFL

Guest
To be willing or not willing to do something means there is no free will not the other way around. We will or not will to do something out of influenced choices.

There is no such thing as libertarian free will and God doing as God pleases has its own parameters. :)

God bless you,

SeventhDay


That still does not make sense

Psa. 115:3 —KJV
“But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.”

LFW is doing what you want
 

SeventhDay

Well-known member
That still does not make sense

Psa. 115:3 —KJV
“But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.”

LFW is doing what you want

We can not always do what we want and that is a limitation therefore not "free". You can do better than that.
All things have to be taken in context even what God states. God can not lie and therefore God can not be pleased in that context because it would be against God's will which has its parameters. God can do as he pleases but God can not do all things because he puts a limit on what he can do or not do. :)

God bless you,

SeventhDay
 
T

TomFL

Guest
All things have to be taken in context even what God states. God can not lie and therefore God can not be pleased in that context because it would be against God's will which has its parameters. God can do as he pleases but God can not do all things because he puts a limit on what he can do or not do. :)

God bless you,

SeventhDay
That is not contrary to Libertarian free will

You are working with a faulty definition
 

SeventhDay

Well-known member
That is not contrary to Libertarian free will

You are working with a faulty definition
Liberation free will is making choices independently and no one can do that because any influence if it affects us makes us dependent. Try a little harder and you might just quit! :)

God bless you,

SeventhDay
 
T

TomFL

Guest
Liberation free will is making choices independently and no one can do that because any influence if it affects us makes us dependent. Try a little harder and you might just quit! :)

God bless you,

SeventhDay


So God cannot choices independently

Really ?

who do you imagine he is dependent on
 

SeventhDay

Well-known member
So God cannot choices independently

Really ?

who do you imagine he is dependent on
God is dependent on the council of his own will, his character, his attributes, his Word and his promises.

God does not have free will and there is no "free" will of any kind. However, for many it is an idol and makes Jesus atonement a mockery! :)

God bless you,

SeventhDay
 

Kampioen

Well-known member
Are you saying man is equal to God?
Man is not God! God did not “create” Gods!
That is a copout answer. It's not our idea that God created us with Libertarian will. No we are not Gods.

And God created us in His image. So something is the same. I conclude that Libertarian choice is part of that image.

And if Libertarian choice is just randomness as you accuse, then we are just as predetermined as Calvinists because we would have no control over a one track domino effect, which is in essence what you claim God's own decisions are.
 
T

TomFL

Guest
God is dependent on the council of his own will, his character, his attributes, his Word and his promises.

God does not have free will and there is no "free" will of any kind. However, for many it is an idol and makes Jesus atonement a mockery! :)

God bless you,

SeventhDay
Really

Who or what determines him ?
 

His clay

Well-known member
The reason for the choice is the chooser

Does God have the power of choice or do you hold him determined as well?

Are you saying God cannot create a being with a limited capability of what he possesses

In any case the bible treats men as free moral agents as seen in a soft libertarian free will model

........................................................................

Ultimate responsibility (UR) Ultimate responsibility indicates the ultimate origin of decisions.

Agent causation (AC) A person is the source and origin of his choices.

The principle of alternative possibilities (AP) At crucial times, the ability to choose or refrain from choosing is genuinely available.

The reality of will-setting moments A person does not always have the ability to choose to the contrary. Certain free choices result in the loss of freedom.

The distinction between freedom of responsibility and freedom of integrity The Bible presents freedom as a permission (the freedom of responsibility) and as a power (the freedom of integrity).

Soft libertarianism, or concurrence, holds that a moral agent has the power to choose in a libertarian sense, but the limits of this ability are decided by his character. While a determinist argues a person’s choice is determined by his character, soft libertarianism contends a person’s character simply determines what sets of choices are available. Outside influences and internal dispositions are factors, but the agent has the ability to take any one of the choices within the set. Possessing libertarian freedom means we genuinely choose, but we dwell in a fallen world so it is not an easy, even, unslanted choice. And we are finite creatures, so the range of choices is limited.

From Kenneth Keathley - Salvation and Sovereignty
Two extremely quick points:

(1) If the reason for the choice is the chooser, then the principle of alternate possibilities is lost. The chooser is only one chooser at the moment of choice. The chooser cannot be another chooser, for the chooser is himself/herself. The sum total of all the characteristics that describe the chooser is what makes the chooser the chooser. Thus, since the chooser is only himself/herself and not another self at the moment of choice, then there can be no other choice than what one chooser chooses. Thus, soft libertarianism, upon consideration of the law of identity, is internally flawed and self-contradictory. It proclaims to have the ability to "choose to the contrary," but the contrary would require another self to make the contrary choice, if in fact the reason for the choice is the chooser.

(2) The second line states a dichotomy between choice and determination, which is in fact a false dichotomy. Choice is not contrary to determination; rather, determination is part and parcel to choice making. Note, I did not say that God is determined by anything outside of Himself. Further, man is not God; man is a dependent (not independent) creature. As such, man is caused to exist moment-by-moment by God's sustaining power, as Scripture explicitly declares. Thus, man does not possess the self-sufficiency of the eternal God; therefore, man cannot be an ultimate cause.
 

Reformedguy

Well-known member
Wrong

Its an attempt to show what your either or dichotomy leads to

Either you claim God's act of creation was determined or you affirm he libertarianly created of his own free will

And if you say he created of his own free will you will have to address Was it just random chance that he did






Actually you just ignored the definition I gave of a soft libertarian free will

Soft libertarianism, or concurrence, holds that a moral agent has the power to choose in a libertarian sense, but the limits of this ability are decided by his character. While a determinist argues a person’s choice is determined by his character, soft libertarianism contends a person’s character simply determines what sets of choices are available. Outside influences and internal dispositions are factors, but the agent has the ability to take any one of the choices within the set. Possessing libertarian freedom means we genuinely choose, but we dwell in a fallen world so it is not an easy, even, unslanted choice. And we are finite creatures, so the range of choices is limited.

It would in fact carry no such necessity

so it seems my questions already exposed misunderstanding on your part


We have already seen you have not properly understood the model of a soft libertarian free will model I gave you

So once again Does God have Libertarian free will as defined by the model I provided you with

Or God does not have free will ?(as defined above)

Scripture tells

Psa. 115:3 —KJV
“But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.”

But

Is he determined in your view





Are you saying his nature left him with just one option ?

PS I have shown you deciding according your your nature is not inconsistent with a soft libertarian free will

But

God did not freely decide to create but was determined to create?

Is that your view ?

Which is it ?

Did God libertarianly decide to create

or was God left with no other option

I await your reply
This is dumb. God is eternal and has always existed. There was not a day He "decided to create". This implies time of which God exists outside of. Tell Leighton back to the drawing board.

And this denies God's omniscience. At some point did God not know He would create the world? How could that be if He has always known it would exist? You and your hero are closet open theists.
 

preacher4truth

Well-known member
This is dumb. God is eternal and has always existed. There was not a day He "decided to create". This implies time of which God exists outside of. Tell Leighton back to the drawing board.

And this denies God's omniscience. At some point did God not know He would create the world? How could that be if He has always known it would exist? You and your hero are closet open theists.
Paul warned fierce wolves would come in among the disciples, to draw them away by speaking twisted things, and make them disciples of themselves. This is exactly what Lying Leighton "Choice Meats" Flowers has done.
 

Sketo

Well-known member
If you would like a real explanation for “choice” then check this out…

Thread 'Free Will Meticulously Examined… and Refuted!'
https://forums.carm.org/threads/free-will-meticulously-examined…-and-refuted.5746/


01:16:46 "CHOICE" critically examined
01:21:00 God's "choice" different from man's "choice"
01:22:35 "choice" IN Finite Realm examined
01:27:13 "choice IN Infinite Realm examined
01:30:42 self-determinism IN finite realm = circular
01:32:06 "reason for choice" = Determinism
01:33:56 Different Circumstances Examined
01:35:45 "God has freewill so I can too" refuted
01:39:22 God's choice BEFORE time and IN time
01:43:18 "Choice according to your GREATEST desire"
01:45:19 Can "desires" change... tomorrow?
01:46:50 "Ability to choose among competing desires" examined
01:52:05 Choice thought experiment
01:54:55 "ability to do otherwise" examined
02:04:31 "freewill" equivalent to illusion, magic trick, luck
02:11:53 If "freedom" = doing what you "want"
02:13:11 Believing "freewill" is not stupid it’s simply lacking information
02:17:23 "freewill" assumed without foundation
 
Last edited:

Reformedguy

Well-known member
I strongly disagree with Flowers on many things, but that "choice meats" quote was completely twisted and taken out of context by White. I listened to the original sermon, and Flowers was not at all saying what White made him say. That's flat out slander.
So it was said in what context??

What did he mean by "choice meats"?
 
Top