Libertarian Freedom, A Critique

[Ladodgers6]

Excellent post! I hope that many read and understand it.

Some will disagree because they refuse to believe that all is lost in mankind. They have to believe there is a glimmer or spark of hope that man possesses to hold on to.

 

[makesends]

What gets tricky is knowing where to draw the line (between where scripture is accurate and inaccurate in ascribing things to God) and that difficulty is further compounded by the fact that scripture is written in languages, and it seems you have properly realized that language is an inadequate tool by which to measure God.

….but back to the coherency of Libertarian Free Will (LFW)…as I don’t want to be accused of derailing this derailed thread

Scripture is always accurate in ascribing things to God. It is our understanding that introduces error. Notice how those insisting on self-determination interpret choice, which is not only demonstrated but required in Scripture, to equate to LFW.

makesends said:
The "ability to do otherwise" is illogical anyway, ascribed to God. It's not a question of ability, but simple fact, that God only ever does whatever he does, and "choosing" is an anthropomorphism. He need not consider options; none can even be presented him. He really is not like us.

but didn’t the incarnation make the Son like us? Are you saying that: Jesus only ever did whatever he did, and "choosing" is an anthropomorphism. He did not consider options; none could have even been presented him?

In Matthew 5 it sure sounds like an option was presented to him. Are you saying that he couldn’t have done otherwise?....that he had no choice but to send them into the pigs? Or even simple things, such as eating, was he prevented from deciding to grab one more piece of bread….or was bread and wine consumption predetermined down to the last crumb and drop?

When the Son became man, though granted he did not stop being God, he pretty obviously had to choose as the human he was. And Scripture is accurate when it says that God chose these and not those, and such. I'm not so much being hyperbolic in my descriptions as I am trying (with inadequate words and inadequate mind) to get across the inadequate concept that God is very "other" and very "first". "Choice" (or our concept of it), for God, is how our brains handle the things he does.

Also, note, the notion, "couldn't have done otherwise", does not preclude choice.

A parallel: There are several places in Scripture that use the word "chance", as though it was a substantive and valid concept. Luke 10:31 says that "by chance" a priest was walking down a road, yet even in that story, that pretty obviously is referring to co-incidence. Other places it could well have been translated, "opportunity", or, "[human] accident", or even merely, "occurrence". Does God believe in mere chance? I don't see how.

Another parallel: We, quite rightly, say that God does not tempt, but we see him in 1 Kings 22:20 presenting the opportunity to a lying spirit (a demon, I expect) to deceive Ahab.

My point with those two parallels is that from God's point of view, the words he uses in Scripture are accurate, but our use of them, not so much.

Let me remind myself of your position which is:

"Libertarianism", then, operates off of and reduces to self-contradictory notions. If the choices are not equally influenced, they are not equally possible, and if not equally possible, then only one can possibly happen— the one chosen, as a matter of fact. In effect, then, the only reasonable thing that Libertarian Free Will can say is that we do choose, and that our choices are real choices, or words to that effect, but it cannot reasonably say that our choices are not determined.
…So please clarify as to whether:

• The Son made actual choices (which IMHO presents a problem for your claim that LFW reduces to self-contradictory notions and the opening poster’s claim that LFW violates the laws of identity and non-contradiction) ; or
• Like the Father, the Son never made/makes choices (and so much of each gospel should be declared to be inaccurate/anthropomorphic in its descriptions)?

I don't see how, in your first bullet-point there, the Son (or anybody else, for that matter) making actual choices, presents a problem for my claim "that LFW reduces to self-contradictory notions..." LFW implies that choices are made, apparently, from a vacuum, from mere chance, or that all choosers have independent self-existence.

The Bible also says that God is spirit and not physical in the sense that we are physical. Are you going to say that the Son was not also God?

This is why we say that Jesus was possessing of two natures, human and divine.

from this I can’t help to note that “love” is also a human construct appealing to our experience of it. If saying God “thinks” is inaccurate then what should I make of those that say God “loves”. I suppose you could also say that for him to “love” is to do….but you can’t get away from that construct.

I'm not trying to say that it is inaccurate to say that God thinks, so much as we use the concept inaccurately. It's worth noting in Strong's Concordance and others, certain words are qualified when applied to God, either by plain principle, or by Hebrew mindset, or by some other fact. A couple of examples, one concerning the term "chance", the other concerning the term, "foreknow".

"The idea of chance in the sense of something wholly fortuitous was utterly foreign to the Hebrew creed." Chance (78 Occurrences)

"The Divine foreknowledge, therefore, depends upon the Divine purpose which has determined the world plan (Amos 3:7), and all its details (Job 28:26, 27)." Topical Bible: Foreknow

I remark here, also, that like the notion of LFW and so many other things, we fools "see everything backwards". We think we know what "father" and "son" and "wife" and "pearl" and "temple" are. We think of ourselves as choosers within circumstances, but fail to see our choosing as the vapor that it is, compared to God's choosing. Our notions don't do him justice.

…again, things didn’t happen to Jesus? ….the crucifixion didn't happen to him? Your position has merit when considering the Father....the Son, not so much.

Jesus was possessing of two natures —the human being very much affected by his circumstances.

well, I guess we could try interpretive dance,…I am willing to give that a try if you’re game

Added note: I want to say how remarkable it is, that God does not berate us for having human inadequacies, but for self-aggrandizement, rebellion, our declaration of independence.

 

[Ladodgers6]

but didn’t the incarnation make the Son like us? Are you saying that: Jesus only ever did whatever he did, and "choosing" is an anthropomorphism. He did not consider options; none could have even been presented him?

God is the Triune Self-Contained God. Where we are a created creature, right? Does God ever change when interacting with His creation?

 

[His clay]

That might explain my inability to follow a coherent argument

So a Libertarian would say that our hypothetical man (Bob) while standing in front of the bank could “do otherwise” and choose to either 1. rob the bank or 2. walk away/not rob the bank. That sounds right.

No libertarian (that I can envision) would agree that Bob’s choice to do 1 vs. 2 (at a moment in time: T) would necessarily create two concurrent and different realities (from point T onwards)…one where Bob robbed the bank and one where he didn’t. The Libertarian would say that just before T two potential realities existed and after the decision at T one of those potential realities came into existence and the other ceased as a possibility. The ability to “do otherwise” is a different thing from the ability to “be otherwise” as the ability to “be otherwise” is conditional upon which choice is made (the choice being the “doing otherwise”). I don’t see where in your post that you have proven that Bob’s ability to choose between two things creates two different realities going forward…one realty where he robbed the bank and one where he didn’t.

So then at 1.4 you declare:

I don’t like the bit: “Libertarian freedom is partly defined by its ability to do otherwise”….I think that it should be (when applied to our man Bob): “Libertarian freedom is partly defined by its view that Bob had the ability to do otherwise”….

From there you declare: but this ability, in order to be true, would also have to entail the ability to be otherwise than what was at a given moment.

As I have said, the ability to “do otherwise” is a different thing from the ability to “be otherwise” and the latter doesn’t follow from the former….but perhaps I have missed something because this is merely a summary.

If you are saying that that Bob’s ability to choose between two things necessarily creates two different (contradictory) realities going forward, then I think that such is merely your unproven assertion.

On the other hand, if you are saying that the Bob that would choose to rob the bank would have to be different than the Bob that would choose to walk away (to set up your law of identity issue), then I think that such is merely your unproven declaration.

On the further other hand, if you are saying that a future event is every bit as much of a fact as a past event and that Bob’s option to choose either 1 or 2 would necessarily create two contradictory future facts, then again you haven’t proven such to be the case.

BTW do you apply your reasoning to God?...does he not enjoy libertarian freedom or are all of his actions 100% determined? Could he do otherwise than he did? E.g. could he have done otherwise than die on the cross? If so, then (according to you) would that mean there are two contradictory realities out there? One where he died on the cross and one where he didn’t? Or are there two contradictory realities out there…one where he created the earth and one where he didn’t?

back at you....cheers

"That might explain my inability to follow a coherent argument" I said what I did because I summarized greatly in the op. Summaries, by definition, do not spell out in detail what they are summarizing. Thusly, summaries succeed in being succinct, but their weakness is explanatory clarity. However, it appears that the main problem you are experiencing is due to a lack of reading comprehension. I say this because post #16 was a my response to you, and it was written Oct 9, and your response here is an Oct 11 post. In my Oct 9 post, post #16, I spelled out for you the importance of reading my words as written, for they communicated precisely what I intended for them to communicate. In post #16 I spelled out that "You are missing the context, authorial intent, and the point of the words you address." Your failure to read with comprehension, especially after I corrected, as I intended it, is the reason you are here struggling to make sense of things.

"So a Libertarian would say that our hypothetical man (Bob) while standing in front of the bank could “do otherwise” and choose to either 1. rob the bank or 2. walk away/not rob the bank. That sounds right." Except that is not what I was intending to communicate with the bank illustration. Again, I spelled this out in detail in post #16.

"No libertarian (that I can envision) would agree that Bob’s choice to do 1 vs. 2 (at a moment in time: T) would necessarily create two concurrent and different realities (from point T onwards)" Not my argument. The bank illustration was to point out the problem of violating the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction. Through poor reading comprehension, which I corrected in post #16, you have manufactured a straw man that I did not argue. Had you read post #16 with comprehension, you would not be making this mistake again.

"The Libertarian would say that just before T two potential realities existed and after the decision at T one of those potential realities came into existence and the other ceased as a possibility." Explain how what I have said differs from this. What you have stated is exactly what I'm critiquing. I'll take a moment to quote what I wrote in post #16. This is my response to what you have here written.
->->->->-quote>->->->->-
Intriguing statement! Let's explore it a bit. First, different choices resulting in different reality is absolutely true. But how do you get different choices? (1) One way would be to have different people. Someone else would make a different choice than myself in the same scenario because they are a different person. There is no violation of the law of identity, since we are talking about two different people. (2) Sometimes we speak in terms of hindsight. (e.g. Knowing what I do now, I would not have made the same choice as I did back then.) However, we have the same issue again. The person I am in the future, knowing the outcome of the choice, is a different person than the one who didn't have the knowledge. There is no violation of the law of identity, since we are talking about two different people. (3) We can also place the scenario prior to the choice. If I make choice A, then this will likely result; but if I make choice B, then a different reality would result. This is called the deliberation phase prior to the choice. This is when a person is considering the merits and demerits, strengths and weakness, of the future choice. But eventually, the deliberation phase is over, and the person has arrived at their preference for the choice they make. This is precisely where my critique in point #1 lands.

Some will say that even though a person prefers option A, and deliberation is ended, he still could have chosen otherwise. I reject this. I reject it (1) because it says that the final result of deliberation is irrelevant to decision making, since a person could do precisely what they didn't prefer. In fact, it would appear to result in insanity, where the mind's consideration and final preference is one way, but then a person doesn't follow through. I also reject it (2) because when you sever the causal link between the highest preference and the choice made, then you land in the chance criticism that I presented in point #2. I also reject it because to say that I could have done otherwise than what I did/chose is a (3) violation of the law of identity. In many ways, I'm just reiterating and explaining my critiques found in the opening post.
->->->->-end quote>->->->->-

"The ability to “do otherwise” is a different thing from the ability to “be otherwise” as the ability to “be otherwise” is conditional upon which choice is made (the choice being the “doing otherwise”)." If you wish to place doing prior to being, then you have committed the reification fallacy. You have defined something that is concrete but does not actually exist or have being yet. My argument now is that the ability to "do otherwise" must be built upon a foundation of some kind of existence, or it cannot be said to exist, nor can it have concrete properties. My main point in the op critique is of what kind of existence can possibly lead to the ability to do otherwise. If your view is that there is no existence prior to the choice that gives the ability, then I must question the very idea of doing apart from existence. How can "ability to do otherwise" be predicated upon the foundation of non-existence? If this is not a reification fallacy, then it is at least an argument from non-existent silence.

As for the rest of your post, I believe that I have already dealt with it by the content given above. I also dealt with your question about God in another post (see post #39).

 

[Carbon]

It's obviously only sinful desire that leads to sinful action. Sinful desire being anything that is contrary to God's revealed will, or with ungodly intent, or not in faith.

Pardon me for saying but it seems you are saying God created man with sinful desires. When God finished creation He called it all good. So, I do not believe Adam or Eve would have had sinful ideas.

He clearly became corrupted (at least to a small extent), prior to his fall,

Where is that taught in scripture?

otherwise he would not have eaten of the forbidden fruit.

Scripture nowhere teaches that Adam or Eve had any sinful desires before the fall. Also, scripture teaches they were deceived. I believe being deceived makes all the difference here.

By the time Satan tempted Adam and Eve, his corruption was not hidden. In any case, I was referring to Adam and Eve's hidden corruption, not any "hidden" corruption in Satan.

You have to prove there was a hidden corruption in Adam and Eve. And if you did, it would change the creation story.

 

[Carbon]

True that a sinful heart will always produce sinful deeds, but we have no reason, but speculation, to say that Adam sinned before eating. We can analyze all we want, but God doesn't declare anything but the eating of the forbidden fruit, to be the disobedience.

Right, and there was no sinful heart until they were deceived into sin and died.

 

[His clay]

Pardon me for saying but it seems you are saying God created man with sinful desires. When God finished creation He called it all good. So, I do not believe Adam or Eve would have had sinful ideas.

Where is that taught in scripture?

Scripture nowhere teaches that Adam or Eve had any sinful desires before the fall. Also, scripture teaches they were deceived. I believe being deceived makes all the difference here.

You have to prove there was a hidden corruption in Adam and Eve. And if you did, it would change the creation story.

I'm sorry, but I cannot remain silent here. You accuse another of changing the creation story, but you are the one who has done so. You stated the following.

Scripture nowhere teaches that Adam or Eve had any sinful desires before the fall. Also, scripture teaches they were deceived. I believe being deceived makes all the difference here.​

Here you have stated something concerning both Adam and Eve. You then use the plural pronoun "they." And you stated that they were deceived. And then you go on to say that being deceived makes all the difference.

(1) You stated that it would change the creation story, but you are not discussing the creation. You are discussing the fall, which takes place after creation. The two are separated by some time. Conflating the two changes the creation story.

(2) You state that both Adam and Eve were deceived. This is half false. The relevant scripture is the following.

• Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate." (Gen 3:13 ESV)
• The pride of your heart has deceived you, you who live in the clefts of the rock, in your lofty dwelling, who say in your heart, "Who will bring me down to the ground?" (Oba 1:3 ESV) {The point here is that deception and a sinful heart are not entirely distinct.}
• But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. (2Co 11:3 ESV)
• and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. (1Ti 2:14 ESV)
• Romans 5 describes Adam's action as sin (ἁμαρτία v12), transgression (παραβάσεως v14), trespass (παράπτωμα v15), sin (ἁμαρτήσαντος v16), trespass (παραπτώματι v17), trespass (παραπτώματος v18), disobedience (παρακοῆς v19).

My point of critique is that saying that Adam was deceived has zero support from scripture, and scripture actually says the opposite. The 1 Tim. passage explicitly says that Adam was not deceived. Saying that both were deceived while conflating creation with the fall changes the creation story.

Sadly, none of this has anything to do with whether or not libertarian freedom is coherent or not. I have not engaged this discussion, since it is simply off topic. However, I felt the need to say something regarding the topics of deception and the distinction between creation and the fall and their time gap. Having said my piece, I'll move on to the intended subject of the thread.

 

[Carbon]

I'm sorry, but I cannot remain silent here. You accuse another of changing the creation story, but you are the one who has done so. You stated the following.

Scripture nowhere teaches that Adam or Eve had any sinful desires before the fall. Also, scripture teaches they were deceived. I believe being deceived makes all the difference here.​

Here you have stated something concerning both Adam and Eve. You then use the plural pronoun "they." And you stated that they were deceived. And then you go on to say that being deceived makes all the difference.

(1) You stated that it would change the creation story, but you are not discussing the creation. You are discussing the fall, which takes place after creation. The two are separated by some time. Conflating the two changes the creation story.

(2) You state that both Adam and Eve were deceived. This is half false. The relevant scripture is the following.

• Then the LORD God said to the woman, "What is this that you have done?" The woman said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate." (Gen 3:13 ESV)
• The pride of your heart has deceived you, you who live in the clefts of the rock, in your lofty dwelling, who say in your heart, "Who will bring me down to the ground?" (Oba 1:3 ESV) {The point here is that deception and a sinful heart are not entirely distinct.}
• But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. (2Co 11:3 ESV)
• and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. (1Ti 2:14 ESV)
• Romans 5 describes Adam's action as sin (ἁμαρτία v12), transgression (παραβάσεως v14), trespass (παράπτωμα v15), sin (ἁμαρτήσαντος v16), trespass (παραπτώματι v17), trespass (παραπτώματος v18), disobedience (παρακοῆς v19).

My point of critique is that saying that Adam was deceived has zero support from scripture, and scripture actually says the opposite. The 1 Tim. passage explicitly says that Adam was not deceived. Saying that both were deceived while conflating creation with the fall changes the creation story.

Sadly, none of this has anything to do with whether or not libertarian freedom is coherent or not. I have not engaged this discussion, since it is simply off topic. However, I felt the need to say something regarding the topics of deception and the distinction between creation and the fall and their time gap. Having said my piece, I'll move on to the intended subject of the thread.

I appreciate your checklist on me. I’ll have to give it some time later. But I did notice my mistake about Adam. He was not deceived. Eve was.

 

[Simons]

Scripture is always accurate in ascribing things to God. It is our understanding that introduces error. Notice how those insisting on self-determination interpret choice, which is not only demonstrated but required in Scripture, to equate to LFW.

with all due respect, this is simply untenable (based on what you've already said). Anthropomorphisms ascribe human qualities to God even though he is not human. That is unavoidably inaccurate… What this means for me, is that, whenever someone says “this is the way God must be”, I take it with a considerable grain of salt because:

• scripture is sometimes inaccurate when describing God;
• our interpretation of scripture is not inerrant:
• language is incapable of properly describing God; and
• our logic is limited at best.

It is our understanding that introduces error.

that it does….compounding the problem….not creating it.

Notice how those insisting on self-determination interpret choice, which is not only demonstrated but required in Scripture, to equate to LFW.

And? Notice how those insisting on predetermination interpret choice, which is not only demonstrated but required in Scripture, to operate outside of LFW…sometimes in a compatibilistic fashion…..go figure!

The "ability to do otherwise" is illogical anyway, ascribed to God.

note: huge grain of salt generously applied.

It's not a question of ability, but simple fact, that God only ever does whatever he does,…

well, I only do whatever I do….nothing special or unique about that.

….and "choosing" is an anthropomorphism. He need not consider options;

what if he wanted to?

When the Son became man, though granted he did not stop being God, he pretty obviously had to choose as the human he was.

so are you saying that, while on earth (at least) Jesus possessed LFW? …or were his choices predetermined….or something else. Please provide a clear answer.

First you say:

….and "choosing" is an anthropomorphism. He need not consider options;

…and then you say:

And Scripture is accurate when it says that God chose these and not those, and such.

please tell me that you can see the obvious inconsistency in those two comments

Also, note, the notion, "couldn't have done otherwise", does not preclude choice.

understood….but if the thing being done is “choosing”, then "couldn't have done otherwise” becomes "couldn't have chosen otherwise”…..so it is that we choose, without having a choice in what we choose. (It seems Alice that we are headed down a rabbit hole here).

Another parallel: We, quite rightly, say that God does not tempt, but we see him in 1 Kings 22:20 presenting the opportunity to a lying spirit (a demon, I expect) to deceive Ahab.

My point with those two parallels is that from God's point of view, the words he uses in Scripture are accurate, but our use of them, not so much.

I think that you have this exactly bass ackwards…by attributing human qualities to God scripture isn’t presenting God’s point of view…it is presenting our limited understanding of what God "must" be like.

I don't see how, in your first bullet-point there, the Son (or anybody else, for that matter) making actual choices, presents a problem for my claim "that LFW reduces to self-contradictory notions..." LFW implies that choices are made, apparently, from a vacuum, from mere chance, or that all choosers have independent self-existence.

…yes, I should have been clearer. By “actual choices” I envisioned LFW as being involved. I should have said:

• The Son enjoyed LFW in making actual choices (which IMHO presents a problem for your claim that LFW reduces to self-contradictory notions and the opening poster’s claim that LFW violates the laws of identity and non-contradiction) ; or
• Like the Father, the Son never made/makes choices (and so much of the gospels/scripture should be declared to be inaccurate in their descriptions)?

Please clarify where you stand with respect to these to options (disregarding, of course, my bracketed comments, unless you want to adopt those as valid….in which case please clarify that too).

The Bible also says that God is spirit and not physical in the sense that we are physical. Are you going to say that the Son was not also God?

I don’t think that anything that I have said would suggest that I would say such

We think of ourselves as choosers within circumstances, but fail to see our choosing as the vapor that it is, compared to God's choosing.

but you have previously declared that “God choosing” is an anthropomorphism… so is it that we fail to see our choosing as the vapor that it is, compared to the vapor of an anthropomorphism?

Added note: I want to say how remarkable it is, that God does not berate us for having human inadequacies, but for self-aggrandizement, rebellion, our declaration of independence.

Remarkable?...not in my books. Why would he “berate us for having human inadequacies” when he created us with those inadequacies. I do, however, wonder what purpose is served by him berating us for self-aggrandizement, rebellion, our declaration if we could not choose to do otherwise.

Added note: Sorry for the delay in responding…. hopefully you haven’t lost interest. Cheers.

 

[makesends]

with all due respect, this is simply untenable (based on what you've already said). Anthropomorphisms ascribe human qualities to God even though he is not human. That is unavoidably inaccurate… What this means for me, is that, whenever someone says “this is the way God must be”, I take it with a considerable grain of salt because:

• scripture is sometimes inaccurate when describing God;
• our interpretation of scripture is not inerrant:
• language is incapable of properly describing God; and
• our logic is limited at best.

Ok. So there is no reason to continue this conversation. No matter my or your logic, Scripture is never inaccurate. Our understanding is inaccurate.

 

[His clay]

Ok. So there is no reason to continue this conversation. No matter my or your logic, Scripture is never inaccurate. Our understanding is inaccurate.

Agreed. Your interaction with the other poster helps me to see that there is a seriously problematic foundation upon which the other is arguing.

 

[Simons]

Agreed. Your interaction with the other poster helps me to see that there is a seriously problematic foundation upon which the other is arguing.

Well, Makesends acknowledges that scripture says that God chooses.

But, Makesends also says that God does not really choose….God just does.

So, when scripture says “God chose” we should really understand that God didn’t choose….(which is kinda the opposite of what it says)

Nevertheless, Makesends insists that scripture is accurate in its description of God’s nature….all you have to do is understand it to mean kinda the opposite of what it says.

Yep…that is some sound reasoning on Makesends part (now just for clarity, because I know you struggle with reading comprehension…when I said “that is some sound reasoning” I was utilizing Makesends’ grasp of “accuracy” and so “that is some sound reasoning” should really be understood to mean its opposite).

BTW you started with this: ." Libertarian freedom entails two essential elements: (1) The ability to do/chose otherwise, (2) some form of human ontological ultimacy (either the will or the agent is ultimate).

Now I don’t see any reason to insist upon it being “human” ontological ultimacy if we are considering Libertarian freedom….so please clarify….you have declared libertarian freedom to be logically incoherent, so I take it that it is your view that none of the following enjoy Libertarian freedom:

• God the Father
• God the Son
• Angels

….is that correct?

 

[makesends]

Well, Makesends acknowledges that scripture says that God chooses.

But, Makesends also says that God does not really choose….God just does.

So, when scripture says “God chose” we should really understand that God didn’t choose….(which is kinda the opposite of what it says)

Nevertheless, Makesends insists that scripture is accurate in its description of God’s nature….all you have to do is understand it to mean kinda the opposite of what it says.

Yep…that is some sound reasoning on Makesends part (now just for clarity, because I know you struggle with reading comprehension…when I said “that is some sound reasoning” I was utilizing Makesends’ grasp of “accuracy” and so “that is some sound reasoning” should really be understood to mean its opposite).

BTW you started with this: ." Libertarian freedom entails two essential elements: (1) The ability to do/chose otherwise, (2) some form of human ontological ultimacy (either the will or the agent is ultimate).

Now I don’t see any reason to insist upon it being “human” ontological ultimacy if we are considering Libertarian freedom….so please clarify….you have declared libertarian freedom to be logically incoherent, so I take it that it is your view that none of the following enjoy Libertarian freedom:

• God the Father
• God the Son
• Angels

….is that correct?

Do you acknowledge that Scripture speaks in anthropomorphisms? The mocking is really unnecessary.

 

[Simons]

Do you acknowledge that Scripture speaks in anthropomorphisms?

this is what I said previously to you (with a bit now emboldened):

I actually find myself (sort of) agreeing with you here… he (the Father) really is not like us and in our efforts to describe him we often resort to anthropomorphisms. To be consistent we must acknowledge that such is the case with scripture too, where it seems God has “dumbed it down” for us (by using anthropomorphisms). E.g. In the book of Job, where angels and Satan attend at God's court and they debate as to who has the better grasp of the future,…that clearly presents God as all too human (and Satan as all too stupid). You obviously wouldn't take the Job story literally as it has options being presented to God… something that you declare can't happen.

What gets tricky is knowing where to draw the line (between where scripture is accurate and inaccurate in ascribing things to God) and that difficulty is further compounded by the fact that scripture is written in languages, and it seems you have properly realized that language is an inadequate tool by which to measure God.​

The mocking is really unnecessary.

sorry...no offense intended. I just wanted to convey how unsound your claim(s) appeared from this side of the screen