Soft libertarianism, or concurrence, holds that a moral agent has the power to choose in a libertarian sense...
“Choose in a libertarian sense” What does this mean? It is never explained anywhere! There is no explanation of the actual process of the final “choosing” at all!
The Final Choice Gap Theory
...but the limits of this ability are decided by his character.
In this model only the “limits... are decided by his character” but not the final “choice” landed upon? Ok... what is the final “choice” decided by? ... if not “character” then what? Not answered!
So in determinism the one final “choice” landed upon is determined by something from within man? ...namely his “character”?While a determinist argues a person’s choice is determined by his character...
Determinism sounds reasonable to me!
What about “libertarianism” is there anything that even comes close to explaining how the one final “choice” is landed upon? Not yet... Let’s continue...
In this model “character” only determines “Sets of choices” but not the one final “choice” landed upon! Still no explanation of the final choice in “libertarianism”!...soft libertarianism contends a person’s character (only) simply determines what sets of choices are available.
Maybe it’s in the next part...
Outside influences and internal dispositions are factors.......but the agent has the ability to take any one of the choices within the set.
So... still only “sets of choices” but no explanation how the one final choice is landed upon! Just a vaguely, undefined, mysterious, “agent” that apparently functions independently from “factors”!
“Outside influences and internal dispositions are factors...” (separate) “...but the agent...”
“outside influences” and “internal dispositions” are separate from this undefined, mysterious “agent” thing?
If internal dispositions are only factors, and not determiners, then what is the “agent”? Why doesn’t the “agent” include the “internal factors”? Why are they treated as only equal to “outside influences”?
How does this undefined, ambiguous “agent” come to the one final option landed upon as the final choice?
It’s still not explained...
Possessing libertarian freedom means we genuinely choose...
Ok but how? Is it the roll of a die? Is it the flip of a coin? This lack of explanation for the final process of the final choice leaves a HUGE......... PIVOTAL....... GAP in the model!
...but we dwell in a fallen world so it is not an easy, even, unslanted choice.
So we reach the end and there is still no explanation as to how the one final option is landed upon... so, in this model, Total Depravity has not been ruled out as a factor that totally “slants the choice”, to sin, 100% of the time!
Also this model does not rule out that God is the reason for any slant towards the righteous choice every time a righteous choice is made!
(According to libertarianism) we are finite creatures, so the range of choices is limited.
This is a great acknowledgment that man is “finite creature” and God is “infinite creator”! God is self sufficient where man is God dependent!
One of the inconsistencies of Libertarian Freewill-ism is its claim that God is free even though he can not sin while also assuming that man is free because he can sin!
Think about it...
When they apply “LF-ism” to God, they say, he is “free” even though his nature, or character, limits his available options to a set of sinless options only! Then out of the other side of their mouth...they apply “LF-ism” to man and say he is “free” because his nature, or character, allows sin in the final set of available options to choose from!
Actually, if libertarianism was consistent, if God is considered “free” when his character limits available option to a set of only righteous choices, then man would also be considered “free” if his character limits available option to a set of only sinful choices... IF Libertarianism was consistent!
Even Total Depravity fits the system because of the GAP that they will not explain!