Question Concerning Soft-Libertarianism

[Loopie]

Hi Everyone!

I just recently turned in a research paper for my Systematic Theology class where I defended the concept of Compatibilism. I based my research primarily off of Augustine, Calvin, and Edwards. Personally I found Edwards' book Freedom of the Will to be extremely beneficial and informative in helping me to understand man's will, God's sovereignty, and man's responsibility.

My question here is concerning the concept of Soft-Libertarianism. My professor who graded my paper seemed very much against the idea of Compatibilism, and he himself argued for "Soft-Libertarianism" (and encouraged me to look into it). Now I am very familiar with Determinism (both Hard and Soft) as well as Libertarianism, but I have not heard much about Soft-Libertarianism (apparently there is a 'hard' version as well).

From a quick internet search that I have done on the topic, Soft-Libertarianism seems to be the idea that in some way, there is a certain sense of 'freedom' when it comes to human decision making. This view claims that it violates neither the law of causality nor God's sovereignty.

I am wondering if anyone on the PB has any information on "Soft-Libertarianism" and whether or not it is truly any different than simple 'Libertarianism'. Is Soft-Libertarianism compatible (no pun intended) with Calvinism? Is it Biblical? Does it even make sense logically? I look forward to your responses.

 

[Rufus]

Soft-Libertarianism is when you like Ron Paul, except on foreign policy.

OH! Different kind of Libertarianism....

 

[Gloria Dei]

cited from: Steve W. Lemke, Agent Causation, or, How to Be a Soft Libertarian | Society of Evangelical Arminians

"A soft libertarian view of freedom, like all libertarian views, defines freedom as the ability to do otherwise
in any given decision. The label “soft” libertarian is to differentiate it from hard libertarian views in
which persons are said to determine events entirely on their own without external influence. A soft
libertarian perspective acknowledges the incredible influence that external forces exert on our
decision making process, but still insists that the final decision remains with the agent. To cite
Leibniz’s famous phrase, these external influences “incline the will without necessitating it.”

Before the link for the PDF file, this view is presented supposedly "as both logical and biblical, an Arminian view of free will."

That's just what I could find; I hope it helped!

 

[rbcbob]

Eric you raise the issue of humans "being free to choose" which is a veritable and historic landmine laden field of theology and philosophy. I first read Edwards FREEDOM OF THE WILL 24 years ago (I remember because I named my first son Jonathan Edward) and I profited much from that work. All these years later I am persuaded that no writer outside of sacred Scripture has untied every knot in this mystery. Man as an image bearer of God is, even after the fall, an uncoerced agent to whom such words as "choose you this day whom you will serve" come to him not tongue-in-cheek, but with the realization that he is expected to freely opt for that which he most prefers. In such a limited construct the man's choice is free though not undetermined.

 

[OPC'n]

I like to view it like this: every man has freedom to play within their own playpen. The unbeliever's playpen is that of choosing sinfulness all the time. The believer's playpen is that of choosing that which is sinful or that which is righteous, and he only chooses righteousness bc God has given him the desire to choose what is righteous. Of course, we know that Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. I'm not sure if that's what your professor is talking about or not.

 

[arapahoepark]

Soft-Libertarianism is when you like Ron Paul, except on foreign policy.

OH! Different kind of Libertarianism....

Good one! Sounds like a lot of people I know...

Anyway, on topic, I am not sure I can add much to the discussion other than I doubt soft-libertarianism is compatible at all with a Biblical worldview, because it is still libertarianism free will, just not as bad as full blown pelagian free-will

 

[Loopie]

Thanks everyone for your input! This certainly is a difficult topic (and one that has raised many emotions in the discussions that I have had with friends). From my own studies I think the key is to differentiate (but not separate) a person's 'will' from their 'ability'.

From the citation that Brice provided, it would seem that soft-Libertarians (and other forms of Libertarians) argue that 'Freedom' is 'the ability to do otherwise in any given situation'. I just want to point out for everyone's benefit that this is why determinists and libertarians have difficulty even discussing this topic. That is because a determinist/compatibilist would take issue with the very structure of that sentence (no mention of a person's will is ever made).

For instance, if an alcoholic were presented with a beer, BOTH the determinists and libertarians would absolutely agree that he has 'the ability' to either drink or not drink. The question is: "Does he have the will"? IF the alcoholic were willing to refrain from alcohol, he would certainly be able to do so (no one, not even the compatibilist or determinist thinks that his hand reaches out, grabs the bottle, and brings it to his mouth unwillingly).

So for me, every difference of opinion I have with Libertarians comes down to the fact that they NEVER differentiate between 'will' and 'ability' in these discussions. Yet it is always important that we be clear and concise with what we mean (and no one has been perfectly clear or concise about this, which is why, like Bob said, no one has fully untied this difficulty).

I would simply recommend that if you ever get into a discussion about 'free will', it is vitally important that both sides recognize the distinction between 'ability' and 'will'. A person only ever DOES anything provided they have BOTH the ability AND the will.