For example, here he said,
"Actually, God operates by this same axiomatic belief, see Ezekiel 18 in particular but there are other passages as well where God holds people responsible for their actions and blames them because they could have and should have done otherwise.” (emphasis supplied.)
And here he says,
"Besides, who said that the “ought implies can” principle has to always be true, in every situation? Could it be true in some instances and not in others? And if it is not in force in some situations can you then conclude that it is not in force in any other situations? How can you rule out that possibility? You cannot." (emphasis supplied)
But now in this combox discussion I had argued that his view of god is a view of a failure god who cannot do what he intends: to "save the world" (John 3:18). But he argued that his god did all he could do, now it is up to man, and man must have faith, and if man does not have faith, then it is man who failed, not his god. Bob argues thusly when asking if men are held accountable if they do not place their faith in Jesus:
If yes, then how are they held responsible for something that was not something that they had to/or could do? (emphasis supplied)
Bob wants to have his cake and eat it too. When it's convenient, "ought-implies-can," and when it's not, "maybe it doesn't."
But, let's use Bob to argue against Bob. Let's assume that they are held responsible and also cannot actualize that faith since God chooses not to regenerate them. Here's our Bobbed-out surrejoinder:
"Who said that the “ought implies can” principle has to always be true, in every situation? Could it be true in some instances and not in others? And if it is not in force in some situations can you then conclude that it is not in force in any other situations? How can you rule out that possibility? You cannot."
Bob has given us all the ammo we need. If it is not always true that "ought-implies-can" then bob cannot, per Bob's own Bobism, say that God "cannot" hold cognitive subject S responsible for not placing faith in God, even if S "could not" (in the sense of having the ability to actuate an alternative possibility) produce that faith. I mean, I guess he could say, "Oh no, in this case it does hold." But that seems self-serving. (But, furthermore, if all men "ought" to have faith, then to fail to have faith is to commit an immoral act. To commit an immoral act is to sin. But, Jesus died for "all" sins. So he died for the sin of failing to have faith in Jesus. Thus when someone is punished in hell for that sin, then both they and Christ were punished for the same sin.)
Thus Bob beats Bob. Arbitrariness is a fickle friend indeed, my friends!
If yes, then how are they held responsible for something that was not something that they had to/or could do? (emphasis supplied)
ReplyDelete1. Robert has yet to provide us with an exegetical proof for libertarian freedom. He's been asked this multiple times. Getting him to provide exegetical answers is like trying to get Bill Clinton to define "is." Where does the Bible ever define "freedom" in terms of libertarian (aka contracausal) action theory?
2. His objection continues to overlook the obvious reply: Their inability to believe arises from their love of their own evil.
But Robert, if he's a consistent libertarian cannot provide any reason for the unbelief of men, since libertarianism, by definition, means choices are uncaused. If he appeals to any motives or reasons whatsoever, he thereby abandons libertarianism.
3. His rejoinder has always been "Well if God predestined them they could not have chosen otherwise." Once again, he overlooks the obvious rejoinder: God's decrees do not do anything except make a thing certain. Providence, most often secondary causes, works out the decrees. So, man's "free will" is not violated at all. Men get what they desire the most all along. Why then is this odious, since men are getting what they desire?
4. I, for one, have always found general atonement rather redundant for those who believe in election by foreseen faith. Why would God have Christ atone for the sins of all sinners without exception if He already knew who would believe and who would not?
It's rather obvious that the Libertarian is using the atonement as a warrant to believe - to assure them that since Jesus died for them that they can know the gospel call is "sincere." But nowhere in Scripture do we find the warrant to believe in the atonement. Nowhere does anybody say, "Believe in Jesus because He died for you in particular." Nowhere do we find a place in Scripture where the warrant for fallen men to obey God's commands is found in their ability to do it.
If Robert's view is correct, then the best way to avoid moral blame on Judgment Day is to be in as much bondage to sin as possible.
The places where ability limiting responsibility does apply in Scripture are places like the difference between Jews and Gentiles in the Old Economy, where the Jews had the Law and the Gentiles did not. The Jews are first in judgment and have the greater sins (as in the New Economy all those who are "closest to the covenant" to borrow some old fashioned parlance), for they knew the most. The Gentiles have the lesser sins for they were in ignorance. However, both are equally condemned. "Ability limits responsibility" applies not to obviate condemnation but to determine the degree of condemnation or the degree of reward. For example, Pilate's sin was the lesser compared to the Sandhedrin. The sins of the Chinese in 45 BC are "lesser" than reprobate Jews living in Jerusalem at the same time. Moral inability, like lack of knowledge, does not remove culpability/responsibility, it merely lessens it by degree.
I'm thankful for my inability to do otherwise...shows me how much I need Christ's abilty and righteousness. Inability to do otherwise drives men to a savior, that savior is Jesus.
ReplyDeleteOn a related subject, I think Spurgeon asked a great question when he asked the Arminians if Christ died for the sins of those who were already in hell at the time of His crucifixion. This question is kind of like a "wind-up-the-Arminian-and-see-where-he-goes" fun toy!
ReplyDelete