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!