Sort:  

Man is culpable because of knowledge not capability. If our knowledge serves us, we know we lack the capability. The only parachute you put on jumping out of the plane is Christ and His death for justification. No backup chute, no lawkeeping, no decisional regeneration. Only Christ

Romans 5:11-13 KJVS
And not only so , but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement. [12] Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: [13] (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

That doesn't seem coherent to me. If God created man without the ability to refuse to sin, then God created sin, and thus, is the morally responsible agent.

Let's look at the example you provided of Adam and Eve. If god created Adam and Eve without free will then they had no choice but to rebel. Further, if God is omniscient, then He knew Adam and Eve would sin, yet that didn't prevent Him from making them. Logically, that means that God created sin by creating agents that He knew would sin.

Or, here's another example: If I create a robot and program it to kill, then turn it loose inside a shopping mall, who is morally responsible: me or the robot?

I'd say me, because the robot just did what it was programmed to do. Only, in my example I'm not as culpable as God would be in creating sin, because I couldn't know for sure the robot would be successful killing people when I created it and turned it loose. God could know that Adam and Eve would sin, so it makes Him more responsible.

Here's another example: let's say that I'm on an island somewhere and there's a person trapped in a cage at the top of a giant cliff. There's no food in the cage, so I know that eventually the person will starve to death. Try as I might, I cannot get to the cage, and I just can't get food to the person. Now, who is the morally responsible one: me, or the person who put them in a cage? I knew the person would eventually starve, but I was unable to feed them.

There is a layer of separation. Sure, God ordained or even decreed if and how sin would enter the world but he is not the direct agent committing the sin.

Much like an author penning the actions of the antagonists in their play or story (You may not this analogy from a former post) are not responsible for the actions of that character, so is God who orders the steps of man and CAUSES those whom He will to walk in His statutes.

God isn't Jim Henson and we aren't puppets. He doesn't need strings. He's already got everything lined up. We follow the course.

I can't help but see a glaring logical fallacy in what you are saying.

First, a character in a story has no moral responsibility because he/she is fictitious and cannot engage in any activity that has moral implications. For example, if you tell a story about a character that is a mass murderer, he is only murdering imaginary people. There is no moral culpability. If, we assume there is some inherent good in the imaginary characters being killed, then the moral responsibility would indeed lie with the author of the story, because it is the author who determines the actions of the character. The character has no choice in the matter. I honestly can't see how this isn't obvious. How could the character be responsible when they are just doing what the author makes them do?

If we have no free will, then yeah, we are puppets, and yeah, God is Jim Henson. How can you say we follow the course when we aren't following anything, we're just doing what we're programmed to do?

I still can't see how you can logically say that if God decrees how and when sin enters the world He isn't the directly responsible moral agent. In fact, in the absence of free will, how is there any morally responsible agent besides God? God is committing the "sin" by His very act of creation. I put "sin" in "" because if God creates it, how is it even wrong?

It's just like your analogy of the story. If I write a smut novel, the characters in the novel hold no moral responsibility. They're not capable of doing other than what I write for them to do.

I understand you perspective; however, I don't see how there is even a hint of fallacious reasoning as we are not talking about logic here.

The problem you are having is with one of authority and this is where we fundamentally disagree. You believe man must possess capability to do right or else God cannot charge them guilty and I believe He has every right. Just as He raised up Pharaoh later hardening his heart that the LORD would exhibit His mighty power. Do you really believe Pharaoh could have repented and completely changed the course of Exodus?

Furthermore, according to your theology, would that relegate the cross to being "Plan B" and the garden of Eden "Plan A"?

No, I contend, the plan, purposes and decrees were always made for the Second Adam, who is Christ, to come and save their people from their sin. God is just in doing this thing.

Also, I might add, thank you @garthfreeman for the thoughtful arguments. They always get the ol cog going but it is only God that will put us on the same "page" so to speak.

Loading...