(December 28, 2015 at 4:50 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Both. I'm not responsible for the choices I don't or can't make, I am responsible for the choices I do make. What I'm trying to show here is that to blame God for the immoral things I do is a conflation of the issues. The two questions facing us are: Am I responsible for my choices? Is God responsible for not enlarging my set of choices? To conclude that I am not responsible for my choices because God does not enlarge my set of choices is a conflation.
Free will is a person's ability to make choices consistent with his/her nature.
Well, the constraint answer makes sense. So long as God is giving people the ability to do "maximal" good, and we're all falling short, then I don't think there would be any blame to God for us not doing as much good as "possible". If God is holding back, even a little, then some of that blame would fall on him (I know you address this later).
(December 28, 2015 at 4:50 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Here's where I'll probably get into trouble by offending the majority of readers (Christians included). I hope each readers emotions do not over ride the explanation.
The answer to that question is found in Romans 9
Yeah, most non-Calvinist Christians I know tend to shy away from Romans 9.
(December 28, 2015 at 4:50 pm)orangebox21 Wrote: Reading verses 15-18 should lead a person to ask the question in verse 19, "How can He blame us, for who can resist His will?
The answer is found in verses 20-24.
Two things to take away from this. First, these are questions of authority. Who get's the right to decide how something is used? The maker or the made? Secondly, it appears God's reason for functioning this way is to demonstrate His wrath, make His power known, and to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy.
Personally, I feel this answer is a bit of a cop out. Now, it might be consistent with what you were saying about both God and us being responsible for doing good, but it still (potentially) results in a situation where God isn't allowing as much good as he could. Saying "who are you to question me!?" is just a misdirection at that point. About the best counter I can see to that would be to assert that God works in [mysterious ways] and that his reasons for holding back are actually more good, and we just don't see it (basically, the Best of all Possible Worlds defense). This, strictly speaking, could be true, but the reasoning is entirely ad hoc. Basically, the answer satisfies the apologist, but not the skeptic.
Anyway, I think you explained your position a lot better now, and it makes sense (well, as much sense as it's going to make to a dirty heathen). Thanks for clarifying. Happy New Year!
