Determinism.....

[solarwave]

Because they could have done differently, as you put it. Theirs is not a physical inability but a moral one. As pastor John Piper put it, "Physical inability would remove accountability. Moral inability does not." You are wrestling with a very old dilemma from which came the heresy of Pelagius (5th century; see also Erasmus vs. Luther, 16th century), a dilemma that was answered just as long ago by Augustine with a response that still rings forth today. Although Jonathan Edwards expounded on this at great depth (see Freedom of the Will), the matter was clarified perhaps no more succinctly than this statement from Arthur Pink: "By nature [man] possesses natural ability but lacks moral and spiritual ability. The fact that he does not possess the latter does not destroy his responsibility, because his responsibility rests upon the fact that he does possess the former" (The Sovereignty of God, pg. 154). We have the natural faculties to understand the commands of God and natural ability to keep them. "Man is guilty for the simple reason that, in his sinful rebellion, he refuses to do that which he has the full mental and physical ability to do. His problem is a moral and spiritual problem: he is a sinner at heart, who has no desire for God or godliness."

But you are agreeing the will is determined and so our moral choice is determined somehow.

Here is my problem: Where do our morals come from? Why do we choose to steal rather than not? Isn't the reason I choose one action over another because of how my life experiences have acted on me and given me the thought processes I have. Obviously when I make a choice I think about it and choose based on the facts, values and natural ability I have, none of which I have control over me having. I am given my natural ability at birth, I can only have the facts which are avaliable, and the values I have ether just come upon me (from upbringing) or by following this process again (which is detministic) to choose which new values to pick up. Hope that made sense.

You are making the case for 'compatibilism' (although at this point you may not realize it), which I concur with. In order for an action to be free, it cannot be determined or causally necessitated from without. And in order for an action to be morally culpable, it cannot be random. But an action is both free and morally culpable if it is determined from within (i.e., causally necessitated by one's character and desires, or "must go through a thought process"). This is the compatibilist model of Christian doctrine. "The moral quality of the deed, considered in itself, is rooted in the moral character of the subordinate agent, acting in the circumstances and under the motives operative in each instance" (Benjamin Warfield, Biblical Doctrines, pg. 20).

But what if as stated above the choice from within is determined too? So that from brith none of your decisions could have been made any differently. How can someone be blamed if they couldn't have reasoned out any other action based on the information they had and state they were in.

Im not sure if we are using the same words to mean different things, which may be a problem here.