Responsibility and Causation

[Eleanor]

As I said previously, I agree that "Scripture is the arbiter on this."

However, I must disagree that it's no more complicated than your post allows. For example, in the Scripture we learn two more things about responsibility your post here did not cover. (1) In Romans 1, the knowledge the truth suppressors inevitably possessed was a standard for their responsibility (note the judgement language at the end of R1 and the statement "so they are without excuse"). (2) We can visit the terrible account of Amnon and Tamar in 2 Samuel 13. It is a truly revolting and tragic event. Clearly, the context points out that Tamar was opposed to Amnon's pursuit. But the passage points out a situation of "forcing" (v14) where I think that all here would definitely not consider Tamar accountable or responsible for Amnon's terrible actions. She clearly did not want to do what Amnon wanted.

Again, my point above is that Scripture fills out the issue a bit more. I think that your post is a good start in dealing with how Scripture addresses the matter. The other passages of Scripture, addressing the issue of responsibility, are not "window dressing." And certainly, the Scriptures I just referenced are not the full picture either.

At any rate, thank you for sharing your thoughts in the post quoted above.

How does any of that alter that we are born guilty and condemned (Ro 5:12-21)?

That being the case, everything else is window dressing.

 

[makesends]

I completely get where you are coming from. I'm not even going to try and defend libertarian freedom, since I don't hold to it; and I find it contradictory in many ways. My main caution to Reformedguy was that he needed to make sure it really was a contradiction (assuming that is what was meant by "illogical").

Regarding "self-determinism" language, this use of language (i.e. the term) is subject to equivocation when dealing with the difference between compatibilist freedom and libertarian freedom. I sometimes ask the libertarian advocate, "What of the self is determining the will?" I get the response that the agent does. But this just simply rewords the question itself, "What of the agent determines the will?" I've not really heard a decent answer to this question. In compatibilism, the answer is rather simple, the highest preference is what determines the will.

Again, regarding the "self-determinism" language, if the self determines the will, and there is only one self at the moment of choice, then how could it be otherwise? I have not received a good answer for this problem (the problem of the law of identity) from the libertarian advocate. One person said that nothing determines the will, but this then directly contradicts the earlier statement of the self determining the will. Is the "self" a "nothing"? Then the person corrected himself and said that the "self" determines the will, but then this lands one back into the problem of the law of identity. Since the person/agent/self cannot be otherwise at the moment of choice, and if the person/agent/self determines the will, then how can one choose otherwise?

It is at this point that I really think that back of libertarian freedom is the conflation of various objects of choice (often termed "options") with the supposed ability to choose equally between them. But this omits the whole decision-making process and denies the causal relationship between what one loves (i.e. most prefers at the moment of choice) and what one chooses. Hence, libertarian freedom has had many names in the past, and "liberty of indifference" is the most suitable at the moment. I simply disagree biblically, logically, and experientially with such a notion. People simply aren't indifferent when making choices.

Anyway, I am rambling. I'll stop after pointing out that above are a few of the logical problems of libertarian freedom.

I agree! Concerning your 4th paragraph, on "liberty of indifference", (I can't remember on which site I mentioned this a couple days ago), RC Sproul has said that the notion that the person/will is neutral/indifferent is self-defeating. How can anyone make a choice if they don't prefer one thing over another?