owenanderson
Puritan Board Freshman
Since I'm OA, maybe one way to proceed is to ask me: "when you said ... did you mean ...?" It is in this sense that CT's question has not been answered. Since my book was not about these details of the free will issue, I didn't cover that in any depth in the book. However, I don't think Frankfurt counterexamples or Acts 17 refute ought implies can.
In the Acts 17 example, the person is held responsible for not repenting, which is to say they are getting what they want. They do not want to repent. So there is no excuse available here. In the case of wanting to flap your arms and fly to the moon, this is not within man's natural ability. But knowing God is within that ability. So a problem would only arise if a person wanted to know God but could not.
I wasn't suggesting that Warfield was at odds with earlier Calvinists. As CT pointed out, the common distinction has been between natural and moral ability. And as I said, I believe the WCF navigates these waters very well.
Behind all of these other issues, the question we're asking is: does unbelief have an excuse?
In the Acts 17 example, the person is held responsible for not repenting, which is to say they are getting what they want. They do not want to repent. So there is no excuse available here. In the case of wanting to flap your arms and fly to the moon, this is not within man's natural ability. But knowing God is within that ability. So a problem would only arise if a person wanted to know God but could not.
I wasn't suggesting that Warfield was at odds with earlier Calvinists. As CT pointed out, the common distinction has been between natural and moral ability. And as I said, I believe the WCF navigates these waters very well.
Behind all of these other issues, the question we're asking is: does unbelief have an excuse?