Scott Warren, ETS National Conference, November 17, 2005
Page 5
case that must be made. The Arminian framework requires that both the ability and
the inclination to respond are present in at least some fallen humans, and potentially
in any. The Calvinist position requires that at least one of the two be certainly and
demonstrably absent. The debate throughout the history of the Church has tended
to focus on the question of ability. In fact, the language of ability has been
frequently employed, even when the inclination of fallen humanity is in view. This
has resulted from the fact that the two matters were not clearly distinguished, due in
part to common conventions of language that were not adequately evaluated. It is
my contention that the primary focus of these theological debates should be on
human inclination rather than ability. I will return to this issue after a brief foray
into ethical theory and an assessment of the human predicament.
Freedom and Moral Responsibility
Virtually all moral theories acknowledge that one is morally responsible to
act only within the realm of one's ability.
9
One does not incur moral guilt for
failing to do what was not within one's ability, nor for performing actions beyond
one's ability to avoid. In general, this is a sound moral principle, and difficult to
discredit, at least with regard to human ethical theory. It is sometimes stated in the
corollary form as "ought implies can." The idea is that if we are truly morally
obligated to perform an action, it must then be within our ability to act. If it were
not, we would not be under moral obligation to do it.
Given this credible and common ethical theory, those who deny that humans
are free (in relevant areas) are quite vulnerable to criticism, in my opinion, if they
also maintain that humans are, at the same time, morally responsible for their failure
to act. Such would generally be the case if one contends that humans lack the
ability to act according to God's commandments. It is not surprising then, that
those adopting such positions, as Calvinists have often done, are often challenged at
this point.
Similarly, if sinners lack the capability to respond to God's grace offered in
Christ, it is argued that God would be unreasonable for holding them accountable
9
E.g., John S. Feinberg and Paul D. Feinberg, Ethics for a Brave New World (Wheaton: Crossway
Books, 1993) p. 19, 22.