Wes over at Reason to Stand thinks so.
A Calvinist friend of mine recently asked me the difference between “unwilling” and “unable” and why I consider the two to be mutually exclusive when talking about mankind’s ability to sin or not.
And here is his reply to his friend:
If I am unable I cannot be unwilling because my inability precludes my willingness either way.
[…]If I am unable then I am no better off than a robot preprogrammed to run a certain course and as such I cannot rightly be held accountable for that which I have no control over.
On the other hand, if I am unwilling then I logically have the ability to act in a manner other than that which I choose.
If I am unable to not sin then I cannot logically be held accountable or responsible for choices that are, by definition, beyond my control.
If I am unwilling to not sin then I am not only responsible for my choice but, in light of the holy standard of God, I am unable to bridge the gap I freely created.
[…]The bottom line is that we are either free and responsible or else we are not free and therefore not responsible.
And William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga also like middle knowledge. Hmmmn. Wes and Bill Craig and Alvin Plantinga are pretty smart guys.
- William Lane Craig discusses Calvinism and the problem of evil
- What are the differences between Wesleyan Arminianism and Calvinism?
- First debate on Calvinism/Molinism between James White and Michael Brown
- James White debates Michael Brown on Calvinism vs Foreknowledge (1 of 2)
- Michael Brown debates James White on Foreknowledge vs Calvinism (2 of 2)
- What about those who have never heard of Jesus?