(Part 2): Guillaume Responds to Leighton Flowers, Tim Stratton, & Braxton Hunter.

Responding to Leighton Flowers, Tim Stratton, and Braxton Hunter

All right, welcome to another episode of Revealed Apologetics. I'm your host Elias Ayala and today I have with me Guillaume Bignon who came on the show a while back to take on the the arguments over Libertarianism and determinism and we we kind of dealt with some of the objections to the Calvinist position from Tim Stratton Braxton Hunter and Leighton Flowers.

And so today we're gonna do a part two and so if you guys have been following this discussion, you'll you'll know that Leighton Tim and Braxton made a made three videos of their own responding to our very large Discussion.

I think it was close to two hours. Maybe it was over two hours I'm not sure but this particular discussion this interview that there I'm gonna be conducting with Guillaume Presupposes and you guys know I'm presuppositional.

That's right. It presupposes that you have background knowledge of that previous discussion. So we're not going to be defining terms and things like this this particular interview is going to be based upon the assumption that folks are either familiar with the topic or have already watched the previous videos and again if you've been Following if you've already watched the video responses that Braxton Tim and Leighton have put on Their respective social media platforms most notably YouTube and so Guillaume took the time to go through those videos those responses and has now Was willing to come back on and kind of address those now again.

This revealed apologetics is focused on apologetics. And of course, I'm a reformed Christian I'm a Calvinist and so I do think these topics kind of Spill into you know spill into each other. But I don't want this ministry to be focused merely on these topics.

And so this is going to be the last response by Guillaume. Specifically to you know this little back and forth that that's going on here. So again, we we want to just set forth the disclaimer. We see Braxton Leighton and Tim as brothers in Christ their friends I speak to all three of them on a fairly regular basis.

They're they're great guys. We just have disagreements and so I'm very excited to have someone like Guillaume who is very knowledgeable in this area to be a Representative of the Calvinist side and to provide some responses to their many many objections.

Especially if you guys are familiar with soteriology 101 Leighton flowers Spends a significant time critiquing the Calvinist position which Calvinist should welcome. You know if we believe our position is correct, then we should be willing to engage Some of the criticisms and critiques that are offered now real quick by way of some announcements.

You guys hopefully caught my last interview with Pastor Doug Wilson where we talked about the biblical foundation of presuppositional apologetics. I did have Jeff Durbin for the 29th, but Unfortunately, I had to reschedule so I am Connecting with him behind the scenes to reschedule that.

Please stay tuned for the updates with Jeff Durbin because the focus I want to I want to have there is. How does presuppositional apologetics apply to? Different religions. So when we talk about, you know, the use of the transcendental argument for the Christian worldview, right?

How does this look when we're applying it to things like Islam Mormonism Jehovah's Witness or any other non-christian position? So, please stay tuned for for that discussion. I'll definitely let you guys know when that is put on the calendar on May 9th, I have dr. James Anderson from Reform Theological Seminary to talk about the nature of transcendental arguments.

It is a common complaint of non-presuppositionalists. Against the presuppositionalists that presuppositionalists say all sorts of things, but they never state the argument. And so with dr. James Anderson, I want to Talk to him about how do we actually state the transcendental argument?

What is its structure? What are we trying to accomplish when we engage in that form of argumentation on May 12th? I have dr. Gary Habermas. He's going to be on to talk about the resurrection of Jesus and hopefully if this date is still good Dr. Douglas Ruthiest, the author of Christian apologetics.

I don't have the book with me, but it's a giant Textbook on apologetics. And so hopefully none of these will fall through and we'll have a very very awesome lineup. Very in very close proximity. I it's just God's providence, right?

All these guys happen to respond in this close time. And so, you know, we're able to have these great interviews. You know these past couple of weeks. So without further ado, I want to welcome Guillaume.

Again, I always introduce Guillaume as the French Calvinist philosopher. And if you know who he is, then yes, this is you know. Of course, you know, he's French and if you don't know who he is. You will automatically know he's French when he opens his mouth.

So Guillaume, why don't you say hi to everybody? And tell folks very briefly a little bit about yourself and then we'll just pick off what pick up where we left off.

Hey, it's good to be with you Eli. So a little bit about myself. Well, I'm a French Calvinist philosopher. All of that is true. I'm actually during the day I'm a computer scientist and I work in finance on Wall Street and at night I have a wife and four kids and a fifth on the way and.

Also, I do adjunct teaching in philosophy at Caldwell University. So some of the responsibilities I have and try to juggle well.

I like how you mentioned your job and then you said at night I have a wife and kids.

They are very much during the lockdown. I am very much reminded. I have kids during the day when I work. But normal times are not so much.

Okay, very good. Well again folks I just gonna let you know again. We're going to hit the ground running with this and we're just gonna jump into. The responses made by Leighton Braxton and Tim Stratton of free thinking ministries.

Of course Braxton hunters over at Trinity radio and Leighton flowers is over at soteriology 101. So we're just gonna hit the ground running with this. So let's begin with Leighton's video response and most of the video is really on your sketch of the case you made for Determinism.

So how would you respond to what Leighton says? And of course the audience assuming that they have watched it or they will watch it in the near future. How would you address Leighton's words on your case for determinism?

Yeah. So the most of the video was on the sketch that I gave for the case for determinism. And it wasn't really part of our actual presentation in the interview. But I gave that sketch as a brief response to Leighton in the Q &A.

Leighton had asked on the computer Where the Bible supports determinism and in response, I quickly listed several points. I said that determinism is supported by texts teaching God's providential control of all things including evil.

That it's supported by biblical teaching on election and predestination. That it's supported by two philosophical arguments that have biblical premises. So there was the argument from Luther the argument based on original sin and the argument by Jonathan Edwards the argument from divine impeccability.

So they are both philosophical arguments which have biblical premises. And then there was my cheeky claim that Paul anticipates the two main objections to determinism right there in Romans 9. Why is where do you wait.

Does God still find fault for who can resist his will and is there unrighteousness in God? So these are kind of the sketch I gave for a case for determinism.

Yeah now now in the the video response, I believe that all three of them were on the on the the episode. I watched the first one most of it a while back when they first You know released it, but I remember dr. Hunter.

He said in this regard. He says. First he says that you presume a lot in your response. You presume an interpretation of election, right? You bring to the table your Calvinistic understanding. You presume an interpretation of predestination and all those other related issues.

How would you respond to that? Yeah, I don't really so much presume. It's just that I sketched the line of argumentation. So yes, it would need to be supported. Which I obviously didn't do or try to do in the tiny segment of the Q &A that they respond to.

But I don't think it would be presuming is just that it would need to be argued in fact. Yes, the debate hasn't really been settled on those fronts.

Okay. But they say that providential control doesn't logically entail determinism and that predestination and election don't logically entail determinism. So, you know that a lot of people think that there's a a necessary connection there other people try to point out.

Well, there isn't a necessary connection. How would you respond to that? Yeah, I think that's fine.

I don't say that each of these items logically entails determinism. Suggested briefly that there are evidence for it. So the Calvinist can mount a good cumulative case based on all those biblical elements.

So they say I presume my position is a given but then they correctly anticipate exactly what I'll respond in the video. They say Guillaume may say that all of this would need to be debated. Yeah, I think that's true.

So I don't presume it after all just that it would need to be debated. Now a couple of those items do logically entail Compatibilism the arguments from Martin Luther and Jonathan Edwards. So, let's see how they respond to my sketch of these arguments in their video.

Okay?

Well, let's take a look at the argument from from Luther. Leighton says the argument from Luther does in fact. It says does the fact that we ought to perfectly obey the law but cannot obey the law refute libertarianism.

And they say no. And Braxton says you assume a view of original sin. That's not held by all our orthodox believers.

Yeah, so I don't know which view of original sin. He thinks that the argument needs and which view he himself affirms. To see if he can escape the argument, but all the argument needs is that we'd be incapable of living a sinless life.

So does his view of original sin. Not at least until that we can't leave a sinless life. I think Leighton's view does. I think he grants that we can that we cannot leave a sinless life. In the way that he asked the question right does the fact that we can't leave us in this life until that.

So it's the dilemma for the proponent of the principle of alternate possibilities. That's this so-called principle that says that if that moral responsibility requires the categorical ability to do otherwise.

So if you were from that you have a dilemma facing you because we either have the categorical Ability to leave a fully sinless life or we don't. If we do it denies original sin and affirms a palladian ability to work ourselves to a non guilty verdict at the final judgment.

Okay. But if we don't have the ability and more responsibility requires the ability. Then we cannot be blamed for sinning at all. And so you result in universalism. So it's kind of pick your poison here.

Depending on whether you affirm we have the ability or we don't. Either we have the ability and you're in you fall into palladianism or you deny that we have it. But then you result in universalism because we cannot be blamed for it so.

Before finishing their answer to the to the argument from Luther in that video. They take a break and they criticize the idea that the conditional ability is sufficient for moral responsibility. And there is multiple manipulation arguments.

So but we'll deal with those a bit later on and then they come back to Luther's argument.

Okay, Layton offers this response though. He says anytime that I'm faced with a choice even as a lost person I can lie or I cannot lie logically. It's possible for him to tell the truth. What's not feasible is that a sinful lost person in a fallen state would feasibly always choose to do the right thing.

But in any given situation, I think we can say yeah, it's logically possible for him to choose the right thing in any given situation.

How would you respond to that? Yeah. No, so that that response is actually logically incoherent. So if you have the ability to avoid sinning on any given situation on any one situation That successfully aggregates to your ability to avoid sin for your entire life I show this in my book with an argument by recurrence.

So you do it for once and you show that if you have it for one then it's true for the next one and so On and you move on through recurrence to the entirety of your life and that argument is sound and so it shows that it aggregates successfully.

My friend W Paul Frank's who is himself a Molinist proves the same thing. Then me that you cannot just say we cannot leave us in this life, but we can avoid every individual sin. He shows it with a slightly different route.

But basically reaches the same conclusion you we cannot say that we can avoid any given sin and yet somehow not be able to Leave us in this life. So the one demonstrably entails the other.

Well Leighton continues. He says the point of the scriptures is that even if he does do all the right things all the time It's not sufficient to earn or merit his salvation. Even a baby who's never had a moral choice to make they still need Jesus.

They still need the blood of Christ because guess what? No one gets to heaven through just their natural abilities or their their merit. That's what Leighton's. That's what Leighton said.

Yeah, it's a bit surprising so we're looking at a person who now successfully lives their entire life without ever sinning and He's saying that this person would still not be saved. I mean that sounds strange to me.

If you never do wrong, you don't need to earn salvation. You don't need salvation, right? You don't need to be saved from the wrath of God, which you don't deserve. Christian salvation is the forgiveness of sin.

So death is the wages of sin. If you don't sin, you don't need forgiveness. So it seems I don't know how he would reconcile those two. But if seems to me like if you are fully sinless and live a fully sinless life You don't need to earn anything because you don't need salvation.

You don't need forgiveness. You don't need redemption if you are actually sinless.

But he says that the law has never been the means of salvation. It's a tutor to point you to Christ.

Yeah, so that's in the scriptures obviously and the way that the law points you to Christ is by revealing your sin. Paul says I would not have known my sin unless the law hadn't taught me. This is what you ought to do.

So we're told in Romans 7 that The law points you to Christ by revealing your sin. But if someone never sins then the law doesn't work like that for him because the law would tell him he's actually righteous.

He's passing all will fly in colors. So it's not pointing you to Christ if you are in fact sinless.

But but then he says the difference between heaven and hell isn't whether you sin right since we all sin rather. He says it's whether you have faith.

Yeah, I meant to that. I obviously affirm that and he's the one who says it doesn't have to be like that because he's saying that a fallen child of Adam is capable of living a sinless life and.

Therefore making it false that we all sin. Well, but then he says the Calvinist You know accused us the Calvinist wants to say you can't have faith because you can't obey the law. That's the Calvinist Calvinistic leap he says.

And if if we have a chance to talk to bing young. He says a bit and then they did have a chance. Okay, but he said he'd want to push push you on this point. So what do you think?

Yeah. So it is the the Calvinist wants to say you can't have faith because you can't obey the law and know the the Calvinist doesn't say that he he says that you don't need the ability to avoid sinning in order to be blameworthy for sinning and.

That does follow logically from our inability to live a sinless life along with our blameworthiness for that failure. So that refutes the principle of alternate possibilities and from that compatible ism logically follows.

So that's the claim of the Calvinist. Yeah, what about this issue of divine impeccability? Attempt that there's Nothing causally determining God even if it's true that he cannot sin.

Yeah, so here we've moved on to the argument by Jonathan Edwards and it's based on the fact that God is impeccable. Is he could not sin and yet he remains praiseworthy. So we see that praiseworthiness does not require the categorical ability to do otherwise than acting righteously.

And so Stratton said there's nothing causally determining God even if it's true that he cannot sin. And I'm fine with that. I'm not. I'm just saying God refutes the principle of alternate possibilities.

I don't need to convince you that God is determined only that he cannot sin and yet he is praiseworthy for acting righteously.

Right, so he has the ability. He doesn't have the ability to do other than what he does, which is good yet.

He's worthy of praise. Yes, that's right. He so and it's not just just of Inability to do other than what he does because that yes. We might interpret that to mean he's determined and we don't need to debate that just yet.

Here all I need is to say that he does not have the ability to Act unrighteously, so he always acts righteously and does not have the categorical ability to do anything less than that. And so if that's true, then that refutes the principle of alternate possibilities.

Okay, but then Tim goes on to say that the problem is not all Christians are going to agree with what what you say here. Right. It's an assumption. You need you need an argument. You can't just assume it, right?

Yeah, but I mean I just gave the argument right. God cannot fail to act righteously and God is praiseworthy for acting righteously. Therefore moral responsibility doesn't require the ability to do otherwise.

So he needs to tell us which premise he disagrees with.

Oh, well, it's apparently the first premise right. Because he then approves of a quote he attributes to Dallas Willard, right? Well, of course God can sin but why would he want to right?

Yes, so that's what the the quoted Dallas Willard is saying this and I thought this is pretty amazing because To salvage the principle of alternate possibilities in the case of God. He's now using the conditional sense of ability.

Because first to avoid my argument you would need to maintain God's categorical ability to sin so it doesn't work. But also I should point out in those three videos they spend all their energy Arguing that the conditional ability doesn't work and it's not worth the name ability if you categorically can't do it.

And then here they use it as perfectly meaningful about God. Right. Well, of course, I agree. It's meaningful to say God or Jesus could sin if he wanted to. But it remains that he doesn't have the categorical ability to do otherwise and yet he's praiseworthy.

So there goes the principle of alternate possibilities and the claim that he's making here. The quote is literally. I mean, it's obviously the conditional ability, right? He could sin but only if he wanted to but in fact, he cannot possibly want to therefore.

There's no categorical ability to sin here.

What he says. He doesn't understand what it would mean for God to sin since sin is missing the mark of God's.

Standard. Yeah, great. So we agree that it's incoherent to say that God sins and that's my point.

There is no possible world in which God sins. Well, God must have libertarian freedom. There was nothing external to God to determine him. That's the next claim. Yeah.

So, of course if God is determined it's from his own nature. It's not from the outside. So I agree. It's a difference with determined humans who are determined by someone outside of them, right? So if humans and God are determined if then there's still a big difference in that humans would be determined by God.

But God would be determined only from the inside from his inner nature. He's necessarily good nature and not by something or someone outside himself. But just because God isn't determined from the outside It doesn't follow that he has libertarian free will because if he's determined from the inside It's still determined and praiseworthy.

So compatibilism Follows and libertarianism requires compatibilism to be false. So if God is determined from the inside That's not libertarian freedom because that's compatible with determinism.

Okay. What. Braxton's then tries to affirm the principle of alternate possibilities for God by saying God can pick among two good things, right? So that seems to be.

The pap as you would call it, right? Yeah, so that's a that's a pretty standard move and what my response is that it's not relevant to my argument. I say that God is praiseworthy for acting righteously as opposed to sinning.

And I'm clearing that there's no praise in the picking of a good. Over an equal good if there are no other options, right. If you have two options that are both good. But there's nothing else that's available.

Then there's no praise in picking one over the other. But the reason that it's praiseworthy when he picks a good it's because it's in opposition to picking something bad. Even though he doesn't have the categorical ability to pick something bad.

Okay, but Tim says if you can show there's two options for God then it seems that he would have libertarian free will.

Yeah, but that's also irrelevant here because I use God's inability to act unrighteously as Premise to refute the principle of alternate possibilities. I don't argue here that God is fully determined and never has two options categorically accessible.

My argument leaves that question open. So even if God has sometimes two options categorically available, they don't need to be those that are used for my immediate argument.

All right. Well, let's let's turn to Romans 9 then. Okay. They turn to your cheeky claim. Okay about Romans 9 anticipating the main two objections against Calvinism and people who are familiar with Romans 9 would imagine what?

What that is about?

Engage them on Romans 9. Yeah, so Layton then tries to offer a plausible account for why Paul would anticipate these objections. You know is there unrighteousness in God and why does he still find fault for who can resist his will and.

That's fine. We don't need to turn that part into a debate. I do think that Romans 9 supports the determinist view, but again, I didn't really support the claim in our interview. So there wasn't much for him to respond to.

I said it's kind of a cheeky remark that he that the main arguments against Calvinism Sure sound a lot like those anticipated by Paul when he teaches on God's sovereign choice of election in Romans 9, but that's all I mean, it's fun.

It made for a catchy book title right. My book called excusing sinners and blaming God. But at this point we still haven't really touched my actual responses to his debate on Calvinism. Okay.

But by the way, excusing sinners and blaming God can be purchased at Amazon and bookstores near you. Actually, don't go to the bookstore, but you could order it online. Well, they eventually get to that point, right?

So so let's let's deal with the issue of. The question rather does choice entail in determinism, right? There's a big hullabaloo about. Well choice seems to entail. Okay, things aren't determined in the way that the Calvinist thinks it is.

Yeah, so that that was part of that was part of the initial argument that Layton had brought in his debate that we responded to. So I responded that choice doesn't entail in determinism. You still make choices on determinism.

So do you want to read Layton's reply? Well, he says. But who's determining your choices? It's not what you have decided. Yeah, so as Lords if God determines it's not really you choosing right? Yeah, that's the claim that's made here.

So let me answer that question who's determining your choices answer. It's God. But of course, it doesn't follow that. It's not what you have decided. They make that claim a number of times in this video and in that of Tim Stratton, I believe.

So it's important to address it here. But I need to point out this if God causes you to choose X You didn't choose X. That's their claim. But that claim isn't just question begging because I disagree with the the truth of the claim.

But it's actually self-refuting. Look at the wording of the objection if God causes you to choose X it actually logically follows that you choose X. I mean you can tell that they don't like it and there may be some coherent way of framing and objection somewhere in the neighborhood of What they say but as they phrase it the objection is self-refuting.

If I cause my pen to fall on the floor Does it follow that my pen didn't fall on the floor? Well, of course not. Not only it doesn't follow that my pen didn't fall but it does follow that my pen did fall.

So if I cause my pen to fall on the floor my pen falls on the floor. Similarly if God causes me to choose X it is not only compatible with my choosing X.

It actually logically entails that I chose X. Yeah, but your argument has been determined by God. We hear this all the time. Everything you just said was determined. So, you know, they do the point of kind of highlighting.

It's all irrational anyway, because you've been determined to say everything you just said. Yeah. So yes, it has been determined by God.

But that's not an argument. I'm aware that God determines all things on determinism. There's no debate on that. So it's not very helpful to have them repeat all the time as a matter of fact. The only one who seems not to know that determinism means all things are determined is Tim Stratton.

And we'll see that when we get to his video. But until we have a successful argument to support that determinism excludes choice or free will. It's pointless to keep hammering that on my view. It's God who determines all things.

Yes, he does and I don't shy away from that. Okay, but then they bring in a text that wasn't mentioned in the original debates and that's Genesis chapter 4. Okay Braxton says in our debates We gave some of the same text but we gave texts that imply not just that man has choice.

But choices in the Bible where it really does seem like libertarian freedom is the type of choice we're talking about. Genesis 4 reads thusly. And the Lord had regard for Abel and his offering but for Cain and his offering he had no regard.

So Cain was very angry and his face fell. The Lord said to Cain Why are you angry and why is your face fallen if you do? Well, will you not be accepted and if you do not do well sin is crouching at the door.

Its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it. So Braxton goes on to say now granted God didn't say you can do well. But surely the point of the text is this is before the murder has yet taken place and what he's implying to Cain is Yes, your offering wasn't accepted, but you can do well.

If you do well, your offering will be accepted. So this has to be understood as a libertarian choice as Braxton says for the following reasons if God is saying this to Cain. But God knows that Cain in one sense of could or the other isn't capable of doing or it's been Determined that he won't do it then at best God is being deceptive with Cain and at worse.

It's just an outright lie to imply that he could do otherwise when in fact he he obviously can't.

Yeah. Yeah, so here I deny that the categorical sense of can is implied in this text here here again. What is explicit is the conditional if you do? Well, you will be accepted if you don't do. Well sin is crouching at the door.

It doesn't imply that he can do it all things being just as they are which is what the categorical ability Requires. All things about the person at the moment of choice inside and out must be held in place exactly as they are.

And they still can do it. So it doesn't imply that kind of strong ability here. Just the text. It says you must rule over it. But it doesn't entail you have the categorical ability to rule over it because again the ridic show comes back to bite us.

We must leave a sinless life but it doesn't entail we actually can all things being equal. And. If you object further by saying that Cain could complain if God doesn't also grant the antecedent of the conditional, right?

If God doesn't also grant the if in if you do well, then you again literally arguing Why does God find fault for who can resist his will? I don't think. Then they spend a bit more time arguing that if you freely choose God, it doesn't mean you're earning your salvation.

It doesn't mean you're meriting it. Sarah Layton even says it's the wall Calvinist arguments, but I'm not arguing any of this. So it's not really relevant and we can skip over that part.

But in the debate you were responding to Layton said the word choice is all you need and you don't need a philosophy degree. And you responded No, obviously, it's not all you need. And the Calvinist is fine with the Webster's definition of choice.

Which Layton quoted. Layton double downs and and he says the word choice is all you need if determinism isn't injected into the picture.

Yeah, so what I think is going on here is that he's missing where the burden of proof is. He's the one he is the one arguing that choice entails indeterminism. So who's injecting anything into the word not me.

I don't need to inject determinism. He needs to extract indeterminism and I say good luck doing that out of the mere word choice.

Okay, but in Layton continues. He says the only reason we're having all this vernacular of libertarian freedom of the will and all of this nuance and all this other stuff is because you you've Had people insert determinism and then come up with new definitions of free will that aren't the basic intuitive understanding of what free will is.

Know that I didn't do that. I gave you my definition of free will. It's the control condition for moral responsibility. It's perfectly meaningful and it should be yours too because it's neutral and uncontroversial.

The real debate then is on whether that is compatible with determinism. Unless you just want to beg the question entirely by baking your view into the definition. But then if so, then have at it, but I don't think you understand how debates work.

If that's satisfying to you.

Okay, and I think this is a big deal. A lot of people say that Calvinist Redefined free will that this begs the question in favor of the other person.

Yeah, we discussed that a little bit but I mean to bypass that entirely. Yeah, what I do is I take the fully standard definition of free will it's the Control condition for moral responsibility if you find this in the literature on both sides of the aisle and once we agree on that It's being the case then we can debate whether that is in fact compatible with Determinism and all the arguments can then be unfolded but I don't think you can bake that into the definition.

Otherwise, it's not really a meaningful debate.

Now in that discussion that we had the first time later on in the discussion. I asked you if the Bible is under determinative With regards to this whole issue and Leighton paused to say. And this is what Leighton says.

He says it's a great question. Thank you late. And and makes his point if you're not trying to draw a philosophical inference If you're just reading the text our view is supported. So he thinks that his view is just supported by a bare reading of the text.

Yeah. So but that the man seems to be self refuting here again because to claim that your indeterminist view is Supported by the text is to draw a philosophical inference. So is it's not that he's refusing to draw a philosophical inference and then let the text speak and then it's supporting Indeterminism.

To say that it supports indeterminism is to draw a philosophical inference and if the Bible is under Determinative then it calls for neither view. So once more his own criticism applies directly to his own view.

Well Braxton says a good exegete Asks who the original audience was and the original audience wouldn't have understood the distinction between categorical and conditional ability. He sarcastically implies you must believe they'd be sophisticated philosophers.

I'm being a little bit snarky. He says. He's admitting that he's being a little snarky and that's that's fine. But the good point I mean when you when you take a look at the original audience You don't think that they're they're thinking in these categories of conditional and categorical.

How would you respond to that?

Yeah, so I obviously I don't suggest that the disciples would have done that philosophical work to. All I'm saying is that the text doesn't teach indeterminism because there's a perfectly acceptable sense of ability that is compatible with determinism.

And remember even they used that sense of ability when they said God had the ability to sin. All right, so and they quoted Dallas Willard, so it's not some sort of a hair splitting device I'm using here created by a crazy French philosopher.

It's a perfectly common usage of ability and in any case the mockery cuts both ways, right? Because I can turn this on to their own view and I could say well are we to understand that the original reader would have?

Heard the text and said this well. Then there must be a possible world in which all causally relevant Influencing factors are held just as they are and the outcome of the free choice is different in a way that is inconsistent with theistic determinism.