The Principle of Alternate Possibilities? Does OUGHT really imply CAN?

Someone today, perfectly, is it possible for someone today perfectly to obey God's moral law?

Possible.

Let me tell you why. It's a tough question.

It's a very tough question for libertarian free will. Next question is, are you familiar with the principle of alternate possibility?

Is that in the same sense as contra-causal free will?

They're related, they're not identical. Basically, ought implies the possibility of can.

Oh, so in other words, if you ought to do something, you can do it, or if you ought not to have done something, you could have not done it?

Right, but in this sense, moral responsibility requires the possibility to both will and act otherwise.

No.

Okay, you disagree.

Well, the ability to act can be very limited. You could will something and not have the ability to act it.

Right, but we're talking about moral ability. A moral ability, okay, okay. And so I'll say it again, so PAP, principle of alternate possibility, asserts that moral responsibility requires the possibility both to will and act otherwise.

Is that something you would...

But you said act again, so we are talking about more than moral ability. Act physically is what you're talking about.

We're saying there's a... Well, so PAP would say both are connected. It would not make sense, according to PAP and libertarian free will, for God to give a command that a man can't will to do and also choose to obey it.

Would you affirm the principle of alternate possibility, or do you quabble with it?

I do know that there are cases which... So a drug addict can, because of his choices, become so addicted that he loses the ability to do it.

So at one time in his life, that was true, though.

That was true one time. I mean, people can get into a state... Even God can turn people over to such a heart and heart where their will and their ability is beyond the possibility of doing anything other than what they're already doing.

But at some point in their life, PAP was true. They had the principle of alternate possibility to choose to act and will to do otherwise in a moral situation.

They could, for anything they're held responsible for, they can will otherwise. Whether or not they can act, I think, is different.

So when God says to Cain, sin is crouching at the door, you must overcome it. Are you saying it's possible for him to have wanted to resist sin, but it actually might be possible where he couldn't do that in action?

Well, he certainly could have willed it. That's why God said that to him. Now, think about this.

What about the action part?

Well, I don't know if he was handicapped and I didn't know it. I suppose he couldn't have taken the same sacrifice. But that's not what we're talking about, of course.

No, we're saying that he wouldn't be morally responsible if he was told to do something he wanted to, but he couldn't do it. PAP says you've got to have both the will and the ability. And so I'm trying to get you to affirm that with a resounding yes at least once in someone's life.

So what you're asking is to be held responsible, you have to be able to do what God is telling you to do.

In will and action.

At least once.

But that presupposes that God would... I don't believe God would hold you responsible for something you cannot do.

Both in will and action? Because you said do.

Well, if you can't will it and you can't do it, he ain't going to hold you responsible.

Yes.

So ultimately, I'll say this.

Sounds like a yes.

Well, perhaps if I'm understanding you correctly, but let me clarify with this. I believe God does not hold any man responsible or culpable for things he cannot control. Whether it's of the will or whether it's of the act, which is the alternative view to compatibilism where God holds anybody.

Okay.

Yes.

You're like, uh-oh, where's he going with this?

I'm not afraid of being trapped because I can be wrong and I'll change my mind if I am.

Me too. It's just all determined to go one way anyway.

Depending on how you choose, I suppose.

Yes, I agree with that conditionally. Okay, so when God gave the law to Israel and said do this and you shall live, and he even said if you do this commandment, it's not hard. Was it possible for Israel to will to obey the law perfectly and to do it?

Was it possible?

It's certainly possible that they will to do it. Wouldn't mean nothing about it that they couldn't.

Great. What about that second part of action?

The Bible doesn't—I don't believe it's the case.

So you think it's impossible?

Well, I think every creature—only from a case perspective. In the Bible, no man has ever been perfect.

Okay, but that's not my question. I'm asking you, according to—.

The nation or the individual?

Well, the individuals make up the nation. So I'm asking you—.

Oh, but it's different, though. Well, you know, if the nation is democratic, that doesn't mean every individual in it is.

I'll kind of repeat the question, though. So when God gave the law to Israel, do this and you shall live, was there a possibility that they could will to obey it perfectly and do the action? Maybe it's highly unlikely, given a fallen world, right, that they would actually do it, but I'm asking about the possibility.

The physical possibility to obey it? I say that God told them to do it. I think any individual—any individual had the physical ability. No man ever has.

So that's a yes. It's possible they just—we've seen every case of people failing to do it.

Yeah, I don't know of any case—.

I'll take that, yeah, as a yes.

Okay, you can take that as a yes.

Thank you.

Is that okay?

Jesus was human and he did it.

Okay, that's where I'm going. So why can't we just say, well, of course it's possible. Jesus did it? That's a lot of people's argument.

Yeah, well, I don't know. It's a good question. So there's many factors. Humans, by design, are limited in their knowledge, their strength, their stamina. We get the influence of sin. So there's no man ever been able to do it.

Except for one, right?

Well, except for him, that's right. But he did demonstrate it was possible, but no man has ever done it.

Right, but it's possible for man to do it on your view.

I think so.

Thank you.

Because the principle of ultimate possibility. That's okay. Well, that's a contradiction. If you don't think it will ever happen, then it's not a possibility.

Well, it's physically possible.

And the will is possible, to will to do it. And it's physically possible to do it. But you're saying it's actually an impossibility, right?

I'm saying that from what I read in the Bible, no man will ever be perfect.

It's impossible.

I don't know if it's possible. I mean, I suppose it's possible physically, as I said.

And the will.

I'll say it like this. The only reason I believe it will never happen.

You don't like this question, do you?

Why?

Because you won't tell me if it's possible, if man can keep the law perfectly or not. It just sounds like you're saying it's highly unlikely.

I say theologically, because of what the Bible teaches, man will never do it.

Where does it say man will never do it?

Well, because no man is ever going to be saved through the works of the law.

Is it because their will is corrupt with sin, and they don't desire to keep the law perfectly?

I don't believe he's corrupt in the same way. I believe man is corrupt. I don't believe he's corrupt in the same way that Calvinists say he is.

Right, because you think it's possible for man to will to obey God perfectly. And I've asked you, can he carry out that ability? If you say no, then you have contradicted the whole premise of libertarian free will that posits the principle of alternate possibility.

Well, I don't know about alternate. Well, when you say alternate possibility, let me say it like this so I can be clear. We both agree that man wills to be perfectly obedient, because certainly he would will to be perfectly obedient.

Not in every sequence of events. So, we're going to disagree.

Okay, I don't know. I don't know if that's an admission that you don't will to be perfectly obedient.

No, I'm saying the regenerate man can will in a moment to be perfectly obedient with God. But when he sins, that's determined by in that moment that was not his choice. He wanted to be disobedient. And we see an effect of that of his action.

We have different worldviews. And so, I think you're affirming that it's possible. And then just rebuke me. I think you're affirming it's possible, highly unlikely because of theology. But it's possible for man to will to obey the law of God perfectly and to carry out that action.

But we never see an example of it other than Jesus. So, that should tell us something. But it's highly unlikely that it would happen.

Well, Jesus does prove my point that it can be done. I do not believe it will ever be done by any other human.

Is it impossible?

This is crucial.

No, I get it. I appreciate the question. I think you said that I didn't like it because you wanted it to look like I was a little bit embarrassed with the question. I'm okay with the question. There's tough questions for everybody.

Is it possible?

Is it possible? Let me say it like this.

Can I put it more practically? Can someone today perfectly, is it possible for someone today perfectly to obey God's moral law?

Possible.

Let me tell you why. It's a tough question.

It's a very tough question.

It's a tough question for this reason. In any given moment, a man can obey God's law perfectly. A man can stand there and not commit any sin. But the reality is that the more time goes by, he will sin.

So, at any given moment, a man can be in compliance.

It's not possible for him to choose to be perfectly obedient.

I'll say it like this. On an ongoing basis, it seems to be...

You're getting me back from earlier. I can feel it a little bit.

Getting you back from earlier?

Yeah, I wasn't giving the yes or no.

Oh, well.

Listen, I didn't rebuke you for not giving a yes or no. I said, that's fine. I just kept asking for the yes or no. So, I'll say it like this. On an ongoing basis, no man is perfectly obedient. He could will it.

His ability to carry it out is different.

That's why I framed the question the way that I did. I asked if it was a possibility for him to carry out the action perfectly.

But, see, I just wanted to be specific because I think anybody can agree that a man in any moment could be sinless. Their whole life?

It's possible for their whole life?

No, no, at any given moment.

But I'm asking.

You think you're sinning right now in this moment?

I do not think I'm loving God perfectly with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength.

Well, you know, the Bible says some people did it.

Why don't you do it?

I got a question for you since it's my time to ask questions. But it's okay. It happens back and forth. So, we've talked through this a lot. It sounds like it definitely is a hard question. I'm asking the possibility of it.

I think your view needs it to be possible for a man to be morally culpable. I have a different kind of question that relates. So, is it the case that you deny original sin, meaning that man is born with a sin nature?

I would really like a yes or no because time is starting to...

What do you mean by sin nature?

That it's impossible for man to will to obey God perfectly.

No, I don't believe that.

Right.

So, what about someone that affirms original sin with that understanding and they affirm libertarian free will? If their understanding is man is not able to obey God willingly or in action, are they being consistent?

Someone that affirms original sin and that definition and holds to libertarian free will, are they being consistent?

You mean, are they being consistent by holding libertarian free will and total depravity that I don't agree with?

No, original sin.

Original sin, yeah. Depravity is the state in which originates from your birth.

Right.

So, I'm asking about original sin as defined as man cannot carry out the ability to obey God's law perfectly.

Okay.

So, historically, that's how original sin has been defined. As man cannot obey the law of God and needs a Savior.

Well, I believe that, but...

Okay.

I didn't realize you believed in original sin, so I was wrong.

No, no, no.

That man needs a Savior.

So, you do not believe in original sin as we've discussed.

Well, see, different things are meant by original sin. You have to realize, of course, non-Calvinists affirm original sin, but not in the way that you would. So, I just want to be clear on which original sin you're asking me about.

Well, Leighton Flowers would agree that original sin means that you cannot obey God's law perfectly.

I'm not sure about all his views, so...

That's okay.

That's okay.