Some think that ought implies can. For example, Pelagius taught that if we ought to live without sinning, then we can do that. Would this be a good response? Man had the ability to live without sinning when he was originally created, but he lost that ability and it is his fault that he lost that ability.
Ought Implies Can Response
- Thread starter Toasty
- Start date
- Status
I would first ask if the notion is true that obligation necessitates the ability to carry out the terms of said obligation. It seems like a non-sequitur to me. Of course, this means one has to discuss moral and natural ability and whatever significance those may have.
Jimmy the Greek
Puritan Board Senior
Ought implies responsibility, not ability.
I don't believe it necessitates the ability to carry it out. Someone could lose his ability to carry it out.
That's true. This reminds me that everyone has the responsibility to believe in Jesus even though no one can come to Christ unless the Father draws him.
mgkortus
Puritan Board Freshman
Anselm addressed why man is responsible for his sins in Cur Deus Homo. I.24 contains a nice illustration for why man is held accountable for his debt to God even though he is incapable of paying the recompense:
“Suppose someone assigns his bondslave a task, and tells him not to leap into a pit from which he cannot by any means climb out, and that bondslave, despising the command and advice of his master, leaps into the pit which has been pointed out to him so that he is completely unable to carry out the task assigned to him. Do you think that his incapacity serves in the slightest as a valid excuse for him not to perform the task assigned him?”
This nicely illustrates your suggested answer to your original question. For Adam, there was ability to keep the law. However, Adam willingly sinned, and thereby plunged the human race into sin. Thus, while we do not have the ability to keep the law perfectly, we are still responsible to do so.
“Suppose someone assigns his bondslave a task, and tells him not to leap into a pit from which he cannot by any means climb out, and that bondslave, despising the command and advice of his master, leaps into the pit which has been pointed out to him so that he is completely unable to carry out the task assigned to him. Do you think that his incapacity serves in the slightest as a valid excuse for him not to perform the task assigned him?”
This nicely illustrates your suggested answer to your original question. For Adam, there was ability to keep the law. However, Adam willingly sinned, and thereby plunged the human race into sin. Thus, while we do not have the ability to keep the law perfectly, we are still responsible to do so.
Afterthought
Puritan Board Senior
Perhaps it may also be helpful to note that while the will is unable to do spiritual good, the natural freedom of the will remains? The commands given are things that can be done and willed by a man, but fallen man cannot accomplish or will them in a spiritually good manner.
That is a good illustration. It was his fault that he fell into the pit.
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
I once was asked about the "ought" vs. "can" issue. Here is my response at a discussion site full of heresy and heterodoxy, especially open theism and Arianism, so beware of scrolling about unawares:
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...been-and-will-be/page30&p=2823854#post2823854
http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...been-and-will-be/page30&p=2823854#post2823854
- Status
