In Scott Christensen's book "What about free will?" on page 119 is "Pharaoh is held responsible for his actions". The reason given for God attributing culpability is "You are exalting yourself...".

If Pharaoh was made by God in such a way that he could not do anything but exalt himself then Pharaoh would not be ultimately responsible for hardening his heart. If Pharaoh was the instrument in God's hand of Pharaoh's hardening then he would be instrumentally responsible.

By not separating out instrumental from ultimate responsibility but by sliding seamlessly from instrumental to ultimate, Pharaoh becomes ultimately responsible for his actions. I think A.W. Pink's book is another in this compatibilist way of using "responsible" without differentiating between instrumental and ultimate. So, do Bible believing compatibilists use the word "responsible" with one meaning or two?

  • 2
    On compatibilism, nobody can do other than what they do, that is what it means to be compatible with determinism or fatalism. The responsibility arises from acting without being externally forced, from inner nature, what ultimately made the inner nature so act, God or laws of physics, is entirely irrelevant. – Conifold Feb 4 '19 at 6:36
  • "So then with the mind I myself serve the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin." (Romans 7:25) We consciously realize and conscientiously seek to understand our limitations and to improve ourselves morally. "I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwells no good thing: for to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not [except through the practice of holiness]". – Bread Feb 4 '19 at 12:09

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.