Skip to content
The Historic Faith
Sign in
Question 8
Finny defines responsibility as “ability to respond” and calls it a “total sheer contradiction” to say humans are unable to respond to God yet are held responsible—how do you think early Christian preaching and discipleship assumed real human response (repentance, obedience, perseverance), and what breaks down pastorally if responsibility is detached from genuine ability?
Another way to ask: If people can’t truly respond to God, is it fair to say they are still responsible? How did early Christian preaching assume real human response (repentance, obedience, perseverance), and what goes wrong in pastoring if responsibility is separated from real ability?

Direct Answer Finny implies early Christian preaching assumed people could genuinely respond—repent, choose, turn, obey—because Scripture constantly addresses people as capable moral agents. Pastorally, if responsibility is separated from real ability, warnings and calls to repentance become incoherent, and God’s judgment begins to look unjust or purely fatalistic.

Support from Transcript:

  • Finny defines responsibility: “the ability to respond… able to respond.”
  • He calls Calvinism’s pairing of inability and responsibility a “total sheer contradiction” and “rank foolishness,” not a mystery.
  • He argues libertarian free will fits responsibility: “If somebody is able to respond, then they should have some free decision.”
  • He says compatibilism does not fit: it’s a “ridiculous link,” because people “can’t” respond in any real alternative sense.
  • He uses the controlling-agent logic: “Ultimate responsibility resides where the ultimate cause is,” so if God is ultimate cause, God bears ultimate responsibility.
  • He points to Scripture’s pervasive assumption of choice: “Choose this day whom you will serve,” Cain warned to “rule over” sin, “choose life,” and “Repent… turn and live.”
Discussion Follow-ups How would preaching “repent” sound different if the listener literally could not do otherwise?