Zoe,<br><br>An agent is free, or has liberty, if he can (I don't mean "may") conduct himself as he pleases. {I say “conduct” because to consciously sit still or refrain from an action is a product of the will; so we need not act positively in order to “do” what we desire most.} The agent must have both the power and available opportunity to conduct himself as he pleases in order to have liberty. The opportunity to choose X or not X, and the power to choose according to one's desire in favor of either of the two alternatives defines liberty. A bird is free to fly but a man is not; man has the opportunity but not the power to act on his desire to fly. In the case of a man flying (unaided by means of course), his non-ability in this case would prevent his liberty. A bird would not be free if it were caged. It would have lost its advantage (i.e. opportunity), but not its power. While caged, it may fly but it can’t. Accordingly, both the opportunity and power to do as one wants must be present to have true liberty. In the case of sin, an unregenerate man has the opportunity to either sin or not, as well as the power to choose according his desire with respect to sin. His lack of moral ability, which keeps him from desiring to not sin, does not impinge upon his liberty to choose what he wants. Accordingly, man is culpable even without moral ability. What might need to be appreciated is that liberty is not concerned with the causes of the motivations that necessitate any choice. So, the issue is not whether man has the power of contrary choice, in that he must possess the power to choose with equal ease between alternatives, but rather he has liberty because he can choose as he pleases, no more no less. Moreover, God's sovereignty over our choices has no bearing on the matter. I believe you are confusing two separate matters. It's not unlike, "the woman you gave me made me do it...." Or, "the devil made me do it." OR, "God, you made me do it." <br><br>It seems to me that what you would require for moral accountability is a liberty that has self-determining power residing within itself. You require indifference to alternatives, and pure contingency as opposed to necessity in the realm of free-choice. You seem to not be able to reconcile a compatibilist view of the will with moral accountability. However, we are responsible simply because we are creatures and God has the prerogative to assess our conduct. In essence, our responsibility is predicated upon God's authority as God. Also, we are responsible for choosing according to our own desires. We choose as we want. Consider, if I am able to manipulate someone else into choosing to sin, I might share in the other person's responsibility before God, but my ability to bring about someone else's choice would in no way lessen his accountability. We seem to live in a world where our responsibility is believed to be lessened due to the influencing factors generated by others. I am not going to spend time defending how God brings to pass our choices without sinning himself, because it is not relevant to this discussion. Your concern at this time is not that God would be guilty of man's sin if he determines the choices of men; but rather your concern is that man should somehow be vindicated of his own guilt should God determine the agent's choices, which the agent makes according to his own desires.<br><br>Although motivations that necessitate choices are caused and, therefore, necessary, each choice is a product of liberty if it is conducted in accordance with desire and motivation. The liberty to choose as we want makes us responsible before our maker. Even though all choices are caused (not necessarily by finite causes (e.g. regeneration; see: WCF 5.3 Of Providence), they are made in accordance with God given liberty. {Akin to this discussion is the matter of moral ability. In passing we might note that neither before nor after the fall was Adam free in a libertarian sense, but he did have freedom from sin prior to the fall, which he lost when he lost the power, not the occasion, to desire righteousness. He kept his liberty (power and occassion) to choose as he so desired, but his thoughts were wicked continuously prior to being converted. At which time he was given once again -- restored to -- the ability to not sin. Accordingly, all men prior to regeneration and conversion have no moral ability, but men as men have liberty in all "four states" but that’s for another day I suppose.} <br><br>In His Grace,<br><br>Ron<br>