July 10, 2025
It seems incredible to me that we need to discuss this subject. No one doubts their ability to obey the laws of the land, but when it comes to the laws of God, many Christians do not believe that we can abide by His laws, which are, in most cases, identical to the laws of the land. Come, let us reason together. How can this be?
Let’s assume, for a moment, that we can’t obey the laws of God. How is it that thinking Christians believe they are blameworthy for not obeying laws of God that are impossible for them to follow? How is that even possible? Is it really a sin to disobey a law of God that is impossible for us to obey? Impossible. Where does this notion come from?
It all derives from the myth of the doctrine of Original Sin. Adam and Eve sinned, and all of us after them are born sinners who can do nothing but sin. We can’t do good only evil, according to this false and unbiblical doctrine. Christians are taught from their earliest days that they are sinners and will always be sinners even when they become Christians. No wonder the evangelical church wanders aimlessly in a wasteland of theological nonsense. They are brainwashed into believing that they can’t obey God, no matter how hard they try. How sad.
From my book, When Lies Become Truth, I offer the following thoughts. Many evangelical leaders today do not believe that Jews could obey God’s laws, including John MacArthur, Charles Ryrie, R. C. Sproul, and many others. These same leaders believe that Christians receive the ability to obey God when they are born again. However, they do not think that this new ability will enable them to stop all their sinning. Christians may stop some, but not all, sins with this newfound ability. Could it be that the power and promises of God are unable to overcome the power of our sinful nature? Or could it be that God doesn’t actually want us to stop our constant sinning? Or could their theology be grossly in error? What do you think? Let us consider an excerpt from my book.
“The idea that the Jews couldn’t keep the law is simply not accurate. With great respect for Mr. MacArthur, I must say he is wrong. It’s abundantly clear that God thought they (the Jews) could keep the law, and He says so through His servant Moses.
“Thou shalt keep therefore his statutes, and his commandments, which I command thee this day, that it may go well with thee, and with thy children after thee, and that thou mayest prolong thy days upon the earth, which the LORD, thy God giveth thee, forever” Duet. 4:40, KJV.
“So you shall keep His statutes and His commandments which I am giving you today, that it may go well with you and with your children after you, and that you may live long on the land which the Lord your God is giving you for all time” Deut. 4:40. NASB.[1]
Honestly, does this verse in any way suggest the Jews would be unable to obey God? Does it not convey the apparent truth that obedience was within their power? Yet, many preachers of inability, not just the author MacArthur, pontificate that God gave Israel a law they couldn’t obey.
Moses then proceeds to go over the law, starting with the Ten Commandments. Does Moses give any hint that they would be unable to keep this law? Moreover, if Moses did know they couldn’t keep this law, what does that say about the integrity of Moses? God has promised them life, happiness, and a land for their possession if they will only keep the laws of God, which, of course, they can never keep according to the author. What can be said to justify such a person? He makes promises, knowing he will never be called on to fulfill them. God knows His people can’t keep His laws, so all that is left for Him to do is punish them with a vengeance, according to the biblical record. That is precisely what happened. His people were slaughtered for not keeping His laws, which were impossible to keep according to this brand of theology. Is this a just and holy God or what? Is it wrong of me to ask these questions?
Over and over again in the book of Deuteronomy, Moses repeats the injunction that God expected them to observe all that He commanded. They were to teach these laws to their children so that they too would obey the laws of God. God promised to bless obedience and to destroy them if they did not obey. Then, after many warnings, toward the end of the book, it is written.
“For this commandment, which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it? Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it? But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it. See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity; in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways and to keep His Commandments and His statutes and His judgments, that you may live and multiply, and that the Lord your God may bless you in the land where you are entering to possess it. But if your heart turns away and you will not obey, but are drawn away and worship other gods and serve them, I declare to you today that you shall surely perish. You shall not prolong your days in the land where you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess it” Deuteronomy 30:11-18.
Could it be any clearer that keeping the law was not too difficult for them? It was not out of their reach. They were expected to obey because they could if they chose to. It was a question of their love of God, not their ability to follow His laws. Arguing they couldn’t obey His laws is precisely the same as saying they couldn’t love or trust God their Creator. It’s hard to understand how anyone who objectively and carefully reads the book of Deuteronomy could believe the law was impossible to keep or that Israel, Moses, or God thought they couldn’t keep the law. Did no Jew protest at being commanded to perform impossibilities under pain of death? How can that be?
In the New Testament, Stephen says, “You who received the law as ordained by angels, and yet did not keep it” Acts 7:53. Do you think he thought Israel was unable to keep the law? Doesn’t Stephen condemn them for not keeping the law, just as their fathers, as if they were genuinely culpable? In truth, I must say it’s absurd to argue they were unable to keep the law. Stephen knew what so many deny. Condemnation rightly arises when those capable of law-keeping choose to become lawbreakers. It isn’t that they love law-breaking for its own sake. That is another erroneous idea. We sin because we love ourselves more than God. We sin to gratify ourselves, not because it’s wrong, but because we love doing wrong for its benefit. Let me shock you again and say that we were created to love virtue. All sinners do until some selfish desire gets in the way. But when no selfish desire interposes, sinners universally approve of virtue and disapprove of vice. No thief approves of someone stealing their things, do they? What liar is pleased to be told lies? What thief is grateful when his property is stolen?
Could misplaced loyalty blind followers of this brand of theology? How could so many set aside the clear teaching of Scripture for something untrue? It’s tough to understand because this is not an unclear biblical truth. Or is it? It seems obvious, at least to me, that ability doesn’t fit into their pre-established theology.
But does John MacArthur believe this is still true in the New Testament[2] Era? Even if it were true that the Jews couldn’t obey the law, what about us? Mr. MacArthur believes that the New Testament unbeliever can’t keep the law of God, but the believer is able to keep the law of God.[3]
“Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?” (Romans 3:1). In his footnote explaining this verse, Mr. Charles Ryrie states, “A Jew had the advantage of special revelation of God’s law. Yet this could not save him, for he was not able to keep it. The law increased his responsibility but demonstrated his inability to live up to God’s standards.”[4]
The Jew had more responsibility than he would be unable to perform as a result of receiving God’s law. How much sense does that make? The Jew couldn’t keep the pre-Mosaic law, so God gave him more laws to obey, the Mosaic Law, which, of course, he couldn’t. What is the point? If the Jew was unable to keep the first set of laws, why add more to it? Did the Jew need more of an indication of his utter inability and sinfulness? Wasn’t God satisfied that the Jew knew how unable he was? Apparently not, for brother Ryrie claims the Jew needed more evidence of his inability. Reread his footnote. If it weren’t so tragic, it might be laughable. How advantageous indeed was it to the Jew who received God’s special revelation of the law along with the special “gift” of inability, the “gift” of loss of land, the “gift” of loss of property, and the “gift” of loss of life. Since when is the loss of property and life regarded as a gift?
“And the law came in that the transgression might increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more” Romans 5:20. In defense of the above footnote, this passage will undoubtedly be quoted. While it’s true that the law resulted in more sin, it wasn’t added to demonstrate their inability. The Jews were counting on the law to save them, while they continued to break it when they had the power not to break it. The law then demonstrated their total failure, of which they alone were responsible. Their responsibility was real, as they could obey but chose not to. Breaking the law demonstrated their voluntary unwillingness, not their involuntary inability. Please think about that for a moment, for it’s a critical distinction.
Brother MacArthur states that Old Testament believers (Jews) couldn’t obey the law, but New Testament believers (Christians) can abide by the law. Seriously, how much sense does that make?
I believe Mr. Ryrie would agree with Mr. MacArthur that a Christian receives the ability to obey the law with the salvation experience. It’s therefore not necessary to repeat my earlier comments. However, let me close with an absurd story to illustrate how ridiculous it is to infer that only Christians can obey the law. Even then, it’s often conveyed in such a way as to make the impression that this is a deterministic relationship, the whole responsibility is God’s, not man’s. If we don’t stop sinning, it’s because God hasn’t made us stop, not because He is powerless to do so. And so are we.
The Law of God viewed positively requires that we love our neighbor as ourselves. During the Second World War Christians and non-Christians alike hid Jews from the Nazis. They all did this good work at great personal risk. Are we to assume that some selfish motive was responsible in every case, so that what appeared to be an act of goodness and love was a selfish one? Christians and non-Christians did something good for the Jews. They all (Christian and non-Christian) could love their neighbor; they had the ability, but only a few used it.
The book “Five Views on the Law and Gospel,” written by Douglas Moo, examines various perspectives on the relevance of Old Testament law for contemporary times. Below are excerpts.
“The reader may think that I have just affirmed contradictory points: That God did not give the law to save his people, and that the law promises salvation if it is kept. But these two statements are not incompatible. By the latter, I mean simply that the law, in stating God’s demand of his people Israel, promises them also that successfully meeting that demand would bring them salvation. But this is not to say that the law could ever in fact be obeyed so fully by sinful human beings that it would save anyone; and God, knowing this, never intended the law to save anyone. It would be as if I were to give a basketball to my son for the first time in his life and tell him, “Here; if you make 100 free throws in a row, you will not have to practice and train to become a basketball player.” So God, in the law he gave to Israel, implied that perfect obedience would bring eternal blessing and salvation. Still, he never gave the law with that purpose, knowing the impossibility of fulfilling it. To use the terminology of covenant theology, the law expresses a “hypothetical covenant of works.” In the law, God says in effect: “Here is who I am, and here is what you must be if you want to stand before me.”[5]
I, for one, do indeed think the author has just affirmed two contradictory points, notwithstanding his explanation. For it not to be contradictory, I have to believe God pretended that the law, if obeyed, would save them all the while He knew it was impossible for them to keep it and be saved. How can it be argued that it was both possible and impossible to keep the law? One is true, and both cannot be. His argument clearly states that it was impossible to keep the law entirely.
The illustration the author gives about his son and the basketball is inadequate. If someone were so talented that he could make 100 free throws in a row, it “might mean” that he didn’t have to practice and train to become a basketball player, but it doesn’t “necessarily mean” that, for it takes more than making free throws to be a basketball player. But all this misses the point. At stake here is not whether we become basketball players. Failure for Israel was much more serious. Failure on Israel’s part meant loss of land, possessions, property, and often life. It seems the author would have us believe that God issued impossible commands and then destroyed Israel when they didn’t obey. Not only that, God was hurt and disappointed in them all the while He knew they couldn’t keep His laws, no matter how hard they tried. God is made to look like a disingenuous despot. Isn’t this a picture of a cruelly sadistic father? Consequently, it can’t be true.
The author states the following: “The Mosaic Law holds out the promise of life for those who do it. But no one can ever achieve life through the law, because it is impossible to do it. Human inability to fulfill the law is why it can never be the means of salvation.”[6] Please explain to me by what convoluted reasoning one can affirm that the “law holds out the promise of life for those who do it” when it’s known to be impossible to do so. That’s no promise of life, and isn’t it absurd to say so? It’s a promise of death, and not even “hypothetical death.” It’s a promise of sure and certain death.
Is the involuntary inability the reason why the law can’t save us, or is it voluntary law-breaking? I thought the law was just, good, and holy. The law condemns voluntary lawbreaking, not involuntary lawbreaking, which is a nonsensical concept. Voluntarily and willingly breaking the law is what we do so well. Isn’t that the reason the law can’t save us? Yes, and amen.
According to brother Moo, the Mosaic Law gave Israel specific laws, which represented God’s will, making them even more responsible to obey Him and increasing their guilt when they sinned.[7] Please tell me how Israel could take the increasing seriousness of the matter seriously if they actually believed they were unable to obey the law? Is it wrong of me to say this is absurd? In all kindness, which one of us would give a rip about more laws that we are unable to obey? Feeling guilty for involuntary sin is irrational and contrary to sound thinking.
Someone might suggest that Israel was deceived into believing it could obey when it really couldn’t. Maybe it’s the other way around. Is it possible that those who believe in their inability are the ones who are deceived? How are we ever to tell when what we know about ourselves can be wrong? I think I’m writing this because I have the ability, as meager as it may be, but maybe I’m really not. Maybe I’m deceived. Perhaps my ghost is writing this!
Mr. Moo believes that the Bible states the law is good, but it can’t rescue us from sin. It’s not the fault of the law or God, but rather our fault, because we are born under the power of sin and can’t obey the law because we sinned in Adam. In fact, the author says the law actually encourages us to sin even more.[8] I ask again, is it mean-spirited of me to say that it is irrational to argue that we are at fault for breaking the law when we are born unable to keep from breaking it? How can anyone as educated as the author believe such a thing? Guilt is innocence, I suppose. Right is wrong. Evil is good. Green is red, and blue is yellow. Clearly, we are not at fault if the author is accurate.
Going back to the author’s basketball illustration, would he make fellowship with his son conditional on making 100 baskets in a row? The author wants us to believe that God the Father does because we don’t accomplish impossibilities for our heavenly Father. Do you think it is our fault when we are so under sin’s power that we are unable to fulfill His good law, when, without our prior voluntary permission, we were born unable to fulfill His good law? If there were a law that every male born after 1937 grows to be at least ten feet tall by age 19, who in their right mind would say “it is my fault” for not being ten feet tall? Is it possible to experience genuine guilt or conviction about not being a giant? It makes no sense to me whatsoever. How about you, does this strange idea of inability make sense to you?
The title of Chapter Two of his book is “We are incapable of obedience: Augustine.” R. C. Sproul, along with many others, holds Augustine in high regard. Luther and Calvin were greatly influenced by Augustine’s works. “Augustine is generally regarded as the greatest theologian of the first millennium of Christian history, if not all time.”[9] Wow, that’s quite an endorsement. I will give you the opportunity to decide if you agree with his statement. I disagree that he is the greatest theologian of the first millennium, if not all time. However, I do believe he was probably a good man and a genuine Christian. I am very content with leaving the final judgment regarding Augustine to the Wonderful Judge of the universe. However, be very careful when you are told how great some person (not including the writers of the Bible) is, because it’s very natural to drop your guard and believe what they believed. As the author states, Augustine is possibly the greatest theologian of all time, so who dares disagree with the greatest?
From the title, it’s apparent that Augustine believed we are not capable of obedience to the law of God. Am I now disagreeing with possibly the greatest theologian of all time? Who am I to disagree with such a great and good man? Am I the only one who disagrees with Augustine? Are there others who disagree with what he taught?[10] There are theologians who believe Augustine was wrong in several of his teachings on critically important subjects. Only the writers of the Bible, they argue, were inspired by God and wrote, without error, the truth. All other writers, including Augustine and I, are prone to error. There is a mixture in every person’s work. There was an error in his, and I am sure there is an error or two in mine as well. I am attempting to avoid error, and I am sure Augustine was as well. Let’s not put our hope of eternal life in any man or woman and their interpretations of the Word of God.
Augustine believed Adam possessed the ability to obey God. Adam was truly free in that he could choose to obey or not to obey. Sproul then quotes Augustine in his book, The City of God, “the will, therefore, is then truly free, when it is not the slave of vices and sins. Such was it given us by God; and this being lost by its own fault, can only be restored by Him who was able at first to give it.”[11]
According to Augustine, the ability to obey was lost when Adam sinned. This is original sin. It not only affected Adam, but it also affected all humanity after him in the same way. Adam and all humanity lost the ability to obey God. We lost free will, similar to Adam’s before he sinned. After the fall or after original sin, humanity could only do evil and nothing good. The inability to do anything good includes believing or trusting God, of which humanity is now incapable as a result of original sin. For mankind to regain this ability to will and choose good, the grace of God must operate in such a way as to change this involuntary inability into involuntary ability without mankind lifting so much as a finger to cooperate. It’s all of God because mankind cannot help themselves, not even a little bit. Augustine, Luther, then Calvin, and other Reformers developed this whole line of thinking into a theological system, each premise building on another in a logical system referred to today as Calvinism. Just like in any system, not everyone agrees on all points. The basic teachings are these.[12]
- Total Depravity. Fallen man, in his natural state, lacks all ability to believe the gospel and obey the law. Mankind can’t participate in redemption. Salvation is unconditional.
- Unconditional election/salvation. God’s election is a sovereign and unconditional choice of some, not all, sinners to be saved by Christ, given faith, and brought to glory. Man contributes nothing to this process. God chooses to save the elect. The atonement is limited to the elect.
- Limited atonement. The redeeming work of Christ on the cross saves only the elect. The non-elect are passed by or damned because the sovereign decree of God does not extend salvation to them. Christ died for only the ones He chose to save, apart from anything they might do or say. Christ brings the elect to Himself by the force of His grace.
- Irresistible grace. The work of the Holy Spirit in bringing a few, when He could have just as easily chosen all, souls to faith in Jesus never fails. The elect will be saved without their prior permission or consent and made to want salvation. The grace of Christ never fails to bring the elect to initial and final salvation. Final particular perseverance or preservation is decreed for all elected believers.
- Perseverance/Preservation. Believers are kept in faith and grace by the irresistible power of God. Sin and unbelief in the believer no longer damn the soul, while they do in the unbeliever.
Add to these five beliefs the dogma of eternal security and imputed obedience to round out the system and complete the unit. It all goes together very well. Each thought builds on the other. They all tie together and form a whole logical system. Right now, I am only concerned with the first point, Total Depravity, because it affects the discussion about the ability to obey the law. If we are totally depraved and unable to do anything good by ourselves, even believe, then Augustine is right-we are incapable of obedience. If, however, we are not totally depraved, as defined above, then the first point is wrong and the Calvinistic theological foundation has a serious structural defect.
Augustine believed that we not only lost the ability to obey God in the fall of Adam, but we too are guilty of Adam’s sin. Babies are conceived and born condemned and on the way to hell. Enter the Roman Catholic doctrine of infant baptismal regeneration. Augustine believed that infant baptism removed the guilt of Adam’s sin but not the corruption of our natures. In other words, with baptism we are freed from the guilt of Adam, but still are sinners by natural generation, only capable of sinning. We can’t obey God. We are unable, yet forgiven. Even though Adam’s guilt is removed in baptism, we sin unavoidably and are again guilty by the rules of physical law, I suppose. At the macro level, our choices are predetermined, and they are always sinful. At the micro level, we might have some liberty to choose the types of evil we will practice. Some theologians would even disagree with that statement because they do not believe that we have the kind of free will Adam had before he sinned. Also, these theologians believe God determines or decrees everything that comes to pass.
This is what Augustine believed. Mr. Sproul thinks he may be the greatest theologian of all time.[13] I don’t know how much Augustine loved God, but I assume he loved God with all his heart, soul, mind, and strength. I do not question his personal integrity, but I do question his ideas. Is that okay? Are you not doing the same thing to me right now? The idea that we are guilty of Adam’s sin is untrue in my estimation. The idea that babies are born condemned for another person’s sin is utterly ridiculous and violates any rational concept of justice and love, as far as I am concerned. It also contradicts the Bible. Seriously, doesn’t this notion dishonor God?
Augustine assumes that when Adam sinned, he lost the ability to obey God in total. Now, what is the justification for this view? Where is it taught that Adam lost the ability to obey God when he sinned? Where is it taught that humanity lost the ability along with Adam? In Genesis chapter 3, God explains the consequences of the fall, and nowhere is it indicated in any way, shape, or form that a result of the first sin was this supposed inability to obey. If you don’t believe me, please open a Bible and read it for yourself.
I have read comments that intimate that Genesis chapter 5 is a proof text. Let’s look at it,
“This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day when God created man, He made him in the likeness of God. He created them male and female and He blessed them and named them Man, in the day when they were created. When Adam had lived one hundred and thirty years, he became the father of a son in his own likeness, according to his image, and named him Seth” Genesis 5:1-3 NASB.
It’s said, by Augustine, that Adam’s likeness is now sinful; therefore, Seth and we after him are sinful like Adam, our father. What about Cain and Abel, were they born sinful? Or does this natural sinfulness skip some children? The text indicates that Cain and Abel were born after Adam and Eve sinned and that Seth, who was born after Cain and Abel, was born in the likeness of Adam. It doesn’t say that Cain and Abel were born in the likeness of Adam. But that must be the case as they are the offspring of sinful Adam. But the text says it started with Seth, who came after his two brothers. Adam sinned without a supposed natural sinfulness, and so did Cain after him. Cain murdered Abel. Does Genesis chapter 4 suggest that Cain was unable to obey God? Of course not, for in the seventh verse it is written, “If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.” Gen. 4:7. Did God in any way suggest that Cain would be unable to do well because he inherited a totally depraved, sinful nature from his father? Doesn’t God express the exact opposite of this? Didn’t God state that He expected Cain to master sin as it was within his power to do so? Isn’t that the plain meaning of this passage?
The next point I would like to stress is that Adam was made in the image and likeness of God (Genesis 1:26. No scripture, that I am aware of, declares that Adam completely or even partially lost this image and likeness of God when he sinned. To be sure, Adam violated this image and likeness when he sinned, and he lost his purity. But in no place does it state or imply in the book of Genesis that Adam or his children permanently, until redemption, lost their ability to obey God. The footnote in my study Bible indicates that Adam lost his moral, not physical, likeness to God. Adam could still think, feel, and make choices.[14] I agree with that idea. But the loss of moral likeness means that Adam lost his purity as a result of his sin. Ryrie believes Adam lost God’s moral likeness completely, that is, he and his posterity lost the ability to obey God and could only disobey thereafter. But that is not what the text states; this is just Ryrie’s interpretation of this passage. Don’t the texts quoted above disprove his interpretation completely? In explaining verse 3 of Genesis chapter 5, he says in his footnote that Adam had Seth in “his own likeness. Now sinful, in contrast to 1:26.”[15] That is not what is said or meant. Seth was born in the likeness of Adam, and Adam was created in the image and likeness of God, His father, Luke 3:38. As far as I can tell, the book of Genesis does not teach that Adam’s posterity was born absolutely sinful and unable to obey God. It’s the assumption of those who need it to be so to prop up their theological system. Is that harsh of me? You will find many scriptures, after the first few chapters of Genesis, that clearly state God creates man in His image and likeness. Here are a few from the King James Version:
“For in the image of God made he man”. Gen .9:6
“Man is the image and glory of God”. 1 Cor. 11:7
“Men are made in the similitude of God”. James 3:9
The real stronghold for those who believe in a natural sinfulness and inability passed on to us by Adam is Romans chapter 5. This is the only place that I know of in scripture that even remotely suggests that Adam’s first sin was the cause or source of the sins of mankind. This passage doesn’t state or even imply that we come by our supposed inability and sinfulness naturally from Adam. We have numerous biblical passages that tell us the origin or cause of sin, such as the Genesis passages quoted and James, who says, “But each one is tempted when he is carried away and enticed by his own lust. Then when lust is conceived, it gives birth to sin, and when sin is accomplished, it brings forth death” James 1:13-14.
Lust and temptation are the explanation for sin in the earthly and heavenly realms. This passage in James would surely be a senseless and misleading comment if the honest answer to explain the cause of sin were that we were born unable to obey the law and therefore sin by physical or moral necessity. The critical question is about how mankind sins. What is the cause or source of sin? Is it the involuntary innate natural sinfulness we inherited from Adam, or is it voluntary runaway lust as described in James? If it’s Adam’s sinfulness, then James explains the effect of the cause, which is absurd. James is clearly defining the cause or source of sin, not its effects. Now let’s look at Romans chapter 5.
“Therefore, just as through one man, sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned-for until the Law sin was in the world; but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam until Moses, even over those who had not sinned in the likeness of the offense of Adam, who is a type of Him who was to come. But the free gift is not like the transgression. For if by the transgression of the one the many died, much more did the grace of God and the gift by the grace of the one Man, Jesus Christ, abound to the many. And the gift is not like that which came through the one who sinned; for on the one hand the judgment arose from one transgression resulting in condemnation, but on the other hand the free gift arose from many transgressions resulting in justification. For if by the transgression of the one, death reigned through the one, much more those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ. So then, as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous” Romans 5:12-19.
Please tell me where it’s written that we are unable to obey the law. The footnote in my Study Bible for verse 12 indicates that, because of Adam, sin entered the world, and men could only breed other sinful men, all of whom are under the condemnation of God.[16] Obviously, this idea is the author’s interpretation of verse twelve. The verse declares that death spread to all men, “because all sinned.” It nowhere states that all sinned because Adam’s children were born sinners, unable to obey God. It clearly teaches that death spread because we sinned like Adam. In my opinion, this passage reveals the exact opposite of an inherited inability. This passage doesn’t say how sin spread from Adam to us. It certainly doesn’t say it was by moral or natural necessity. Besides, many believe that Adam was regenerated when Seth was born, so did Adam have a sinner or a saint? If he were regenerated, why aren’t we all born saints by natural propagation? If sin spreads by natural generation, why doesn’t it work that way for holiness? “Because it doesn’t” is an unacceptable answer.
Let me quote part of Romans 5:18 again, for I often see this excerpt used to support the doctrines in question: “So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men.” I grant you. It appears to state that we are condemned because of Adam’s sin. But let’s finish the passage. “Even so, through one act of righteousness, there resulted in justification of life to all men.” Now this phrase seems to say that Christ’s one act of righteousness justifies all men. That would lead to the idea that everyone is saved, which is the heresy of universalism. Not too many would agree with that idea, for many passages indicate that not everyone will be saved. Therefore, if Christ’s one act of righteousness doesn’t mean automatic salvation for all of mankind, why does the one sin of Adam mean automatic damnation for all of mankind? Both are clearly not intended by the passage.
I could give other examples. However, I don’t believe that it is necessary for those just mentioned to be adequately representative of those who don’t think we can keep the law. I reject the idea that we can’t obey God’s law for these reasons:
- It robs God of His glory.
- It dishonors God.
- It makes God unreasonable, unjust, and wicked.
- It turns sinners into victims.
- It excuses sinful behavior.
- On its face, it’s absurd, ridiculous, unreasonable, and illogical. And finally, and most importantly,
- It’s unbiblical.
THE TRUTH IS THAT WE CAN OBEY THE LAW OF GOD.
You and I are able to obey the law, but we don’t. That’s what makes us guilty and blameworthy. This innate ability to obey is not an innate goodness. The free use of this ability determines whether we are good or evil. The fact that we all, like Adam, choose the Adamic way changes nothing. I know this to be true by logic, reason, and the Word of God, which all agree.[17]
Is the ability to obey God innate goodness? Is the ability to believe in God, goodness? Brother Sproul and others would have us believe that this ability is goodness itself. In other words, the mere fact that we may be able to respond rightly to God means that we possess moral goodness. With all due respect, this is absurd. Our use of our ability determines whether or not we are good or bad, not the fact that we have the ability to choose. The ability to choose between right and wrong makes us responsible moral beings. Without the ability, how can we be responsible? How can we be held accountable? Mr. Sproul has no problem in declaring that we are responsible for choosing right, even though we have no ability to do so. How absurd does it get? Then again, maybe my statements are ridiculous. I am so deranged, I think the ability to obey God is required before God can hold us accountable. I am such a simpleton that I actually believe God never requires anything of us that we are not able to give Him. Is there any hope for me?
It might be assumed that the Holy Spirit of God is not needed if we have the natural or unaided ability to believe in God. This is often the objection brought against this idea of innate ability. While it is and must be true that we can give our hearts to God, we can believe in Him, and we can repent of our sins, we still need the ministry of the Holy Spirit. In fact, if the Holy Spirit of God does not seek us out, none of us would ever get right with God. It isn’t because we are unable to do so. We are unwilling to do so. We are so thoroughly selfish that God must work overtime to persuade us. We must be convinced to do so, not coerced to do so, as some teach. God never comes in uninvited. God never forces Himself on us. We choose to open the door at which He is knocking. The ministry of the Holy Spirit is essential to our salvation because even though we could give our hearts to God at any time, we don’t unless He pursues and convinces us.[18] Does this not honor God? Or is it more honoring to God to insist that He converts those He chooses and leaves the rest to damnation? Is it more honoring to God to believe we are unable to obey Him, but He is just in sending us to hell for involuntary disobedience? Do we honor God by stating that He commands us to obey Him while He knows we are unable to obey Him? Does it honor God to state that He is then “righteously” angry with us for disobeying Him when He knows we can’t obey Him and that God decreed that we would disobey Him? Is God honored by the divinely directed damnation of a soul? Please tell me which ideas honor and bless God the most?
Let me illustrate this idea of ability using the game of golf. Does the fact that I possess a set of golf clubs mean I am good at golf? Of course, it doesn’t. Just ask those who have played with me! Nor does the fact that I can obey God mean I am a good person. Possession of golf clubs simply means I can play the game, as I must have golf clubs to play golf. Possession of the ability to obey God simply means I can play the game, as I must have the ability to obey God to play the game called morality. Isn’t this reasonable?
It’s just at this point that we need to affirm the role of reason. We have all heard it said, “We are not governed by reason, but by revelation.” Many cults use the same premise. They ask their adherents to accept the unreasonable and the illogical and ultimately the unbiblical. It’s said that when Augustine was confronted with the logical defects of his teaching on predestination, he replied: “The more difficult this is to understand, the more laudable is the faith that believes it.” Similar comments might be quoted for Luther and Calvin. I must totally reject such a ridiculous idea that we should “laud” ourselves on believing the unbelievable, illogical, and unreasonable. Isn’t this idea prone to losing souls and increasing cult members? Or am I overreacting?
When God Himself declares that we should reason with Him, should we rebuke God and respond that we are not governed by reason? How ridiculous it is to think such a thing. Yes, God’s revelation is the foundation, but it’s not the end of it. Reason must build on the foundation for understanding to flourish. “Come now, and let us reason together, “Says the Lord, though your sins are as scarlet, They will be as white as snow; Though they are red like crimson, They will be like wool. If you consent and obey, you will eat the best of the land; But if you refuse and rebel, you will be devoured by the sword. Truly, the mouth of the Lord has spoken” Isaiah 1:18-20.
This passage not only supports the importance of the role of reason, but it also clearly establishes our ability to obey God. How any person can read this passage and believe that Israel didn’t have the ability to obey God or that God didn’t expect obedience, as if it were really possible, is beyond me. If we can’t agree on the most obvious teaching, how can we agree on the less clear? When I read this passage in particular and reflect on Augustine’s, Luther’s, and Calvin’s comments, I get alternately frustrated and disappointed. What were they thinking? What twisted their minds so? What were they really protecting? Surely, they couldn’t have actually believed they were safeguarding the Glory of God. What is going on? Did something or someone steal their loyalty so that they embraced the darkness? Did the deceiver confuse them? Or maybe I am out of my mind and raving like a madman.
If we are unable to obey the laws of God, then I submit the following:
- The law can’t be applicable
- The law is unjust
- The lawgiver is unjust
- Breaking the law is unavoidable; therefore, it is excusable and not punishable
- There is no moral law at all
- No one is guilty of breaking the law, no one is good or bad
- No one thinks or believes themselves guilty and blameworthy and under condemnation for breaking the law
- The preaching of the gospel is unnecessary, it’s not efficacious, it is a formality, and,
- The Word of God is a fraud or meaningless
Below is a discussion of each of these points.
If inability is genuine, the law can’t be applicable.
Moral law, which mirrors God’s ideal of integrity, seeks to influence controllable behavior employing rewards and punishments. Uncontrollable behavior, because of an inability to exercise control, is outside the demands of moral law. It isn’t applicable. Moral law seeks to channel controllable behavior because it doesn’t operate by brute involuntary force. It isn’t like the law of gravity, which governs by force. The law of gravity doesn’t ask for voluntary compliance. The law of gravity governs without anyone’s permission or choice. Inability to obey moral laws would mean that human behavior is not controllable, which is politically correct nonsense. It would mean that human behavior operates like the law of gravity. If it’s true, then why talk about morality at all? We might as well enact a law against gravity. Then we can rightly speak about inability. We don’t sit around talking about the right or wrong of gravity, do we? The reason we don’t is because it’s out of our control. We can’t choose to disregard it. But we can choose to violate moral law.
If inability is genuine, the law is unjust.
When we speak of justice, are we not talking about equity and fairness? Is a law that requires impossibilities fair or just by any reasonable standard? If there were a law requiring that every person hold their breath for 60 consecutive minutes or lose all their possessions, would anyone call that law just? But why is it unjust? It’s unfair because everyone knows that it’s impossible to hold one’s breath for 60 minutes. A law requiring us to hold our breath for 30 seconds might be justified if it were qualified and exceptions were made. It must be qualified, so that those who are physically impaired or too young are exempt from it. Their inability is the reason the law must contain exceptions. It would not be fair or just, would it?
If inability is genuine, the lawgiver is unjust.
An unjust law must come from an unjust lawgiver. Humanly speaking, an unjust law could be the result of ignorance, but not so with God. He is not ignorant. A law that demands impossibilities under pain of eternal death reflects an unjust law and lawgiver. How can it be otherwise? God is not unjust or unfair in any sense of the word; therefore, His law cannot require impossibilities. Moreover, to hold you and me guilty for Adam’s sin is unjust as well, as it contradicts the clear teaching of the Bible.
If inability is actual, breaking the law is unavoidable; therefore, it’s excusable and not punishable.
Isn’t inability always a justifiable excuse for not obeying or breaking the law? When wouldn’t it be? I’m not talking about ignorance, which some say isn’t a valid excuse, but rather the inability to comply with the law. Inability to obey the law makes lawbreaking unavoidable. What is unavoidable is excusable. What is excusable is certainly not justly punishable.[19] What Dad would punish his child for doing the unavoidable? What would you think of a dad who punished his three-month-old child for spoiling his diaper? Yet to maintain that we are unable to obey the law is the same thing as saying we are as helpless as that baby, isn’t it? We will unavoidably spoil our diaper, and will our heavenly Father damn us for it?
If inability is genuine, there is no moral law.
If we are unable to obey the law, then the issue of right and wrong doesn’t exist, so why even talk about it? Similarly, if everything evolved by random chance and there is no Creator God, then we are accountable to no one, and right and wrong don’t exist. Moral law doesn’t exist. What exists is the cultural ethic that society allows at any moment in time. Inability and evolution make the law void. Moral law governs persons created in the image and likeness of the Creator, the lawgiver who is altogether fair, just, and lovely. Moral law is a code or set of rules that differentiates correct behavior from wrong behavior when either behavior is possible. Wrong behavior results in guilt, punishment, and condemnation. Correct behavior yields righteousness and rewards such as joy, peace, happiness, and eternal life.
If inability is genuine, no one is guilty of breaking the law. No one is good or bad.
Guilt and blame attach to the voluntary breaking of the moral law when keeping the law is possible. If breaking the moral law is unavoidable because it’s involuntary, in the sense that voluntarily keeping the law isn’t possible, then there is no moral code in force. No one is guilty of breaking it because it doesn’t exist. Neither can anyone be holy, for holiness is voluntary conformity to the law of God. If holiness isn’t that, then what is it? I know that the word holiness comes from the idea that something or someone is set apart to and for God. Can we be set apart for God’s purposes yet not be set apart to obey Him?
If inability is genuine, no one thinks or believes themselves guilty, blameworthy, and under condemnation for breaking the law.
I can’t understand how a clear-thinking person believes that they are accountable, and therefore guilty for breaking a law they involuntarily break. They have no ability to avoid breaking the law. It’s impossible to hold yourself guilty for not doing the impossible and maintain rationality. In my humble opinion, only a religious deception would so darken a mind that it could sense condemnation and guilt for not accomplishing impossibilities. I am not trying to be flippant, but imagine a prayer such as this one, “Dear Father, please forgive me for I found that I was unable to stay awake this last week. I know your commandment, which states that we must pray without ceasing. I am such a weak person, I sinned against you and slept each night.” This is the theoretical theology of many.
Do you feel a sense of conviction for your parents’ moral failures? Why don’t you hold yourself guilty for their sins? Is it because you have no control over them and their sinful behavior, and therefore, you are unable to prevent their sins? If you can’t avoid either your parents’ sins or your own, why would you hold yourself guilty for your sins and not theirs? Let me suggest that you think about that for a moment before you read on.
If inability is genuine, the preaching of the gospel is unnecessary. It’s not efficacious. It’s a formality.
If we can’t obey the law, then preaching the gospel is unnecessary because the law of God commands, among other things, that we repent and believe in Jesus Christ. Some people think we must wait on God to regenerate us so that we will believe in God. God alone is responsible for unbelievers remaining unbelievers, for they can’t obey the law of God, which commands them to believe. God is then responsible for the lost being lost. For those who hold strictly to this high Calvinistic position, it’s not contrary to what they believe, as far as I know. This “horrible decree,” as Calvin put it, is wrapped up in the idea that we can’t obey the law. Furthermore, God may or may not use gospel preaching because He causes salvation, and preaching the word is a formality. It could be done away with, and the elect will still be saved. I know it will be stated that I have misrepresented their position, but I don’t think so. I think the objection has more to do with facing the “horrible truth” of their position. If God issued a decree that decided who would and who would not be saved before they were born, then the decree must accomplish its intended result. The decree is the cause of salvation, and the preaching of the gospel is not the cause, but maybe and usually is the occasion. Do you understand my point?
If inability is genuine, the Word of God is meaningless or a fraud.
The Bible, from beginning to end, states and implies man’s ability to obey God. The language of the biblical text clearly contradicts this false idea (lie) of inability. Reason demands it. How can justice be served without ability? To read the many passages throughout the Bible that require obedience to God’s laws and assume our inability to obey is to make the Word meaningless at best and a fraud at worst. It makes biblical interpretation a private matter in contradiction to the Word of God, 1 Peter 1:20. Hundreds of passages, indeed the overwhelming majority of scriptures, indicate that God expects obedience and that we are capable of it, even though we all too frequently disobey Him. By comparison, few are the passages that appear to contradict this truth.” End of excerpt.
There are several passages in the Bible that suggest our inability to obey God but they do not teach it. If you are interested in a discussion of these, please refer to my book, When Lies Become Truth.
In conclusion
This may not appear to be a critical issue, but most of the errors in theology can be traced back to Augustine’s false and pagan ideas about God, the Bible, sin, and salvation. His doctrine of Original Sin and the cornerstone of that doctrine, total depravity or total inability, is the foundation for much mischief over the centuries. A few decades ago, I wrote about this in my book, When Lies Become Truth. Even back then, I knew that if I could prove that understanding is illogical, unreasonable, and unbiblical, it would go a long way toward correcting many theological errors in Christianity.
Augustinian Calvinism is not logical, it is unreasonable, and most definitely not biblical. Many Calvinists believe it is heretical to rely on reason in understanding the truth of God. Why is that the case? Because their doctrines are unreasonable. If they were actually reasonable, Calvinists would argue in favor of using reason in understanding the words of God. Apparently, it has never crossed their minds that God gave us our reason so that we might not be deceived.
I have used reason in this article, with just a few scriptural references, to demonstrate how utterly unreasonable the tenets of Calvinism actually are. Inability (total depravity/total inability) is the most unreasonable aspect, and for that reason alone, it must be rejected. Equally important is that the Bible clearly proclaims that the laws of God require and assume our ability to obey them. Moreover, the Bible most assuredly conveys the truth that we can abide by God’s laws but are unwilling to do so. God is not the problem; we are.
However, in Augustinian Calvinism, God is the problem; He is both the hero and the arch-villain at the same time. God is the judge and the criminal, the firefighter and the arsonist. Which view of God brings Him the most glory and honor?
[1] Scripture hereafter will be from the NASB except as indicated.
[2] New Covenant is founded on better promises. It is therefore a better covenant.
[3] Ibid.p.137. He states; “However, it cannot accomplish that purpose in an unsaved person because he doesn’t have the ability to obey the law and therefore receive its benefits of blessing. So Paul was saying that the law, instead of giving him a rich and meaningful life, devastated him. In what sense can the law give life? If you’re a Christian-if you love the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit dwells within you-the Spirit will help you fulfill the law. Romans 8:4 states that God designed “that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” If you obey God in the power of the Spirit (which you can do only if you’re a Christian), God will bless and prosper your life as He pours out His grace upon it.”
[4] New American Standard Bible, Ryrie Study Bible. 1976 and 1978, Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, footnote on Romans 3:1, p.1705.
[5]. Greg L. Bahnsen, Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Douglas J. Moo, Wayne G. Strickland, Willem A. VanGemeren, Five Views on Law and Gospel, Counterpoints, 1993, 1996, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, A Division of HarperCollins Publishers. Chapter 5, Douglas J. Moo, “A Modified Lutheran View,” p. 327.
[6] Ibid.,p.333-334.
[7] Ibid.,p.340. Not a direct quote.
[8] Ibid. p.343. Not a direct quote.
[9] R.C. Sproul, Willing to Believe, The Controversy Over Free Will,1997, Published by Baker Books, a Division of Baker Book House Company, p.50.
[10] Consider the following as examples. “Professor Seeberg, a doctrinal historian friendly to Augustine, said there was a “multitude of inconsistencies and self-contradictory tendencies in his teaching.” Other historians agree with Professor Seeberg’s opinion of Augustine’s self-contradictory tendencies, his teachings…Dr. K. R. Hagenbach in his “A History of Christian Doctrines” wrote in volume 1, page 429-430, “but the doctrine in question (Augustine’s predestination) became to many a stone of stumbling which orthodox theologians themselves, specially those of the Greek Church, endeavored by every possible means to remove.”…The noted professor of church history, Adolph Harnack, of Berlin (1851-1930) wrote, “Augustine contradicted himself…(p.217). His doctrinal teachings were a “bundle of inconsistencies and extremely questionable ideas” (p. 209). His doctrinal teaching was “an impious and foolish dogma” (p. 217). Augustine’s contradictions were enormous” (p. 220). All of these quotes are taken from “If Ye Continue, Guy Duty, A Study of the Conditional Aspects of Salvation, “Bethany House Publishers, A Division of Bethany Fellowship, Inc., pp. 157-158. See Appendix 2 for a fuller treatment of the dogma of Original Sin.
[11] R. C. Sproul, Willing to Believe, p. 52.
[12] A good case can be made that the primitive church, before Augustine, almost universally rejected these ideas, especially particular unconditional election, reprobation, and original sin.
[13] Be careful when any man is elevated to such a high position. It can lead to blindness.
[14] Charles Ryrie, NASB Ryrie Study Bible.p.9. Not a direct quote, reference only.
[15] Charles Ryrie, NASB Ryrie Study Bible.p.11.
[16] Charles Ryrie, NASB Ryrie Study Bible.p.1709. Not a direct quote, reference only.
[17] I can hear the cry of Pelagianism as I write. R. C. Sproul would undoubtedly call me Pelagian. I have to admit that when I first heard about Pelagius neither Arminian nor Calvinistic authors spoke very highly of him. I of course didn’t want to be one of his followers because of the way he was talked about. Just call an idea legalistic or Pelagian and that usually ends the discussion. Calvinists call Arminians, legalists or Pelagians and Arminians call Calvinists, antinomianists. A better word is needed for the Arminians because the word “Antinomianist” is too difficult to say and not easily understood. Instead of good sound argument we end up with a war of labels and mutual recriminations.
[18] This principle applies to sanctification. The commands to believe, repent and be holy or sanctified mean the God has provided what we need to comply with the command. It means we already have the ability to obey or God would never make the requirement.
[19] I believe this line of thinking originally came from a book by Richard Taylor, The Right Conception of Sin.
