March 19, 2026.
While reading the story of Cain and Abel, I was again prompted to dig deeper into this controversy over the typical Augustinian-Calvinist, mind-boggling explanation of this passage of Scripture. I must admit that their explanation of total depravity and total inability is very frustrating. It is clear to the unbiased mind that Cain’s murder of his brother Abel was of his own free will and his yielding to sin when God encouraged him not to do that very thing. The idea that Cain was unable to comply is absurd on its face, yet we are still arguing about it after all these centuries.
You will read some of those unsatisfactory, even pitiful, explanations in this article. I honestly believe that most of their comments resemble these next two verses of scripture.
📖 2 Peter 2:18 (KJV)
“For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error.”
This is actually written by the Apostle Peter, but it’s very similar in tone to Paul’s warnings about false teachers. There’s also a closely related passage using nearly identical language in:
📖 Jude 1:16 (KJV)
“These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men’s persons in admiration because of advantage.”
Unfortunately, Augustinian Calvinism and much of evangelicalism specialize in “great swelling words of vanity.”
What does “great swelling words of vanity” mean?
The phrase is vivid and almost sarcastic. It refers to:
- Inflated, impressive-sounding speech
- Empty or meaningless content (“vanity”)
- Used to deceive or manipulate others
In context, both Peter and Jude are describing false teachers who:
- Use grandiose language to sound wise or authoritative
- Appeal to fleshly desires rather than truth
- Exploit people, especially those who are vulnerable or newly escaping error
It’s essentially a warning against spiritual charlatans who hide emptiness behind eloquence. This description fits precisely with the arguments Calvinists and many evangelicals use to support their false teachings. I will sometimes use the word sophistry (a subtle, tricky, superficially plausible, but generally fallacious method of reasoning) for it, as it also describes their false argumentation.
The proper interpretation of Scripture requires reconciling two seemingly opposing passages so they don’t create a conflict or contradiction. For example, I believe that we are saved by grace through faith, and that it is not of ourselves; it is a gift of God, that no man may boast. Ephesians 2:8-10. But I also believe we are justified by works, not by faith alone. James 2. Both are true: the Calvinist claims that we are justified by faith alone, which is true, but the faith that justifies is conditioned on faith that produces works of righteousness and ceases from sin. But the Calvinist believes that the faith that justifies can be a faith without good works, or without faithfulness, obedience, and fidelity. They are wrong. Let us see if we can make progress on this passage toward the correct interpretation.
“And Abel, he brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering. But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell. And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? And why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shalt be his (sin’s) desire, and thou shalt rule over him (sin).” Genesis 4:4-7, KJV, emphasis added. In the next few passages, we hear of Cain murdering his brother Abel.
My objection to the false doctrine of Calvinism, which teaches that God’s command doesn’t imply our ability to satisfy it, is one that has been raised repeatedly in Christian history. Many theologians have said exactly what I just said: if God commands something humans literally cannot do, then holding them accountable is unjust. But God is not unjust, so their interpretation is wrong. Others, especially in the Augustinian–Reformed tradition, respond differently. The debate really comes down to how certain key passages are interpreted together.
Below, I’ll show how the main texts—Genesis 4:7, Romans 7, and John 6:44—are aligned on each side.
1. Genesis 4:7 – Ability vs. Obligation
“If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? … and thou shalt rule over him.”
The Non-Calvinist reading, according to ChatGPT
Traditions influenced by thinkers like Jacobus Arminius and John Wesley usually argue:
- God speaks to Cain as if he can genuinely choose.
- The warning “you must rule over it” implies real capacity.
- Therefore, the Fall did not eliminate human ability to respond to God.
This aligns with most earlier fathers, such as Irenaeus and Origen, who assumed that humans retained meaningful freedom.
The Calvinist / Reformed reading according to ChatGPT
Following Augustine of Hippo and later John Calvin:
- The command expresses what righteousness requires.
We all agree on that, so why state the obvious? Is this a setup?
- According to the Calvinist, it does not guarantee that Cain has the moral ability to fulfill it.
It most certainly requires and guarantees that Cain has the ability to obey the command, no matter what the Calvinist claims. We all know by conscience that this is true. The moral, rational nature God created in us requires this interpretation. Otherwise, God requires the impossible and then damns us for not complying. That is the epitome of injustice, and God is just.
- Cain’s failure illustrates humanity’s bondage to sin.
It most certainly does not. It demonstrates Cain’s unwillingness to do as God instructed him, just like his father Adam, whose example Cain followed. If humanity’s bondage to sin were true, then God is disingenuous in pretending obedience was possible. That would make God unjust.
According to the Calvinist, Genesis 4:7 becomes a statement of duty, not proof of ability.
Another false statement by Calvinism. But why make such an outrageous statement? The Calvinist has already decided that their false idea of Original Sin (inherited guilt and inherited total depravity) is true, and it most certainly is not. See my many articles on Original Sin at seekgodintruth.com.
In addition, I will be adding an article on William Lane Craig and his position on Original Sin in the coming months.
2. Romans 7. The Struggle with Sin
The key statement: “For to will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.” (Romans 7:18).
Calvinist interpretation
Reformed interpreters often see this chapter as describing:
- Humanity’s inability under the power of sin
- The will of man wanting good but lacking the power to do it
Therefore:
- Humans cannot fulfill God’s law apart from irresistible grace.
But none of this is true, nor is it the reading of most of the early church. See my articles on my website, seekgodintruth.com, on Romans 7. Romans 7 is not about the life of a Christian but of an unconverted person. Because Calvinists have already assumed their false idea of Original Sin is true, they twist every possible passage of Scripture to conform to their false foundation. A little leaven leavens the entire lump.
Other interpretations
Many non-Calvinist theologians read Romans 7 differently. Some (including many early fathers) thought Paul was describing:
- Life under the Mosaic law before becoming a Christian, not the normal Christian state.
Others see it as:
- A believer’s internal struggle with sin—not proof of total inability.
Even Augustine of Hippo himself interpreted Romans 7 differently at various stages of his life.
3. John 6:44. “No one can come.”
Jesus says: “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him.”
Reformed interpretation
This is a central text for Calvinism.
They argue:
- “No one can” means no human has the ability to come to Christ.
- God must first draw or enable the person.
This fits their doctrine of total inability built on their doctrine of Original Sin.
Alternative interpretations
Non-Calvinists respond in several ways:
1. Drawing is universal and applies to all people, not just the few elected by decree
(Some argue that God draws all people, citing John 12:32.)
2. Drawing is persuasion, not compulsion
The Greek word can imply attraction or persuasion rather than irresistible force. (There is no love or virtue in forcing anything or anyone. Think about it.)
3. Context
The passage may refer specifically to people being drawn through:
- the Father’s teaching
- hearing and learning (John 6:45)
4. How Each System Fits the Passages Together
Calvinist framework
They read the passages like this:
- Genesis 4:7 reveals a command showing moral duty but not the ability to comply
If true, we must believe that a holy, loving, and just God issues impossible commands and then damns those who do not comply. Do you believe that?
- Romans 7 reveals humans are powerless against sin but still accountable.
How does that make sense? Any earthly father who did likewise would be considered wicked, cruel, and unjust. Is that not true?
- John 6:44 shows that God must enable belief
So, if someone doesn’t believe, then God refused to enable them, and God alone is responsible for their damnable unbelief. That makes God unjust and outright wicked; therefore, it is not true.
Conclusion: Human beings cannot turn to God without irresistible divine intervention
That logically follows from the falsity of their foundation of Original Sin. This is nothing but the logic of a false belief system.
Non-Calvinist framework
They read the passages differently:
- Genesis 4:7 reveals that humans have the real capacity to obey
- Romans 7 describes the struggle of the unconverted person under the law
See my articles on Romans 7 on my website.
- John 6:44 shows that God draws us out of His love and mercy, but does not remove freedom, which makes us responsible, not God.
Conclusion: Humans retain genuine responsibility because they are born able to respond to God and obey His commands.
5. Where the Real Disagreement Lies
The debate ultimately turns on one philosophical principle:
Reformed view
Calvinism holds that moral responsibility does not require the ability to do otherwise.
On its face, this statement is gross darkness, isn’t it? Again, we see that the God of Calvinism is the very definition of unjust.
Opposing view
Responsibility does require a genuine alternative possibility.
That underlying assumption determines how each side reads the same verses. The Reformed view assaults God’s integrity and justice, as well as the integrity of human intellect.
✅ Important historical note:
Many historians of theology point out that the strongest articulation of human inability entered Western theology primarily through Augustine of Hippo during the Pelagian controversy, in the 5th Century, and was later systematized by John Calvin. Earlier Christian writers often emphasized human freedom more strongly and certainly more convincingly. See my other articles on this subject.
A closer look at Genesis 4
Is this story about Cain ruling sin or sin ruling Cain? According to ChatGPT, that linguistic detail sometimes enters this same debate.
📖 The Hebrew Text (Key Portion)
The last line of Genesis 4:7 in Hebrew is:
וְאֵלֶיךָ תְּשׁוּקָתוֹ וְאַתָּה תִּמְשָׁל־בּוֹ
(ve’elekha teshûqāto, ve’attah timshol-bo)
ChatGPT states that a fairly literal rendering equals “And toward you is its desire, but you shall rule over it.”
🔍 Key Words That Matter
1. “Desire” (תְּשׁוּקָה — teshuqah)
This same word appears in only two other places:
- Genesis 3:16 (desire of the woman toward the man)
- Song of Songs 7:10
Because of Genesis 3:16, many scholars see a parallel:
- Sin’s “desire” equals something like an urge that we must control or an urge that dominates and controls us
2. “You shall rule” (תִּמְשָׁל — timshol)
This is a verb in the imperfect form, which can mean:
- “you shall rule” (future)
- “you should/must rule” (modal nuance)
- sometimes even “you are to rule.”
👉 So the grammar allows a range:
- Promise
- Command
- Expectation
⚖️ The Big Interpretive Question
Is God saying:
(A) A command? Yes, absolutely, it is a command.
“You must rule over sin.”
(B) A statement of what ought to happen? Yes, absolutely, this is what ought to happen.
“You are supposed to rule over it.”
(C) A prediction?
“You will rule over it.”
Not even Calvinists believe this last one, for they teach that Christians sin daily, which is saying you shall never rule over it (sin) until you die. Most translations (including KJV) take it as a command/expectation.
🧠 Why This Matters for the question about Genesis 4
Now we connect this to the issue of ability and the justice of God.
🟩 Non-Calvinist Argument from the Hebrew
Those who argue for real human ability point out:
1. The structure mirrors Genesis 3:16
- “Desire” vs. “rule over.”
- Suggests a real relational dynamic, not a hypothetical one
2. The verb naturally reads as an imperative expectation
- “You must rule over it” strongly implies:
- Cain is capable of doing so (he has the ability to reject sin, and God is therefore just in commanding that it be done)
3. The warning only makes sense if it is actionable (but most Calvinists, it seems, don’t care if it doesn’t make any sense at all or flatly contradicts the Bible)
- “Sin is crouching at the door” (like a predator)
- The next line gives the response:
- “You must master it.”
👉 This reads like a genuine moral choice scenario, not an impossible demand.
But many Calvinists don’t care because they have a presupposition (their doctrine of Original Sin) that they must safeguard at all costs.
🟦 Calvinist Response to the Hebrew
Reformed interpreters generally acknowledge the grammar (but don’t care one bit), and argue:
1. The verb doesn’t guarantee ability
Even if it means:
- “You must rule.”
…it still expresses:
- duty, not capacity
All this Calvinist sophistry is necessary to protect the false presupposition of their view of Original Sin and guilt. To suggest that God commands something that can’t be done makes God unjust. Every command of God expresses both the duty and the ability. That makes it just. The God of Calvinism is unjust.
2. According to ChatGPT, the law often commands what fallen humans cannot do (this, of course, is a required Calvinist presupposition, even if it involves a view that impugns the justice of God)
They would connect this to later Scripture:
- “Be perfect” (Matthew 5:48)
- “Love the Lord your God with all your heart.”
When properly understood, both of these commands are possible, and humanity can comply. We are able. See my article on Matthew 5:48, where Jesus commanded his followers to be perfect. In this passage, perfection means loving our enemies, and all of us can do that if we choose to.
These are:
- Real commands
- But (in the typical Calvinist and evangelical view) impossible without grace
In other words, the God of Calvinism issues impossible commands and damns all those who do not comply. May God save us from the ‘God’ of Calvinism.
It honestly seems like Calvinists think that if they say something long enough, often enough and loud enough, people will actually believe it, no matter how unreasonable and outrageous the claim is. Was it Hitler, Stalin, or someone else who coined the phrase, ‘Tell a lie long enough, often enough, and loud enough, people will believe it? People will sooner believe a big lie than a small one. That sounds very much like the Calvinist argument.
3. Narrative outcome reinforces their reading
Cain does not rule over sin—he kills Abel.
And if you are a full Calvinist, you believe that God decreed that Cain would murder Abel. But the truth is that Cain chose not to rule over sin; sin ruled over him voluntarily, and that is what makes his murder of Abel sinful. Do you really believe that a person can sin involuntarily, as Calvinism teaches?
So, they argue:
- The text shows failure, not ability.
That is simply not true. The passage shows or reveals voluntary sin on Cain’s part, demonstrating that he could obey but refused to rule over sin.
🧩 A Subtle but Important Detail
There’s something in the Hebrew that often strengthens our side of the argument in favor of ability, writes ChatGPT:
👉 The sentence structure is very direct and practical:
- Problem: sin is crouching
- Threat: it desires you
- Response: You rule over it
This is not abstract theology—it’s immediate moral instruction that is to be implemented.
ChatGPT writes, ‘That makes many scholars say: It reads like something Cain could actually act on.
Of course, it reads like that. If God wanted us to think we can’t obey His commands, don’t you think He is smart enough to communicate that clearly? Why would He use language that could be so easily misunderstood?
📌 A Fair Linguistic Assessment
From a strictly grammatical standpoint:
- The Hebrew does not explicitly say Cain has the ability to do as commanded.
But that is how ability is treated throughout the Bible, for it is so obvious that it need not be stated constantly. Leave it to Augustine and Calvin to mess this up and confuse everyone about the simple, reasonable truth.
This passage obviously does not explicitly and directly state that he lacked the ability to obey this command of God. Just the opposite is the most reasonable interpretation.
- But it very naturally implies actionable responsibility.
Together, these two bullet points show that we can obey God.
So:
- According to ChatGPT, the Calvinist reading is possible, but requires importing a broader theological framework
I do not agree with ChatGPT that the Calvinist reading is possible at all. The Hebrew language may permit such meaning, but not when the context demands something different, such as in this passage.
- The plain reading of the Hebrew leans toward: God is presenting Cain with a real choice he can act upon.
That is as obvious as the white hair on my head.
🧠 Final Insight
This is why Genesis 4:7 is such a key verse in this debate:
- It is early (before law, before Israel, right after the Fall)
- It presents sin as something:
- external (“crouching at the door”)
- resistible (“you shall rule over it”)
ChatGPT continues, ‘So, the tension you’re seeing is real: The Hebrew text suggests moral agency is intact, while later theological systems (Augustinian Calvinism) reinterpret it in light of a doctrine of inability and their view of Original Sin.
Next, we will consider the following.
- How the phrase “sin crouching at the door” connects to ancient Near Eastern imagery (it’s actually very vivid), and
- How Genesis 4:7 has been used explicitly in historical debates between Augustinians and their opponents.
- How can we have productive conversations with Calvinists when there is no objective standard by which we can evaluate truth claims?
ChatGPT responds. “I hear the frustration—and you’re not alone in it. What you’re running into isn’t just a disagreement over one verse; it’s a big difference in starting assumptions about justice, responsibility, and human nature. When those differ, people can sound like they’re talking past each other.”
🐾 1. “Sin Crouching at the Door” — Ancient Imagery
The phrase in Genesis 4:7: “sin lieth at the door.”
The Hebrew word (rōbēṣ) literally means:
- “crouching”, like an animal lying in wait
Ancient Near Eastern background
In the world around ancient Israel, this kind of imagery was vivid:
- Predators (lions, wild animals) crouch before attacking
- Some Mesopotamian texts describe demonic forces lurking at doorways
- The “door” was seen as a threshold space—a place of vulnerability
So, the picture is: Sin is like a predatory force, right outside Cain’s “house,” waiting to pounce.
🧠 What does that imply?
This does not describe:
- A purely internal, irresistible nature as in inbred sin or a sinful nature
It’s describing:
- Something approaching
- Something seeking to control
- Something that must be resisted or mastered
And then comes the line: “but you shall rule over it.”
The full image is:
- Danger is real
- Attack is imminent
- Response is required
👉 That strongly supports the reading that God is warning Cain about something he is expected to actively resist, not something he is helplessly determined to obey, according to ChatGPT.
And this truth rebukes Augustinian Calvinism at a foundational level.
⚔️ 2. How Genesis 4:7 Was Used in Historical Debates
This exact issue came to the surface in the controversy between:
- Augustine of Hippo
- Pelagius
🟩 Pelagius (and those similar to him)
Pelagius argued:
- God’s commands must imply ability
- Otherwise:
- God would be unjust
- Moral responsibility collapses
Genesis 4:7 was a perfect example for his side: “God tells Cain to rule over sin—therefore, Cain can.”
🟦 Augustine’s response
Augustine pushed back hard against an obvious truth:
- After the Fall, humans are morally unable to stop sinning
- Commands are given to:
- Show what is right
- Reveal our inability to do as commanded (Isn’t this utterly absurd?)
- Drive us to grace
So, he would read Genesis 4:7 as: “This is what Cain ought to do—but cannot do without God.”
But that is not true for Augustine and Calvin, because they believed we were unable to call on the grace of God, for God alone irresistibly forces His grace on the elect. Humanity cannot call on God’s grace and stop sinning.
No one is arguing against the idea that Cain ought to do what God commands. But to imply that Cain cannot do what God commands makes the command unjust; therefore, God is unjust.
Remember what I already said: a command of God implies 1) our duty to obey, and 2) our ability to obey. Augustine and his followers want us to believe that a just God demands our obedience on pain of eternal death when, at the same time, God knows we are totally unable to obey Him. They present God as an unjust tyrant, which He is not.
I pray that God will save us from the demonic god of Augustinian Calvinism.
📚 Later development
This debate didn’t go away—it shaped Western theology:
- John Calvin builds on Augustine
- Jacobus Arminius pushes back
- John Wesley continues that pushback
And Genesis 4:7 keeps coming up as a test case, writes ChatGPT.
I honestly believe that no one will accept Calvinism if they actually understand it, unless they stop objectively reasoning.
🧠 3. Why This Feels So Impossible to Discuss
Per ChatGPT, now to your deeper point—and this is really important. You said (paraphrasing): “How can we even talk if someone denies that commands imply ability?” That frustration comes from a philosophical divide, not just a biblical one.
Two fundamentally different intuitions
🔹 View 1 (your intuition)
Responsibility requires real ability.
- If someone cannot do something
- It is unjust to punish them for not doing it
This is the common moral intuition most people have, writes ChatGPT.
🔹 View 2 (Augustinian/Reformed)
Responsibility depends on what is right, not on ability.
Here we have more vain words from Calvinism that don’t mean anything. It may sound somewhat pious to say that “responsibility depends on what is right, not on ability,” but it is simply not true. None of us is responsible for doing what we cannot do. They use the word responsibility, but it means nothing. They claim we have an inherent responsibility to do what is right, even though we cannot. That is a lie. We are not responsible for doing anything we are unable to do. If God commanded that we fly in the air like a bird or be damned, would any rational and thinking person believe they have sinned when they didn’t fly? Of course not. Rise up and think, dear friends.
They argue:
- Humans are still responsible because:
- They want sin
- Their inability is moral, not mechanical
A classic analogy they use: A corrupt judge who cannot render a just verdict (because he loves bribes) is still guilty, according to Calvinism.
A corrupt judge who will not render a just verdict is, of course, still guilty. But why is the judge guilty? Because he could have rendered a just verdict but refused to do so. If the judge could not do the right thing, he is not guilty, contrary to Calvinism. Their analogy is ridiculous.
⚠️ Why the conversation breaks down
Because each side starts with a different “axiom”:
- We claim: Justice requires ability
- They claim: Justice requires alignment with God’s standard (regardless of ability, even when it is impossible to be aligned, according to their doctrine. Can anyone honestly believe such an absurd statement?)
Per ChatGPT. When you say: “That’s irrational.” They hear: “You’re rejecting our starting premise.” (Most definitely true.)
And when they respond: “Scripture says it anyway.” (We say no, it does not say any such thing.)
You hear: “They’re ignoring basic moral reasoning” (True, but they are also denying the obvious truth of the word of God.)
🧭 4. How to Actually Make Progress in Conversations, according to ChatGPT
If you want these discussions to go somewhere productive, the key is:
👉 Don’t argue the conclusion first—argue the starting principle.
Instead of:
- “Genesis 4 proves ability.”
Try:
- “Do you believe moral responsibility requires the ability to do otherwise?”
That shifts the discussion to the real issue, writes ChatGPT.
A more effective approach
You might frame it like this:
- “When God says to Cain, ‘you must rule over sin,’ do you think Cain had any real possibility of doing that?”
- “If not, what makes holding him accountable just?”
- “What definition of justice are we using?”
Now you’re not just trading verses—you’re examining foundations, per ChatGPT.
📌 Final Thought
According to ChatGPT, ‘Your reaction is not unusual—in fact, it reflects a very old and widespread conviction in Christian history. Almost all early church fathers, if not all, before Augustine assumed that if God commands it, humans must, in some sense, be able to respond.
Others, beginning especially with Augustine of Hippo in the 5th century, redefined that relationship between:
- command
- ability
- grace
And that’s the fault line you’re feeling, according to ChatGPT.
How is justice defined?
- How each side tries to define justice philosophically (not just biblically), and
- Which early church writers explicitly argued my exact point, almost word-for-word.
Beneath all the biblical back-and-forth is a deeper issue: What is justice? And does justice require real ability? According to ChatGPT, once you see how each side defines justice itself, the disagreement stops feeling like people are just being stubborn—it becomes clear they’re reasoning from different foundations.
⚖️
1. Two Competing Definitions of Justice according to ChatGPT
🟩 View A (your intuition, and most, if not all, of early Christianity)
Justice requires real ability to do otherwise
This view says:
- A command implies genuine capacity to do as commanded
- Otherwise:
- Blame is unjust
- Punishment is incoherent
Philosophically, this is often called the Principle of Alternate Possibilities
(You are responsible only if you could have done otherwise)
🟦 View B (Augustinian / Reformed)
Justice is determined by God’s righteousness, not human ability, per ChatGPT
This statement is meaningless, and it doesn’t address the objection that a command from a just God requires the ability to follow it. This is something our reason demands.
This view says:
- God commands what is right
God commands what is in our best interests and the interests of others. God can’t remain just and holy if he commands impossibilities on pain of eternal damnation. A just God can’t command that a sin is good, for it violates his nature as a just and righteous person. A just God will never excuse or permit what he has already declared sinful. God will never call injustice justice.
Commanding obedience to laws on pain of eternal torment in hell demands that moral agents have the real ability to do as commanded. If not, the command is unjust because it requires impossibilities. God has never issued a command that is impossible for us to obey, for He is a just and holy God. When God commands us to be perfect, if we actually read the passage in context, we know that it is possible to love your enemies and be perfect.
That might not satisfy your own personal definition, but it satisfies the biblical one.
Not even one of the 10 Commandments is impossible to obey. We can and must love God with all of our heart, soul, mind, and strength.
- Humans are responsible even if they cannot comply, because:
- Their inability is self-caused (through sin)
- They still desire what is wrong
But these last two bullet points are false and are “great swelling words of vanity”. Our inability is not self-caused, and Calvinists do not actually believe it. Calvinists believe that we are born guilty of Adam’s sin, and by nature we are born totally depraved and totally unable to do anything good. We are born sinners who can do nothing but sin.
The second bullet point states that they still desire what is wrong. Why do they still desire what is wrong? Because they are born totally depraved and totally unable to desire anything good. And even ChatGPT fails to mention that the strict Calvinist believes that God wills whatsoever comes to pass, including all good and all evil. Consistent Calvinists believe this in accordance with God’s decrees. Therefore, if we desire what is wrong, God decrees that too first. Is this not entirely repulsive?
Therefore:
- Inability does not remove guilt
Only if you are deceived into believing the Calvinist’s great swelling words of vanity are true.
- It may actually confirm it
It does no such thing unless you are deceived by their sophistry. The word says that a time will come when they call evil good and good evil. Here is one such example.
🧠 2. Early Christian Voices That Sound Like Your Argument (a command equals our ability to obey the command)
Per ChatGPT, what’s striking is how many early writers say things very close to what you’ve expressed. Let us consider a few.
Irenaeus (2nd century)
He explicitly ties freedom to responsibility: Humans are rational and therefore capable of choosing good or evil.
His reasoning:
- If humans were not free,
- Then obedience and disobedience would be meaningless
👉 That aligns very closely with our concern: Commands must correspond to real human capacity.
Justin Martyr
He argues that if humans could not choose, they could not be held accountable.
He even says:
- Reward and punishment would be unjust without freedom
Tertullian
Very bluntly: “No one is accountable for what is not in his power.”
That is almost exactly the argument you have made, according to ChatGPT.
Origen
He insists:
- The soul must have real power of choice
Otherwise: God’s judgments would not be just
⚠️ 3. The Shift with Augustine
Then comes Augustine of Hippo, and this is where things change, for the worse.
Augustine’s key move
He redefines the relationship between:
- Ability
- Will
- Responsibility
He argues: Humans are unable to do good because they willingly love sin.
That is simply not true. See comments below.
So:
- The inability to obey is not like being physically restrained
- It is like being internally corrupted
Let me add that these words of Augustine are great swelling words of vanity to deceive us. Augustine and others believe that God wills whatsoever comes to pass, and if we all love sin, it is because God willed and decreed it. Who then is actually guilty? Not humanity, that is for sure.
His famous analogy (paraphrased according to ChatGPT)
A person who lies because they love lying:
- “Cannot” tell the truth (in a moral sense)
- But is still responsible
This is nonsense as far as I am concerned. Augustine believes that the liar is born that way, and that loving lying is part of the sinful nature they supposedly inherit irresistibly from Adam. Great and pious-sounding rhetoric contrary to the truth, is it not? It is impossible for most Calvinists to be consistent and non-contradictory.
In Augustine’s mind, justice becomes:
Not: “Could you have done otherwise?”
But: “Is your will aligned with what is good?”
What absolute nonsense is that last question? Calvinists know that our will is not aligned with what is good by God’s decree. To pose that question is blatant dishonesty. Is that too harsh? It is an effort to skirt the issue and confuse the matter. But why would they do that? The moral force of a command of God must mean that we are capable of obeying it; it is unanswerable; therefore, they must deflect and hide in the darkness of sophistry.
🧩 4. Where the Two Views Collide, per ChatGPT
Let’s put them side by side:
| Question | Early Church / Your View | Augustinian / Reformed View |
| Does command imply ability? | Yes | No |
| What makes punishment just? | Real alternative choice | Moral corruption of will |
| What is an inability? | Removes responsibility | Reveals guilt |
| Key intuition | Fairness requires capacity | Holiness defines justice |
🔍 5. Why Each Side Thinks the Other Is Wrong, per ChatGPT
From your side:
- If someone literally cannot obey,
- Punishing them is indistinguishable from injustice
👉 It feels like: Holding someone guilty for something unavoidable
And why does it feel that way? Because it is that way.
From their side (the dark side):
- Humans are not neutral—they want sin
Generally speaking, they neglect to mention that God decreed that we would want sin. Who is then to blame? Not us, but God.
- Their inability is their own fault (in Adam).
Our inability is not our fault; it is God’s fault, but they continue to deny it when their theology demands it be true. They say we are born sinful humans because of another man’s sin (Adam). They say we are born sinners who can do nothing but sin and that we are guilty nonetheless. What irrational nonsense is such a belief?
👉 So they see it as: Holding someone accountable for what they love, not what they’re forced into.
But again, that is not the full truth. If Calvinism is true, we love what God decreed we would love. And God forces us to love it. More great swelling words of vanity.
🧠 6. A Crucial Clarification (Often Missed)
Even in the Reformed view. They do not mean:
- Humans are robots
But we are actually robots who are preprogrammed to love and hate as God decreed. They flatly deny what they flatly do teach and believe if they are honest and consistent.
- Humans are externally forced
But according to the Calvinist, we are internally forced by the decree of God, and the external force comment is bogus and meaningless.
They mean:
- Humans act freely
That is simply not true in a meaningful sense. We can physically do what God decrees, but that is not a moral issue. This is nothing but more great swelling words of vanity. Humans do not act freely in a moral sense, and that is the only issue.
- But their desires are enslaved
How so? According to them, it is because God holds us accountable for Adam’s sin and allows us to be born sinners whose desires are already enslaved by sin, not by choice.
So:
- They always choose what they want
- But what they want is disordered
All of this is untrue by their own doctrines. What they really mean is that we are “free” to sin as God decreed because God decrees our evil desires along with our evil actions. This is what they believe. All these great swelling words of vanity will not wipe away the dishonesty of Calvinism.
My articles address the errors of the theological system built by Augustine and Calvin, which many evangelicals embrace. I am hopeful that some Christians actually live above what this system of error and falsehood permits. Almost all so-called professing Christians believe that living in sin is normal and to be expected. My articles attempt to refute those lies and those isms which promote this deadly lie.
📌 7. Why This Debate Has Never Been Resolved, according to ChatGPT
Because it hinges on something deeper than exegesis:
👉 What counts as a just moral system?
- If you start with fairness = ability, you’ll reject total inability
Notice how ChatGPT frames this. If you start with “fairness equals ability, you’ll reject total inability. ChatGPT then contrasts that with the Calvinist who starts with holiness, which sounds more lofty and noble than starting with mere fairness, which is obviously subjective. Seriously?
How about this: If you start with “justice and holiness, which command only what is possible equals ability, you’ll reject total inability.
If you start not with holiness but with “God’s holiness commands the impossible equals the standard regardless of ability,” can you accept it? Is that not more accurate? It is, and it exposes the ugly truth of their system instead of hiding it in lofty, vain words.
- If you start with holiness as the standard regardless of ability, you can accept it, writes ChatGPT
This last bullet point is absolute nonsense in a moral world and universe. You will notice that the Calvinist position cares nothing for fairness, for God can be “fair and just” while He demands the impossible of us. Only an insane and deceived person can think that way.
What would you think of a father who demanded his children, who are less than five years old, mow the lawn and paint the house by the end of the day, or face his judgment? Calvinists, no matter how great their swelling words of vanity are, can never cover up their duplicity and sophistry.
🧭 Final Thought, per ChatGPT
“Your view isn’t fringe—it’s actually very close to how many early Christian thinkers reasoned before Augustine of Hippo reframed the discussion. And the reason conversations feel impossible sometimes is: we’re not just disagreeing on verses—we’re disagreeing on the definition of justice itself in a moral world.”
Justice and injustice are not the same thing.
Let us consider how Scripture itself is used to argue both definitions of justice—for example:
- texts that seem to require ability (Deuteronomy 30:19, Joshua 24:15), and
- texts used to argue inability (Romans 9, John 6)
That’s where the debate gets even more concrete.
📖 1. Texts That Seem to Presuppose Real Human Ability, writes ChatGPT (they do not just seem to presuppose real human ability; they explicitly state that we are able)
These are often front and center for those who share my concern, writes ChatGPT.
Deuteronomy 30:19
“I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life…”
🟩 Non-Calvinist reading is:
- God presents a real choice
- “Choose life” implies:
- The ability to choose either way
- Otherwise, the command feels empty and dishonest
👉 ChatGPT writes that this fits my moral intuition: A genuine command assumes a genuine option. It also ‘fits’ the truth in this verse.
🟦 Reformed or Calvinist reading
- The command reveals what is right to do
- But Israel, in sin, will not choose life without grace
They often connect this to:
- Israel’s repeated failure in the Old Testament
Even ChatGPT doesn’t tell the whole story for the Calvinist position, for all this is decreed by God, including Israel’s repeated failures. If Calvinism were true, then God is the author of Israel’s sins and failures, for God, so they say, is sovereign over everything that comes to pass. What are we to make of this?
This feeble explanation doesn’t respond to the criticism. Of course, the command reveals their duty. No one disputes that. The dispute is over the idea that sinful Israel can’t repent and choose life, which Calvinists deny.
Calvinists often connect this to “Israel’s repeated failure in the Old Testament,” as if Israel had an option when that is simply not true according to Calvinism, for God decrees whatsoever comes to pass. To suggest that Israel ‘failed’ is simply duplicitous and dishonest. Israel did not fail in their apostasy, for that is exactly what God decreed for them. Their apparent “failure” was exactly what God decreed. Is this not disgusting?
Run, my friends, from their system of lies and deception.
Joshua 24:15
“Choose you this day whom ye will serve…”
🟩 Non-Calvinist
- A direct appeal to human decision-making capacity
- Suggests emphatically a real, present ability to respond
🟦 Reformed
- A call to responsibility even though it is not possible
- Not proof of ability apart from God’s enabling
More great swelling words of vanity by Calvinism. The Calvinist says this passage in Joshua is a Call to Responsibility, but ChatGPT and the Calvinist forget to mention that no person can respond to the call of responsibility unless God decrees it. Therefore, if humanity is irresponsible, then God decreed it, and He, not Israel, is responsible.
Ezekiel 18:30-32
“Repent, and turn yourselves… For why will ye die…?”
🟩 Non-Calvinist
- God pleads with people to turn from their sinful ways
- Implies they can actually repent
🟦 Reformed
- God expresses His moral will even though it is impossible to comply
- But humans remain unable without grace
More great swelling words of vanity by Calvinism. The issue is whether they could repent and turn themselves. God, in the text itself, told them to repent and turn themselves. God said they could do it and never mentioned needing any special grace. That false idea is imported into the text by Calvinists and others. If you believe the Reformed position is true, then you may be beyond hope.
📖 2. Texts Used to Argue Human Inability
These are the backbone of the Augustinian/Reformed case.
John 6:44
“No man can come to me, except the Father… draw him.”
🟦 Reformed
- “No man can” = lack of ability
- Drawing = necessary divine action
🟩 Non-Calvinist
- Drawing may be:
- Universal (cf. John 12:32), or
- Persuasive, not irresistible
In the false system of Calvinism, God decreed in eternity past, who He would save (the elect) and who He would not save. It had nothing to do with ability or inability, despite what the Calvinists want you to believe. Calvinism calls this irresistible grace. Augustinian free will is not a free will at all. As Dr. Kenneth Wilson states, it is a non-free / free will. In shorthand, that is, we have no free will.
Romans 8:7-8
“The carnal mind… is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.”
🟦 Reformed
- Strong statement of inability
- The natural person cannot obey God
This passage teaches none of this. Calvinists assume it does because they need it to support their false belief. The mind which is set on the unlawful indulgence of the flesh is not subject to the law of God, and it can’t be until it ceases being a carnal mind. This is why the carnal mind is enmity toward God.
🟩 Non-Calvinist
- Describes those living according to the flesh, the unlawful gratifying of these desires of the flesh. All humanity has human desires. Desires are not unlawful or sinful in themselves. When those desires are satisfied unlawfully, then it is sin.
- Not necessarily all humans in all conditions
- The unsaved person is given over to the unlawful lusts of the flesh, and in that state, they are not subject to the law of God by their own choice, and not by the decree of God, as Calvinism teaches.
Romans 3:10-12
“There is none righteous… none that seeketh after God.”
🟦 Reformed
- Universal moral inability
- No one initiates seeking God
See my website for a full refutation of the Calvinist and typical evangelical interpretation of this passage. The article is titled: There Is None Righteous…No, Not One. God has always had a righteous remnant that did not depart from God, but according to the Calvinists, that is not the case.
🟩 Non-Calvinist
- Describes humanity left to itself
- Does not rule out:
- God enabling response
- Humans responding when confronted with the truth
📖 3. The Strongest Tension Point
Here’s where the two sets of texts collide:
Set A (ability language)
- “Choose life.”
- “Turn and live.”
- “Why will you die?”
Set B (inability language)
- “No one can come.”
- “Cannot submit to God.”
- “None seek God.”
🧠 4. How Each System Reconciles Them
🟦 Reformed / Calvinist synthesis
They prioritize the inability texts:
- Humans are unable due to sin
- Commands show:
- What is right
- What we fail to do
So:
- Deuteronomy / Joshua = duty
- John / Romans = actual condition
👉 Conclusion: God must act first (regeneration then faith)
🟩 Non-Calvinist synthesis
They prioritize the command/appeal texts:
- God’s commands are sincere and actionable
- Therefore, humans must have real capacity to obey
So:
- John / Romans = describing:
- Condition apart from grace
- Or resistance, not incapacity
👉 Conclusion: God enables and helps, but humans can genuinely respond
⚖️ 5. Two Different Models of Justice in Scripture
🟩 Model 1: न्याय = Fairness + real choice
- Commands assume ability
- Appeals are sincere invitations
- Judgment is based on what one could have done
This model resonates with:
- Deuteronomy 30
- Joshua 24
- Genesis 4
🟦 Model 2: Justice = God’s holiness + human corruption
- God commands perfect righteousness (Not true; God commands repentance from sinners who are not perfect by definition)
- Humans cannot meet it due to sin (We are not guilty for Adam’s sin, only our own sins. God requires repentance from our own sin.)
- Judgment reveals guilt, not capacity (not true, for judgment of the not guilty reveals injustice due to a lack of capacity or ability)
This model draws heavily from:
- Romans 3
- Romans 8
- John 6
But all of these passages and their other proof texts are better explained without disregarding ability and creating unnecessary, unbiblical tension. For example, see my article on Romans 3, All Have Sinned, and None Are Righteous, on my website.
🔍 6. A Key Question That Clarifies Everything (Can not or Will Not?)
If you want to cut through the debate quickly, it often comes down to this: when Scripture says “cannot,” does it mean:
- Literal inability,
or
- Moral resistance/unwillingness?
In ordinary language, we typically use “can not” as a substitute for “will not”. If I say I cannot climb that ladder to the roof, I do not mean I am physically unable to do so, but that I am unwilling to because I am afraid of heights.
When people claim that they “can not” stop drinking, fornicating, coveting, lusting, or stealing, they do not mean, nor do thinking people believe, that they are literally unable to stop these things, but they are unwilling to do it for any number of reasons. If there were a literal “can not,” then none of these things would be sin. If I am literally unable to stop drinking, fornicating, coveting, lusting, or stealing, then it can’t be sinful to do these things. But since it means “will not”, it is therefore sinful not to stop. God’s law governs moral choices, which are always voluntary.
Calvinists, to save their theological system, read these statements literally only because they must do so to protect their faulty interpretation of the Bible.
That single question determines how someone reads:
- John 6:44
- Romans 8:7
- Genesis 4:7
And all other similar passages in the Bible.
📌 Final Thought
- One group reads Scripture as presenting genuine choices grounded in real ability
- The other (Calvinism) reads Scripture as presenting true commands that expose human inability to do as required, making God unjust in doing so
And both believe they are preserving:
- God’s justice
- The integrity of Scripture
But they define justice differently, and that shapes everything else, writes ChatGPT.
Romans 9 is a fitting place to end this study
Romans 9 is often seen as the most difficult and strongest passage in this discussion. It forces the question: Is God’s justice defined by human standards of fairness, or does God redefine justice on His own terms?
Let’s walk through it carefully and fairly.
📖 1. The Core of Romans 9
Key statements from the chapter:
- “Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated” (v.13)
- “It is not of him that willeth… but of God that sheweth mercy” (v.16)
- “Whom he will he hardeneth” (v.18)
- “Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?” (v.19)
That last question is crucial—it’s the same objection many of us have been raising.
🟦 2. Calvinist / Reformed Interpretation
Following John Calvin and rooted in Augustine of Hippo:
The main idea is that God sovereignly chooses:
- Some for mercy
I contend that Calvinism contains no mercy or grace. See my article with that title on my website.
- Others are passed over or hardened
Note well what this means. God elects a few to salvation, and all others go to hell by God’s decree. God could have just as easily elected everyone to salvation, but for His own glory, He only elected some and damned the others. And we are to believe that God gets glory out of this, even though it disgusts and repels many of us.
How Calvinists read the key verses
“Not of him that willeth…” (v.16)
- Salvation does not depend on human will at all
- Human effort or choice cannot produce it
See my article titled ‘That For The Sake Of Which and That Not Without Which’ for a full discussion of the truth that God is the procuring cause of our salvation, but unless humans meet the conditions of this free gift, we will not be saved. Calvinism is wrong in teaching that humans do not participate in their own salvation. See also my articles “Save Yourself,” “Believe And Be Saved,” and “We Are Saved By Grace Through Faith.”
“Whom he will he hardeneth” (v.18)
- God actively or judicially hardens some people
- Like Pharaoh
The objection in v.19
“Why does He still find fault?”
They argue:
- This only makes sense if Paul is teaching determinative sovereignty
- Because:
- If humans had independent ability, the objection wouldn’t arise this way
Paul’s answer (v.20–21)
“Who art thou, O man, that repliest against God?”
Reformed reading per ChatGPT:
- Paul does not soften the doctrine
- He appeals to:
- God’s अधिकार (authority) as Creator
Like a potter over clay.
🔑 Conclusion (Reformed)
- God’s justice is not measured by human fairness
Of course it is. God gave us a moral, rational nature and reason to keep us out of the dark and bring us to the light of truth. Our rational nature and our reason revolt at this false view of God and His justice. That alone is sufficient reason to reject it. Add to that the fact that it is not biblical at all, and we have sufficient reason to reject Augustinian Calvinism.
- Humans are accountable even if they cannot resist His will
What absolute nonsense is such a statement? Inability is the best justification for sin that the devil ever inspired. If someone stronger than I literally forced me to kill someone with a gun, I would not be responsible or accountable for the murder. Rational people all agree with that. But Calvinists believe God is sovereign over all our desires and actions. Many believe that God decrees whatever comes to pass. No matter what they claim to the contrary, that makes God worse than the devil.
No one is guilty for not doing the impossible. And no one is guilty for another person’s sins.
- Mercy is undeserved; justice is not owed
Calvinism offers no mercy or grace. See my many other articles on my website under Augustinian Calvinism.
And the very idea that “justice is not owed” is so ridiculous I can hardly believe that any professing Christian could actually utter these great swelling words of emptiness with a straight face. If you actually agree that justice is not owed, then you are indeed dead to the truth of God.
🟩 3. Non-Calvinist Interpretation
Held (in different forms) by traditions influenced by Jacobus Arminius, John Wesley, and many others.
Main idea:
Romans 9 is about God’s right to choose how He works in history, not about removing individual moral responsibility or ability.
Key reinterpretations
1. Jacob and Esau (v.10–13)
- Not about eternal salvation
- About:
- Covenant roles
- Nations (Israel vs Edom)
This fits the Old Testament context:
- The quote comes from Malachi, long after both men lived
2. Pharaoh
- Pharaoh hardened his own heart first
- God’s hardening is:
- Judicial (confirming a prior choice)
3. “Not of him that willeth…” (v.16)
- Refers to:
- God’s plan of salvation
- Not the impossibility of human response
4. The objection in v.19
They argue that the objection is about God choosing unexpected people/groups (e.g., Gentiles, and Jacob over Esau) and not about denying human ability
5. Potter and clay
They point to Jeremiah 18, where:
- The clay can change
- God responds dynamically
So the metaphor does not imply fixed determinism
🔑 Conclusion (Non-Calvinist)
- God is sovereign in how He administers His plan
- But humans still:
- Can and must respond
- Are genuinely accountable
⚖️ 4. The Central Clash in Romans 9
Here’s the heart of it:
| Question | Reformed Answer | Non-Calvinist Answer |
| What is Romans 9 about? | Individual salvation | Historical roles/covenant |
| Why the objection in v.19? | Because of divine determinism | Because God’s plan is unfair |
| Does Paul defend the inability? | Yes | No |
| What defines justice? | God’s sovereign will | God’s fairness + human responsibility |
🧠 5. Connecting Back to our Concern
Our core objection has been: “How can God justly hold people accountable if they cannot do otherwise?”
Romans 9 is where Scripture itself explicitly raises that question: “Why does He still find fault?”
Two very different readings of Paul’s answer:
🟦 Reformed:
- Paul does not resolve the tension
- He appeals to:
- God’s अधिकार as Creator
👉 Meaning God is just, even if you don’t see how (or you see the exact opposite!)
🟩 Non-Calvinist:
- Paul is not teaching inability to begin with
- So, the objection is being misunderstood if read that way
👉 Meaning: The “problem” dissolves when read in context
📌 Final Thought
Romans 9 doesn’t just present a doctrine—it exposes a dividing line:
- On one side, the Calvinist reads it as:
God’s justice transcends human categories
More great swelling words of emptiness, so that the real truth is hidden from our eyes.
- The other reads it as:
God’s justice must remain consistent with the moral framework He reveals elsewhere
And in Calvinism, this is not true. God appears to violate His own standards.
And that brings us full circle to where we started:
- Genesis 4:7 → “You must rule over sin.”
- Deuteronomy 30 → “Choose life.”
- Romans 9 → “Why does He still find fault?”
Those passages don’t just sit side-by-side easily—they force a theological decision about:
- freedom
- responsibility
- and the nature of justice itself
- the justice or injustice of God Himself
According to ChatGPT, “If nothing else, you can take this away: You’re not asking a shallow question—you’re pressing on one of the deepest fault lines in all of Christian theology, one that has been debated from Augustine of Hippo to John Calvin to today. And it’s not going away anytime soon.”
If you are a consistent Calvinist, then you must believe that God sovereignly determines whatsoever comes to pass, including this confusion over the meaning of Romans 9. Silly me, I thought that the devil and not God was the author of confusion.
In Genesis 2, we are told that humanity is created in the image and likeness of God, yet Calvinism seems to deny this even as it affirms it. See my article on Genesis 2.
