When Lies Become Truth. Chapter 1. Ability

Are we able to keep the law?

Chapter Overview

My approach is to start with what I consider the error or theological falsehood. I will cite examples from the teaching of men who are well-known and highly respected. I will quote.

• John MacArthur
• Charles Ryrie
• Douglass Moo
• R. C. Sproul

To help the reader understand the origin of this false idea of inability, it will be necessary to revisit the past and discuss Augustine’s ideas and the theological system that has come to be known as Calvinism. (See Appendix 2 for a fuller treatment of the dogma of Original Sin.)

Next, I will state plainly what I believe the truth to be regarding our ability or inability to obey the law of God. I will give what I believe to be sound moral and philosophical reasons, which support the belief that, as moral beings, we can obey the law of God.

I will then address the subject of inability in the Bible. I will use passages that proponents of this claim use when defending it. Subsequent to this section, I will further elaborate on what Scripture has to say about ability. I cite numerous convincing scriptural proofs to support the belief that we are capable of obeying God and His laws.

I will conclude this chapter with a practical analysis under the heading, “What difference does it make anyway? If what I maintain is true, what impact will that have on us personally, for the church, and for our country? Does this truth have critical practical implications? What is the benefit of believing this truth, and what are the consequences of not accepting this truth?

This will then lead us directly into the next chapter, which discusses free will, as the two concepts, inability and free will, are inextricably linked. Let us begin with the question, “Are we able to obey the law of God?”

Introduction

How many times have you been told you can’t obey the law of God? Have you

not read about your inability to obey His law in religious books? In how many different ways has this idea been communicated to you? Have you not heard it from the pulpit? It’s commonly taught that we are unable to obey the law.[1] Clearly, humanity is a collection of lawbreakers. What is the cause or source of this lawbreaking? Is it an inherited inability to be and do good, or is it a stubborn, voluntary unwillingness?

THE FALSEHOOD = WE CAN’T OBEY THE LAW

            What follows are four examples from theologians that teach our inability to keep or obey the law.

John MacArthur

            “Why did God give Israel a Law they couldn’t obey? God gave Israel a law they couldn’t keep to show them how sinful they were and to drive them to Himself by faith.”[2] Let’s understand this very typical statement. The author believes God gave His people (His children) laws He knew they couldn’t keep. That statement should give Christians pause. Does it give you pause? Unfortunately, it usually doesn’t even cause a momentary reflection because so few of us question what we are told to believe. The only way to truly understand this statement is to consider its implications. It’s only when the implications are understood that we can determine whether this is a true statement.

What was the penalty for not keeping the law? Didn’t the penalty include suffering and death? Didn’t God punish Israel severely and even mercilessly because they didn’t obey His laws? Mr. MacArthur claims they were unable to obey God’s laws. Surely, I am not the only one who has a problem with that idea of a just God. God punishes, kills, and apparently damns His very own children for not doing the impossible. How can that be true? Any earthly Dad who did the same would be thought of as a very evil parent, wouldn’t he?

A Story

            Bill and Mary love their sons with all their hearts. They try to practice godly discipline. They ask their boys, ages two, four, and seven, to do tasks that they know they can’t mentally or physically do. When the jobs are not done perfectly, they practice the godly discipline their heavenly Father has taught them. The kids’ punishment is ruthless. It’s hard on Mom and Dad, but they know their heavenly Father requires impossibilities of them, so they expect the same from their children. They do this, as loving parents, to teach their kids how evil they are. They also do it to drive them into their loving arms. They believe their kids will learn to trust them in this way.

            A ridiculous story to be sure. But isn’t this brother MacArthur’s story? Isn’t this what we are asked to believe? Is this what God’s like? Does this instill confidence in God in you? Does this make you want to glorify, praise, and thank Him? Do you think this is just treatment? Will not the judge of the universe do the right thing? Or are we required to suspend our reason and sense of justice to believe? Why can’t the truth make sense?

            The idea that the Jews couldn’t keep the law of God is not accurate. With respect for Mr. MacArthur, I must say he is wrong. It’s abundantly clear that God thought they 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” Deuteronomy 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.[3]

            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 own 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? God makes promises He knows He will never be called on to fulfill. 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 Calvinistic 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 them to their children so that they too would obey God’s laws. God promised to bless obedience and to destroy them if they disobeyed. Then, after many warnings, it is written toward the end of the book.

“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 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 really 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 lawkeeping 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, and not because we love doing wrong for its own 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 obviously untrue? It’s tough to understand because this is not a matter of 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[4] Era? Even if it was true that the Jews couldn’t obey the law, what about us? Mr. MacArthur believes the New Testament unbeliever can’t keep the laws of God, but the believer can keep the law of God.[5] We will have occasion to examine this idea as we proceed.

Charles Ryrie

            “Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the benefit of circumcision?” Romans 3:1. In his footnote explaining this verse, Mr. 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.”[6]

            The Jew had more responsibility; 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 can’t keep. 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 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. When did the loss of property and life become 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 the Jews’ total failure to keep the law, for 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 as part of 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 as Christians, God hasn’t made us stop because He is powerless to do so. And so are we.

 

A STORY

            Dinah was a superior court judge. One day, she heard a case involving two brothers. They were accused of theft. Jim was easily influenced by his older brother, Mark. Not long before this trial, Jim decided to follow Christ, while Mark rejected what he had heard.

            Jim committed this criminal act under pressure from his brother Mark. Jim pled guilty, but Mark pled not guilty by reason of his innate inability to obey the law, as he and Jim had recently learned at church. Jim, of course, received the ability to follow the law; therefore, he couldn’t honestly plead the inability defense. However, Jim encouraged Mark every step of the way. He made every effort to convince their attorney and the judge that his brother’s inability to obey the law was a valid defense. After all, isn’t legal insanity a kind of inability?

            The judge, a new believer herself, was caught between a rock and a hard place. She asked her Pastor, who confirmed the inability of the unbeliever to obey God’s laws. Did her Christian commitment require her to admit the inability defense? Why did it sound so much like the Twinkie defense?[7] After all, if it was true, how could she, in good conscience, send someone to jail for a crime they had no control over? She reasoned that absolute inability to do what the law requires is undoubtedly a valid defense, but the implications are staggering. Wouldn’t the inability to obey the law embolden criminals? If inability were an effective legal defense, wouldn’t every criminal plead for consideration as an unbeliever? Wouldn’t it turn criminals into victims? During her legal training, it was understood that laws govern behavior that we can control, and everyone is expected to obey the laws of the land. For her, ignorance isn’t even a valid excuse to abuse the law. Did her Christian commitment set all this aside? Was she now expected to have two standards?

            Who can argue that incapacity is a valid legal defense? Even our laws recognize that ability is foundational to the administration of justice. To suggest that only Christians can obey the law of God, which is the basis, and in some cases identical to, the laws of our land, is preposterous. Can a serious-minded person believe such a thing apart from a religious deception or a biased predisposition? I hope that didn’t sound too harsh, but I am at a loss to know how to get the religiously gullible to think about what they are told is true.

            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 significant 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, in fact, 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 to do so), but only a few actually used it.

Douglas J. Moo

            The book, Five Views on the Law and Gospel, examines various perspectives on the relevance of the 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; but 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 stand before me.”[8]

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, while He knew it was impossible for them to keep and to be saved. How can it be argued that it was both possible and impossible to keep the law? One is true and both can’t 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, knowing 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.”[9] 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 is known to be impossible to do so. There is 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 death.

            Is involuntary inability the reason why the law can’t save us, or is it voluntary law-breaking? I thought the law was just, reasonable, and holy. The law condemns voluntary lawbreaking, not involuntary lawbreaking, which is a nonsensical concept. We excel at voluntarily and willingly breaking the law. Isn’t that the reason the law can’t save us? Yes, and amen.

            According to 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.[10] Please tell me how Israel could apprehend the increasing seriousness of the matter 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 they could obey when, in reality, they couldn’t. Maybe it’s the other way around. Is it possible that those who believe in inability 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 is, but maybe I’m really not. Perhaps I’m deceived. Just maybe 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 it is 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 encourages us to sin even more.[11] 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 lie? Guilt is innocence, I guess. 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 really 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 sense real guilt or conviction of sin for not being a giant? It makes no sense to me whatsoever. How about you? Does this strange idea of inability make sense to you?

R. C. Sproul

            The title of chapter two of his book is “We are incapable of obedience: Augustine.”  Sproul, along with many others, thinks very highly of Augustine. The works of Augustine had a profound influence on Luther and Calvin. “Augustine is generally regarded as the greatest theologian of the first millennium of Christian history, if not all time.”[12] Wow, that’s quite an endorsement. I will allow you 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 with 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?[13]  Some theologians believe Augustine was wrong in several of his teachings on critically essential subjects. Only the writers of the Bible were inspired by God and wrote, without error, the truth. All other writers, including Augustine and me, are prone to error. There is a mixture in every other person’s work. There was an error in his and I am sure there is a mine error 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.

            I aim to summarize Augustine’s teachings on the subject of inability in this section and expand on them in chapter two, where I will discuss free will. Augustine believed Adam possessed the ability to obey God. Adam was truly free in that he could choose to obey God 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.”[14]

            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 like Adam possessed 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 himself, not even a little bit. Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and other Reformers developed this line of thinking into a theological system, with each premise building upon 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.[15]

• 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 it at all. God chooses to save the elect. The atonement is limited to just 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 save 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 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 will be made to desire 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 raw, irresistible power of God. Sin and unbelief in the believer no longer damn the soul, while it does in the unbeliever.

Add to these five beliefs the dogma of eternal security and imputed obedience to complete the system and round out the unit. It all goes together very well. Each thought builds on the other. They all tie together and form a whole logical system. Currently, I am primarily concerned with the first point, Total Depravity, as it impacts the discussion regarding 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 always sinful. At the micro level, we may 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. The strict Calvinist believes that God decreed whatsoever comes to pass, including all good and all evil.

            Have you ever wondered why theologians created the dogma of infant baptismal regeneration? You will not find this doctrine or practice in the Bible, as far as I know. If you start with the assumption that babies are born condemned to hell for Adam’s sin, how does God appear just and righteous? Without this doctrine, God is made to look unjust in sending babies to hell. Apparently, that is why this doctrine was created out of what appears to be thin air. God made a way for babies to have the guilt of Adam’s sin removed if parents meet the condition of baptism. If parents neglect infant baptism, then it’s their fault, not God’s if their baby goes to limbo. But this does not succeed in removing the implication that God is unjust. Let’s assume for a moment that Augustine was correct, infant baptism removes the guilt of Adam’s sin. The reason God still appears to be unjust is that we all sin because we were born sinners who can do nothing but sin. So infant baptism removes the initial guilt of Adam, but we involuntarily and unavoidably sin and are again guilty of an eternal sin and on our way to hell. Infant baptism extends the question of God’s justice one step further.

            This is what Augustine believed. Mr. Sproul thinks he may be the greatest theologian of all time.[16] 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? (Refer to chapter 5.)

     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 (total depravity). If you don’t believe me, please open a Bible and read it for yourself.

            I have read comments that intimate 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, 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. However, the text states that 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, to my knowledge, 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 of God. Adam could still think, feel, and make choices.[17] 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.”

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, subsequent to the first few chapters of Genesis, that clearly state that man is created by God 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 by 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 explanations 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, emphasis added.

            Please tell me where it’s written that we are unable to obey the law because we are born totally depraved. The footnote in my Study Bible for verse 12 indicates that because of Adam, sin entered into the world, and men could only breed other sinful men, all of whom are under the condemnation of God.[18] 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 was Adam a sinner or a saint? If he were regenerate, 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.” This phrase appears to suggest that Christ’s one act of righteousness justifies all people. That would lead to the idea that everyone is saved, which is a heresy known as 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 from pastors, teachers, and theologians. I don’t believe that those men just mentioned are adequately representative of those who don’t think we’re able to keep the law. I reject the idea that we are born totally depraved and 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 = WE CAN OBEY THE LAW OF GOD

            You and I can obey the law, but don’t. That’s what makes us guilty and blameworthy. This innate ability to follow God’s laws is not a manifestation of intrinsic goodness. The unrestricted 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.[19]

            Is the ability to obey God, innate goodness? Is the ability to believe in God, goodness itself? 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 can choose between good and evil. 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 cannot do so. How absurd does it get? Then again, maybe my statements are ludicrous. I am so deranged that 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, believe in Him, and 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 or decreed to do so, as some teach.

Contrary to the teachings of Augustinian Calvinism, 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.[20] Does this not honor God? Or is it more honoring to God to insist that He converts those He chooses (elects) 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 follow and obey Him, while He knows we are unable to follow and 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 because he decreed our disobedience? 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 means I can play the game, for I must have golf clubs to play golf. Possession of the ability to obey God means I can play the game, for 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, 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 highlights the importance of reason, but it also clearly establishes our ability to obey God. How any person can read this passage and believe that Israel couldn’t 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, causing them to embrace 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 law 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 the teaching of inability is true, the law can’t be applicable.

Moral law, which mirrors God’s ideal of integrity, seeks to influence controllable behavior by means of rewards and punishments. Uncontrollable behavior, by reason 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. The 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 or disregard moral law.

If the doctrine of inability is true, 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 every person to hold their breath for 60 consecutive minutes or lose all their possessions, would anyone call that a just and righteous law? But why is it unjust? It’s oppressive and unfair because everyone knows that it’s impossible to hold your breath for 60 minutes. A law requiring us to hold our breath for 30 seconds may be just, even if it’s stupid, if it were qualified. It must be qualified so that those who are physically impaired or too young are exempt from it. Their inability to comply with the law is the reason the law must be qualified. Otherwise, it would not be fair or just, would it?

If the teaching of inability is true, 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 the impossible under pain of eternal death reflects an unjust law and a lawgiver. How can it be otherwise? God is not unfair or unjust in any sense of the word; therefore, His law can’t require impossibilities. Moreover, to hold you and me guilty for Adam’s sin is unjust as well. It also contradicts the clear teaching of the Bible. This will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5.

If total depravity and total inability are true, 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 the ability to comply with the law. The inability to obey the law makes lawbreaking unavoidable. What is unavoidable and inevitable is excusable. What is excusable is certainly not justly punishable.[21] What Dad would punish his child for doing the unavoidable and inevitable? 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 of God is the same thing as to say we are as helpless as that baby. Is that not true? We will unavoidably spoil our diaper, and will our heavenly Father damn us for it?

If the teaching of inability is true, 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 discuss 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 that which society allows at any moment in time, a relative cultural ethic. Inability and evolution render the moral law void. Moral law governs persons created in the image and likeness of the Creator lawgiver, who is altogether fair, just, and lovely. Moral law is a code or set of rules that differentiates proper behavior from wrong behavior when either behavior is possible. Bad behavior results in guilt, punishment, and condemnation. Correct behavior yields righteousness and rewards such as joy, peace, happiness, and eternal life.

If the doctrine of inability is true, 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 for God. Can we be set apart for God’s purposes yet not be set apart to obey Him?

If the doctrine of inability is true, 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 means of avoiding 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 have a sense of conviction of sin for your parents’ moral failures? Why don’t you hold yourself guilty for your parents’ sins? Is it because you have no control over them and their sinful behavior, therefore, you are unable to prevent their sins? If you can’t avoid either your parents’ sins or your own sins, why would you hold yourself guilty for your sins and not theirs? Let me suggest that you consider that for a moment before reading on.

If the teaching of an inherited inability is true, 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. 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 may be and usually is the occasion. Do you understand my point?

If the doctrine of inability is true, 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 renders 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.

Inability in the Bible?

Below are a few more passages that appear to teach that we are unable to obey God.

Psalm 51:5

“Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me” Psalm 51:5. This passage is used to support the notion of our inability. However, let’s say it is true that what David meant to say was that he was born a sinner. That means he was spiritually dead and on his way to hell while yet in the womb. Do you believe babies are sinners on their way to hell?[22] Tell me how that is just? But what is sin? Is it a physical substance? Is it genetic? I thought sin was lawlessness. Isn’t sin a transgression of the law? What law did that baby break? Does God really send babies who die to hell for Adam’s sin? I know that some insist on defining sin as a want of conformity to the glory of God and cite Romans 3:23, which states, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” Does a baby fall short of the glory of God? How is that true? But this passage doesn’t define sin at all. It simply states that sinners fall short of the glory of God because of their sin. What personal sin did that baby commit? Please remember that the Bible clearly defines sin as lawlessness in the context of lawfulness, as the rejected option (1 John 3:4). Furthermore, the Bible declares that everyone dies for their own sins, not those of their father or son. The soul who sins shall die.

In this passage, David is beating himself up over his sin, and he expresses himself in powerful hyperbolic language. Have you never done the same thing? If not, have you ever truly repented of your sin? Do you have an appreciation for how evil you were before God came into your life? Or could it be you don’t think you were that bad? Remember, only those who have been forgiven much love much. David looks back over his life and sees sin in his life from the earliest days. Even his mother was a sinner. This can all be true without it meaning that he was unable to obey God’s law. It actually expresses the opposite. He condemns himself for the very fact that he has no excuse for his sin, like being born unable to obey the law because his mother or Adam gave him a sinful nature, which is only capable of sinning.

Psalm 58:30

“The wicked are estranged from the womb; Those who speak lies go astray from birth” Psalm 58:30. Can babies speak at birth? No, they can’t; it takes time to develop the ability to communicate. Therefore, the passage shouldn’t be taken literally. What it means is that from the very first, we all sin when we have reached the age of moral accountability. Why do we all sin? Why did Lucifer sin? Why did Adam and Eve sin? Did God create Adam and Eve with a sinful nature that caused them to sin? No, of course not. Did God create Satan with a sinful nature? No, of course not. So how is it that people sin? Don’t we sin in precisely the same way Adam did? Moreover, we have other disadvantages that Adam did not have as a consequence of the fall. Adam wasn’t created in an environment where sin abounds like today. Yes, we are suffering the consequences of sin in the universe, but that doesn’t mean we are unable to obey God. It does mean that the corruption caused by sin and temptation/lust is more than adequate to explain why we sin. Temptation/lust alone is more than sufficient. Do you remember your first sins? Do you recall feeling that you could have done better? Or are we deluded by thinking that we could have actually done the right thing? If so, then what can we be sure of? Can we be certain of our total depravity and our inability to obey God?

The author C. Stephen Evans writes, “The principle that must be steadfastly maintained here that there is a substantial unity to the human race. In some sense all human beings, “sinned in Adam.” The trick is not to interpret this in a mechanical manner, as if Adam sinned and then his sin was somehow biologically transmitted to the race as if sin were an inheritable disease. Rather, as Kierkegaard says in The Concept of Anxiety, which contains his fullest treatment of this problem, “Every individual is both himself and the race.”[23] This is an excellent point. The author then discusses how we sin. “That every human person makes such a choice (to sin) is indeed mysterious, but it is neither more nor less mysterious than Adam’s original choice. Why did Adam sin? We can say that the reason was his desire “to be as a god,” but that reason cannot be seen as a determining cause. Adam simply chose to sin. In the same way, each member of the human race except Jesus recapitulates Adam’s choice, affirming his unity with Adam and the race.”[24] The author does a good job explaining how it is that we sin like Adam. However, I disagree with him that Adam’s desire can’t be thought of as a determining cause or source of sin.[25] What then was the cause or source? Is it not the same for each of us? My sin always has its source in runaway lust (lust is not limited to just the sexual). When I have sinned, it’s always the same thing. I let my desire to please myself override what I know to be the right thing to do. To suggest that Adam sinned because he chose to sin is begging the question. The Bible expressly states the source of sin, lust gone wild. Excessive self-love is the root of all sin.

Psalm 22:9-10

“Yet Thou art He who didst bring me forth from the womb; Thou didst make me trust when upon my mother’s breast. Upon Thee I was cast from birth; Thou hast been my God from my mother’s womb” Psalm 22:9-10.

            You may be wondering what this Psalm has to do with inability. Why don’t proponents of inability refer to this passage and others like it? Isn’t it obvious why this scripture isn’t addressed? The Psalmist appears to convey a perspective that differs significantly from the concept of total depravity and inability. “Thou hast been my God from my mother’s womb” is an interesting statement. In what sense has God been his God from his mother’s womb? David seems to suggest that, from his birth, God was not just his Creator, but also his Lord. He started trusting God when he nursed at his mother’s breast. From his earliest days, God has been Lord in his life. I certainly don’t want to make too much of this statement, as it is similar to the other Psalms I have quoted. David uses poetic and hyperbolic language to express himself, which can be easily misunderstood. There is no hint of inability but a strong affirmation of the opposite idea in this passage.

Ephesians 2:3

Here is another passage that supposedly teaches our inability to obey God. “Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest” Ephesians 2:3. Is God angry with us for our natures when He created the laws that govern how we come by our nature? Is He angry with us as a result of the way He created us? Of course, He isn’t. Isn’t God angry with us for our personal wickedness? Couldn’t that wickedness be avoided? This passage states nothing about inability to obey God. The passage asserts that habitual sinners are the same as natural sinners who are under the wrath of God. What we habitually do becomes our nature. However, our nature doesn’t cause our habits. Our habits make our nature. To say we are born sinners is to claim that sin is a substance, and that sin doesn’t mean by definition a free and voluntary moral choice, which is absurd.

Romans 7

“For that which I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate. But if I do the very thing I do not wish to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that it is good. For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is in my flesh, for the wishing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not. For the good that I wish, I do not do; but I practice the very evil that I do not wish.” Romans 7:15-19.

This text is not used as often as one might expect to support the idea that we are incapable of doing good. Why is that? Like MacArthur, many Christian teachers believe we receive the ability to obey God when we are justified. However, these same teachers use Romans 7 as a proof text for Christian living. In other words, the best believers can do in the Christian life resembles what Paul, a saint, experienced and described for us in Romans chapter 7. This chapter appears to teach that even Christian’s struggle to obey God and fail miserably at it. However, that will never suffice, as it doesn’t align with their theology. How many could believe that even with the help of the Spirit of God, saints can’t obey God? I agree that would be ridiculous. Yet that is precisely what the Westminster Confession of Faith states, for it teaches that Christians do sin in thought, word, and deed every day. This confession of faith believes in inability. The unbeliever sins because they are unable to obey the laws of God (inability) and goes to hell. The believer sins, even though they are now able to follow God’s laws, but do not, and still go to heaven (Romans 7).  This, I think, explains why Romans Chapter 7 is not used as often as might appear warranted.

 Paul says that good that he would do, he can’t, and the evil that he doesn’t want to do, he does. Could this possibly be true of Paul, the saint of God? Is this the very same man who said that he fought the good fight and finished the course? Is this the same man who told disciples to be imitators of himself? We can all believe this of Saul before he was regenerated. Romans chapter 7 describes the experience of almost every religious but unconverted person. Does your experience as a Christian resemble this? Do you do the very evil that you do not wish to do? If this is true, I pray that your eyes will be opened to the truth and that you may be saved.

If Romans Chapter 7 describes a true Christian’s experience, then many passages in Romans Chapter 6 and 8 are fictional because these passages describe the Christian’s victory over sin, not their continued slavery in sin. There are also many other passages of scripture in other books that indicate the believer’s victory over sin, the flesh, and the devil. Much of this book is dedicated to correcting this false interpretation of Romans Chapter 7.

Having said all that, there is an aspect of this chapter and the experience it describes that bears resemblance to a Christian’s experience in sanctification. We know we have not arrived and that we are not perfect as Christ. Some of us struggle with finding more time to spend with God in prayer and study. We know that we don’t have all of God, and we strive for more. We wish we were more disciplined and dedicated. We see some but not enough fruit in our lives, and we want more. In several ways, we perceive ourselves as falling short of a perfect life. All this can be true without it meaning that the Christian is living in sin and doing the evil that they don’t want to do and neglecting all the good that they would do. I encourage you to continue reading, as many arguments will be presented to support these few comments.

These texts are used to prove our inability to obey God. There are a few more. I took the ones I thought were more compelling. A reasonable rule of biblical interpretation states that if a text can support two opposing positions, it proves neither. The texts I have just quoted can be explained reasonably, and they disprove the notion of inability. Additionally, we have numerous explicit texts that state emphatically that we can obey the law. The ‘unclear few’ don’t outweigh the ‘very clear many.’

Forgive me, but I can’t help but think that only those blinded by religious indoctrination can believe such a ridiculous idea that a just, loving, and holy Creator expects them to perfectly obey His law while, by God’s own predetermined design, they are perfectly unable to obey. Then this loving and just God punishes them for unavoidable disobedience. If that wasn’t awful enough, this loving and just God sends them to an eternity in hell for not perfectly obeying His laws when He created them, either directly or indirectly,[26] perfectly and totally unable to obey. Remember, God created the laws that passed Adam’s depravity down to us without our consent. Is this not outrageous? Is it not understandable that some of us won’t believe in such a doctrine of God? Does this concept of God give Him glory? Does it make you want to worship Him? Does it make you want to brag about Him to others? Can’t you see how this idea makes God the most wicked person in the universe? Should it be argued that I don’t understand justice and goodness from God’s perspective, then how can I ever appreciate the character of God? Doesn’t God give us a basic innate knowledge about these principles so we can understand Him? Isn’t knowledge a condition of obligation? Isn’t the very fact that my internal sense of justice objects to these dogmas a reason to question and, if warranted, reject them? I believe God gave us an internal sense or an irresistible conviction of justice to warn us, to keep us out of trouble, and to prevent us from being misled. Martin Luther’s sense of justice conflicted with his understanding of the Bible and the resulting dogmas, but instead of taking this as a warning sign, he chose to ignore it. I think that is a very grave error. What about you?

I love God not so much for His tremendous power but for the beauty of His character. Contemplating His personality is awe-inspiring. He commands and deserves my utmost esteem, respect, and admiration. Should I not reject a god who condemns the innocent? Seriously, is anyone guilty of disobeying a law that is impossible for them to obey? Aren’t they, by simple logic or reason, innocent? Who holds themselves truly responsible for performing impossibilities and that which they have no control over? Thankfully, the God of the Bible is not like that. I am so glad I don’t have to believe these ideas. I am thankful I don’t have to accept a God like that to be a follower of Jesus Christ. Sure, I might be branded with “P” for Pelagian or “H” for heretic. Please take no offense, but I would really prefer to have God’s approval over man’s approval. God’s approval is all that matters.

 

SCRIPTURE ON ABILITY

            Even if scripture didn’t directly answer this question, it has been addressed by the arguments mentioned above. But Scripture knows no such thing as inability to obey God’s law. To that end, I offer the following evidence.

Genesis

            I believe that almost everyone would agree that Adam could obey God until he sinned. But nowhere in the Bible is it explicitly stated that Adam could obey God. God just issued the command not to eat of a particular tree. It’s rightly assumed, because it’s implied, that Adam could obey God. But the words, per se, are not in the text. Look it up for yourself in Genesis chapter 2. Adam could abide by God’s command, which is why it is not explicitly stated. This is the way ability is treated throughout the Bible. It’s most often too obvious to need explicit language. Don’t forget this fact, as it is critical as we move forward.

            Now let’s look again at Cain and Abel in Genesis chapter 4. The language in verses 6 and 7 is just like that used for Adam. It’s clearly inferred that Cain could obey God, for God says about sin, “that you must master it.” How could Cain, without ability, master sin? It’s ridiculous to think Cain had lost his ability to obey God. But if it is true that Cain lost the ability when Adam sinned, then God’s command is disingenuous, for Cain wasn’t capable of obedience; he couldn’t master sin. Clearly, this supposed inherited inability is not genuine; it must be a false assumption. The rest of the book of Genesis is just like this. It’s everywhere implied and assumed that humanity has the ability to obey God. Involuntary wickedness, a contradiction in terms on its face, is not the problem. Voluntary self-originating wickedness, like in Adam, is the problem.

Deuteronomy 30:11

            The book of Deuteronomy has already been referred to. From start to finish, it’s assumed and implied that the Jews could obey God. Then, in Deuteronomy chapter 30, God clearly, and this time explicitly, states that they could abide by the law. “For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach” Deut. 30:11. Could this be clearer or more direct? Is there an equally good explanation of this passage that squares with the notion of inability? If so, I have never heard it.

Jonah 2:4-10

            A striking example of unredeemed or unregenerate man’s ability to obey the law of God is recorded for us in the book of Jonah. God gave the very reluctant Jonah a message for Nineveh because their wickedness had come before Him. The second time God spoke, Jonah listened and obeyed.

“Then Jonah began to go through the city one day’s walk; and he cried out and said, “Yet forty days and Nineveh will be overthrown. Then the people of Nineveh believed in God and they called a fast and put on sackcloth from the greatest to the least of them,” Jonah 2:4-5.

“When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it” Jonah 2:10.

            Isn’t it evident that the Gentile heathen could repent, humble themselves, turn from sin, and call upon God? When they met the conditions, God relented and didn’t destroy them. This is precisely what God asks of each of us. Do you really think the Ninevites boasted about their goodness because they were able to repent of their wickedness? Were they filled with pride when they humbled themselves over their sin?

 If the unredeemed (Gentile) could repent and believe in God, what about the redeemed (Jew)? What about Israel? MacArthur believes Israel couldn’t obey God. However, in this instance, the Gentile heathen could and, in fact, did. If the non-Jew could do as God commanded, isn’t it exceedingly ridiculous to think His people couldn’t?

            Throughout the Old Testament, ability is assumed, implied, inferred, and stated explicitly in hundreds of instances. By comparison, the idea of inability is rarely referred to. When it is referred to, it’s not clear and subject to legitimate interpretations such as those already given. Let’s look at the New Testament.

Matthew 4:19

            The four Gospels provide overwhelming evidence of humanity’s natural ability to obey God. Jesus assumed or implied it as he taught both believers and unbelievers. “From that time Jesus began to preach and say, ‘Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” Matthew 4:19. Can you picture a believer in inability questioning, “But Jesus, didn’t you know that repentance is a good work and mankind is unable to perform any good work at all?” If, in fact, Jesus did know that they couldn’t repent because they were unable, then what can be said to explain why He would bother preaching repentance? Was it just a formality? Was Jesus teasing or mocking them? If He wanted them to repent, He should have regenerated them so they would have willed to repent, right? But Jesus insisted that they meet a condition of regeneration, namely,repentance, first.

Mark 1:14-17

            It’s written that Jesus began his earthly ministry by preaching, “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:14-15). Jesus then proceeded to call Simon and Andrew, “Follow Me, and I will make you become fishers of men.” They left their nets and followed Jesus. How could they follow Jesus? Surely following Jesus is a good work. Were they saved so that they could follow Him? The text indicates that they were not yet saved, for Jesus says, speaking of the future, I will make you fishers of men. It appears the unsaved could follow Jesus. Isn’t it obvious? Saying they were morally unable to follow Jesus is as silly as arguing they were physically unable to walk and therefore follow Him.

John 5:40

            “And you are unwilling to come to Me, that you may have life” John 5:40. It does not say that they were “unable” but “unwilling” to come to Jesus. Isn’t it deceptive to argue that their unwillingness was an inability? The very point Jesus is trying to make is that God has been reaching out to them, and they rejected the One whom He sent. They were able but unwilling, shame on them. But there can be no shame in not being able to do the impossible.

John 8:10-11

            The religious leaders brought to Jesus a woman caught in the very act of adultery. After the crowd left her unharmed, Jesus said, “Woman, where are they? Did no one condemn you? And she said, “No one Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go your way. From now on, sin no more” John 8:10-11. Jesus is clearly addressing an unsaved woman as if she were capable of not sinning anymore. Or was Jesus telling her not to sin anymore, even though He knew she couldn’t stop? Do you really think Jesus believed in inability?

John 9:39-41

            Here is another pertinent passage. It is written, “and Jesus said, ‘For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and those who see may become blind.” Those of the Pharisees who were with Him heard these things, and said to Him, “We are not blind too, are we? Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin, but since you say, ‘We see, your sin remains” John 9:39-41. Jesus is proclaiming in the clearest possible language, that inability nullifies obligation, “If you were blind, you would have no sin.” Inability is an acceptable excuse. There is no sin. Jesus was referring to their unwillingness to recognize Him as the Christ. If they were really blind, that is unable to recognize Him, they would “have no sin.” Their sin remained because they were not unable but unwilling.

Repeatedly, in the gospels, an unwillingness to hear, believe, and obey is cited as the root of sin, not inability or total depravity.

Acts 2:37-38

            In Acts 2:37-38, Peter finishes his comments, and the unsaved respond, “Brethren, what shall we do?” Peter answers, “Brethren, there is nothing you can do; you are unable to repent and be baptized. Just hope that you are one of the elect. Not even prayer will help; it’s all up to God.” Or did Peter say, “Repent, and let each of you be baptized.” Peter told the unsaved to repent of their sins and be baptized, both of which are good works, as if they were able to do as he said. To suggest they were unable is an apparent attempt to force scripture into a predetermined interpretation.

            Earlier, I referred to Stephen’s sermon in Acts 7. In verse 39, it reads, “And our fathers were unwilling to be obedient to him, but repudiated him and in their hearts and turned back to Egypt.” Augustine might well say this is true, but their unwillingness is our deserved share of Adam’s sin. We are born justly unwilling. Then this passage makes no sense. St. Stephen is attempting to show the Jews of his day that they, like their fathers before them, were voluntarily unwilling to believe God when believing was within their grasp. To suggest, as some do, that voluntary unwillingness and involuntary inability are the same thing is the height of sophistry, be it intentional or unintentional. Is that too judgmental of me? These are truths with everlasting consequences, dare I keep silent.

Romans 1

            In this chapter, Paul goes out of his way to describe the hostile refusal of the truth by mankind. We can obey God, but have stiffened our necks and stubbornly refused to obey. So far from being unable, we, with malice of forethought, “suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” This is the direct opposite of inability. To suppress the truth in unrighteousness refers to a hostile refusal to obey God and to allow the truth of God to direct and change our lives. God created us with knowledge of Himself and an ability to follow Him, so that “we are without excuse.” How are we without excuse? We possess an innate understanding of God and the ability to live by this truth. Still, instead of giving thanks to God and honoring Him, we refuse to acknowledge the demands of the ability that God has given us and exchange His glory for another.

Romans 2:14

            “For when Gentiles who do not have the law do instinctively the things of the law, these not having the law, are a law unto themselves” Romans 2:14. “If therefore the uncircumcised man keeps the requirements of the law, will not his uncircumcision be regarded as circumcision?” Romans 2:26. Much can be said of this section of scripture. My object is to point out that it’s clearly taught that the Gentile could obey the spirit of the law. Please remember the story about Nineveh.

1 Corinthians 10:13

“No temptation has overtaken you but such as is common to man; and God is faithful, who will not allow you to be tempted beyond what you are able, but with the temptation will provide the way of escape also, that you may be able to endure it” 1 Corinthians 10:13.

  Here is a promise that God will not allow us to be in a position where we are unable to say no to sin. Dear reader, how could it be any clearer? The only way out of this passage is to insist that this promise only applies to believers. They alone have a way of escape. Could that really be true? The God I serve is impartial. He doesn’t have a more lenient set of laws for His children. He treats everyone with impartial justice. To suggest that God would not give unbelievers a way of escape out of temptation is to dishonor God. He becomes partial and unjust. Besides, it is the unbeliever who truly needs an escape, not the believer. For those who believe in unconditional salvation, the believer will go on to heaven no matter what, while the unbeliever will die by his sin, as he has no way of escape. Do you really believe this promise only applies to believers? If so, how do you explain the repentance of the Ninevites? Apparently, God provided a way of escape for them, and they used it.

These are a few of the biblical passages that confirm what we already know to be true. We can obey God if we choose to. Many more passages might be quoted. They all state, imply, or infer the ability of humanity to obey God. Again, this ability alone does not confer sainthood or natural goodness on mankind. It does, however, honor God, who is just and the justifier of those who believe in Jesus Christ (Romans 3:26).

WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE ANYWAY?

            If everything I have said is true, what difference does it make?

            It’s important because it makes a difference in how we live. Do we, in practical everyday living, really deny our ability to obey the law? Do we believe others are unable to follow the law? On what basis do we engage in the ordinary business of life? Is the basis ability or inability?

Do we enter into contracts believing that no one can fulfill their end of the bargain, because they are unable to? We enter into contracts because we know the other party can meet their end of the deal, but might decide not to fulfill their obligation. The contract provides each party with recourse if the other party fails to fulfill its obligations. We know we are able, and we also understand that some people are not honest. Hence the contract.

What bank would make a loan if it believed every borrower was unable to repay the loan? No bank would lend money to a borrower if the bank didn’t think the borrower was able to fulfill the terms of the loan.

Employers, do you hire people believing everyone will steal from you or somehow cheat you in their work because they are unable to do the right thing? Businesses have established policies and procedures to ensure compliance. That is necessary because employees often violate the terms of employment and are subject to termination. Most often, it’s about an employee’s unwillingness to do the work properly, rather than their ability to do the job.

Spouses, do you enter into marriage supposing that your spouse is unable to keep from committing adultery? Not only do you know your spouse can be faithful, but there is a firm expectation that each party is faithful to the marriage vows. The ability to keep the wedding vows is assumed; therefore, faithfulness is expected.

Do the laws of the land, which are in some cases identical to God’s 10 laws, really suppose that we are unable to obey them? Or do the laws of the land understand we are, in fact, able to obey, therefore expected to follow the law under penalty? Wouldn’t it totally overthrow our government and plunge society into chaos if humanity ever really believed in the inability to obey the law? Can you imagine anyone being sent to jail if a jury believed the accused was unable to follow the law? Do you think judicial activism is out of control? Let’s hope judges never start believing in an absolute inherited inability.

Parents, next time you ask your children to do something, keep in mind their inability to obey your instructions and God’s commands. When God instructs children to obey their parents, we must not take this literally. Yes, this is a commandment, but it must be a dream as well. Seriously, what parent believes their children can’t obey them? It isn’t very reasonable. If you really thought your children couldn’t follow your instructions, how could you ever trust them? Even more importantly, why would you ever believe anything they said?

            Is it not true that in the ordinary course of life we operate, love, and have our being based on ability, not inability? Why would we assume the opposite when we are talking about the spiritual part of our lives? As long as this artificial and unbiblical dichotomy continues, Christian morals will decline.

Have you ever wondered how the world comes up with so many excuses for sin? I firmly believe the doctrine of inability has contributed to this moral crisis.  The church, to a large extent, teaches that both unbelievers (non-Christians) and believers live in sin. As you know, some teach that we inherit a sinful nature from Adam, causing or forcing us to sin. Maybe sin is genetic after all. For years, we have read about the genetic predisposition of the alcoholic and the homosexual. Have you read about the supposed “gay gene?” If it’s true that homosexuals are indeed born that way, then to talk of sin is to talk nonsense. The homosexual believes that, in the day, it can be scientifically proven that they are born homosexual and that they must act on it; they have won the argument. How many Christians would call it sin if it were involuntary? Would the Bible call it sin if it were genetic and involuntary? Even Christian arguments about homosexuality presuppose that it is a chosen behavior as opposed to a genetic command[27]. Is there a pedophile gene? Is there a gene that makes people fornicators and adulterers? When a culture descends into madness, there is no bottom.

Follow the doctrine of original sin to its logical conclusions, and it provides the basis for a genetic excuse for sin. From Adam, we inherit a sinful nature, which is only capable of sinful actions such as racism, drunkenness, adultery, and homosexuality. We can’t do good, we are unable. This is a philosophical basis for excusing sinfulness, and a religious one at that. Have you ever wondered why sin seems to abound in our churches and culture? Inability is the foundation of moral decay.

            There is another example, which speaks volumes about the devastating consequences of the lie of inability. Safe sex propaganda is destroying our youth. We are told that kids will have sex no matter what we say, so we must give them condoms for protection. We know that this offers some protection. However, we also know some STDs are transmitted even with condom use, and pregnancy still occurs. Isn’t it apparent that behind this argument is the idea that youth are unable to control themselves? Isn’t the idea of inability a presupposition for the safe sex platform? Of course, it is. At one time, our culture told our youth to “Just say no” to drugs as if they could say no. Whatever happened to that message? Can youth say no to drugs but not sex? Where abstinence is taught, it is successful. Why, because we can obey the law of God.

Inability does indeed provide a philosophical basis for excusing immoral behavior. It helps explain why sin is so prevalent in the church and our society. If Christians are convinced it’s normal to sin daily (inability and total depravity are the rationales), is it any wonder that sins of omission are readily accepted? If Christians “can’t” stop lying, cheating, fornicating, and so on, indeed, they won’t take up societal reforms. They may very well be practicing those very sins. Sins of commission and omission often go hand in hand.

Suppose it’s true that real Christians sin every day in thought, word, and deed because we have a sinful nature that can’t be eradicated or even effectually restricted in this life. In that case, there is little hope that we can ever make any significant changes in our lives. Total depravity and inability cast its dark shadow over all of our lives. Who, believing this is true, will give any serious thought to stopping their practice of sin? Couple this dogma with eternal security, which states that even though we continue to sin in thought, word, and deed daily, we are going to heaven, and what do you think the outcome will be? I fear the world is going to hell as it follows these so-called Christians. Given these two dogmas, isn’t it evident that many Christians will not even try to reform their lives?

It seems to me that one main reason some want to deny man’s ability to obey God is that they want to make man look as bad as possible and eliminate any possibility of boasting. They don’t want man to claim credit for anything and thereby steal God’s glory. Like Augustine, they believe pride was the first sin. Therefore, they devise a theological scheme that makes man totally depraved and helpless. Then, men can’t be proud, so they seem to think. What they don’t seem to realize is that making man totally helpless is to make him a victim, not a criminal. It’s to excite pity for him, not a righteous anger. It’s to make God the criminal and not man. Man doesn’t need any help in looking bad, and he doesn’t need any more excuses for his sin. We live in a day when each week brings a new excuse for man’s sin. The devil made him do it. Or was it the environment? Maybe it’s genetic! Aren’t they born that way? It’s a disease. It was Adam’s fault. No, it was Eve’s fault. Now we are asked to believe it was God’s fault all along, for He created us unable to do right and only able to do wrong.

As mentioned earlier, many believe that the reasons some insist on the idea of inability are that the notion of ability breeds human pride and independence. Both of these somehow threaten God’s authority or power. Is human freedom or free will a threat to God or the most significant evidence of God’s sovereignty and love?[28] Not only is the fear of pride misplaced, but it is also all out of proportion to the real threat both to man and God. Giving humanity genuine free will won’t threaten God’s power and control, but instead demonstrates it in a way that cannot be exemplified otherwise. God is entirely in control. He can delegate genuine free will and therefore ability to His creation and still accomplish His purposes. That is much more difficult to do than to decree everything. Lastly, it’s said that the greatest good one person can do for another is to make that person free. Can it be any other way? I say God must give mankind freedom, for this is evidence of His love toward us. The law of love demands we be free in the fullest sense.[29]

Which of us doubts the truth of this maxim, “Teach a child they are stupid or bad and they will believe it and act like it?” Tell the nominal church of Jesus Christ that living in sin is a normal Christian experience, and what do you think the result will be? Less sin and more holiness? The dogma of inability to obey the law is the best excuse for sinfulness ever devised. Personal responsibility will never thrive as long as inability is taught and believed. How many professing Christians cease trying to obey God because they have been convinced that they’re unable to follow Him and will practice sin all their lives? Even if Christians are taught that they receive the ability to obey when they are saved, it’s usually described in such a way as to make the impression that the whole responsibility is God’s, not theirs, for they really can’t expect to stop sinning. If they remain sinful, it must be because God has not intervened and caused them to stop sinning. But no worries because they are eternally secure. Therefore, God must be okay with sin and even expect it.

Christians are told to expect to sin daily in thought, word, and deed, so much for the idea that Christians get the ability not to sin at conversion.[30] With this newfound ability, they can expect to sin daily in thought, word, and deed. Whereas before conversion, they could expect to sin daily in thought, word, and deed. So before and after conversion, Christians can expect to sin daily in word, thought, and deed. Before conversion, the “Christian” cannot forgo the pleasures of sin. After conversion, the Christian can forgo the pleasures of sin, but doesn’t. Sounds like an inability to me.

Let me close this chapter with two more scriptural references.

“How blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the law of the Lord. How blessed are those who observe His testimonies, who seek Him with all their heart. They also do no unrighteousness; They walk in His ways” Psalm 119:1-3.

Does this word convey the idea of ability or inability? Does this verse state that no one can walk in His ways? If the dogma of inability is true, then these promised blessings are hypothetical. They are not real. Doesn’t that make God disingenuous? Will we be blessed in our ongoing practice of sin? Listen to the Word of God as He answers these questions.

“Who is the wise man that may understand this? And who is he to whom the mouth of the Lord has spoken, that he may declare it? Why is the land ruined, laid waste like a desert, so that no one passes through? And the Lord said, “Because they have forsaken My laws which I set before them, and have not obeyed My voice nor walked according to it, but have walked after the stubbornness of their heart and after the Baals, as their fathers taught them” Jeremiah 9:12-14.

God is not angry with us because we sin unavoidably. God is angry with us because we don’t avoid sin. Is that heresy?

In the next chapter, we will discuss the concept of free will. Inability is just another way of saying our wills aren’t free. I wonder how many professing Christians understand that it’s inconsistent to believe in free will and inability at the same time. One can’t be true. Yet, I fear, multitudes embrace both ideas without realizing the contradiction.

---

[1] At this point I’m not differentiating between what is often referred to as the moral law, natural law, the ceremonial law, civil law and the Mosaic Law. In the third chapter I will address the applicability of the law.

[2] John MacArthur’s Bible Studies, Freedom from Sin-Romans,6-7,1987, Moody Press, Chicago.p.126.

[3] Scripture hereafter will be from the NASB except as indicated.

[4] New Covenant is founded on better promises. It is therefore a better covenant.

[5] 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.”

[6] New American Standard Bible, Ryrie Study Bible. 1976 and 1978, Moody Bible Institute of Chicago, footnote on Romans 3:1, p.1705.

[7] Years ago, I believe a San Francisco city supervisor killed another city official, Harvey Milk, and claimed that junk food, such as a Twinkie, caused him to murder.

[8] Greg L. Bahnsen, Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Douglas J. Moo, Wayne G. Strickland, Willem A. Van Gemeren, Five Views on Law and Gospel, Counterpoints,1993,1996, Zondervan Publishing House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, A Division of Harper Collins Publishers. Chapter 5, Douglas J. Moo, A Modified Lutheran View, p.327.

[9] Ibid. p.333-334.

[10] Ibid. p.340. Not a direct quote.

[11] Ibid. p.343. Not a direct quote.

[12] 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.

[13] 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 and his teachings… K. R. Hagenbach, in his “A History of Christian Doctrines,” wrote in volume 1, pages 429-430, “but the doctrine in question (Augustine’s predestination) became to many a stone of stumbling which orthodox theologians themselves, especially 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.

[14] R. C. Sproul, Willing to Believe, p. 52.

[15] 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.

[16] Be careful when any man is elevated to such a high position. It can lead to blindness.

[17] Charles Ryrie, NASB Ryrie Study Bible, p.9. Not a direct quote, reference only.

[18] Charles Ryrie, NASB Ryrie Study Bible.p.1709. Not a direct quote, reference only.

[19] 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.

[20] 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.

[21] I believe this line of thinking originally came from a book by Richard Taylor, The Right Conception of Sin.

[22] I don’t believe the pre-Augustinian or primitive church, generally speaking, believed this dogma that babies were born in sin and guilt.

[23] Clark H. Pinnock, General Editor, The Grace of God and the Will of Man, 1989, Bethany House Publishers, Minneapolis, Minnesota.p.187.

[24] Ibid. p.187.

[25] I prefer the word “source”, not the word “cause”. The word ’cause’ can be interpreted in a very mechanical way, suggesting involuntariness, as in cause and effect. Sin is always voluntary.

[26] It is not my intention to look into the various theories about how Adam’s original sin is transferred to his descendants. No satisfactory theory exists to my knowledge. Two of these theories will be cited in a later footnote.

[27] Unfortunately, temptation is often confused with actual sin. Temptation to commit a sin involves attraction and desire among other things. Only when we yield to temptation, do we sin. Jesus was tempted yet without sin. Jesus did not yield to temptation. It is true that a person may be sexually attracted to or tempted toward the same sex or some other kind of sex that God prohibits. Some folks insist that this is an orientation that they are born with, as if, that alone excuses or justifies yielding to the temptation. If you believe in the dogma of Original Sin this is not a stretch nor is it illogical. Moreover, this is temptation and it is not sinful until it is indulged. If God prohibits certain kinds of sex and He does, then we must not yield to it no matter how attractive and desirous it may be. We have the ability to obey God. As I mentioned, many Christians believe we inherit, from Adam, a sinful nature that is only capable of sinning. Original sin dogma strengthens the argument that a homosexual orientation or any other sexual perversion is something a person is born with. If Original Sin teaching is true then it is also true that people are born with an irresistible orientation or attraction to adultery, fornication, homosexuality, theft, rape, idolatry, gossip, pride, lust and so on. An irresistible orientation means that the act is involuntary and sin is always voluntary.

[28] The Grace of God and the Will of Man, Ibid. p.188. Not a direct quote, reference only.

[29] God created mankind for two purposes: to give and receive love. We can’t give love involuntarily. Love must be voluntary. Love is not possible without the possibility of voluntary hate. Love includes the genuine refusal and choice to hate. Inability means love is impossible.

[30] You will recall MacArthur’s contention that the New Covenant gives Christians, but not non-Christians, the ability to obey the law of God.