Total Inability, Gracious Ability and Justice
A just law implies ability to obey.
This is a "first truth of reason" or "first principle". As such, its truth cannot be arrived at either by induction or deduction; its truth is simply universally assumed.
Now, if a hearer of the command "Repent and believe the gospel" is unable to do so, as the doctrine of total depravity (or total inability) asserts, then this command, with respect to the hearer who is unable, is unjust. This is true regardless of anything foregoing which caused or contributed to the hearer's inability.
Consider the following analogy, (looking past its ludicrous content.) Assume that God requires a man to approach him hopping on his right leg. This is what God desires, and it is the only way for this man to be reconciled to God. The man has two sound legs, is fully able to hop on his right leg to God, but is unwilling to do so. In fact, he wants nothing to do with God and runs off. As it happens he falls into a piece of industrial machinery which severs both of his legs. At this juncture, the man is unable to be reconciled to God. Although the man may bear guilt for the actions leading to the severing of his legs, which results in his inability, God's requirement that this man hop on his right leg to Him in order to be reconciled is no longer just with respect to this man. It is no longer just because it is impossible for the man to obey.
To complete the analogy, assume that the man is now willing to be reconciled to God, but he hasn't a leg to stand, let alone hop, on. Also, assume that God does not alter His requirement that the man must hop on his right leg to God in order to be reconciled to Him. Under these circumstances, for God's unaltered requirement to be just, God must, as a matter of justice, enable the man to hop.
Thus, if a man is unable to "repent and believe the gospel", regardless of the cause of his inability, and if the command is maintained, God must, as a matter of justice (not grace), enable the man to repent and believe. Put another way, if God is to justly hold accountable any individual for failing to obey the command to repent and believe the gospel, in justice, He must enable such individual to repent and believe.
As an aside - In the above analogy, the legless man did not lose his ability to will. But the doctrine of total depravity or total inability actually goes further than this. The doctrine asserts that man is unable to choose or will to repent or believe. If this be the case, and if moral character is identified in the will, then under this doctrine the totally depraved or unable is no longer a moral agent.
This is a "first truth of reason" or "first principle". As such, its truth cannot be arrived at either by induction or deduction; its truth is simply universally assumed.
Now, if a hearer of the command "Repent and believe the gospel" is unable to do so, as the doctrine of total depravity (or total inability) asserts, then this command, with respect to the hearer who is unable, is unjust. This is true regardless of anything foregoing which caused or contributed to the hearer's inability.
Consider the following analogy, (looking past its ludicrous content.) Assume that God requires a man to approach him hopping on his right leg. This is what God desires, and it is the only way for this man to be reconciled to God. The man has two sound legs, is fully able to hop on his right leg to God, but is unwilling to do so. In fact, he wants nothing to do with God and runs off. As it happens he falls into a piece of industrial machinery which severs both of his legs. At this juncture, the man is unable to be reconciled to God. Although the man may bear guilt for the actions leading to the severing of his legs, which results in his inability, God's requirement that this man hop on his right leg to Him in order to be reconciled is no longer just with respect to this man. It is no longer just because it is impossible for the man to obey.
To complete the analogy, assume that the man is now willing to be reconciled to God, but he hasn't a leg to stand, let alone hop, on. Also, assume that God does not alter His requirement that the man must hop on his right leg to God in order to be reconciled to Him. Under these circumstances, for God's unaltered requirement to be just, God must, as a matter of justice, enable the man to hop.
Thus, if a man is unable to "repent and believe the gospel", regardless of the cause of his inability, and if the command is maintained, God must, as a matter of justice (not grace), enable the man to repent and believe. Put another way, if God is to justly hold accountable any individual for failing to obey the command to repent and believe the gospel, in justice, He must enable such individual to repent and believe.
As an aside - In the above analogy, the legless man did not lose his ability to will. But the doctrine of total depravity or total inability actually goes further than this. The doctrine asserts that man is unable to choose or will to repent or believe. If this be the case, and if moral character is identified in the will, then under this doctrine the totally depraved or unable is no longer a moral agent.
posted by John Barry at 11:47 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home