1. The Objections.

A. In the last 2 studies we have shown conclusively that the Bible teaches both total depravity
and the inability of the will. Yet few Evangelicals agree. Most are Arminians, though some like to
think they are Calvinists. They have many objections to Reformed teaching on the first point of
Calvinism.

B. First, they argue that God’s commands are the measure of human responsibility. In order for
Man to be responsible, he must be able to respond. After all, they say, does not the word
“responsibility” simply mean “response-ability”? Man is surely responsible; therefore he is
morally able to obey God.

C. Sure, Man is a sinner, but he can stop sinning if he so chooses. Calvinists are wrong to say
that Man cannot help sinning. Granted, sin may indwell parts of his being, but sin does not
totally indwell the will, nor does dominate it. The will must be neutral and free of all intrusions in
order for it to remain accountable to God. God Himself must not interfere irresistibly, and neither
must sin. Man may have a bent towards sin, but he still has power to change. Some non-
Calvinists say that Man of himself is unable, but add that God has given Sufficient Grace to all
men to enable them to obey.

D. Moreover, it is argued, if the Reformed doctrines of Total Depravity and Inability were true,
then sinners would be encouraged in their sin. Imagine telling a sinner that he cannot help but
sin! Surely he will use that as an excuse to sin-more. Deep down, it is the Calvinist who uses
these horrid doctrines to excuse his own sin.

E. Besides, if the sinner cannot help sinning, why should he be punished? Dowe punish a man
who was forced by someone else to pull the trigger on a gun? Of course not. The Calvinist
misrepresents God and turns divine justice into cruelty and sadism. It is as if a man tied the legs
of his horse together and then whipped it for not running on command. Total Depravity portrays
God demanding Man to make bricks without straw, and in the end has God mocking Man for
what he could not help doing- This would be like taunting a cripple. It just is not fair.

F. Thus, the Arminian concludes his objection: the Reformed theory does severe damage to
both human responsibility and divine justice

2. The Nature of Human Responsibility.

A. How do we respond to such charges and objections? We begin with God and the nature of
human responsibility. First, whatever else may be true, God is always just in whatever He does.
God does not pervert justice (Job 8:3, 34:12). The Calvinist, no less than the Arminian,
emphasizes divine justice.

B. The Revealed Will of God is the standard for human responsibility. In an earlier study, we
examined human responsibility in relation to divine sovereignty and concluded that both are
true. We say now that Total Depravity and human responsibility are also both true. Man is
responsible and accountable to God. He has the duty to obey Him and will be punished if he
does not. Man is a moral creature with a conscience.

C. This is where the dichotomy of Natural and Moral Ability may be useful. Man is still
responsible, because he still has Natural Ability - the constitutional capacity to obey if he wills to
obey. But he has no Moral Ability and therefore never will exert his will to obey God unless God
does something in his heart.

3. The Myth of Moral Neutrality.

A. Now Arminians contend that the human will must be neutral to be responsible. We
Calvinists, on the other hand, argue that moral neutrality is both impossible and mythological.
No man has ever had a neutral win. not even Adam before he fell. When created, Adam was
morally good (Eccl. 7:29, Gen. 1:31). Since the Fall, Man has been as opposed to God and for
sin as unfallen Adam was for God and against sin. The myth of moral neutrality was exploded
by the Lord Jesus Himself: “He that is not with Me is against Me” (Matt. 12:20. Cf. Mark 9:40).

B. It is certainly true that responsibility involves a choice, but this does not mean that fallen Man
is neutral when that choice comes to him. God tells Man His Law, and adds, “I have set before
you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live” (Deut.
30:19). This is heartily granted by the Calvinist. But we hasten to add that fallen Man is always
predisposed to choose death and the curse, for the obvious reason that he is already spiritually
dead. The will always acts in accordance with its nature; Man is spiritually dead; therefore he
always chooses death.

C. The Arminian is incorrect to suppose that Man is at a crossroads, neutral and equally able to
choose either path. We are not at such a crossroads, and no man ever has been. The truth of
the matter is, that before Adam fell he was in the way of truth and holiness, and then he took an
exit off. Since then, every man has-been on an evil highway. He must exit off of it and get on the
right way (cf. Matt. 7:13-14). But fallen Man does hot want off his highway. God sends prophets
to show him the exits, which God has opened up, but Man insists on staying on the road to Hell.
God must get him off. Unaided by grace, Man drives to Hell.

D. Look closer at this theory of the “Neutral Will”. If the will is totally neutral, then why does it
make either choice at this alleged crossroads? As Jonathan Edwards showed in The Freedom
of the Will, Man always makes the choice according to which power exerts greater force upon
his will. In sin, Man is controlled by sin and therefore is always swayed by sin to choose sin.

E. The “Neutral Will” theory sometimes suggests that a man can sometimes be equally
disposed to two opposite options. Sometimes they appeal to Phil. 1:21-24. But this too can be
demolished as an illusion. First, Phil. 1 clearly shows that Paul much preferred to be with Christ
“which is far better”. He also knew that it was God’s will that he stay on Earth a little longer,
which was the greater force. Paul stayed.

F. Moreover, Man is not an animal which can, it seems, be equally disposed to2 options. Some
studies suggest that an animal placed equally between two equally pleasing foods will simply sit
down and eat neither of them. Other experiments say that eventually every animal will make a
choice. Now, Man is not an animal. He always makes a choice. He never sits down between
two moral options. Oh, some pretend to do that, such as feigning neutrality regarding faith in
Christ. But the Bible says otherwise. Once a Man knows it is a moral choice, he always makes
the choice, which suits him, the most. He is not neutral when it comes to him and he certainly is
not neutral or non-committal afterwards.

G. One more important point. The Arminian contends that neutrality is essential to moral choice.
But what about God? God is morally good and always chooses the good. He is never,
ever neutral. Therefore, moral neutrality is a myth.

4. Degrees of Responsibility.

A. Here we come to another insurmountable difficulty for the Arminian. The Calvinist not only
says that Man is never morally neutral, he says that responsibility can be increased according to
increased revelation. “From everyone who has been given much shall much be required; and to
whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more” (Luke 12:48). In other words, more
light means more responsibility. The pagan, who hears the Gospel, is more accountable to God
than the pagan who only hears the Law through conscience (Rom. 1 and 2). But both are
responsible.

B. There’s an interesting parallel to Luke 12:48 in Matt. 13:12, “For whoever has, to him shall
more be given, and he shall have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has
shall be taken away from him.” How does this pertain to our discussion? Oust this: God reveals
more and gives more responsibility, but He also gives moral ability. The one who does not have
moral ability loses even more when he is faced with increased responsibility.
C. There can be no doubt that sin affects the will of Man. It affects all men totally. But it does
not affect all men absolutely. That is, no man sins in an infinite manner. Some sin more than
others, only because they have more opportunity than others. Several containers are on a table;
all are full (totally depraved); but some are larger than others.

D. My point is quite pertinent to the debate. Greater responsibility means greater inability and
depravity, resulting in greater punishment. Let’s take the Arminian view to its logical conclusion.
If lesser ability to obey meant lesser responsibility and culpability, then it would follow that
greater sinners have less responsibility and less culpability, therefore less punishment. The
result is ridiculous: lesser sinners being punished more than greater sinners. Arthur distance
comments on this: “If a man’s responsibility to obey is to be gauged by his ability to perform,
then as his behavior degenerates and his ability is progressively reduced, he has less duty. The
wholly evil man thus ends up by having no responsibility whatever, and must be accounted
blameless.” You recognize this nonsense immediately. But fallen Man argues like this to excuse
himself. That’s why liberal sociologists ‘and criminologists argue for less punishment for the
greater criminal, resulting in punishment for the innocent. Criminals laugh.

5. The Law and Human Inability.

A. The next objection runs like this: “The Law of God shows what Man ought to do. Oughtness
implies ability. Therefore the Law tells Man what he can do.”

B. The Calvinist disagrees entirely. The great Reformed theologian John Gill summed up the
Calvinist position: “The Law only shows what a man ought to do, not what he can do.” Francois
Turretine also commented on this point: “God’s commands are not the measure of strength, but
a rule of duty; they do not teach what we are now able, but what we are bound to do, and what
we could formerly do, and from how great a height of righteousness we have fallen by Adam’s
fall.”

C. The Law instructs us in our duty to God. It tells Man that he ought to obey. It shows him that
he cannot obey. Furthermore, it tells Man that he ought to be able to obey. In this way it shows
him for being the wretched sinner that he is, and thus prepares him for salvation. John Calvin
gave what may be the most incisive analysis on this crucial point:

“A long time ago it became the common practice to measure man’s capacities by the precepts
of God’s Law, and this has some pretensions of truth. But it arose out of the crassest ignorance
of the Law. For, those who deem it a terrible crime for any to say that it is impossible to observe
the Law press upon us as what is evident by their strongest reason, that otherwise the Law was
given without purpose. Indeed, they speak as if Paul had nowhere spoken of the Law. What
then, I ask, do these assertions mean: ‘The Law was put forward because of transgressions’
(Gal. 3:19); Through the Law comes knowledge of sin’ (Rom. 3:20); the Law engenders sin (cf.
Rom. 7:7-8); ‘Law slipped in to increase the trespass’ (Rom. 5:20)? Was the Law to be limited to
our powers SG as not to be given in vain? Rather, it was put far above us, to show our own
weakness!”

D. In this way, the Law is not limited to our ability to obey. We cannot obey. The Law shows us
that even more than conscience. It also shows us what we need and do not have, and what God
alone can give. As Augustine observed, “God bids us do what we cannot, that we may know
what we ought to seek from Him... Let God give what He commands, and command what He
will.” Luther gave a picturesque illustration that should convince anyone: “How often do parents
thus play with their children, bidding them come to them, or do this or that, only in order that it
may appear how unable they are, and that they may be compelled to call for the help of the
parent’s hand?” We see a Biblical example of this when Jesus told the man to stretch forth his
withered hand (Mark 3:5). He couldn’t, but Christ healed him and enabled him.

6. Inability Does Not Negate Responsibility.

A. Now we come to another objection, namely the theological formula, “Responsibility implies
ability.” This means that inability negates responsibility. Pelagius argued like this in Augustine’s
day: “If I ought, I can.” Oughtness implies ability. This is perhaps the most basic of all objections
to Total Depravity.

B. The Calvinist response is simple, direct and Biblical: “Responsibility does not imply ability.
Inability does not negate responsibility.” Moral obligation remains even after moral ability has
departed. Man has fallen into the snare of the Devil (2 Tim. 2:26) and he cannot extricate
himself. That snare has to do with moral inability. Man’s will is enslaved to Satan. That means
that he cannot want to be free from sin. He got himself into moral inability, but he cannot get
himself out. Sin has a ratchet effect upon Man - he cannot go back once he has gone forward.
He’s trapped. Unless God intervenes, he’s doomed.

C. Let’s look at it under another metaphor, this one a financial one. A.W. Pink gives the
Reformed explanation: “Inability to pay a debt does not excuse a debtor who has recklessly
squandered his estate; nor does drunkenness excuse the mad or violent actions of a drunkard,
but rather aggravates his crime. God has not lost his right to command, even though man
through his wickedness has lost his power to obey.” (Cf. Matt. 18:34)

D. God lent us the ability to obey. But we squandered it on sin. And we still owe God what he
lent us. God has no Chapter 11 bankruptcy. He does not excuse us because we cannot pay
Him back. Remember, all this has to do with the will to obey. Man is more than a borrower who
has reneged on his obligations; he is an embezzler and a thief.

E. The Heidelberg Catechism addresses the point like this: “QJ3.. Is not God unjustin requiring
of Man in His Law what he cannot do? A. No, for God so created Man that he could do it. But Man,
upon the instigation of the Devil, by deliberate disobedience, has cheated himself and all
his descendants out of these gifts.” Louis Berkhof adds: “We should not forget that the inability
under consideration is self-imposed, has a moral origin, and is not due to any limitation which
God has put upon man’s being.”

F. The Bible-believing Calvinist, then, has a ready answer to the Arminian formula,
“Responsibility implies ability.” Our answer: “Who says? Not God, not the Bible.”

7. Inability Compounds Culpability.

A. Again, we hear the objection, “Diminished ability lessens culpability. Man is culpable,
therefore Man is able.” Our reply is the exact opposite, namely, inability compounds culpability.
In 2 Pet. 2:14, Peter rebukes certain sinners as “having eyes full of adultery and that never
cease from sin,” Does the fact that they never cease from sin because they are slaves of sin (-
vs. 19) let them off the hook? Quite the contrary!

B. Imagine if you will a murderer pleading innocent because “I couldn’t help it. It is my nature to
murder.” That makes him all the more dangerous and guilty, and all the more deserving of
punishment. Then there is the man who commits a crime while drunk, such as drunk driving.
Should this excuse him? No, for he voluntarily chose to get drunk. Once drunk, he was cruising
for an accident. There’s an old Roman legal maxim: “Let him who commits a crime while drunk
be punished while sober.” Drunkenness is no excuse, nor “temporary insanity.” By the same
standard, Man is willfully drunk on sin. This does not excuse him. Rather, it compounds his guilt.

C. Hence, the great doctrine of Total Depravity and Inability leaves fallen Man without any hope
whatsoever in himself. Those who weaken this doctrine give Man a little ability and hope,
thereby guaranteeing that he will never be healed. But there’s more. It is usually at this juncture
in the discussion that our critics begin to react emotionally. Some of them, of course, have not
been able to follow our arguments, so they only react with sheer hysteria. Others, blinded by
worldly thinking, react with intense hostility. Still others get our point, and its sharpness pricks
their consciences. They cry, “I wish I had never even raised the objection in the first place!” That
is precisely what we are aiming at - destroying ungodly arguments and exposing the sinfulness
in the hearts of those who make these objections.
8. Addressing the Ungodly.

A. This raises a very practical question. How do we address sinners, especially with the
Gospel? What do we tell them? Well, the answer is simpler than most Calvinists realize. We
simply tell them the truth. We tell sinners that they are accountable to obey God but are unable
to obey Him. So far as the Gospel is concerned, we tell them the good news and give the
Gospel offer. God commands all who hear the Gospel to repent and believe. We must tell them
that. But we can also tell them that of themselves they cannot repent and believe.

B. For example, there is no doubt that Jesus preached the Gospel offer in John 6:37, “the one
who comes to me I will certainly not cast out.” But in that very context Jesus told them that no
man can come unless he is drawn by God (6:44) and unless it has been given to him by the
Father (6:65). Jesus told them that they should come but also that they cannot come.

C. Unfortunately, some Calvinists overreact to Arminians on this very point. For example, the
Gospel Standard Baptists of England have in their Articles the following statements: “We deny
also that there is any capacity in man by nature to any spiritual good whatever. So we reject the
doctrine that man in a state of nature should be exhorted to believe in or turn to God.” Pink
castigated these Hyper-Calvinists correctly as follows: “If the ungodly are not pointedly and
authoritatively called unto repentance of their sins and belief of the Gospel, and if on the
contrary they are only told that they are unable so to do, then they are encouraged in their
impenitency and unbelief.”

D. So, Christians can and must preach the Gospel to sinners. We must tell them the good news
and the free offer and their responsibility to believe. A hyper-Calvinist may object and say, “You
may as well be preaching in a cemetery.” That’s the whole point. Ezekiel was commanded to
preach in a valley of dry bones (Ezek. 37). So are we, namely the world (cf. Matt. Z3:27). The
crucial thing that our Hyper friends overlook is that God uses His Gospel to give life to the
spiritually dead, freedom to the spiritually bound and faith to the spiritually impotent.

9. Is it Fair?

A. Those who call themselves Christians and still believe in free will as opposed to the bondage
of the will have a problem. They start with wrong premises and therefore reach false
conclusions. One of their false premises is that moral ability is essential to human responsibility.
They do not get this from the Bible, but from Man. Therefore, they need to completely reexamine
their jurisprudence of divine authority and human responsibility, as well as human
depravity.

B. The non-Calvinist has problems with both Man and God. He heightens Man’s ability and
lowers God’s authority. But Calvinism refuses to take this worldly way out of a personally
convicting theological situation. For instance, Arthur Custance wrote, “That we cannot perform is
our fault, not His; and there is no injustice in His refusal to lower His standard of requirement on
account of our failure.”

C. As we have repeatedly said, all theological error gets back to a flawed doctrine of God. In
this case, divine justice, but also divine omnipotence. Rather than confessing that God can do
whatever He wants to do, even intervene in the fallen heart of Man, the objector transfers
omnipotence to Man. Man can do anything: He can believe, obey, love, repent, anything He
wishes with no restraints whatsoever from God or sin. Not so.

D. We end where we began, with two important truths. Man is unable but God is still just to hold
him responsible. If God is just to hold Man accountable even though unable, then it is patently
obvious that moral inability does not negate responsibility. The Arminian begins in the wrong
place. He begins by asking, “Is it just?” Of course it is just. But the first question should be, “Is it
true?” Scripture teaches that it is true that Man is totally depraved and-unable. That being true,
then it necessarily follows that it is just. God is always just.

E. Remember, the one who pleads for “free will” is the very one who is totally depraved. It is
that fallen, depraved, morally unable nature that has formulated the doctrine of “free will.” It is
his nature sinfully asserting its freedom. It must be crucified.

F. This wicked nature does so because it loves itself but also because it hates God. Hence, the
assertion of free will is basically an attack on the justice of God and God Himself. It subtly
attempts to exonerate itself of culpability by charging God with injustice should He proceed to
say that fallen Man is morally unable but still accountable. But how dare Man accuse God!

G. One last comment. Sin is punishment for sin, as Plato said. God is just and never cruel. But
He frequently uses “poetic justice”, as we term it. Thus, God allows Man to assert his puny freedom,
only that God may laugh at it. The great Puritan William Twisse perceptively observed
that when God requires Man to obey knowing that he is unable to obey, this is a’ haunting
foreshadowing of that awesome Day in which God will punish Man for the very sin which has
bound him. In other words, God is not mocked. In requiring obedience from him who cannot
obey, God justly mocks his sinful assertion of “free will”. The Day will prove who is the really free
one.