# Edwards view of natural ability



## earl40 (Jan 26, 2011)

"We are said to be naturally unable to do a thing, when we can't do it if we will, because what is most commonly called nature doesn't allow it."

Banner of Truth Trust General Articles

The above quote works well with man trying to fly but can't because he has no wings. Does this work with man that has a natural ability to believe but does not because he does not desire to do so? I can't quite put my finger on it but something appears wrong in saying man has the natural ability to believe.

Just a quick thought on that currently it seems to me that man has no natural ability to believe because he is dead...which is more radical than....man does not believe because he does not want to.


----------



## Peairtach (Jan 26, 2011)

> Just a quick thought on that currently it seems to me that man has no natural ability to believe because he is dead...which is more radical than....man does not believe because he does not want to.



He is spiritually and morally dead. The problem is a moral problem in the will which is a sinful will. The can't is a won't and the won't is a can't. Therefore the inability to believe when presented with the Gospel is culpable, unlike the inability of a man without legs being not able to walk, which is not culpable. In fact it would be unjust of God or Man to demand that a man without legs should walk. It is not unjust for God to demand that a man with a morally depraved will believe, because his inability is in the will, is moral depravity and is therefore culpable unlike a lack of legs.

The problem in the will affects the other faculties e.g. the intellect, emotions, even the body.



> natural



This may be because the Bible uses the word "natural" for the fallen Man. But I believe Edwards is using it in a different sense here. Metaphysically Man has all the parts and faculties he had before, so he is without excuse. But morally all these parts and faculties have been turned to evil by his depraved will.

But what kind of defense is it for Man to say, "I can't believe or I can't do good because at heart I'm a dirty rotten sinner". Would any human judge in a court of law accept a it as a valid defense that e.g. a murderer or thief or rapist said, " But Sir, I couldn't help it because I'm so wicked?"


----------



## jogri17 (Jan 26, 2011)

Richard Muller gave a speech on it. http://www.jecteds.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Richard_Muller_Lecture.mp3


----------



## earl40 (Jan 28, 2011)

Richard Tallach said:


> But what kind of defense is it for Man to say, "I can't believe or I can't do good because at heart I'm a dirty rotten sinner". Would any human judge in a court of law accept a it as a valid defense that e.g. a murderer or thief or rapist said, " But Sir, I couldn't help it because I'm so wicked?"



This is something I run across a lot when talk turns to Total Depravity. In other words, they say man has lost all ability to even know right from wrong acording to Calvinism. I will admitt I see the point because even when they do "good" they think that work is pleasing to The Lord. So even their "splendid vises" manifest that they really don't know The Lord thus the "natural ability" appears to be lacking.


----------



## earl40 (Feb 1, 2011)

From Banner of Truth Trust General Articles ....."I am said to be naturally unable to do a thing, no matter how hard I desire it, if nature doesn’t allow it, such
as flying or walking on water."

What am I missing here? If I substitute the above with a small variation, see below, it should have worked. I obviously am making some kind of logical fallacy.

One is to be naturally unable to do a thing, no matter how hard I desire it, if nature doesn’t allow it, such
as believing in Jesus.


----------



## earl40 (Feb 2, 2011)

"In this sense, we are all *naturally able to do what is right*. After all, we have all of the natural capacities* to understand the law of God*. We have a mouth that is physically* capable of uttering praises to God."*

So I guess this is my hangup, because it appears to say unregenerate man can indeed do, and does, the highlighted above.


----------



## Prufrock (Feb 2, 2011)

Earl, as was alluded to in Richard's helpful post, there is an important difference between _natural_ ability and _moral_ ability. Perhaps an illustration can help? If a man gets pulled over by the police under suspicion of drunk driving, they will have the man walk heel-to-toe in a straight line to see if he is in control. Let us assume the man has, indeed, been drinking too much and is incapable of performing the task. _By nature_, he is and must be capable of performing the test: that is essential to the test. If the police did not know that a man could do that by nature, the test would not work as a reliable judge of intoxication. So, while the man _by nature_ can perform the task, the "accidental" (that is, the circumstantial _way_ of being into which he has brought himself) state in which he currently is will not allow him to do so. Thus, as he is a man, he can perform the test; as he is a _drunk_ man, he cannot. Likewise, man as he is man (or man by nature) is capable of doing good; but we add another layer or manner of consideration - man _as morally corrupt_ is incapable.

Does that help?


----------



## jwithnell (Feb 2, 2011)

Back to your original quote, Nature may well be a reference to human nature rather than surrounding ecological system. Read in that sense, our nature, apart from Christ, would not allow us to do what is right and good. Our will would be controlled by our sinful nature. Hard to say out of context, but being pretty familiar with Mr. Edward's work, this is a reasonable conclusion. 

As to your last, highlighted quote, there is a huge difference between physical and spiritual capability. Indeed, God rejects the praises offered even by His people when they are done from the wrong motive. (Look at the prophets.) And no, we don't all have the natural capacity to understand the law of God, unless you mean it in a suppressing-the-truth-in-unrighteousness sense.


----------



## earl40 (Feb 2, 2011)

Prufrock said:


> Earl, as was alluded to in Richard's helpful post, there is an important difference between _natural_ ability and _moral_ ability. Perhaps an illustration can help? If a man gets pulled over by the police under suspicion of drunk driving, they will have the man walk heel-to-toe in a straight line to see if he is in control. Let us assume the man has, indeed, been drinking too much and is incapable of performing the task. _By nature_, he is and must be capable of performing the test: that is essential to the test. If the police did not know that a man could do that by nature, the test would not work as a reliable judge of intoxication. So, while the man _by nature_ can perform the task, the "accidental" (that is, the circumstantial _way_ of being into which he has brought himself) state in which he currently is will not allow him to do so. Thus, as he is a man, he can perform the test; as he is a _drunk_ man, he cannot. Likewise, man as he is man (or man by nature) is capable of doing good; but we add another layer or manner of consideration - man _as morally corrupt_ is incapable.
> 
> Does that help?


 
Yes it does. I was getting hung up on the parts I highlighted....I think those parts would be better served if they did not use "natural ability" to do things that could please The Lord. For instance if the following was written in the same vein "We are all naturally able to believe God." which at face value is absurd, but should have been able to be used in the example noted...a better example would be "We all have the natural ability to believe in things" with the caveat or dis-qualifier that all men can believe in many things except in God. 

Sorry if it seems I am nitpicking but from what I understand of total depravity the idea that man possesses anything, which includes all his being or "natural ability" is fallen. Now I do agree man can believe *in things other than God*, and does indeed do so as his will dictates. Of course the will must be changed by The Lord to believe in Him.


----------



## earl40 (Feb 3, 2011)

So In other words, my "problem" would be that man does not have a natural ability to believe in God but has a natural ability to believe in other things.


----------



## bpkantor (Feb 3, 2011)

I would include something else that Edwards wrote about to explain it more fully. Edwards affirmed that we can see God's attributes as either _natural_ attributes or as _moral_ attributes. The natural attributes would be those such as omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, might, reason, etc, whereas the moral attributes would be those such as holiness, righteousness, goodness, beauty, love, grace, etc. This is not the only way of understanding God's attributes (incommunicable and communicable attributes is another distinction).

We can see from the natural and moral distinction, that there is no inherent holiness or excellency in the natural attributes. If someone is all powerful and evil, he is a tyrant. If someone is all powerful and good, he is a great king. If someone is all present and evil, it is terrifying to all creatures. If someone is all present and good, he is a comfort to all creatures. If someone is all knowing and evil, he becomes an informer against you, if someone is all knowing and good, he knows how best to help you. It is the moral attributes which sanctify the natural attributes, seeing as the natural attributes have no inherent holiness or goodness in themselves.

Now it is within this framework, I think, that we can best understand what it means that man was created in God's image, and more importantly what the result of the fall was. Being created in God's image means that both the natural and moral attributes of God find their reflection or counterpart in man. Adam, as we know, was created with reason, knowledge, understanding, and a will (natural attributes/abilities). However, he was also created with holiness, righteousness, and goodness (moral attributes/abilities).

What happened when man fell? When man fell, he defamed his moral qualities, but retained his natural qualities. This means that man indeed is no longer righteous, holy, or good but he still has reason, knowledge, understanding, and a will. As mentioned before, it is the moral qualities which sanctify the natural qualities. With regard to God, this means that His holiness makes all His natural qualities a good thing. However, as also mentioned, if one were evil it would pollute the natural qualities/abilities. It is the same case with men. When created, man was righteous, so it made his knowledge a good thing. It was man's moral qualities which sanctified his natural qualities. Now, however, man is evil by nature. As a result this evil nature pollutes the natural abilities. As we read in Ephesians 4.18, "They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart." They are darkened in their understanding and alienated from the life of God because of ignorance. What is the reason for this ignorance, though? It is their hardness of heart. Paul of course continues by saying to the Ephesian church that it is to be different with them and they are to put on the new man, "created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness" (Eph. 4.24). Here then Paul draws us back to new birth, the new creation, the new nature, which is after the likeness of God. This is a restoration of those moral attributes which were lost in the fall.

I guess the point I am making here by recounting Edwards' argument is to look at what the scriptures say about the fall and the new birth. What is it that happens in the new birth? Are we given a new heart or a new intellect? It is a moral change, a spiritual change, not a natural one. The two are so connected however, that the natural abilities need the sanctification of the moral abilities (a heart created after the righteousness and holiness of God) in order to believe. So that when God does regenerate the heart, then we can say that "the eyes of our understanding were enlightened" (Eph. 1.18).

If we define faith as a resting and a receiving, or a certain assent and hearty trust, is that not something that man is perfectly capable of doing prior to conversion? Some might object, "Well certainly, a man can rest and receive a promise that his friend will take care of him while he is sick. We certainly know a man can do that. Or, a mountain climber can firmly assent to the fact that a rope will hold him, and then demonstrate his trust by proceeding to ascend the cliff. However, we cannot expect man to rest and receive the promises of salvation in Christ, nor to firmly assent to the fact that Christ is risen, and embrace Him as Savior apart from the work of the Spirit." This is an important objection. The answer, however, is simple. What is it that allows man to exercise these abilities in the first two instances but stops him in the last? The question we must ask is whether or not it is a natural or moral inability that prevents man from belief. I would say that these examples make it clear that it is a moral ability that prevents man from saving faith. He has the faculties to rest and receive promises, to affirm and trust in something.

The reason that man cannot do this with God is a moral issue, it is not a natural issue. There are a number of examples which help with this. For example, if you have ever heard someone say, "I cannot forgive that person." That is an example of a moral inability. The hate and hurt is so great, that they cannot forgive. It is said that Joseph's brothers could not speak a good word about him (Paul Washer gave this example). They spoke the same language and they knew enough vocabulary to speak about their brother well, but they simply could not speak a good word about him. Or, there are those who have phobias which are so severe that it could be expressed in terms of inability. There are some who have such great fears of heights or public speaking or whatever, that they, by their own accord, would never be able to approach a podium to give a speech or take a stroll near the edge of a cliff. Of course someone could force them (i.e. drag them to the podium or the cliff), but that fittingly reminds us of John 6 that nobody comes to God unless the Father draw/drag him.

Anyways, I hope this helps. In summary: understand what Edwards meant by natural and moral ability (and avoid the confusion that comes from the fact that we call the heart/core of man "nature," don't think that it falls under the category of "natural" abilities as opposed to "moral" abilities, I believe it would fall under the moral category according to Edwards), then ask and answer the question: what happens to man in order for him to believe: a new heart or a new mind (Ezek. 36, "I will take out your ____ of stone and give you a ____ of flesh"

I do admit that this issue is not as plain as it may seem by the natural and moral abilities distinction might make it seem. The two are so inextricably connected that the natural man cannot understand the things of God BECAUSE of his evil heart (moral ability; Eph. 4.18), yet it is through the Holy Spirit making rational truth real to our hearts that we can embrace the promises of God. So we should not go to the extreme of thinking that they are so separate. However, this should not stop us from allowing a very helpful distinction of moral and natural ability from aiding us in our understanding of man's inability to believe.

It really is a marvelous truth. God in His grace through Christ restores the image of God in us. We had defamed it, we had polluted it by our sin. We had lost the holiness He created us with. Yet God, in His mercy, restores the moral excellency of His image in us and sanctifies us changing us from glory to glory into the image of His Son. The moral righteousness and holiness He works anew in our natures then sanctifies our natural bodies so that we can present our bodies a living sacrifice holy and acceptable to the Lord (Rom. 12). One day this will fully be complete, and we will see Him face to face, beholding the one in whose image we are made. We have a great God who will bring to completion that which He has begun.

I hope this helps.

God bless,
--Ben


----------



## earl40 (Feb 3, 2011)

Ben that was great. I thank you all for your replies.

Quick question do you all think our natural ability changes or does it stay the same after we are morally able to believe? I ask because no matter how hard I may want to not believe He rose from the dead I can not conjure up the belief He did not do so, not that I would even try to do anything like that. I now have the moral ability to believe but I seemed to have lost the moral inability to not believe He rose from the dead thus I have lost some natural ability to disbelieve.....like that is a bad thing.

Of course the question boils down to....Does regenerate man have the natural ability to not believe and if so does the moral ability, given by The Holy Spirit, prevent him from exercising this option?


----------



## earl40 (Feb 4, 2011)

Never mind. I see where the natural ability does not change but what is interesting is that it appears the moral ability to not believe has been lost.....which of course goes along with the P in TULIP. Praise be to God!


----------

