SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
From where do we get the idea that it is inherently unjust to command something which the other is incapable of doing?
God commanding that which we cannot do...
- Thread starter SolaScriptura
- Start date
- Status
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
The fact that we've had to make the distinction seems to establish at a very fundamental level the premise that it is unjust to command that which we are unable to do. So we've come up with the natural/moral distinction so as to explain how it really isn't unjust for God to command something we are "unable" to do.
But back to my first question: From where do we get the fundamental idea that it is wrong to command something that someone cannot do?
It seems fairly evident that if you command something that someone is naturally incapable of doing, you are being unreasonable. For example, asking a two-year-old to write a five-page essay is considered an unreasonable request. Asking me to fly around the room, that is also an unreasonable request. Even if I have a moral obligation to do what you say, you would still be unreasonable to ask me to fly around the room.
Now, if you command me to walk around and I stubbornly refuse because I'm an obstinate moral wretch with no moral ability to obey authority, your request would not be unreasonable.
As a parent, would you hold a child responsible for a task that he/she was physically incapable of? It does not seem unreasonable, though, to command something that you know they will disobey.
Constantlyreforming
Puritan Board Sophomore
Does this have to do with the discrepancy of whether or not one can believe in Christ, without His giving the ability to believe?
I have heard some espouse the following:
We have the natural ability to choose (decide) to follow Christ; however, we will not choose to follow Christ because our ability to choose is bound by sin; the ability is maimed, unable. Many will choose (volition) to supposedly follow Christ; what shows later is that their decision was not backed up with ability (regeneration). Regeneration enables the heart to adhere to the gospel, rather than just having interest in it.
I have heard some espouse the following:
We have the natural ability to choose (decide) to follow Christ; however, we will not choose to follow Christ because our ability to choose is bound by sin; the ability is maimed, unable. Many will choose (volition) to supposedly follow Christ; what shows later is that their decision was not backed up with ability (regeneration). Regeneration enables the heart to adhere to the gospel, rather than just having interest in it.
MississippiBaptist
Puritan Board Freshman
Living in the Arminian Armpit of America I get this question a good bit. I've been looking for a good way to explain how everyone is commanded to repent but only those who are regenerated are able. I lean on the federal position of Adam and the fact that his sin was imputed to us; thereby, enslaving us to sin. That's the best I could come up with...love to hear other approaches.
Would it be immoral if I, a potter, made my own coffee cup and commanded it to keep my coffee hot indefinitely and then threatened it with destruction if it fails? Of course not.
Even if it could be proven that man has some kind of right to be free from impossible commands, this right would not extend to his creator.
Even if it could be proven that man has some kind of right to be free from impossible commands, this right would not extend to his creator.
How so? Hath not the potter power over the clay?
Ask Mr. Religion
Flatly Unflappable
We get the idea from our depravity refusing to give up on notions of autonomy that we have no Scriptural warrant to cling to. Accountability does not presuppose freedom (only responsibility) nor has nothing to do with ability, as all officers in the military can attest to.
AMR
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
ok, so let me push back a little...
You "stubbornly refuse" BECAUSE you have no moral ABILITY to obey. Call it "natural" call it "moral," but the bottom line is that you've granted they don't have the ABILITY to obey and thus their "stubborn refusal" is intrinsically connected to their inability. How is that not the same as God commanding what we cannot do?
WCF 4.2, "having the law of God written in their hearts, and power to fulfil it." Original capability.
WCF 9.3, "Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation." Spiritual incapability.
WCF 16.7, "Works done by unregenerate men, although, for the matter of them, they may be things which God commands, and of good use both to themselves and others..." Material capability.
Man is perfectly capable of willing what is good. His depravity lies in the enmity of his heart towards God even while he chooses to do "the good." He wills "good" for evil reasons.
WCF 9.3, "Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation." Spiritual incapability.
WCF 16.7, "Works done by unregenerate men, although, for the matter of them, they may be things which God commands, and of good use both to themselves and others..." Material capability.
Man is perfectly capable of willing what is good. His depravity lies in the enmity of his heart towards God even while he chooses to do "the good." He wills "good" for evil reasons.
Yes---but the clay is not a rational moral agent with natural ability to do that which is asked of it. Remember that when Paul is using this analogy, he is referring to ultimate destiny and God's determination: he is not talking about man's responsibility for his own sin before God.
In what way would casting moral blame on a coffee mug be rational?
They don't have the moral ability---their hearts are hardened and therefore they will not obey God. They do have the natural ability/capacity.
SolaScriptura
Puritanboard Brimstone
Ok, I'm not wanting to have rehashed the alleged moral/natural ability distinction. I get it. I'm wanting to know from where we get the idea that obligation to do something can only be attributed if there is ability.
It appears that the thinking here is that it is simply "self-evident" that it would be unjust to command what one cannot do.
It appears that the thinking here is that it is simply "self-evident" that it would be unjust to command what one cannot do.
Loopie
Puritan Board Freshman
Perhaps the concept is just something that God has written on our hearts. I mean, all men 'know' the truth (Romans ch 1), but suppress it willfully due to their enslavement to sin. People 'know' right from wrong, but suppress that knowledge to the point that they call evil, good, and good, evil.
The distinction between ability and will is very important, and I recommend Jonathan Edward's work Freedom of the Will.
In fact, it is important in understanding the concept of 'will' when we discuss God's attributes. Many atheists like to say that if God was 'omnipotent', then couldn't he do X (list some ridiculous, immoral, or illogical thing). I always point out to them that to be all-powerful is to be able to ALWAYS accomplish your will. God is omnipotent in the sense that he does whatever he wills, and nothing or no one thwarts him. This does not mean that God is all-willing (he wills everything). Clearly God does not 'will' everything. But he does accomplish whatever he wills, and therefore is omnipotent.
The distinction between ability and will is very important, and I recommend Jonathan Edward's work Freedom of the Will.
In fact, it is important in understanding the concept of 'will' when we discuss God's attributes. Many atheists like to say that if God was 'omnipotent', then couldn't he do X (list some ridiculous, immoral, or illogical thing). I always point out to them that to be all-powerful is to be able to ALWAYS accomplish your will. God is omnipotent in the sense that he does whatever he wills, and nothing or no one thwarts him. This does not mean that God is all-willing (he wills everything). Clearly God does not 'will' everything. But he does accomplish whatever he wills, and therefore is omnipotent.
rbcbob
Puritan Board Graduate
As Van Til used to say "autonomous man makes himself the final arbitrator in all predication." Each Fallen Man sees himself as having the final say as to what is right.
There may be neither and yet the Lord may sovereignly command both. Where He commands either or both, and has willed it, He will provide the ability.
10 And behold, there was a man who had a withered hand. And they asked Him, saying, "Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?"-- that they might accuse Him.
11 Then He said to them, "What man is there among you who has one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out?
12 "Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath."
13 Then He said to the man, "Stretch out your hand." And he stretched it out, and it was restored as whole as the other.
(Mat 12:10-13 NKJ)
Acts 16:14 Now a certain woman named Lydia heard us. She was a seller of purple from the city of Thyatira, who worshiped God. The Lord opened her heart to heed the things spoken by Paul. (Act 16:14 NKJ)
Perhaps it might be helpful to use more descriptive words for "can." E.g., self-determination. Is it true that in the command is the supposition that the individual has the power to determine to do what he is told. If so, where does the idea come from? I would answer yes, and the idea comes from our understanding of man as created to aim at and achieve certain ends. As the Shorter Catechism suggests, "purpose" is inherent in man.
Can you think of a clear example where commanding a moral agent to do something that he was completely incapable of would be right? Again, think in terms of your role as a father.
Would it ever be right to tell your children to do something that you knew was outside their capacity entirely? Would it be moral for you to command your child "fly over to me"?
Loopie
Puritan Board Freshman
I would like to share a quote from Calvin on this topic:
"When the will is enchained as the slave of sin, it cannot make a movement toward goodness, far less steadily pursue it. Every such movement is the first step in that conversion to God, which in Scripture is entirely ascribed to divine grace. Thus Jeremiah prays, "Turn thou me, and I shall be turned" (Jer 31:18). Hence, too, in the same chapter, describing the spiritual redemption of believers, the prophet says, "The Lord has redeemed Jacob, and ransomed him from the hand of him that was stronger than he" (Jer 31:11); intimating how close the fetters are with which the sinner is bound, so long as he is abandoned by the Lord, and acts under the yoke of the devil. Nevertheless, there remains a will which both inclines and hastens on with the strongest affection toward sin; man, when placed under this bondage, being deprived not of will, but of soundness of will. Bernard says not improperly, that all of us have a will; but to will well is proficiency, to will ill is defect. Thus simply to will is the part of man, to will ill the part of corrupt nature, to will well the part of grace.
Moreover, when I say that the will, deprived of liberty, is led or dragged by necessity to evil, it is strange that any should deem the expression harsh, seeing there is no absurdity in it, and it is not at variance with pious use. It does, however, offend those who know not how to distinguish between necessity and compulsion. Were any one to ask them, Is not God necessarily good, is not the devil necessarily wicked, what answer would they give? The goodness of God is so connected with his Godhead, that it is not more necessary to be God than to be good; whereas the devil, by his fall, was so estranged from goodness, that he can do nothing but evil. Should any one give utterance to the profane jeer, that little praise is due to God for a goodness to which he is forced, is it not obvious to every man to reply, It is owing not to violent impulse, but to his boundless goodness, that he cannot do evil? Therefore, if the free will of God in doing good is not impeded, because he necessarily must do good; if the devil, who can do nothing but evil, nevertheless sins voluntarily; can it be said that man sins less voluntarily because he is under a necessity of sinning?
This necessity is uniformly proclaimed by Augustine, who, even when pressed by the invidious cavil of Celestius, hesitated not to assert it in the following terms: 'Man through liberty became a sinner, but corruption, ensuing as the penalty, has converted liberty into necessity'. Whenever mention is made of the subject, he hesitates not to speak in this way of the necessary bondage of sin. Let this, then, be regarded as the sum of the distinction. Man, since he was corrupted by the fall, sins not forced or unwilling, but voluntarily, by a most forward bias of the mind; not by violent compulsion, or external force, but by the movement of his own passion; and yet such is the depravity of his nature, that he cannot move and act except in the direction of evil. If this is true, the thing not obscurely expressed is, that he is under a necessity of sinning." (Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book Second, Chapter 3).
"When the will is enchained as the slave of sin, it cannot make a movement toward goodness, far less steadily pursue it. Every such movement is the first step in that conversion to God, which in Scripture is entirely ascribed to divine grace. Thus Jeremiah prays, "Turn thou me, and I shall be turned" (Jer 31:18). Hence, too, in the same chapter, describing the spiritual redemption of believers, the prophet says, "The Lord has redeemed Jacob, and ransomed him from the hand of him that was stronger than he" (Jer 31:11); intimating how close the fetters are with which the sinner is bound, so long as he is abandoned by the Lord, and acts under the yoke of the devil. Nevertheless, there remains a will which both inclines and hastens on with the strongest affection toward sin; man, when placed under this bondage, being deprived not of will, but of soundness of will. Bernard says not improperly, that all of us have a will; but to will well is proficiency, to will ill is defect. Thus simply to will is the part of man, to will ill the part of corrupt nature, to will well the part of grace.
Moreover, when I say that the will, deprived of liberty, is led or dragged by necessity to evil, it is strange that any should deem the expression harsh, seeing there is no absurdity in it, and it is not at variance with pious use. It does, however, offend those who know not how to distinguish between necessity and compulsion. Were any one to ask them, Is not God necessarily good, is not the devil necessarily wicked, what answer would they give? The goodness of God is so connected with his Godhead, that it is not more necessary to be God than to be good; whereas the devil, by his fall, was so estranged from goodness, that he can do nothing but evil. Should any one give utterance to the profane jeer, that little praise is due to God for a goodness to which he is forced, is it not obvious to every man to reply, It is owing not to violent impulse, but to his boundless goodness, that he cannot do evil? Therefore, if the free will of God in doing good is not impeded, because he necessarily must do good; if the devil, who can do nothing but evil, nevertheless sins voluntarily; can it be said that man sins less voluntarily because he is under a necessity of sinning?
This necessity is uniformly proclaimed by Augustine, who, even when pressed by the invidious cavil of Celestius, hesitated not to assert it in the following terms: 'Man through liberty became a sinner, but corruption, ensuing as the penalty, has converted liberty into necessity'. Whenever mention is made of the subject, he hesitates not to speak in this way of the necessary bondage of sin. Let this, then, be regarded as the sum of the distinction. Man, since he was corrupted by the fall, sins not forced or unwilling, but voluntarily, by a most forward bias of the mind; not by violent compulsion, or external force, but by the movement of his own passion; and yet such is the depravity of his nature, that he cannot move and act except in the direction of evil. If this is true, the thing not obscurely expressed is, that he is under a necessity of sinning." (Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book Second, Chapter 3).
moral necessity
Puritan Board Junior
I'm not sure of a scripture off-hand. It must also come from God's character being impressed upon us all at creation, that still lies within us as a remnant after being contaminated. I think it is just and proper to only be responsible for that which we can perform, and that it is unrighteous to hold one accountable for what they cannot do. What we tend to forget, however, is that we are held accountable according to the standard of what we used to be able to do prior to the fall. We are like a motor that used to run, but now we are broken, and yet still held accountable to be able to run. It is just to still demand something to perform how it was originally designed to perform.
Blessings!
Last edited:
Who said anything about 'casting moral blame'? The point I am trying to make is that the Creator has the right to do whatsoever he wills with His creatures without those creatures sitting in judgment over his morality or rationality. We have neither the ability or authority to fairly judge God even if He does command that which cannot be done.
KingofBashan
Puritan Board Freshman
The way I look at this issue is like this:
Consider a hypothetical dialog between a sinner and Jesus Christ on the day of judgment.
Sinner: You can't judge me. I'm totally depraved, morally and naturally unable to do any good. You are the one who has no sense of justice.
Jesus: Are you saying you were incapable of not placing a piece of fruit in your mouth?
[awkward silence]
Sinner: Yes. I'm morally corrupt.
Jesus: Then why didn't you ask for help?
[another awkward silence]
Sinner: I didn't think you would help me, and even if I did, I didn't want your help -
[gavel falls]
End of discussion. No matter how you slice it the sinner is responsible and God has done nothing wrong.
The illustration is meant to show how absolutely absurd it is to even posit that God is unjust in his requirements. It is meant to answer the original question by illustrating that this way of thinking originates as sinful man's cleverly crafted arguments against the truth. It is 100% pure stubble.
[Holy Spirit works in the heart of a sinner.]
Sinner: You are just in everything you say - I have inherited death, and I deserve death. I cannot will to do good. But I trust you.
Jesus: I say you may have my righteousness.
Sinner: That is just, and I accept your free gift. Help me to live worthy of your righteousness.
Jesus: I will.
[an eternal life begins]
Consider a hypothetical dialog between a sinner and Jesus Christ on the day of judgment.
Sinner: You can't judge me. I'm totally depraved, morally and naturally unable to do any good. You are the one who has no sense of justice.
Jesus: Are you saying you were incapable of not placing a piece of fruit in your mouth?
[awkward silence]
Sinner: Yes. I'm morally corrupt.
Jesus: Then why didn't you ask for help?
[another awkward silence]
Sinner: I didn't think you would help me, and even if I did, I didn't want your help -
[gavel falls]
End of discussion. No matter how you slice it the sinner is responsible and God has done nothing wrong.
The illustration is meant to show how absolutely absurd it is to even posit that God is unjust in his requirements. It is meant to answer the original question by illustrating that this way of thinking originates as sinful man's cleverly crafted arguments against the truth. It is 100% pure stubble.
[Holy Spirit works in the heart of a sinner.]
Sinner: You are just in everything you say - I have inherited death, and I deserve death. I cannot will to do good. But I trust you.
Jesus: I say you may have my righteousness.
Sinner: That is just, and I accept your free gift. Help me to live worthy of your righteousness.
Jesus: I will.
[an eternal life begins]
You did in your example. You told your coffee mug that you would hold it to account for not keeping your coffee warm. To command something rationally would entail that the thing commanded be somehow within the natural capacity of the one who has received the command. Your command to your coffee mug is fundamentally irrational and silly.
I'm not questioning this: I am merely pointing out the conditions necessary for man's moral responsibility before Responsibility presupposes some measure of freedom.
I didn't mean to hold the cup to account in a moral sense but in a practical sense. If you create something for a purpose and it fails to achieve that purpose you throw it out. As with all analogies it has its limitations but I think it sufficiently demonstrates the irrationality of those who cry, to Him, "What doest Thou?"
If it weren't for those who sit in judgment over God for His sovereign election we wouldn't have to keep answering these kinds of objections. Instead of answering their objections maybe it would be better to point out the absurdity of the objection in the first place.
Yes, but if you create a coffee mug to keep your coffee hot and it doesn't, whose fault is it? That's what I'm concerned with here: not casting blame on God.
Paul, in fact, is arguing that the sinner is unjust in his accusation because he forgets that he is serving God's purpose---God's purposes never fail.
JimmyH
Puritan Board Senior
Maybe I'm missing the point entirely ? What comes to my feeble mind, is that if man were capable of fulfilling God's requirements His Son wouldn't have had to come to this world of time and pour His life out, a ransom for many, and wash us of our sins in His own blood.
And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” 25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” 26 But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven. 24 Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” 25 When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished, saying, “Who then can be saved?” 26 But Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
sevenzedek
Puritan Board Junior
God is not not justified in commanding us to do something that we are unable to do because his justice appeals to an ideal outside himself. When Paul makes an appeal for God's justice in Romans 9, he doesn't reason that God is just on the basis of anything other than the fact that "God said." If God said it, it is therefore just.
Romans 9:14-15
14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
God is not just because he conforms to an ideal other than himself. He is just because he conforms to himself.
I think God would be just to command that we fly around the room even though we lack natural ability. Granted, I think it would be a strange request from God as it would be quite unlike him to command me to fly by using my natural ability; but it would not be unjust. The just-ness of God does not come from any other ideal than himself and himself alone.
Distinguishing natural abilities from moral abilities is only helpful as long as we understand that God is not required to measure up to an extrinsic ideal. He is only required to measure up to that which is intrinsically God.
From where do we get the fundamental idea that it is wrong to command something that someone cannot do? I think we get it from our faulty perceptions of authority. If God has absolute authority, then who or what is to say that God is just or unjust. The only appeal God must give for the just-ness of his authority is "Because I said so." What is righteous is righteous because it conforms to what God says is righteous. He, of course, has the authority to do that. He gets to make the rules. HE is God!
---------- Post added at 01:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:01 PM ----------
Romans 9:21
21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make...[a vessel] for dishonorable use?
Those who are going to hell were not purposed for honorable use.
Romans 9:14-15
14 What shall we say then? Is there injustice on God's part? By no means! 15 For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
God is not just because he conforms to an ideal other than himself. He is just because he conforms to himself.
I think God would be just to command that we fly around the room even though we lack natural ability. Granted, I think it would be a strange request from God as it would be quite unlike him to command me to fly by using my natural ability; but it would not be unjust. The just-ness of God does not come from any other ideal than himself and himself alone.
Distinguishing natural abilities from moral abilities is only helpful as long as we understand that God is not required to measure up to an extrinsic ideal. He is only required to measure up to that which is intrinsically God.
From where do we get the fundamental idea that it is wrong to command something that someone cannot do? I think we get it from our faulty perceptions of authority. If God has absolute authority, then who or what is to say that God is just or unjust. The only appeal God must give for the just-ness of his authority is "Because I said so." What is righteous is righteous because it conforms to what God says is righteous. He, of course, has the authority to do that. He gets to make the rules. HE is God!
---------- Post added at 01:07 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:01 PM ----------
Romans 9:21
21 Has the potter no right over the clay, to make...[a vessel] for dishonorable use?
Those who are going to hell were not purposed for honorable use.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
