XXX.    GRACIOUS ABILITY

Grace is unmerited favor.  Exercising grace consists in bestowing something that, without violating justice, could be withheld.  The ability to obey God requires having enough power to obey.  Therefore, a gracious ability must mean that the power one currently possesses to obey the commands of God is a gift of grace relative to the command; that is, adequate power is bestowed on the individual to do the thing required, and thus it is a matter of grace and not justice.  

A       What do I mean by the term gracious ability? 

1   Those who believe in the doctrine of original sin believe that because of Adam’s sin, Adam, together with the whole human race that descended from him, lost all their natural power and ability to obey God.  Therefore, according to them, our entire race became totally unable to obey the moral law, or to render to God any acceptable service whatsoever; that is, we became, as a result of the sin of Adam, totally unable to use the powers of our nature in any other way than to sin.  We are able to sin or to disobey God, but we are totally unable to obey Him.  Now we did not lose our power to act, but we have the power to act in only one direction, that is, in opposition to God’s will and His law.  By a gracious ability, these scholars mean that, because of the atonement of Christ, God has graciously restored to us the ability to accept the terms of mercy, or to fulfill the conditions of acceptance with God.  In other words, that because of the gracious aid of the Holy Spirit, on condition of the atonement, God has given to every one of us a gracious ability to obey God.  So gracious ability means that ability or power to obey God, which we all now possess, not by virtue of our own nature or constitutional powers, but by virtue of the indwelling and gracious influence of the Holy Spirit, gratuitously bestowed on us because of what Christ accomplished on the cross. 

2   The inability, or the total loss of all our natural power to obey God into which we all fell because of Adam’s sin, they call original sin.  This inability is a result of that original sin that Adam committed; which consists in the total corruption of our human nature.  They maintain, that by the atonement, Christ made satisfaction for original sin, in such a sense, that the inability that resulted from Adam’s sin is removed, and that now we are, through grace, able to obey and accept the terms of salvation.  That is, we are now able to repent and believe the gospel.  In short, we are able, by virtue of this gracious ability, to do our duty, or to obey God.  This, if I understand these theologians, is a fair statement of their doctrine of gracious ability.  

B       This doctrine of a gracious ability is absurd. 
     The question is not whether we obey God without the gracious influence of the Holy Spirit.  I do not believe that we do.  So, the fact that the Holy Spirit exerts His gracious influence whenever we obey God is not a debatable question between those who maintain and those who deny the doctrine of gracious ability.  The debate is not whether we, without the gracious influence of the Holy Spirit, use the powers of nature the way God requires, but whether we are naturally able to use them.  Should we attribute the fact, that we never properly use our natural powers without some gracious Divine influence, to some absolute inability, or to the fact that, from the beginning, we universally and voluntarily consecrate our powers to gratify ourselves, and therefore, we will not obey God, unless the gracious influence of the Holy Spirit persuades us to turn and consecrate our powers to serve God? 
     If their doctrine of a natural inability and of a gracious ability is true, then:  

1   If it wasn’t for the gracious ability bestowed on us by the atonement of Christ, not one of Adam’s race could ever have been capable of sinning.  For by their doctrine, we are completely unable to obey God.  And, because we are unable to obey God, we cannot be subjects of moral government, and so our actions can’t have any moral character.  It is a first truth of reason, a truth assumed everywhere by all men their practical judgments, that a subject of a moral government must be a moral agent, or that moral agency is a necessary condition of any one who is a subject of a moral government.  And, in the practical judgment of men, it doesn’t matter whether someone ever was a moral agent or not.  If, by any means whatever, we ceased to be a moral agent, we naturally and universally assume that it is impossible for us to be subjects of moral government any more than a horse can be.  Suppose someone, by his own fault, becomes insane; we intuitively know, that, in this state, he can no longer be a moral agent.  We know that in this state, his actions cannot possess any moral character.  His guilt, in depriving himself of his moral agency, may be great, and his guilt, in depriving himself of his moral agency, may be equal to the sum of all the actions caused by his insanity, but he cannot be a moral agent under moral obligation as long as he is insane.  This is a first truth of reason, irresistibly and universally assumed by all men.  Therefore, if Adam’s descendants, by their own personal act, destroyed their ability to obey God, they would have ceased being moral agents, and as a result, they could not have sinned.  But, the situation we are looking at is one where the agent himself didn’t destroy his moral agency.  In this situation, he never was a moral agent.  He never could be.  In this situation, Adam’s descendants can’t possess any power to obey God, or do anything acceptable to Him.  Why?  Because of their natural inability, they can never be subjects of His moral government.  Of course, they can’t have any moral character.  In a moral sense, they can’t do anything either right or wrong.   

2   From their doctrine of gracious ability and natural inability, it must follow that the human race lost their free will when Adam first sinned.  It must follow that both Adam and his descendants could never have been free moral agents if God had not bestowed on them a gracious ability.  However, to assume that Adam’s descendants lost their free will because of Adam’s sin is absurd.  The truth is that Adam fell into a state of total alienation from God’s law.  He lapsed into a state of supreme selfishness.  His descendants have unanimously followed his example.  They’ve become dead in trespasses and sins.  Now, the supporters of this doctrine must prove that this death in sin either consists in, or implies the loss of free moral agency.  But, they cannot prove this. No one can.

3   If what these theologians believe is true, that men have only a gracious ability to obey God and that this gracious ability consists in the presence of the gracious agency of the Holy Spirit, then it logically follows that, when the Holy Spirit withdraws from man, he is no longer a free agent.  If these theologians are right than from the moment the Holy Spirit withdraws, that person is incapable of moral action and, of course, he can’t sin any more.  As a result, if he should live for a long time after God withdraws His Holy Spirit, his conduct can’t be sinful or holy, virtuous or vicious, praiseworthy or blameworthy.  This would also be true throughout eternity.

4   If the doctrine we are questioning is true, it follows that from the moment the gracious influence of the Holy Spirit withdraws, man is no longer a subject of moral obligation.  From that moment, it is absurd and unjust to require that person to do anything.  To think that he is no longer responsible for his actions is just as absurd as it is to talk about the responsibility of a robot.  From the moment that God withholds His gracious ability, he ceases to be free.  He becomes a necessary agent, in other words he only has the power to act in one direction.  Such a being cannot possibly be capable of sin or holiness.  Now, suppose he still possesses the power to act contrary to the letter of the law of God?  Now what?  This action has no moral character, because, act in some way he must, but he can act in no other way.  It is nonsense to believe that such action can be sinful in the sense that it is blameworthy.  To believe that his behavior is sinful is to contradict a first truth of reason.  Sinners, then, who have quenched the Holy Spirit until the Spirit withdraws from them, would no longer to be blamed for their enmity against God, and for all their opposition to Him.  They would be, according to this doctrine, as free from blame as a steam engine. 

5   If this doctrine in question is true, there is no reason to believe that the angels that fell from their allegiance to God ever sinned more than once.  If Adam lost his free moral agency by his first sin, there can be no doubt that the angels also lost their free agency when they sinned.  If God did not bestow a gracious ability on Adam, it is certain, according to their doctrine, that he never could have been the subject of moral obligation from the moment of his first sin, and as a result, never could have sinned again.  The same must be true of devils.  If, because of their first sin, they fell into the situation where they became necessary agents, that is, they lost their free will, then they’ve never sinned since.  That is, their conduct can no longer possess any moral character unless god bestows a gracious ability on them.  You can’t even pretend that anything like this has actually happened.  According to this doctrine, you can’t even blame the devils for all they do to oppose God and to ruin souls.  According to this false supposition, they can’t help it; and you might as well blame the winds and the waves for the damage they sometimes do, as to blame Satan for what he does.  

6   If this doctrine is true, there is not, and never will be, any sin in hell, for the plain reason that there are no moral agents there.  They must be necessary agents unless the Holy Spirit and a gracious ability continue on into eternity in hell.  I don’t even think that the supporters of this doctrine believe that!  But, if they deny that the inhabitants of hell have any natural ability to obey God, then they must admit, or be grossly inconsistent with their own doctrine, that neither the men in hell nor the devils in hell can sin.  But, does this admission agree with either reason or revelation?  I know that those who support this doctrine believe that God may justly hold both men, from whom a gracious ability is withdrawn, and devils, responsible for their conduct, on the ground that they have destroyed their own ability.  But suppose it was true that they had rendered themselves idiots, lunatics, or necessary as opposed to free agents, could enlightened reason still regard them as moral agents and as morally responsible for their conduct?  No, indeed!  God and reason may justly blame them for annihilating their freedom or annihilating their moral agency, but to still hold them responsible after they lost their moral agency would be absurd.  

7   We have seen that the ability of all sane men to obey God is a first truth, and this ­leads us to conclude that we all have a moral obligation.  If it wasn’t for this assumption, we could not even think of the possibility of our moral responsibility, of our praiseworthiness or blameworthi­ness.  This will always be true as long as our mind isn’t altered.  On earth, in heaven, and in hell, men and devils assume that they are free to obey God as the condition of their obligation to obey God, and, as a result, they know that they are able to either obey or sin.  Since revelation informs us that men and devils continue to sin in hell, we can also assume, as a first truth of reason, that they are free agents, and that they have a natural ability to obey God.  

8   But to claim that they have a gracious ability to obey God is absurd.  Moral obligation implies moral agency, and moral agency implies free will; or in other words, moral obligation implies a natural ability to comply with our obligation.  We naturally regard this ability as an essential element of our moral obligation, on the ground of natural and immutable justice.  A just command always implies that we should obey it.  A command to perform a natural impossibility cannot impose an obligation.  Suppose God should command us to flap our arms and fly without giving us the ability to fly.  Can we be morally obligated to obey such a command?  No, of course not!  But, suppose that God should give us the power, or promise us the power based on performing a condition that was within our reach; then He might justly require us to fly, and a command to fly would be mandatory.  However, relative to the requirement, if God gave you the power to fly, that would not be grace, but justice.  But, relative to the results or the pleasure of flying, you may view the power that God gives you as grace.  That is, God might be gracious to give me the power to fly, so I can have the pleasure and profit of flying; so that relative to the results of flying, I could view the fact that God gave me the power to fly as an act of grace.  But, if God requires me to fly as a matter of duty, then He must, in justice, give me the power or ability to fly.  This would, in justice, be a necessary condition of His command that imposes moral obligation on us. 

a       Now, this situation would not change if I had wings, and by abusing them, I lost my power to fly.  In this situation, considered relative to the pleasure, and profit, and the results of flying, restoring my power to fly would be an act of grace.  But if God still commanded me to fly, He must, as a condition of my obligation, restore my power.  It is absurd to say that although I might lose the power to obey, this would not change the right of God to demand obedience from me. 

b       This statement comes from the absurd assumption that God’s will makes or creates law, instead of merely declaring and enforcing the law.  The only law or rule of action that a moral agent must obey is that law of nature, which is, for the time being, suitable to his nature and relationships.  God’s will never makes or creates law, God only declares and enforces it.  Therefore, if by any means whatever, the nature of a moral agent should be so changed that his will is no longer free to act in conformity with, or in opposition to, the law of nature, if God still required him to obey, God must, in justice, restore His liberty or ability.  Suppose an elderly man, because of Alzheimer’s disease, lost the use of his mind and memory.  Could God possibly still require him to under­stand and obey God?  Certainly not!  Neither could God require him to do anything that becomes naturally impossible for him to do.  Now, relative to the pleasure and results of obedience, restoring his ability to obey would be an act of grace.  But relative to his duty to obey God’s command, restoring his power to obey would be an act of justice and not grace.  To call this grace would change the definition of the word grace, and confuse terms.              

C       In what sense is a gracious ability possible?  

1   Bestowing the power that we need to make obedience to a command possible is not a gift of grace.  Grace is undeserved favor, something that justice does not demand.  Grace is something that, under the circumstances, God could withhold without being unjust.  Requiring anybody to do something impossible can never be just.  Bestowing the power needed to do what God commands is an unalterable condition of justice.  This is a first truth of reason, a truth naturally assumed and known by people everywhere.  A gracious ability to obey a command is absurd and impossible. 

2   But a gracious ability, when you consider it relative to the advantages that result from obedience is possible.  For example, suppose a servant, who supports himself and his family by what he earns, becomes disabled because of his own fault, and looses his job.  His master may justly fire him, and he and his family may end up on welfare.  But, because he is disabled, his employer cannot justly force him to work.  Nor could his employer force him to work even if the servant was his slave.  Now suppose his employer was able, through rehabilitation, to restore the servant to his former strength.  If he requires him to work, then he must restore his strength, at least to the point where the servant is able to work.  This would simply be justice.  But, suppose he restored the ability of the servant so he could again support his family by working.  The servant and his family would view this as grace.  Relative to the right of the employer in requiring the servant to work, restoring the servant’s ability to obey is an act of justice.  But relative to the good of the servant, and the benefits that he receives from his restored ability and can now support himself and his family once more, restoring the servant’s ability is properly considered an act of grace.

a       Now let’s apply this to the situation we are considering.  Suppose that the race of Adam lost their free will through Adam’s sin, and thus fell into a state in which holiness and conse­quent salvation was naturally impossible.  Now, if God would still require obedience from them, He must restore their ability, if God is just.  And relative to God’s right to command and their duty to obey, this restoration is justice.  But mankind, seeing that holiness and salvation was now possible for them: would view this restoration of their ability to obey as grace.      

b       A gracious ability to obey, relative to the command that we must obey, is impossible and absurd.  But a gracious ability to be saved, relative to salvation, is possible.  There is no proof that the human race ever lost their ability to obey, either because of the first sin of Adam, or by their own sin.  For this would imply that they ceased to be free moral agents, and became necessary agents.  But if they had, and God restored their ability to obey, all that we can say in this situation is, that as far as God’s right to command is concerned, restoring their ability was an act of justice.  But as far as making salvation possible for them is concerned, it was an act of grace.  

3    But the defenders of the teaching we are examining assume that the Bible teaches the doctrine of a natural inability, and that a gracious ability is needed in man to obey the commands of God.  I admit that if we interpret scripture without regard to any just rules of interpretation, this assumption may find support in the word of God, as well as almost any other absurd doctrine that has populated the earth.  But, a fair amount of attention to one of the simplest, most universal, and most important rules of interpreting language, whether in the Bible or out of it, will strip this absurd teaching of the least appearance of support from the word of God.  The rule that I am talking about is, “That words and phrases must be interpreted according to the subject matter of discourse, or the passages that contain those words”. 
     If you use this rule of interpretation, when you talk about acts of will, you cannot think that the word “ cannot” means a proper impossibility.  If you offer me five dollars for my watch, and I respond saying, “I cannot take five dollars for my watch”, everyone knows that I do not and cannot mean that it was physically impossible to me to give him my watch for five dollars.  So when the angel said to Lot, “Hurry, escape there.  For I cannot do anything until you arrive there.”  (Gen. 19:22), who truly believes that the angel is saying that if was physically impossible for him to do anything?  All that the angel meant was that he was not willing to do anything until Lot was in a place of safety.  The same is true when the Bible speaks about our inability to comply with God’s commands, all that these passages can mean is that we are so unwilling that, without Divine persuasion, we, as a matter of fact, shall not and will not obey.  This certainly how these words are used in common life.  Also, in everyday conversation, we never think of such words, when talking about acts of our will, as meaning anything more than an unwillingness, or a state in which our will is strongly committed in an opposite direction. 

a       When Joshua said to the children of Israel, “You cannot serve the Lord, for He is a holy God.  He is a jealous God” (Joshua 24:19), the whole context, as well as the nature of this passage, shows that Joshua wasn’t talking about any kind of physical impossibility.  In the same chapter, he tells them that they must serve the Lord, and leads them to solemnly pledge themselves to serve Him.  Joshua was saying that, with wicked their hearts, God would not accept their service.  Therefore, Joshua insisted that they put away their wicked hearts, by, immediately and voluntarily, consecrating their lives to serve the Lord.  This must be true, in every situation, where people translate the word “cannot,” and similar expres­sions to mean a physical impossibility, when they are really used in reference to acts of the will.  When used this way, the word “cannot” does not imply a physical impossibility.  This would violate the basic rules of interpretation.       

b       What would you think of a judge or a lawyer who interprets the language of a witness without any regard to the rule: “Language must be understood according to the subject‑matter of discourse.”  If a lawyer in his argument before the court or jury try to interpret the language of a witness in a manner that made “cannot,” when spoken about an act of will, mean a proper impossibility, the judge would soon rebuke his stupidity, and remind him that he must not talk nonsense in a court of justice.  In fact, the judge may possibly say, that such stupid statements are only allowed from the pulpit.  Let me say again, that it is a complete abuse and perversion of the laws of any language to interpret the Bible to make it teach that man is unable to will as God directs.  The essence of obedience to God consists in willing.  We must interpret the wording of the Bible according to the subject matter, when used in reference to obedience.  Then we will properly understand it.  As a result, whenever the Bible uses the word “cannot” in reference to acts of will, it means nothing more than a choice in an opposite direction.                        

D       However, someone may ask, “Is there no grace in all that is done by the Holy Spirit to make man wise unto salvation?” 
     Yes, there is grace!  And, it is great grace because the doctrine of a natural inability in man to obey God is not true.  It is because we are well able to render obedience, and refuse to obey, that all the influence that God brings to bear on us to make us willing is a gift and an influence of grace.  The grace is great in proportion to our ability to comply with God's require­ments and the strength of our voluntary opposition to do our duty.  If we were unable to obey, there could be no grace in giving us the ability to obey.  But let us see that we are as free.  Let us see that we possess a natural ability to obey all the requirements of God, and all our problems are because of our wicked heart and our unwillingness to obey; then an influence on the part of God designed to make us willing, is grace indeed.  But strip us of our freedom, make us naturally unable to obey, and you make grace impossible, as far as our obligation to obey is concerned.

1   In order to support the doctrine of a natural inability and a gracious ability, these teachers claim that the Bible everywhere represents man as depending on the gracious influence of the Holy Spirit for all holiness, and consequently for eternal life.  I answer yes, it is true that this is how the Bible represents man, but the question is, how are we dependent?  Does our dependence consist in a natural inability to embrace the gospel and be saved?  Or does it consist in a voluntary selfishness and an unwillingness to comply with the terms of salvation?  Do we depend on the Holy Spirit to give us a proper ability to obey God or do we depend only in the sense that we will not embrace the gospel unless the Holy Spirit makes us willing?  Brethren, we depend only in the sense that we will not embrace the gospel unless the Holy Spirit makes us willing.  This is the universal representation of scripture.  That is the scriptural truth.  The problem the human race must overcome is found everywhere in the Bible.  It is the sinner’s unwillingness!  It cannot possibly be anything else; for the willing is the doing, that God requires.  “For if there is first a willing mind, it is accepted according to what one has, and not according to what he does not have.”  (2 Cor. 8:12) 

2   But some say, if we can be willing by ourselves, why would we need Divine persuasion or influence to make us willing?  I might ask, suppose a man is able but unwilling to pay his debts, what need is there of any influence to make him willing?  Why, Divine influence is needed to make a sinner willing, or to influence him to will as God directs, for the same reason that persuasion, entreaty, argument, or the rod, is needed to make our children submit their wills to ours.  Therefore, the fact that the Bible represents the sinner as, in some sense, dependent on Divine influence for a right heart, no more implies a proper inability in the sinner than the fact that children often depend on the thorough and timely discipline of their parents for their good behavior, implies a proper inability in the children to obey their parents without chastisement.

E       The Bible everywhere, and in every way, assumes that we have free will.  This fact stands out in bold relief from every page of Divine inspiration.  God uses very strong language throughout scripture when he mentions our inability to obey God, because He wants to emphasize the strength of our voluntary selfishness and our enmity against God.  None of these passages was meant to imply a proper natural inability.  Therefore, it is a gross and most damaging perversion of scripture, as well as a contradiction of our human reason, to deny our natural ability, or our natural free agency, and to believe that we have a proper natural inability to obey God unless we receive a gracious ability to do our duty.  

1   The question of our ability has great practical importance.  To deny our ability to obey the commandments of God is to represent God as a hard master, since His creatures must do what is naturally impossible for them under pain of eternal damnation.  This produces in the mind that believes it, hard thoughts about God.  The justice of such a demand cannot satisfy our minds.  In fact, the more this error possesses our mind, the more we excuse ourselves for disobedience, or for not obeying the commandments of God. 

2    The moral inability taught by this doctrine is really a natural inability.  This teaching has deceived countless sinners and professing Christians.  When I entered the ministry, I found the persuasion of an absolute inability on the part of sinners to repent and believe the gospel almost universal.  When I urged sinners and professing Christians to do their duty without delay, I was frequently met with stern opposition from sinners, professing Christians, and ministers.  They wanted me to tell sinners that they could not repent, and that they must wait for God’s time, that is, for God to help them.  It was common for these people to ask me if I thought sinners could be Christians whenever they pleased, and whether I thought that any person could repent, believe, and obey God without the striving and new‑creating power of the Holy Spirit.  The church has almost universally become bogged down in its belief of a physical moral depravity, and, of course, in its belief in the need for a physical regeneration, and also in the belief that sinners must wait to be regenerated by Divine power while they are passive.  Even professing Christians must wait until God, in His mysterious sovereignty, comes to revive them.  Concerning religious revivals, they believe that man has no more agency in producing a revival than in producing a thunderstorm.  To attempt to convert a sinner, or to promote a revival, is an attempt to take the work out of the hands of God, and to labor for God in your own strength.  Many consider the vigorous use of means and measures to promote a work of grace as impious.  It is working up an emotional excitement, stirring up feelings, and wickedly interfering with the prerogative of God.  The abominable teaching of physical moral depravity, or a sinful constitution that results in a natural, falsely called moral inability, and the need for a physical and passive regeneration, has chilled the heart of the church, and lulled sinners into a fatal sleep.  This is the natural tendency of such doctrines.

3   We strenuously maintain that the whole plan of salvation, with the providential and spiritual influences that God exerts in the conversion, sanctification, and salvation of sinners, is grace from beginning to end.  I deny the doctrine of a gracious ability because it robs God of His glory.  It denies the grace of the gospel.  The supporters of this doctrine, in contending for the grace of the gospel, actually deny grace.  What grace can there be in bestowing ability on those who never had any, and of course, who never threw away their ability to obey the require­ments of God?  According to them, all men lost their ability through Adam, and not by their own actions.  Yet, God still requires obedience from them under pain of eternal death.  Now God might, according to their view of this subject, just as reasonably command all men under pain of eternal death, to fly, or to undo all that Adam had done, or perform any other natural impossibility, as to command them to be holy, to repent and believe the gospel.  Now, I ask again, what possible grace would there be in His giving them power to obey Him?  To require obedience without giving man the power to obey would be infinitely unjust.  To admit the assumption that men had really lost their ability to obey through Adam, and call the bestowing of the ability to obey, grace, is absurd.  It is an abuse of the English language, and it is denying the true grace of the gospel.  We must not tolerate this.  I reject the dogma of a gracious ability because it involves denying the true grace of the gospel.  I believe and insist that the gospel, with all its influences, including the gift of the Holy Spirit to convict, convert, and sanctify the soul, is a system of grace throughout.  But to maintain this, I must also maintain, that God could justly have required obedience of men without making these provisions for them.  And to maintain the justice of God in requiring obedience, I must admit and maintain that obedience is possible for man. 
     We do not deny the grace of the glorious gospel of the blessed God, nor do we deny the reality and need for the influences of the Holy Spirit to convert and sanctify the soul, nor that this influence is a gracious one; for all these we most strongly believe.  Based on this, I believe that men are able to obey, and that the difficulty does not lie in a proper inability, but in a voluntary selfishness, in an unwillingness to obey the blessed gospel.  I say again, that I reject the doctrine of a gracious ability, as I understand those who support it, not because I deny, but solely because it denies the grace of the gospel.  Denying our ability is really denying the possibility of grace in our salvation.  I admit that man is able, and believe that he is able, but completely unwilling to obey God.  Therefore, I consistently maintain, that all the influences exerted by God to make him willing, are of free grace abounding through Christ Jesus.