XXXI.    THE NOTION OF INABILITY                                                                                                                                                                    

A       I have represented ability, or free will, as a first truth.  Every moral agent is aware that he has the ability to choose to obey or disobey God.  Now, you may ask, “If that is true, how do we account for the fact that so many people deny free will?  How come so many people deny that we are able to obey God?”  So many people today doubt free will in so many areas that ­it has even come under attack as a first truth.  It is important to account for this denial.  We naturally affirm our moral obligation on the real, though often latent and unperceived assumption that we are able.  We naturally assume first truths without these first truths always being the direct object of our thoughts or our attention.  The practical judgments of all men universally assume these truths even though they sometimes deny them in theory.  They know they are true, and in all their practical judgments, they assume that they are true.  Even though they reason against them and they try to prove them false, they frequently confess that they are aware of an opposite affirmation.  For example, men deny the law of cause and effect in theory, even though they have, through­out their lives, acted on the assumption that it is true.  Others deny free will, and yet, throughout their lives, they assume, act, and judge on the assumption that their will is free.  The same is true about our ability to obey God, which, concerning the commandments of God, is identical with our free will.  Men often deny our ability to obey God’s commandments, even though they have, in their practical judgments of themselves and others, they assume their ability to obey God.  Now, how do we explain this?  

B        Many deny free will because they confuse our will with our involuntary powers, our intellect, and our senses.  Locke believed that our mind possesses two primary faculties, the understanding and the will.  President Edwards saw feelings as acts of our will.  Many believe this.  Confusing our feelings with our will has been common for a long time.  I believe that we all are aware that we cannot produce or change our feelings by a direct effort to feel one way or another.  We all know that our feelings come and go.  They increase or decrease, as they are stimulated.  We also know that these feelings are under the law of cause and effect and not the law of free will.  In other words, these feelings are necessary in such a sense, that under the right circumstances, they will exist in spite of ourselves, and that we cannot control them by any direct effort to control them.  We all know that directing our thoughts can only indirectly control our feelings.  By directing our thoughts to an object that is designed to excite certain feelings, we know that, if we are not emotionally exhausted, we will excite some feelings.  In the same way, when certain feelings exist, we all know that by drawing our attention away from the object that excites those feelings, they will subside, and be replaced by feelings related to the new object that now occupies our attention.  Now, it is clear how those who confuse the will with feelings have come to deny free will.  These same people know and assume that the actions of their will are free.  Their error consists in confusing the actions of their will, with their involuntary emotional states. 
     In all their practical judgments, and in their conduct, they recognize that distinction.  But, they fail to recognize that distinction in their speculations and theories.  They exercise their own freedom and control their attention and their outward life by their own free will.  They also use their free will to indirectly control their emotions.  They naturally assume the absolute freedom of their will and always act on that assumption.  But since, in theory, they don’t distinguish between their emotions and their will, they theoreti­cally deny free will.  If the actions of their will is confused with desires and emotions, which is common, the result must be that they will theoretically deny free will.  This is why they believe in the doctrine of inability.  They don’t understand that moral law legislates directly only over their will, and only indirectly over their involuntary powers through their will.  People commonly believe that the law and the gospel of God directly extends its claims to their involuntary powers and their involuntary states of mind.  Many believe that the law extends its claims to those states that lie completely beyond the direct and the indirect control of our will.  But with these views of the claims of God, they have to deny the ability to obey God.  Moral law restricts its claims to the actions of the will, in such a sense that if there is a willing mind, God accepts it as obedience.  The moral law and the lawgiver legislate over involuntary states only indirectly, that is, through the will.  Therefore, virtue, strictly speaking, consists in good will or unselfish love. 

1   Sane minds cannot deny free will.  They cannot deny the doctrine of ability when they make the proper distinction between our will and our emotions, and they understand that law directly legislates only over our will.  Please note that those who deny moral ability confuse their will with their emotions.  Those who deny ability extend the claims of moral law beyond the proper willfulness; and many of them extend the claims of moral law even beyond the limits of either the direct or the indirect control of our will. 

2   But how does it happen that men so extensively entertain the impression that moral law legislates directly over our feelings, and over those states of mind that they know are involuntary?  I believe that this error comes from an inability to differentiate between the direct and indirect legislation of the law and the lawgiver.  We know that we are responsi­ble for our feelings, our outward actions, and even our thoughts.  And we are responsible for them, as long as they are under either the direct or indirect control of our will.  We know that these acts and states of our mind are possible because we have an indirect ability to produce them.  However, many people confuse direct with indirect ability and responsibility.  The law directly requires that we love God with all our heart, our soul, our mind, and our bodies, and that we love our neighbor as ourselves.  This is goodwill.  This is what the law strictly requires.  The law also indirectly requires all those outward and inward acts and states that are connected directly and indirectly with this required act of will.  In other words, the law indirectly requires those acts and states that naturally follows from a right action of our will.  But when these feelings, emotional states, and acts do not exist, these people blame themselves, because they believe that the absence of these emotions is due to the lack of a required act of their will. 
     Sometimes we blame ourselves unjustly.  We know our will is right but we don’t understand why our involuntary emotions or acts don’t follow.  Often our emotions or acts don’t follow because we are exhausted, or because the natural connection between our conscious decisions and the acts and feelings that follow become disturbed.  When this exhaustion or disturbance exists, we will probably think bitter thoughts about ourselves, even though we shouldn’t.  We often do the same in times when we are severely tempted, when Satan casts his fiery darts at us, lodging them in our thoughts and stirring up involuntary feelings.  Our will repels those fiery darts, but in spite of all our efforts, they take effect for a while in our intellect and emotions.  Blasphemous thoughts enter our mind, unkind thoughts about God come to us, and these abominable thoughts stir up unwanted feelings no matter what we do.  Our will hates these feelings and it struggles to suppress them, but for the time being, we find ourselves unable to do anything more than fight and resist.

3   Now, it is very common for us, in this state, to write bitter accusations against ourselves.  But, should we really assume that we really are as much at fault as we think we are?  No, indeed!  But why do ministers in every denomination unite in telling such tempted souls?  “You are mistaken, my dear brother or sister.”  They say,  “These thoughts and feelings that stir within your mind, are not yours in such a sense that you are responsible for them.  Satan suggests those thoughts, and your feelings are a necessary result.  Your will resists them, and this proves that you are unable, for the time being, to avoid them.  You are therefore not responsible for them while you resist them with all the power of your will, any more than you would be guilty of murder should a giant overpower you, and use your hand against your will to shoot a man.” 
  In situations like this it is, as far as I know, universally true that ministers in every denomination admit that the tempted soul is not responsible or guilty for those things that he cannot help.  They realize that the inability in this situation is a stumbling block to their obligation; and such souls are justly told by ministers, “you are mistaken if you think that you are guilty in this situation.”  It is just as absurd in one situation as it is in another, to conclude that real responsibility exists simply because a feeling of responsibility exists. 
     To believe that we are always responsible, simply because we loosely think or feel that we are responsible, is absurd.  In situations where we are aware that we are unable to avoid tempting thoughts and feelings, and our mind is aware that our will is resisting them, and yet, we are still unable to banish them, we can rest on the assurance that we are not responsible for them.  We see our own irresponsibility the moment we become aware of our own inability.  Now if you naturally and truly think that you are responsible when there is a proper inability, then what I just said could never ease your mind.  You would say, “I know that I cannot avoid having these thoughts and feelings any more than I can stop the earth from spinning.  Yet I know I am responsible anyway.  These thoughts and feelings are states of my own mind, no matter how they came to me, or whether I can control or prevent them.  Inability is no barricade to obligation; therefore, my obligation and my guilt remain.  Woe is I, for I am undone.”  The teaching, then, that you are responsible even when you are unable is a false teaching.     

4   The error overlooks the fact of a real and proper inability.  Unless our education strongly biases our judgment, we won’t feel like we have to perform impossibili­ties.  We won’t even think of such a thing.  Who ever felt like they had to undo the past, to reclaim past time, or to substitute holy acts and states of mind in the place of past sinful ones?  No one has ever felt he had to do this; first, because he knows that it is impossible; and second, because no one that I personally know has ever taught or believed any such obligation because they themselves have never been taught such nonsense.

5   But sometimes, false teachings can be so powerful that those who listen to them seem capable of believing almost anything they hear, no matter how unreasonable and contrary it is to what we know for sure.  For example, President Edwards tells about a young woman in his congregation who became deeply convicted of being guilty of Adam’s first sin, and she deeply repented of it.  Now suppose that we consider situations like this situation as conclusive proof that men are guilty of Original sin, and deserve the wrath and curse of God for ever for that sin.  Suppose we use her example to prove that all men will suffer the pains of hell forever, unless they become convicted of their personal guilt for that sin and repent of it in dust and ashes!  President Edwards’ teaching on the subject of the relationship of all men to Adam’s first sin was so powerful that that was exactly what people in his congregation were doing.  But apart from false education, no human being ever held himself responsible for, or guilty of, the first or any other sin of Adam, or of any other being who existed and died before he was born.  The reason is that all moral agents naturally know that inability, or a proper impossibility, is a stumbling block to moral obligation and responsibil­ity; and they never question what is in their hearts unless they are persuaded by some doctrinal teaching that casts a fog over their primitive and constitutional convictions. 

C       Some deny their ability because they strangely believe that Gods moral law requires sinners to be, in all respects, what they should have been if they had never sinned.  That is, they maintain that God requires from them the same service as if sin never damaged their powers.  That God requires them to live as if they had always been under the influence of the perfectly right use of their power.  Now, they admit that this is naturally impossible.  Nevertheless, they believe that God can justly require it, and that sinners are justly required to perform this impossible service, and that they sin continu­ally because they constantly fall short of it.         

1   As long as we’re on the subject, you could also claim, using similar reasoning and the Bible, that God requires all sinners to undo all their acts of sin, and to substitute holy acts in place of the sinful acts, and that God considers them sinners as long as they neglect to do this.  Why should God require one and not the other?  Both are impossibilities that originate in the sinner’s own act or fault.  If the sinner’s inability to obey in the first situation does not set aside the right of God to command, then it doesn’t in the second situation either.  If an inability that results from the sinner’s own act cannot prevent God from making His requirement in the first situation, neither can it in the second situation for the same reason.  But, everyone can see that God cannot justly require the sinner to recall past time, or to undo past acts.  Why?  Because it is impossible!  But it is also impossible in the second situation.  Sinners who have indulged in sin over a long time are truly unable to render the same high degree of service as they might have rendered if they had never sinned, or if they could undo the past.  On what ground, then, of reason or revelation does the statement rest, that in one situation it makes obedience impossible, but not in the other?  I answer, there is no ground whatever to support the statement I am questioning.  It is a sheer and absurd assumption, unsupported by any affirmation of reason, or by any truth or principle of revelation.

2   But to this assumption, let me say something else.  If this assumption is true, it must follow that no one on earth or in heaven who has ever sinned will be able to render as perfect a service as the law demands, because there is no reason to believe that any being who has abused his powers by sin will ever, in time or eternity, be able to render as perfect a service as he might have done if he had never sinned.  If this theory is true, then the saints will be guilty in heaven of the sin of omission.  We must reject this doctrine without hesitation, which is based on an absurdity from the beginning, and results consequences like this. 

D       A strong awareness of the force of habit has also contributed to the loose belief of the doctrine of inability.  We all know that practice and repetition makes doing things easier.  This is just as true with conscious decisions as it is with the involuntary states of our mind.  When, over a long time, we constantly yield our will to particular fleshly impulses, it becomes very difficult to change.  This difficulty cannot really impair free will.  If it could, it would destroy, or severely impair our moral agency and accountability.  But habit does create an obstacle in the way of right willing or wrong willing.  We either obey or disobey with the greatest of ease from habit.  Habit strongly favors whatever direction our will is accustomed to go.  This never can properly impair our free will, or make it impossible to act in the opposite direction: for if it could, the actions of our will would cease to have moral character.  If love becomes a habit that is so strong that it becomes completely impossible to will in an opposite direction, love would cease being virtuous.  This is also true with selfishness.  If a habit becomes so powerful that our will becomes bound to it and cannot act freely, then the resulting actions will no longer have moral character.  But, there is a real conscious obstacle to obedience when our will has been accustomed to sinning for a long time.  The language of inspiration, devotional hymns, and the language of the experience of all men, strongly recognizes this. 
     The language of scripture is often so strong on this point that, if we did not study the scripture in context, we might justly conclude a proper inability.  For example, “Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots?  Then may you also do good who are accustomed to do evil?”  (Jer. 13:23)  This and similar passages clearly recognize the influence of habit.  “Then may you also do good who are accustomed to do evil?”  Custom or habit needs overcoming, and, in the strong language of the prophet, this is like changing the Ethiopian’s skin or the leopard’s spots.  But to think that the prophet here is affirming a proper inability would be to disregard one of the fundamental rules of interpreting language, namely, that the passage must be understood in its context.  The latter part of the seventh chapter of Romans provides a remarkable example and a good illustration of this.  Remember, one of the most important rules of interpreting any language is that we must consider the sub­ject‑matter of what the person is talking about.  When the word “cannot,” and similar words that express an inability are applied to physical or involuntary actions or states of mind, they express a proper natural inability.  However, when we use them in reference to acts of free will, words like “cannot”, mean, “will not”.  This is not a physical impossibility, but only a difficulty in the will that comes from the presence of a contrary choice, or the law of habit, or both.       

1   The seventh chapter of Romans raises many questions because of its relationship to the subject of ability and inability.  Therefore, let us therefore look at this very important passage, “For what I am doing, I do not understand.  For what I will to do, that I do not practice; but what I hate, that I do.  If, then, I do what I will not to do, I agree with the law that it is good.  But now, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.  For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find.  For the good that I will to do, I do not do; but the evil I will not to do, that I practice.  Now if I do what I will not to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.  I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good.  For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.  But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.”  (Romans 7:15‑23) 

2   Now what did the apostle mean by what he said?  How is Paul using his words?  Paul says that he finds himself able to will, but not able to do.  Is he merely speaking about a physical inability?  Does he simply mean to say that the established connection between his willing and his doing was disturbed, so that he could not do what he wanted to do?  We would easily conclude this if we interpreted this passage literally without examining the context that surrounds this passage, and if we didn’t consider the scope and design of the writer.  In this lengthy passage, Paul was using popular language, and was describing a very common experience. 
     Convicted sinners and backslidden saints often make legal resolutions.  They resolve to obey under the influence of legal motives, and without a real change of heart, and without a change in the attitude of their wills.  Under the influence of conviction, they try to do their duty to God and man selfishly, and in the presence of temptation, they are always failing to keep their resolu­tions.  As long as their hearts are selfish, they can’t keep their resolutions to abstain from those inward thoughts and emotions, nor can they prevent those outward actions that result by a law of cause and effect from a selfish heart or a selfish willful attitude.  When Paul says, “I will to do” he is talking about making a legal resolution.  Paul is saying, “I want to do” or “I desire to do”.  “For to will is present with me, but how to perform what is good I do not find.  For the good that I want to do, I don’t do; but the evil I don’t want to do, that I practice.  Now if I do what I don’t want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells in me.  I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wants to do good.  For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man.  But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.” 
  Now, this appears to me to describe the very familiar experiences of every deeply convicted sinner or backslider.  The will of the sinner is committed to the law in his member, or to the gratification of sensual desires.  Because of this, his outward life is selfish.  This produces conviction.  Conviction of sin then leads the sinner to form resolutions, but his will does not submit to God.  And so, these resolutions constantly fail to secure the results he desires to see accomplished.  His will is still committed to self‑gratification; and so all his resolutions to improve his feelings or his outward actions fail.

3   Paul did not intend to say that we are unable to submit to the claims of God.  In fact, Paul affirms that we have free will.  “For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh) nothing good dwells; for to will is present with me (In other words, ‘I know I have free will’), but how to perform what is good I do not find.”  (Romans 7:18)  “To will,” he says, “is present with me.”  But “to will” is an act of our will.  It is a purpose, a plan.  He planned to reform.  He was able to make resolutions, but he was not able to do good.  The reason why he could not do what he planned was that his resolutions were all selfish.  In other words, Paul resolved to reform without giving his heart to God, without submitting his will to God, without actually loving God with all his heart.  This caused his constant failure.  The wording here, if you take it literally, would lead you to the conclusion that the apostle was talking about a situation where his will is right, but where the established and natural connection between his will and its action is not being made, so that his outward act does not follow the action of his will.  In this situation, all schools would agree that the act of the will constitutes real obedience.  The whole passage, taken out of context, might lead us to conclude that the apostle was speaking of a proper inability, and therefore, he did not consider the failure as his own fault.  However, Paul later cries out: “It is no more I, but sin that dwells in me.  O wretched man that I am!” 
  Those who maintain that the apostle claimed that he was unable to obey, must then conclude that he represented this inability as an obstacle to his obligation, and saw his state as calamitous, but not sinful.  But the fact is, he was describing a legal experience, and spoke of finding himself unable to keep his selfish resolutions to reform in the presence of temptation.  His will was committed to fleshly indulgences because his heart was selfish.  In the absence of temptation, his convictions, fears, and feelings were very strong, and under their influence, he would make resolutions to do his duty, to abstain from fleshly indulgences, etc.  However, as soon as some other appetite or desire became more excited, he yielded to those desires, and broke his former resolutions.  Paul writes as if he was talking about himself, but he was representing his readers as he was writing.  He found the law of selfish habit extremely strong; so strong that lead him to cry out, “O wretched man that I am”.  But this does not mean that Paul had a proper inability to willfully submit to God. 

E       Anyone who seriously tries to clean up his act finds himself in great need of help and support from the Holy Spirit, because of the physical depravity I mentioned earlier, and because of the great strength of their habit of self‑indulgence.  It is natural to express your sense of depend­ence on the God’s Divine Spirit in strong language, and to speak about this dependence as if it consisted in a real inability, when in fact, you know down deep that it isn’t really a proper inability.  You will speak about this just like you would when you are aware that you have a strong tendency to do something.  Concerning many things, you will say “I cannot,” when you really mean “I will not”, and you would never think that someone who is listening to you believes you are talking about a physical inability.  The inspired writers often expressed themselves using everyday language, and we should understand them the same way.  In everyday speech, “cannot” often means, “will not”, and perhaps people use ‘cannot’ as often in this sense as they use it to express a proper inability.  It is interesting that men misinterpret this term to mean a proper inability only when it is used in reference to acts of will that relate to obedience to God.  Why should they assign a meaning to the use of the word ‘cannot’ when talking about obedience, that they do not assign anywhere else?                               

1   But, as I said earlier, under the light of the gospel, and with God’s promises in our hands, God would require us to do what we may be unable to do if it wasn’t for His promises and the help of the Holy Spirit.  When we consider the aid that God offers us, we realize our own inability to do directly, in our own strength, all that He requires us to do.  We can only accomplish what God requires us to do by the strength given to us by the Holy Spirit.  That is, we cannot know Christ, we cannot take advantage of His duties, functions, and relationships, and appropriate to our own souls His fullness, unless the Holy Spirit draws us.  What God immediately and directly requires, is that we receive the Holy Spirit by faith to be our teacher and guide; and that we allow the Holy Spirit to take the things of Christ and reveal them to us.  We are able to exercise this confidence.  Who ever really and intelligently affirmed that he did not have the power or ability to trust or confide in the promises of God?  Much that we hear about our inability in poetry, and in the common language of the saints, has nothing to do about subject­ing our will to God, but is about those experiences, and feelings that depend on the illumina­tions of the Holy Spirit.  The language that is so common when we pray and in our devotions, usually speaks of our dependence on the Holy Spirit for those Divine discoveries of Christ that will charm the soul into a steadfast abiding in Him.  The feeling of our dependence on the Holy Spirit so enlightens us, that it breaks up forever the power of sinful habits, and draws us completely away from our idols forever.  

2   In future studies, I will discuss in detail our dependence on Christ and the Holy Spirit.  However, this dependence is not because we can’t will as God directs, but, because of the power of our sinful habits and the great darkness of our souls concerning Christ and His mediatorial work and relationships.  None of these constitutes a proper inability because, through the right action of our will, which is always possible, we, either directly or indirectly, can overcome all of these difficulties.  Whatever we can do or be by willing, wither directly or indirectly, is possible for us.  There is no degree of spiritual attainment that God requires us to attain that we cannot reach by right willing, either directly or indirectly.  Therefore, we can do these things.      

a       Jesus said: “If anyone wants to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority.”  (John 7:17)

b       “The lamp of the body is the eye.  If therefore your eye is good, your whole body will be full of light.”  (Matt. 6:22)

c        “Jesus answered and said to him, ‘If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and we will come to Him and make our home with Him.’”  (John 14:23)  

3   The scriptures abound with assurances of light and instruction, and of all the needed grace and help, on condition of a right will or heart, that is, on condition that we are really willing to obey the light as soon as we receive it.  A right state of our will is all that the moral law requires.  However, moral law requires all those acts and states of our mind and senses that are connected by a law of cause and effect with the right action of our will.  Of course, it also requires cleansing our soul and all those higher forms of Christian experiences that results from the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  The law of God requires that we shall make and enjoy these attainments as soon as the Holy Sprit provides the means, and as soon as these attainments are possible.  But it requires no more than this.  For the law of God can never require absolute impossibili­ties.  Anything that requires absolute impossibilities is not and cannot be moral law.  For, moral law is a law of nature, and what law of nature would require absolute impossibili­ties?  This would be a mockery of a law of nature.  What!  A law of nature requiring what is impossible to nature, both directly and indirectly!  Impossible.