Unless this incapability is the effective result of consistent and unwavering unwillingness to do it.
What you're effectively doing is removing man's guilt even prior to any application of grace by stating that he has no choice but to be sinful.
But unwillingness in itself is not what brings judgment; it is unwillingness in full revelation of what you are rebelling against. A man who is ignorant of a disease that is parasitic on his body is unwilling to undergo treatment; and this unwillingness is something he cannot blame, for he is ignorant of the truth. So it goes with sinful man, whose rebellion is firstly
psychological. Paul reveals rather interestingly in Romans 7 that sin is not merely committing what you know to be wrong; certainly it is this as well (James 4:17). He reveals that sin is a power; something that man is victim of. Man's accountability is perfectly relative to his knowledge of the wrong, and I would warrant his capacity and motivation to repent. This is why the law is impossible to follow perfectly; man, being imperfect and slave to sin, and therefore without the agapas that makes it possible to nullify the law and fulfill it as Jesus claims, is totally unable to fulfill it in his own power. In effect, the law becomes unredeemed man's tutor in bringing him to Christ (Galatians 3:22-25).
It is not a question about obstinate sinfulness; sin exists apart from our knowledge of it. It is a question of being accountable with what you have been revealed. Those who blaspheme the spirit of truth are the ones that are worthy of an eternal Hell (Luke 12:10). Man constrained by the power of sin is in Hell already, if you will. The rewards of actions committed here on earth, I would add, are also rewarded here on earth (Psalm 62:12; Prov. 24:12; Romans 2:6).
"Surely You set them in slippery places," states the previously frustrated Asaph, concerning the fate of the wicked. "You cast them down to destruction. Oh, how they are brought to desolation,
as in a moment! They are utterly consumed with terrors." -- Psalm 73:18,19
Notice the reference to the present. I am not, therefore, attempting to remove man's guilt by admitting his psychological sinfulness; this is, as stated previously, paid for in due time -- and for those who refuse repentance, in Hell that is, as Sartre would have it, 'locked from the inside.'
The other option is to claim that God blames men for not doing something they are incapable of doing without His help. And this is ludicrous.
The only reason I stated this was because the idea of claiming that man is incapable of repenting without God's help but is therefore still responsible for such rebellion is contradictory to justice. Man must be capable of repenting and accepting through faith what he is now refusing. This is all I'm advocating. God would therefore be blaming men for something they are incapable of doing, for they are sinners by nature; and God forced them into existence.
Of course, we must also realize that there are many who are incapable of refusing their sinful state because faith may not have been preached to them. Paul reveals this in Romans 10 -- without a messenger, men are incapable of repentance, for faith cometh by hearing. If there are men with the capacity to repent, but are not on the basis of man's incapability, what must we say? That they deserve eternal torment for something they would otherwise repent of given proper information (this encompasses proper preaching!)? This would be tantamount to claiming that such men deserve eternal torment for existing, which is absurd.
Drotar said:
Received, if you hold to a 'free will' in the Arminian sense, I have a question:
If the will is free, why does it at times desire to sin and at times desire to praise God? What motivates the will, causes the desires? It cannot be both inherently holy and unholy at the same time. It must be one or the other.
We say we have a sin nature. And thus, we will desire only to rebel against God and act in sinful and selfish ways UNLESS God actively bestows His common grace.
Is the will holy or unholy? And if it is free, why does it go this way or that? What causes it to desire sin or holiness at times? TTYL Jesus loves you!
The will, in itself, is neither: it is amoral. Only when it is applied to specific situations may it be labeled either good or bad. Of course, the will is not what is the important context in scripture; faith is. Faith itself is impossible to be willed; we may will specific actions in faith already have. But faith is evidence. It is faith that the righteous walk by (Hab. 2:4). But it is also faith that man is incapable of producing without understanding, as Paul reveals in his call to missions in Romans 10. Indeed, the very opposite of sin is faith (Romans 14:23). I would therefore say, given this understanding, that the unregenerate does not have any desire to praise God, for God, accessible only through Christ, has not been preached to him. And this is not his fault, and therefore not his wilfull rebellion; unless he refuses what he knows to be true.
You say we have a sin nature and we desire everything against God unless God emits His grace upon us. This seems to me to be sufficient room to argue that sin is something that man, without the help of God, is victim to. He cannot help his state of action, for until he admits faith, he is still in sin, for faith is the opposite of sin. With this in mind, it does not make sense to me how God can force men into existence, sinful under the curse of Adam, and demand that they refuse sin and come to Him unless they are capable, in their own power, to accept Him by faith.
Colossians said:
Circular reasoning. Refusal to repent is itself hardness of heart, and was the exact manifestation of the hardening God had caused. Pharoah refused to repent at Moses' warning, which is exactly what God had told Moses would occur: "..When thou goest to return to Egypt, see that thou doest all those wonders before Pharoah, which I have put in thine hand: but I will harden his heart, that he will not let the people go" Ex 4:21
But if refusal to repent is itself hardness of heart, what makes you believe that Pharoah's refusal to repent was not the initial force that brought about God's decree to
further harden his heart? Indeed, there are relative degrees to refusing repentance. The scripture quoted does not ameliorate your cause. All it does is reveal that God will indeed harden Pharoah's heart. This speaks of nothing about who was the cause of initial rebellion. And it is precisely cowardice that I am advocating as the cause by which God further hardened Pharoah's heart. Cowardice is
weakness of the heart; incapability to carry out what you otherwise would indeed do.
The verse says "directeth his steps". And it proves predestination. It shows that no matter what man plans, his steps (which he also plans) will be determined for him. Therefore it reveals that the plans man makes are the plans God puts in his mind.
Actually, directeth his steps is in itself ambiguous. The hebrew, however, gives the idea of 'establishing' one's steps. And given that the context makes reference to man's heart
prior to the steps placed by God, it would seem more than sufficient to admit that this placement of steps is relative to one's spiritual (or willful) standing, which is at the basis of man and man alone, and not God's sovereignty. This does not prove unconditional predestination. It proves God's respect for man's freedom. God destines steps in accordance with man's heart. Indeed, He rewards every man according to
his deeds (Psalm 62:12; Prov. 24:12; Romans 2:6).
"Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will, and whom He will He hardeneth. Thou (RECEIVED) wilt say unto me, Why doth He yet find fault, for who hath resisted His will?" Rom 9:18,19
Yes, thou wilt say it, and thou hast said it twice so far.
If this context of scripture were according to your hermeneutical standings, and if I were an unregenerate, through this claimed critique of God's will, I am giving Him glory, for I am the one that God is intentionally creating for destruction. Therefore, I am acting justly, for I am adhering to God's will. Why are you scolding me?
Does this reveal how absurd this form of interpretation is? God is not only forcing men to be evil contrary to their freedom, but
blaming them for doing something they are incapable of carrying out; namely, repentance (Romans 2:5).
Again, given the context of Proverbs 16:9 at the very least, God's will conforms to man's will, and therefore the destruction God is wroughting is perfectly on the basis of man's will. He created man with freedom, and therefore has intrinisic respect for it. Indeed, if God is intentionally creating destructed souls, and what God does is good, what does this say of Paul who desires the salvation of his countrymen only verse prior to this theological admittance (9:3)? Does his desire to save those who are otherwise being planned to eternally die by God's hand mean that his will is contrary to God's? It seems so. Therefore, Paul's common call to repentance, fueled by the very agapas that inevitably takes place within the redeemed soul following conversion, is in absolute contradiction with God's, who intentionally forces men into existence only to force them into eternal Hell apart from their consent. And so it goes with every man who loved without condition to one's eternal salvation. Man, in effect, outmercifies God.