Chapter 10 – Opposition
10. Its Opposition.
In bringing this book to a close it seems desirable that we should devote space to a consideration of the opposition made against this truth and then finally an exposition of the same. This subject of the moral inability of fallen man unto good is one which is peculiarly repugnant to his pride, and therefore it is not to be wondered at that his outcry against it is so loud and prolonged. The exposure of human depravity, the disclosure of the fearful ruin which sin has wrought in our constitution cannot be a pleasant thing to contemplate and still less to acknowledge as a fact. To feelingly own that by nature I am devoid of love for God, yes, that I am full of an inveterate enmity against Him, is diametrically opposed to my whole make-up. It is but natural to form a high estimate of ourselves and to entertain exalted views both of our capabilities and good intentions. To be assured by Divine authority that our hearts are incurably wicked, that we love darkness rather than light, that we hate alike the Law and the Gospel, is revolting to our whole being, and every possible effort is put forth by the carnal mind to repudiate such a flesh-withering and humiliating description of human nature. If it cannot be refuted by an appeal to facts, then it must be held up to ridicule.
Such opposition to the Truth should neither surprise nor discourage us, for it has been plainly announced to us: “The natural man receives not the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him” (1 Corinthians 2:14). The very fact that they are “foolishness” unto him should lead us to expect he will laugh at and hold them up to scorn. Nor must we be alarmed when we find this mocking of the Truth is far from being confined to avowed Infidels and open enemies of God, but that this same antagonism appears in the great majority of religious professors and those who pose as the champions of Christianity. Passing through a seminary and putting on the ministerial garb does not transform unregenerate into regenerate men. When our Lord announced, “the Truth shall make you free,” it was the religious leaders in Israel who declared they were never in bondage, and when He affirmed, “You are of your father the Devil and the lusts of your father you will do,” they replied, “say we not well that You are a Samaritan and have a demon?” (John 8:32-48).
It is just because the fiercest opposition to this truth comes from those inside Christendom and not from those outside, that we deem it well to face the principal objections. We do so with the object of placing the Lord’s little ones upon their guard and to let them see there is no weight in such cavils. We would not waste time in seeking to close the mouths of those whom God Himself will deal with in due time, but we desire to expose their sophistries so that those with spiritual discernment may perceive their faith rests upon a foundation which no belching of unbelief can shake. Every objection which Arminians make against the doctrine of man’s spiritual impotency has been overthrown by God’s servants in the past, yet each fresh generation of them repeat the arrogance of their forbears as though none had ever made it appear they are not worth the breath which retails them. We have already refuted most of their objections in the course of this book, yet by now assembling them together and showing their pointlessness we may render a service which will not be entirely useless.
1. If fallen man is unable to keep God’s Law then he cannot be obligated to keep it, is a common objection brought against this truth. It is said that impotency obviously cancels responsibility. A child of three or four years of age ought not to be whipped because it does not read and write. A man with no legs should not be sent to prison because he does not walk. Surely a just and holy God does not require sinful creatures to render perfect obedience to a Divine and spiritual law. How is this objection to be met? First, by pointing out that it is not based upon Holy Writ but is merely human reasoning. Scripture affirms again and again that fallen man is spiritually impotent, “without strength,” that he “cannot please God,” and from that nothing must move us. Scripture nowhere states that spiritual helplessness releases man from God’s claims upon him, and therefore no human reasoning to the contrary, however plausible or pleasing, is entitled to any consideration from those who tremble at God’s Word. Scripture reveals that God does hold fallen man responsible, to keep His Law, for He gave it to Israel at Sinai and pronounced His curse upon all transgressors of it.
What has been pointed out above should be sufficient for any simple soul who fears the Lord. But lest it be thought that that is all which can be said by way of refutation-lest it be supposed this objection is so forceful that it cannot be met in a more direct rebuttal-we add more. To declare that man cannot be obligated to keep the Law if he is unable to do so demands an inquiry into both the nature and the cause of his inability. Once that investigation is entered into, the sophistry of the objection will quickly appear. Wherein lies man’s inability to keep God’s Law? Is it the absence of the requisite faculties or his unwillingness to use aright the faculties with which he is endowed? Were fallen man devoid of reason, conscience, will, there would be some force in this objection. Since he is possessed of all those faculties which constitute a moral being, it is quite insane and invalid. There is no analogy whatever between the sinner’s inability to tread the highway of holiness and the inability of a man with no legs to walk.
But more-not only is the worthlessness of this objection made evident when we examine the nature of man’s spiritual impotency, but equally does it appear void when we diagnose its cause. Why is fallen man unable to keep God’s Law? Is it because he is wrought upon by some all-mighty being who prevents him rendering obedience? Were fallen man truly desirous of serving and pleasing God-if he ardently longed to do so but was thwarted because another more powerful than himself hindered him, there would be some force to this objection. But so far is God from placing any obstacle in our way He sets before us every conceivable inducement to comply with His precepts. If it is said that the Devil is more powerful than man, and that he is ever seeking to turn him from the path of rectitude, the answer is that Satan can do nothing without our own consent-all he can do is to tempt unto wrong doing, and it is man’s own will which either yields or refuses.
In reply to what has last been pointed out it may be said, But fallen man has no sufficient power of his own with which to successfully resist Satan’s evil solicitations. Suppose that is so, then what? Does that oblige us to take sides with the enemies of the Truth and affirm that therefore man is to be excused for his sinful deeds, that he is not obligated to render perfect obedience to the Law merely because he has not the power to cope with his Adversary? Not at all. Once more we must inquire as to the cause. Why is it that man cannot put the Devil to flight? Is it because he was originally vested with less moral strength than his foe possesses? No indeed, for he was made in the image and likeness of God. Man’s present inability has been brought about by an act of his own and not by any stinginess or oversight of his Creator’s. “You have destroyed yourself ” (Hosea 13:9) is the Divine verdict, and though man is unable to recover what he lost, he has none but himself to blame for his willful and wicked destruction of his original strength.
It is at this very point man twists and wriggles most, seeking to get from under the onus which righteously rests upon him. When Adam offended against the Divine Law he sought to throw the blame upon his wife, and she in turn upon the Devil, while ever since then the great majority have attempted to cast it on God Himself, on the pretext that He is the One who gave them being and sent them into the world in their present handicapped condition. It must then be kept steadily in mind that original ability destroyed by self-determination does not, and cannot, destroy the original obligation any more than weakened moral strength by self-indulgence and the formation of evil habits destroys or diminishes obligation. To say otherwise would be to declare that the result of sin excuses sin itself, which is a manifest absurdity. Man’s wrong-doing certainly does not annul God’s rights. God is no Egyptian taskmaster requiring men to make bricks without straw: He endowed man with everything requisite for the discharge of his duty, and though man has squandered his substance in riotous living, that does not free him from meeting God’s just claims upon him.
The drunkard is certainly less able to obey the law of temperance than the sober man is yet that law has precisely the same claims upon the former as it has upon the latter. In commercial life the loss of ability to pay does not release from obligations; the loss of property does not free man from his indebtedness: a man is as much a debtor to his creditors after his bankruptcy as he was previously. It is a legal maxim that bankruptcy does not invalidate contracts. If it be pointed out that an insolvent debtor cannot be sued in the courts, the answer is, even if human law deems it equitable to free an insolvent debtor, the Law of God does not: “Truly I say unto you, You shall by no means come out thence, until you have paid the uttermost farthing” (Matthew 5:26). And most righteous is that verdict, for the sinner’s inability to render unto God His due is a voluntary one-he does not wish to pay because he hates Him. Thus both the nature and the cause of man’s inability demonstrate that he is “without excuse.”
2. When the inquiry is pressed as to the cause of man’s spiritual impotency and when it has been shown that this lies not in the Creator but in his own original rebellion, so far from the objector being silenced he will now demur against his being penalized for what his first parents did, asking, Is it just that I should be sent into this world in a state of spiritual helplessness because of their offense? I did not make myself: if I were created with a corrupt nature why should I be held to blame for its inevitable fruits? First, let it be pointed out that it is not essential in order for a fallen creature to be blamable for his evil dispositions and acts that he must first be inherently holy. A person who is depraved, who from his heart hates God and despises His Law is none the less a sinner because he has been depraved from his birth. His having sinned from the beginning and throughout his existence is surely no valid extenuation for his sinning now. Nor is his guilt any the less because his depravity is so deeply rooted in his nature: the stronger his enmity against God the greater its heinousness.
But how can I be condemned for my evil heart when Adam and not myself corrupted human nature? Answer: fallen man is voluntarily an enemy to the infinitely glorious God and nothing can extenuate such vile hostility. The very fact that in the Day of judgment “every mouth will be stopped” (Romans 3:19) demonstrates there can be no force in this objection. It is the free and self-determined acting out of his nature for which the sinner will be held accountable. The fact that we are born traitors to God cannot cancel our obligation to render Him allegiance-none can escape from the righteous requirements of the Law by a deliberate opposition thereto. That man’s nature is the direct consequence of Adam’s transgression does not in the slightest degree mitigate his own sins. Is it not a solemn fact that each of us has approved Adam’s transgression by following his example and joining with him in rebellion against God? That we go on to break the Divine Law demonstrates that we are justly condemned with Adam. If we resent our being corrupted through Adam why not repudiate him and refuse to sin, stand out in opposition to him and be holy?
Still the carnal mind will ask, Since I lost all power to love and serve God before ever I was born, how can I be held accountable to do what I cannot? Wherein is the justice in requiring from me what it is impossible to render? Let us reply by inquiring, Exactly what was it that man lost by the Fall? Answer, It was a heart that loved God, and it is the possessing of a heart which has no love for God that is the very essence of human depravity. This it is in which the vileness of fallen man consists: no heart for God. But does a loveless heart for God excuse fallen man? No indeed, for that is the very core of his wickedness and guilt. Men never complain of their lack of power for loving the world. And why are they so thoroughly in love with the world? Is it because the world is more excellent and glorious than God is? Certainly not: it is only because fallen man has a heart which naturally loves the world, but he has no natural heart with which to love God. The world suits and delights him but God does not, rather do His very perfections repel him.
Now, my readers, let us put it to ourselves plainly and honestly: can our being devoid of any true love for God free us from our obligation to love Him? Can it to the slightest degree lessen our blame for not loving Him? Is He not infinitely worthy of our affections, our homage, our allegiance? None would argue in any other connection as does the objector here. If a king rules wisely and well is he not entitled to the honor and allegiance of his subjects? If an employer is merciful and considerate has he not the right to expect his employees shall further his interests and carry out his orders? If I am a kind and dutiful parent, shall I not require the esteem and obedience of my children? Should my servant or child plead, I have no heart to give what is due, would I not justly consider him at fault and deserving of punishment? Or shall we reason so insanely that the worse man becomes, the less he is to blame? “A son honors his father, and a servant his master: if then I be a Father, where is Mine honor and if I be a Master, where is My fear? says the Lord of hosts” (Malachi 1:6).
3. It is objected that if the sinner be so enslaved by sin that he is impotent unto good then we deny his free agency and reduce him to a mere machine. This is more a metaphysical question than a practical one, being largely a matter of terms. There is a real sense in which the natural man is in bondage, nevertheless within certain limits he is a free agent, for he acts according to his own inclinations without compulsion. There is much confusion on this subject. Freedom of will is not a freedom from action: inaction in the will is no more possible than is inaction of the understanding. Nor is freedom of the will a freedom from the internal consequences of voluntary action-the formation of a habit is voluntary-but when formed it cannot be eradicated by a volition. Nor is freedom of will a freedom from the restraint and regulation of law: the glorified saints will be completely delivered from sin yet regulated by the Divine will. Nor is freedom of will a freedom from bias: Christ acted freely, yet being the Holy One, He could not sin. The unregenerate act freely, that is, spontaneously, agreeably to their desires-yet being depraved they can neither will nor do anything which is spiritual.
4. If man is spiritually impotent, then all exhortations unto the performance of spiritual duties are needless and useless. This objection assumes that God would not address His commands to men unless they were able to obey them. This idea is most presumptuous, for therein man pretends to be capable of judging the reasons which regulate the Divine procedure. Has God no right to press His claims because man has wickedly squandered his power to meet them? The Divine commands import not what we can do, but what we should do-not what we are able to do-but what we ought to do. The Divine Law is set before us in all the length and breadth of its holy requirements as a means of knowledge, revealing to us God’s character, the relation in which we stand to Him and the duty which He justly requires of us. It is also a means of conviction, both of our sin and inability. If men are sinners it is important that they should be made aware of the fact-by setting before them a perfect standard that they may see how far short they come of it. If men are unable to discharge the duties incumbent upon them it is necessary that they should be made sensible of their woeful condition-that they may realize their need of salvation.
5. To teach men they are spiritually impotent is to cut the nerve of a religious endeavor: if I am helpless what is the use of bidding me to strive? Necessity is a sufficient reason to act without further encouragement. A man in the water who is ready to drown will endeavor to save his life even though he cannot swim and some on the banks tell him it is impossible. Again we would press the Divine side. There is a necessity resting upon us whenever there is a command from God-if He requires, it behooves man to use the means and leave the issue with Him. Again, spiritual inability is no excuse for negligence and inertia, because God refuses not strength to perform His bidding if it be duly-humbly, contritely and trustfully-sought. When did He ever deny grace to the sinner who waited upon Him in earnest supplication and in a consistent use of the means for procuring it? Is not His Word full of promises to seeking souls? If a man has hands and food is set before him, would it not be an idle cavil for him to say he could not eat because he is not moved from above?
6. If the sinner is spiritually powerless then it is only mocking him to bid him repent of his sins and believe the Gospel. To call upon the unregenerate to savingly receive Christ as their Lord and Savior is very far from mocking him. Did the Son of God mock the rich young ruler when He told him to sell all that he had and follow Him and then he should have treasure in Heaven? Certainly not: had the ruler no power to sell his possessions? Was it not rather lack of inclination and for such lack was he not justly blamable? Such a demand served to expose the state of his heart: he loved money more than Christ, earthly things above heavenly. The exhortations, warnings and promises set down in the Word are to be pressed upon the ungodly so as to render them the more inexcusable, so that they may not say in the Day to come that had they been invited to receive such good things they would have embraced them, that had they been admonished for their sins they would have forsaken them. Their own conscience will convict them and they will know a Prophet of God spoke to them.
7. Finally, for space fails us, it is objected that the doctrine of man’s spiritual impotency stifles all hope. To tell a man his condition is irremediable, that he can do nothing whatever to better himself, will drive him to despair. This is precisely what is desired. One principal end which must ever be kept before the preacher is to shatter the self-sufficiency of his hearer. His business is to undermine the spirit of self-righteousness to break down self-satisfaction, to sweep away those refuges of lies in which men shelter, to convince them of the utter futility of seeking to win Heaven by their own endeavors. His business it to bring before them the exalted claims of God’s Law and to show how far short we come of it-to expose the wickedness of the human heart, to reveal the ruin which sin has wrought, to bring the sinner face to face with the thrice holy God and to make him realize he is utterly unfit to stand before Him. In a word, his business is to make his hearer conscious that unless a miracle of grace is performed upon him he is lost forever. Not until the sinner feels that he is helpless and hopeless in himself is he prepared to look outside of himself. Despair opens the door of hope! “You have destroyed yourself: but in Me is your help” (Hosea 13:9).
