This chapter has seven subdivisions.
This is another chapter that is worth the price of the book, providing a wonderful discussion of issues many Christians and pastors have strong feelings about but typically are unwilling to discuss openly and without fear of recrimination.
“Earlier we looked at the relation of divine sovereignty and human responsibility. Both are true. Now we look at the relation of total depravity and human responsibility. Both are true. Yet it is not always easy to explain these sets. But we dare not deny any of these doctrines, for they are all biblical. The state of the question is: If man is totally depraved and morally unable to obey God, how then can he be held accountable to God?”
The Arminian Theory. Six paragraphs. “Dave Hunt sums up the Arminian theory: ‘one cannot be held responsible for what one cannot do.’ A. W. Tozer also sets it forth with an adjunct: ‘if man’s will is not free to do evil, it is not free to do good! The freedom of human will is necessary to the concept of morality. This is why I have not accepted the doctrine that our Lord Jesus Christ could not have sinned.’” Until reading this I had not known that Tozer denied the impeccability of Christ. I will never be able to read him again without this sad truth coming to mind.
The Myth of Moral Neutrality. Six paragraphs. “Pelagianism and Arminianism presume that one must be morally neutral to be responsible… But Calvinists reply that Scripture never says anyone is morally neutral.” “The Arminian theory sometimes appeals to Philippians 1:21 – 24, in which Paul cannot decide which option he prefers and is therefore neutral. But this is an incorrect interpretation. For one, it is talking about a Christian, not a neutral non-Christian. Also, Paul is not really neutral. He explicitly says he prefers to go to heaven, not stay on earth. But he submits to God’s will in the matter. This resembles Christ’s prayer in Gethsemane, ‘Not My will, but Yours, be done” (Luke 22:42). Neither Paul nor Christ were morally neutral.”
Degrees of Responsibility. Three paragraphs. Degrees of responsibility are recognized and discussed.
The Law of Human Inability. Two paragraphs. John Gill, Martin Luther, Francis Turretin, and Christopher Love are cited.
Inability Does Not Negate Responsibility. Five paragraphs. The author’s comments include two analogies used by Arthur Pink, an excerpt from the Heidelberg Catechism, references to John Calvin and Jonathan Edwards, and the condemnation of false prophets found in Second Peter 2:14.
Addressing the Unconverted. Three paragraphs. The author strongly criticizes Hyper-Calvinism.
Conclusion. “Man is morally responsible to God but morally unable to obey or believe. God is just to punish him. But God is also merciful and grants moral ability to those he has chosen. This leads us to the great biblical doctrine of election."
