Commands and Invitations for the Impossible - Arguments against the link between LFW and Responsibility
Commands inconsistent with LFW
- God commands the acts of the will, not the acts of body executing the will’s commands.
- If there’s a sequence of acts of the will, the first act that drives the train is the one God’s commands pertain to.
- Whatever comes before that first act of the will isn’t the subject of the command.
- But some Arminians say the act of the soul determines the act of the will. So that act of the soul isn’t subject to divine commands.
- Other Arminians say nothing causes the acts of the will, but then they happen by accident and pure chance. And if they happen by pure chance, there’s no point to God regulating them with a law.
Inability and Responsibility
- Disobedience implies a moral inability to obey, because some moral cause must have determined the sin’s occurrence
- Natural inability is incompatible with responsibility
- if the will complies with a command, but the body is hindered, the man is excused
- Natural inability consists of either lack of strength, lack of understanding or an obstacle
Commands and invitations are the same thing, except commands arise from authority and invitation from goodness, so if commanding the impossible isn’t insincere, inviting someone to do the impossible isn’t insincere either.
My Response
Clearly Edwards is leveraging some of his arguments discussed here, so regarding the whole determinism vs. indeterminism discussion I see no need to rehash things. Also, the moral/natural distinction needs attention, but since it's a theme in Part IV, I will wait till we get there.
Sincerity of Invitations
I will make a comment about invitations. Invitations are not commands, but that's not that important because the invitation to believe is joined with a command. (1 John 3:23) But invitations do imply a desire on the part of the innovator that the invitee accept the invitation. Otherwise the offer is insincere.
If Bob invites Sue to a party, secretly hoping she doesn't come, Bob is being insincere. Bob's outward action of inviting Sue, doesn't match his inward desire for her not to come.
Calvinists are quick to point out that God's offer is true. Anyone who believes will be saved. Even this is debatable, but granting it for the moment, it's actually besides the point. Let's say Sue accepts and shows up for the party. Bob says aw rats, but let's her in. Bob did come through, so his offer was true. But it still mislead Sue. What might Sue think of Bob if she found out he didn't want her there? Wouldn't she be upset and offended? She would, because Bob mislead her into thinking he wanted her to accept.
In the same way God's offer to the reprobate is insincere, if he doesn't want them to accept.
Commanding the Impossible
God cannot issue a command the impossible, as such would violate His justice. On the other hand, man can't force God to rescind a command, by incapacitating themselves. 
Let's say Captain Kirk tells Spock, don't blow up the Enterprise. But Spock starts an unstoppable self-destruct mechanism with a 1 hour timer. A half hour latter Kirk tells Spock, "since you can no longer obey my command, I am forced to take it back." Spock would say "but Captain, that would be illogical".
Similarly, when mankind fell in Adam, God wasn't forced to take His commands back. So God does not unjustly command the impossible, but He does not rescind His commands from mankind after the fall. This is the difference between Edwards' position and my own. Edwards thinks God can issue for a command to someone who can't obey, I don't, even thought we agree that fallen mankind can't obey God's commands.
Comments
Thanks for reading and your question. I classify commands from the law of Moses into three buckets: 1) moral, 2) ceremonial and 3) governmental.
The moral law was around before Moses and didn’t go away after Christ. It’s more or less a reflection of God’s unchanging character. Moses codified and put in writing the “thou shalls” but they were around in the garden. It didn’t “become” wrong to kill, steal or not love God in Moses’ day. Those principles are just part of who God is.
The ceremonial law prefigured Christ and the governmental law was the set of rules to run Israel’s government, judicial system, medical system... The ceremonial aspects ended with Christ. The governmental aspects change with changes in leadership and end completely in Christ’s kingdom.
An example of a governmental aspect of the law was divorce. In the garden God established the moral rules of divorce, but Moses had a nation of sinners to run, so set up the legal way of going about divorce in an organized fashion. The moral principle didn’t change (i.e. God permitting at Moses’ time, but forbidding at Christ’s time). Christ had to explain this to the Pharisees. (Matthew 19)
I suppose you’re interested in the “new” aspects? Breaking the ceremonial or governmental law involves vices under the moral law. It’s violating these moral principles that is morally wrong. Also, following the outward ceremonial or governmental aspects of the law (but for the wrong reasons) is within the ability of the unregenerate. But doing so isn’t a moral virtue.
Make sense?
God be with you,
Dan
Thanks.
It seems that your primary argument converts a command into an invitation and then uses an analogy that makes no sense with respect to a command. That is to say, a command is not "insincere" even if the person making the command does not hope it is obeyed.
Your secondary argument breaks down because (a) Spock's initial disobedience does not prevent him from otherwise obeying during the next hour, nor does it prevent him from disobeying further during the next hour (for example, by destroying the ship some other way during the interim).
If, however, after Kirk gives the order, Spock is attacked by aliens who stun him, tie him to the ship, and convert his internal organs into a bomb that will cause the ship be destroyed, Kirk wouldn't view Spock as disobeying, simply because Spock actually destroys the ship. While he may or may not withdraw his command, he wouldn't view Spock's breech of the command, disobedience.
Furthermore, the command that we perfectly obey God's law does not simply come before the fall. It comes after the fall as well.
-TurretinFan
It seems that your primary argument converts a command into an invitation and then uses an analogy that makes no sense with respect to a command.
No, my primary argument is that the gospel is an invitation and also a command. The analogy deals with the invitation aspect.
Your secondary argument breaks down because (a) Spock's initial disobedience does not prevent him from otherwise obeying during the next hour, nor does it prevent him from disobeying further during the next hour (for example, by destroying the ship some other way during the interim).
All analogies break down at some point... but I suppose a tighter analogy, in respect to the angle you are examining, would be a guard who gets drunk on duty. He is responsible for A) getting drunk on the job, B) what he does while drunk and C) what happens that he should have prevented.
Furthermore, the command that we perfectly obey God's law does not simply come before the fall. It comes after the fall as well.
Please see my response to Tom.
God be with you,
Dan
Where do you see Scripture refer to the gospel as an invitation? I see the places where it is plainly expressed as a command.
-TurretinFan
Generally, I agree with Hodge’s denominating the following passages invitations:
The Scriptures, therefore, in the most explicit terms teach that the external call of the gospel is addressed to all men. The command of Christ to his Church was to preach the gospel to every creature. Not to irrational creatures, and not to fallen angels these two classes are excluded by the nature and design of the gospel. Further than this there is no limitation, so far as the present state of existence is concerned. We are commanded to make the offer of salvation through Jesus to every human being on the face of the earth. We have no right to exclude any man; and no man has any right to exclude himself. God so loved the world, that He gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Hun might not perish but have everlasting life. The prediction and promise in Joel ii. 32, “Whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered,” is repeatedly renewed in the New Testament, as in Acts ii. 21; Romans x. 13. David says (Psalm lxxxvi. 5), “Thou, Lord, art good, and ready to forgive; and plenteous in mercy unto all them that call upon thee.” The prophet Isaiah lv. 1, gives the same general invitation: “Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money, and without price.” Our Lord’s call is equally unrestricted, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest.” (Matt. xi. 28.) And the sacred canon closes with the same gracious words, “The Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst, come: and whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.” (Rev. xxii. 17.) The Apostles, therefore, when they went forth in the execution of the commission which they had received, preached the gospel to every class of men, and assured every man whom they addressed, that if he would repent and believe in the Lord Jesus Christ he should be saved. If, therefore, any one holds any view of the decrees of God, or of the satisfaction of Christ, or of any other Scriptural doctrine, which hampers him in making this general offer of the gospel, he may be sure that his views or his logical processes are wrong. The Apostles were not thus hampered, and we act under the commission given to them.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/hodge/theology2.iv.xiv.i.html
Additionally:
John 7:37 In the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried, saying, If any man thirst, let him come unto me, and drink.
2 Corinthians 5:20 Therefore we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making His plea through us. We plead with you 2 on Christ’s behalf, “Be reconciled to God!”
Luke 13:34 O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those who are sent to you! How often I have longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you would have none of it!
God be with you,
Dan