Does Arguing Human Inabilty Slander God's Law?
physician's continued intervention with appropriate treatments to ensure the patient's healing. Likewise, if God were to leave a person to their own devices in the midst of such preparatory actions, they would undoubtedly perish. Therefore, while these actions might seem to prepare us for justification, they only do so through God's intervention and not by their inherent nature.
This analogy, however, isn't perfect since unlike the physician who may have no alternative but to cut, God has limitless ways to lead us to salvation. Consider Judas, who after betraying Christ confessed his sin and expressed remorse, actions that could have been preparatory for justification had God chosen to use them. However, since God did not intervene, Judas ended up taking his own life, resulting in damnation. Similarly, Cain acknowledged his sin but was ultimately consumed by despair. This demonstrates the true nature of such actions if they are not governed and ordered by God.
Does Arguing Human Inabilty Slander God's Law?
27. Moreover, our adversaries accuse us of grievously slandering God's law and rendering it useless by asserting that it cannot be fully observed by natural human strength and ability. However, these critics clearly demonstrate that they have not thoroughly studied the scriptures to understand the functions of the law. If they had, they would never consider it useless, despite our inability to fully comply with it. The first role of the law, as taught by Paul, is to reveal sin, for "through the law comes the knowledge of sin." It also provokes God's wrath, for "the law brings about wrath." Furthermore, it increases the gravity of sin, for "the law entered so that sin might increase." It
also brings a curse, for "all who rely on the works of the law are under a curse."
But to what purpose? It serves as a schoolmaster leading us to Christ.
Those who recognize their sins see God's wrath looming over them; they feel their sins multiplying and find themselves increasingly under a curse. Eventually, when the Spirit of God moves them, they begin to yearn for Christ to deliver them from such burdens. This is how the law serves as a tutor leading to Christ. With this understanding, how could anyone consider the law unprofitable?
Moreover, who would claim that Aristotle laboured in vain when he skillfully outlined the nature of a demonstrative syllogism in his
"Posterior Analytics"? Even though it is rare to find reasoning so finely crafted in any scholarly discipline, Aristotle's diligent efforts were worthwhile. Through his exemplary rules, he demonstrated the standard to aim for if one wishes to prove something conclusively and robustly. Similarly, Cicero, when describing an orator that has never and will never exist, did not waste his effort. At the very least, he provided a model for those aspiring to excel in oratory.
In the same way, God has set forth His laws as examples for us to model our lives upon. Additionally, for those regenerated in Christ,
God's laws are not entirely impossible to observe. Since their strength is somewhat renewed by the Spirit of God and the fury of the flesh is somewhat subdued, they can achieve many things that are pleasing and acceptable to God. Moreover, even those not yet regenerated can, in terms of external discipline, align themselves to some extent with God's laws. When this is practised, societies prosper, God's wrath is less provoked against humanity, and the punishments that God sometimes inflicts on blatant sinners can be temporarily avoided.
28. And these are not insignificant or common benefits of the law, which those who object to us seem unaware of. Yet, not satisfied with these benefits, they further assert that the law can be observed even by those not yet regenerated. If someone questions the excellence and difficulty of this, they respond that our righteousness, when compared with God's righteousness—which is absolutely and perfectly just—or when matched against the law considered in its entirety, is indeed no righteousness at all. However, they claim that if our righteousness is compared to the law as God graciously accommodates our weaknesses, then in that light, we may fulfill it and be justified by good works. This is a sophistical distinction introduced by Pighius, who presumed the authority to moderate
God's law—an authority that surely cannot belong to any mortal.
This can be demonstrated both by human law and God's law: it is stated in the Digests, concerning laws and senatorial decrees, that in matters fundamental to a commonwealth, legislation should be clear, either by interpretation or by the statute of a wise prince, so that no one, including judges, may at their pleasure mitigate or bypass the laws under the guise of equity. For then, laws would be as pliable as a lead rule, subject to manipulation at anyone's whim.
This rule exists so that if a law's extremity is specified in a decree and its moderation or mitigation is not detailed elsewhere, the judge must adhere to the strict law and should not apply his interpretation of equity—although he may follow such equity if it is specified elsewhere in the law. For example, it is agreed in all laws that if a debtor does not pay on time and the creditor incurs a loss, the debtor is liable for that loss. This is what they mean by paying interest or damages. However, if the Digests specify that in all cases, the fault lies with the party that causes the action to be undone, then if a debtor can prove that the failure to pay was not his fault—for he had the money and offered it, but the creditor refused—then even if the
creditor suffers by not having his money, the debtor is not, in equity, obligated to compensate for the loss because the written law regards it as if the action was completed. Therefore, it's clear that judges or any others do not have the discretion to arbitrarily adjust laws.
If this principle holds in Roman law, created and enacted by humans, what should we think about God's law? Surely, it must be infinitely more binding than human laws, and we are not permitted to imagine any leniency unless it is explicitly prescribed. For example, the law states, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed." This is the law's extremity, which we must always follow unless a specific exemption teaches that this severity should be mitigated. Elsewhere it is written, "If two men are in the woods and an axe head slips and kills a companion, there should be cities of refuge where the accidental killer can flee and live safely until the case is tried. If he can prove his innocence, he may be released upon the death of the high priest." Judges were to apply this equitable provision because it was written into God's laws; indeed, they were required to do so whenever the circumstances they faced demanded it. But to suggest that it was lawful for them to bend or soften God's laws by their authority is unsupported by any scriptural evidence; on the contrary, they were instructed, "Do not turn from it to the right hand or to the left," and "Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it."
We need not elaborate extensively to demonstrate that the law is impossible to keep by our abilities, especially before regeneration, as the scripture explicitly states this. Paul writes in Romans chapter 8,
"What the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh…" Also, "The mind governed by the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God's law, nor can it do so." And in 1 Corinthians,
"The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come
from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit." Christ also says, "A bad tree cannot bear good fruit," and,
"How can you who are evil say anything good?" These passages clearly teach that it is impossible for God's law to be observed by mere human strength, which is so marred and corrupt. Regarding these evasions and subtle sophistries of the Papists, let these statements suffice.
29. Let us now address specific objections raised by our opponents, who attempt to unsettle us and bolster their misconceptions. They point out that Ahab, the wicked king, tore his garments at the prophet Elijah's warnings, donned sackcloth, lay on the ground, fasted, and went barefoot. Consequently, the Lord said to the prophet, "Have you seen how Ahab has humbled himself before me?
Because he has humbled himself, I will not bring the disaster in his day, but in his son's day." They argue that the actions of Ahab, an ungodly king and one not yet justified, pleased God to the extent that they appeased God's wrath. However, we argue that Ahab was not justified by these acts. If he had possessed the true faith that justifies, he would not have continued in idolatry and other abominable sins.
Indeed, he was somewhat moved by the prophet's warnings, but his actions pertained only to some outward and civil discipline rather than true repentance.
When God states Ahab humbled himself, the phrase "before me" could refer either to God's words spoken through the prophet— meaning "at my words"—or "in the sight of the Israelite community."
By his actions, Ahab demonstrated repentance for the evil he had done, setting a positive example for the people. Yet, God, who sees the heart's intentions, knew this repentance was insincere and
unproductive; thus, He promised only to delay the punishment to his son's days.
It is not unusual, nor should we be unaware, that external discipline can avert plagues and severe temporal punishments. We do not teach that all sins are equal; indeed, God waited for the Amorites' sins to reach their full measure. Often, His wrath manifests when overt sins are rampant, unchecked by any discipline. Yet, even where external discipline is maintained, God may grant many blessings—not as a merit of deeds but for maintaining order, a principle God has instilled in nature.
It is puzzling what our adversaries aim to achieve by citing Chronicles, where it is stated that Rehoboam, son of Solomon, did evil because he did not prepare his heart to seek the Lord. They could easily understand this contributes nothing to their argument unless they are, so to speak, mere "table-doctors" more familiar with lists than texts. Each time they encounter the word "prepare" in scriptural tables, they indiscriminately apply it to their concept of preparatory works, regardless of context. The historical account, noting the king's wicked conduct, explains he lacked a sincere and willing heart to seek the Lord.
Their citation from Proverbs 16:1, "To humans belong the plans of the heart, but from the Lord comes the proper answer of the tongue," is equally misconstrued. This merely reflects that while humans can plan, ultimate outcomes are determined by God. People may prepare what they will say in various forums, but the final result is always under God's control.
Another misinterpretation is evident in their use of Psalm 10, which in their erroneous reading suggests that God hears the "preparation" of the heart. However, this reflects a misunderstanding and a
mistranslation. The correct interpretation, consistent with Hebrew texts, is that God prepares the hearts of the faithful to ask for things that align with divine will, acknowledging that it is God who enables any righteous desires or petitions.
Thus, every instance where our adversaries find the word "prepare" in Scripture, they hastily and inappropriately claim it supports their notion of preparatory works. This approach lacks discernment and a true understanding of Scripture, where it is clear that God initiates and enables all that is good in us, including our readiness to pray and seek His will.
30. But (say they), Ezekiel states in his 18th chapter: "Walk in my ways, and make yourselves a new heart." And Jeremiah says: "Turn to me, says the Lord." Hence, they argue, a person can prepare themselves to obtain righteousness. However, these individuals should recall that it is not fair to quote certain parts of the Holy
Scriptures while overlooking others. They should therefore examine what Ezekiel writes in the 36th chapter: "I (says the Lord) will cause you to walk in my statutes, and you will keep my judgments and do them." And, "I will give you a new heart, and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh." Jeremiah also in the 31st chapter says: "Turn me back to you, O Lord, and I will return." Thus, Augustine aptly stated:
"Grant what you command, and command what you will."
They also misuse another passage from the prophet Jonah to support their error; it is written that God regarded the works of the Ninevites.
"See," they argue, "the afflictions of the Ninevites, how they fasted and cried unto the Lord; the Lord prepared their hearts and made them ready to receive forgiveness." As though the Ninevites did not first need to believe God's word before they could pray effectively or
repent. Since they believed before they performed any works, they were justified by faith, not by the works that followed. And when it is said God regarded their works, it is because these were pleasing to Him.
We have never denied that the works of men, once justified, are acceptable to God. Whenever we find passages in Scripture that seem to attribute righteousness to our works, we must, following
Augustine's teaching, consider their source. When we see that they stem from faith, we should attribute the righteousness associated with them to that root. The error in their reasoning becomes clear; they presume to apply conditions relevant to one group of people to another, something even human laws do not allow. For example, in legal statutes concerning wills and testaments: if rural and uneducated individuals, who live outside cities and lack access to wise and learned counsel, make their wills without the formalities usually required and with fewer witnesses than prescribed, their wills should still be valid. But if someone were to apply this exception to city dwellers, who live in places with ample access to knowledgeable people, that would be a grave mistake. If their wills are made in this way, they are not accepted; they are not considered binding.
Similarly, we say that the works of men justified may please God, but this cannot and should not be extended to those without faith and without Christ.