[b]Necessary Conditions of Moral Accountability[i]By Jesse Morrell
This is a theological treatise on the required conditions of moral accountability or the prerequisites of moral agency, along with their necessary connection to the extent of moral obligation and the proper measure of moral guilt.
[b]DEFINITIONS OF KEY WORDS USED, AS MEANT IN THIS TREATISE
Accountability [account-ability]: Synonymous with liable; the giving of account for the usage a moral agent has made of their moral ability; being accountable according to moral ability, conditioned by knowledge of moral obligation.
Responsibility [response-able]: Synonymous with moral obligation and requirement; that which a moral agent ought to voluntarily select, which an intelligent free moral agent will be accountable for and judged by; the affirmation of the intelligence or the demands of the conscience according to the perceived value of an object which necessitates the requirement of the committal of the will.
Moral Agent: An individual subjected to moral law or moral government; one subjected to moral obligation and moral accountability, upon condition of intelligence and free will, thereby capable of virtue, vice, blameworthiness, and praiseworthiness.
Free-Will: Relating to contingency and to possibility [possible-ability]; synonymous with capable, able, and ability; the freedom of the will to choose between one volition and its opposite; the power of contrary choice; the potency to will one ultimate end with its necessary means or to will its opposite; the ability of voluntary choice without coercion; a faculty operating under the law of liberty as opposed to the law of necessity or force; to have the option of willing or nilling, receiving or rejecting; a requisite quality, condition, or attribute of personality for moral agency, without which moral agency is rendered nonexistent and impossible, and moral accountability as unjust and unreasonable.
Unable/Inability: Relating to impossibility [impossible for ability] or a nonfunctional faculty in connection to the slavery of the will; synonymous with incapable; forced to choose an object or direction, without the option of rejecting it, or without the option of choosing its opposite; without power or capability to properly perform.
Knowledge: The reasonable perception of the mind; the affirmation of the intelligence; when morally speaking, pertaining to the idea of what is ethically right and ethically wrong as intuitive to the reason or declared by the conscience; relating to intelligence as a requisite quality or attribute of personality for moral agency, without which moral agency is rendered nonexistent and impossible, and moral accountability as unjust and unreasonable.
Prerequisite: Synonymous with precondition; a preceding or prior condition, requirement, or requisition demanded by logical or natural necessity for a proper function; without which the result would be improper, unjust, impossible, or illogical.
Moral Character: Synonymous with moral action or moral conduct; the moral quality of a moral agent, derived from the continual, voluntary choices of the will; the overall analysis of a moral agent’s moral conduct or moral state; not to be confounded or confused with constitution or capacities.
The freedom of the will and the knowledge of its proper use are prerequisites to moral responsibility and moral accountability; ability and knowledge are necessary preconditions of moral agency, being the proper boundaries and limitations of moral responsibility and moral accountability.
[b]1.MORAL ABILITY: a Necessary Prerequisite to Moral Accountability
[b]MAN’S MORAL ABILITY AND ITS RELATION TO THE MORAL LAW
Natural ability and free-will are synonymous terms, being identical in nature. Inability and free-will are antonymous terms, being contrary in nature. Ability is the power of contrary choice; free will is the power of contrary choice. A man is able to do only what a man is free to do; and a man is free to do only what a man is able to do. Freedom speaks of the contingent not the necessitated, of that which was voluntarily chosen under liberty and not that forced by necessity. A free-will choice is a choice which did not have to be chosen, but was voluntarily chosen when the opposite choice could have been selected.
To be responsible or obligated to do better, and to be accountable or judged for failure to do better, one must be capable of doing better. To be capable of doing better, one must be free or able to do better. What a man is free to do, a man is capable or able of doing. If a man is not capable then a man is not able or free. And if a man is not a free agent, then he is a necessitated agent. But moral character relates to the voluntary choices commanded or condemned by the God given intelligence/conscience. A man is responsible only for that which is voluntary. Therefore what a man is accountable for, he must not have been necessitated to do, but must have voluntarily committed.
Respecting the Moral Government of God (Isaiah 9:6-7), or the ruling and reigning of God in the realm of morality over moral agents (Luke 17:21), the moral commandments of God never exceed the moral ability of men. The commands of God are directed to the ability of man, being instructions as to how a man is to use the liberty of his will or how a man is to properly use his ability. Since God’s moral commandments are directions for man’s moral ability, since God’s moral government is the governing of man’s moral agency, God’s moral commandments never can, never do, nor ever will exceed man’s moral ability, never exceeding man’s moral agency.
The moral law that is in God’s Moral Government is: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind” (Matt 22:37) and “love they neighbor as thyself” (Matt 22:39). The moral law of God in essence is the law of love, love being the total and complete fulfillment of the whole of the law. (Rom 13:8, Rom 13:10, Gal 5:14, Jas 2:8)
The law of love is commanded as opposed to the law of selfishness which is condemned. Love is not an emotion or a feeling, but a voluntary, impartial committal of the will towards the well-being of all. Love is synonymous with “good will” (Luke 2:14, Ephesians 6:7, Philippians 1:15) or is the same as benevolence. If it is truly love, it must of necessity manifest itself into action and conduct whenever possible and whenever necessary, performing the required means to secure the end of the well-being of others.
Love, good will, or benevolence satisfies the whole of the law (Rom 13:8, Rom 13:10, Gal 5:14, Jas 2:8), but selfishness or self-centeredness is a total and complete violation of the whole of the law (James 2:10). To break one letter of the law is to break the whole spirit of the law; the spirit of the law which the entire letter of the law is derived from. The letter of the law is derived from the spirit of the law; therefore to break one letter of the law is to break the whole spirit of the law. He that breaks the one breaks the whole. Therefore, to “offend in one point” is to be “guilty of all”. (James 2:10)
God does not command that we love Him with faculties that we do not possess, but rather that we love Him with all that we currently possess, “with all thy”, as opposed to that which isn’t currently yours. The commandments of God are not impossible, commanding us to love Him with a heart, soul, and mind that we do not have; but rather the law of God is able to be kept, commanding that we love Him with all of what we do have, with all that we are capable, to the best of our ability. The law is able to be kept because we are capable and we are capable because the law is able to be kept. The command of God is that we love to the best of our ability, and therefore the law is as able to be kept as our ability is capable, no further and no less. What our ability is capable of is all that the law of God commands, no more and no less. The law of God is the law of our ability, to love Him supremely and our neighbor equally, according to our ability, with all of our ability.
God commands “thy heart” and “thy soul” and “thy mind”. The command of God is directed towards our current faculties and it does not exceed the limits of those faculties. We are to love him with “all” of these faculties, but not with less or with more then those faculties are capable of. Man is not responsible for more then he can perform, and so a man is not accountable for more then he can perform. Man’s moral responsibility is all of man’s moral ability, and so man’s moral accountability will not exceed man’s moral ability. Man’s moral ability is naturally and obviously limited by moral possibilities; therefore God’s moral commandments never require moral impossibilities, for that which is morally impossible cannot be morally commanded. Morally demanding a moral impossibility is a contradiction in terms.
“God does not demand impossibilities.” Augustine *1
“The law of God requires nothing more of any human being, than that which he is at present naturally able to perform, under the present circumstances of his being.” Charles G. Finney *2
The extent of God’s commandments is the extent of man’s ability, and the extent of man’s ability is the extent of God’s commandments, each one establishes and determines the limitations and boundaries of the other. And since man will be judged by the commandments, the extent of man’s accountability will be the extent of man’s ability. A man will not be accountable for that in which he was not capable of, he will not be judged for that which was outside of the realm of his control.
The law of God is therefore the law of our ability, to love Him supremely and our neighbor equally, according to our ability, with all of our ability, no more and no less. There is then no commandment in which a sinner can hide behind as an excuse, no commandment that a sinner can point to as tyrannical, since all the commandments of God are able to be kept, from the lowest to the greatest. All sin is therefore inexcusable since all sin is always avoidable; sin, that brings moral guilt, is always voluntary.
What is unavoidable is excusable; but what is inexcusable must be avoidable. What is punishable must be voluntary, and what is voluntary must be avoidable. What is punishable must be vice, and what is vice must be voluntary. So the punishment of sin only comes upon sin that was voluntary and avoidable, therefore sin that is punished is sin that is inexcusable.
“Moral agency implies the possession of free-will. By free-will it is intended the power of choosing or refusing to choose, in every instance, in compliance with moral obligation. Free-will implies the power of originating and deciding our own choices, and of exercising our own liberty, in every instance of choice upon every moral questions, of deciding or choosing in conformity with duty or otherwise in all cases of moral obligation….unless the will is free, man has no freedom; and if he has no freedom he is not a moral agent, that is, he is incapable of moral action and also of moral character. Free will then, in the above defined sense, must be a condition of moral agency, and of course, of moral obligation.” Charles G. Finney *3
Man is accountable for choosing sin only because he is capable of choosing righteousness over sin. A man is accountable for choosing darkness over the light, only because he is capable of choosing the light over darkness. A man is accountable for disobedience because he is capable of choosing obedience over disobedience. A man is accountable for rejecting Jesus only because he is capable of following Jesus instead of rejecting Jesus. A man is responsible and accountable according to that which is in his realm of control, according to that which is within his power. A man will be judged no more, nor any less, then by his ability, since the commands of God require nothing more then that which is within man’s moral ability, that which is within the realm of moral possibilities.
[b]THE RELATION OF THE MORAL CHARACTER OF GOD TO THE MORAL LAW OF GOD
“Does God give commandments which men cannot obey? Is He so arbitrary, so severe, so unloving, as to issue commandments which cannot be obeyed? The answer is that in all of annals of Holy Scripture, not a single instance is recorded of God having commanded any man to do a thing, which was beyond his power. Is God so unjust and so inconsiderate as to require of man that which he is unable to render? To infer is to slander the character of God.” E. M. Bounds *4
God is not a tyrant, His laws are not tyrannical. Pharaoh commanded brick but gave no straw, and then beat those who failed to perform the impossible. Pharaoh was a tyrant for doing such and scripture assigns the fault to Pharaoh and not with those subservient to him (Exodus 5:16). The moral fault was with the commander, not with the command breakers. The infallible testimony of Divine Inspiration declares that when an impossible law is broken, the problem is with the law itself and with the one who issued the law.
What is vice in Pharaoh would not and could not be virtue in God. What scripture condemns in one is condemnable in all; what is vice in one is vice in all. The equality and impartiality of justice demands that what mars the character of one must mar the character of all, a blemish to one must be a blemish to all.
God does not command obedience but then gives no ability to perform that which is commanded, only to punish with eternal torment those who do not obey when they had no ability to obey. The fault would, according to the divine scriptures, be with the commander and not with the command breaker, when the commands are broken. Sin would ultimately be the fault of the one who gave the unreasonable law, since sin is transgression of the law (1John 3:4), and there can be no transgression where there is no law (Romans 4:15, Romans 5:13,1John 3:4). Sin then would not and could not be the fault of the one who broken the law which naturally could not be kept. The one who decrees an impossible law must be the ultimate author and actual cause of sin. But the truth is that God is not the author of sin, He is not the ultimate cause of sin, because God’s moral laws are not unreasonable, because God’s moral laws can in fact be kept.
God’s Moral Government, or Moral Kingdom, is not a tyrannical one, but a reasonable and just one. God does not condemn the incapable for failure to perform the impossible, but condemns the able for failure to perform the possible; for voluntarily and freely choosing darkness over the light (John 3:19), “who have received the law” “but have not kept it”. (Acts 7:53)
God’s execution of condemnation is justly exerted upon the capable for violation of commandments that could be kept. Condemnation for violation of commandments is justly deserved upon condition of capability, upon condition of being able to keep the commandments. Condemnation for breaking a law that could not be kept is unjust condemnation. Eternal damnation for breaking that which was unavoidably and inevitably to be broken is unjust eternal damnation. God does not send to hell those who are victims of their birth, victims of nature, victims of their parents, victims of fate, who hadn’t any power, option, or ability of obeying all that was required of them. But rather, God sends deserving criminals and rebels to eternal hell, who freely of their own accord choose to walk contrary to the righteous demands of God’s reasonable and just commandments, when it was well within their power, well within their ability of will, to obey and conform to all of their moral obligations and requirements. (1Cor 6:9-10, Rev 21:8)
“It is offering an insult to the only wise God to suppose… that he gave them the Gospel, without giving them power to believe it…With regards to repentance, ‘Then he began,’ says St. Matthew, ‘to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty works were done, because they repented not.’ Merciful Savior, forgive us! We have insulted thy meek wisdom, by representing thee as cruelly upbraiding the lame for not running, the blind for not seeing, and the dumb for not speaking! ... Suppose a schoolmaster said to his English scholars ‘Except you instantly speak Greek you shall all be severely whipped.’ You would wonder at the injustice of the school tyrant. But would not the wretch be merciful in comparison of a Savior, (so called) who is supposed to say to myriads of men, that can no more repent than ice can burn, ‘Except ye repent, ye shall all perish”? John Fletcher *5
“Many sincere men are saying, ‘God gave us good laws to keep,’ and in the next breath saying, ‘we are actually unable to keep them!’ If this is true, then God’s laws are not good! No law is good that asks the impossible of its subjects. If God demands obedience to impossible laws then God is not just... If God demands such obedience under penalty of death, then God is not only unfair, but monstrous. What kind of being would pass laws upon his subjects they are unable to keep, and then condemn them to death for their failure to obey? This is a blasphemy on God’s character.” Winkie Pratney *6
To assume that God commands the impossible at the threat of eternal torment is to directly slander the character of God. Cruelty cannot be ascribed to God’s character because injustice cannot be ascribed to His government. The character of God does not allow anyone to go to hell for failure to perform moral impossibilities, but only for failure to perform moral possibilities. The bible exalts God and glorifies His moral character and says because of God’s eternal character He never, in any circumstance, allows anyone to be tempted beyond their moral ability. A sin hating, sin punishing God provides a way for all sin to be avoided in all cases, always, without exception, providing a way of escape so that we are all, always, able to obey instead of disobey.
“There has no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able, but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” 1Cor 10:13
Temptation would not be tempting, if it were forcing. What is forced cannot be considered temptation. Temptation is the inclination towards one choice over the other, the influence towards a decision or direction. Temptation is not the forcing of one choice over the other; it is not the necessitating of one decision or direction. Force or causation is not the nature of temptation but inclination or influence is. Causation and influence are different by nature. Temptation can only respect contingent volitions, relating to that which may or may not occur; but temptation cannot be respecting certain or necessitated volitions, relating to that which will and must occur.
Where sin is forced, there not only could not be sin, but there could not be temptation. But where there is sin and where there is temptation, there must be the freedom of the will. All men are tempted to sin, but no man is forced to sin, because all men are capable of not sinning. If this were not true, neither temptation nor sin could exist for the sinner or for the saint. For sin to be sin, or to have moral guilt, it must be voluntary and avoidable, but not necessitated and forced. And for temptation to be temptation it must be only influence, but not causation. And so “temptation” is “common” to all men, because the power of contrary choice is common to all men. All men have the freedom of their wills, and so the scripture is undeniably true that “ye are able” (1Cor 10:13).
1Cor 10:13 directly and explicitly depicts the eternal, never changing character of God as it relates to man’s ability and temptations. God is just towards all men. God is faithful at all times. He is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Heb 13:8). Because of the eternally holy, eternally good, eternally just character of God, the commandments of God are never tyrannical or burdensome, but are always moral and reasonable towards all men at all times, being possible by all who are obligated to keep them.
“God is faithful” therefore “ye are able” (1Cor 10:13). “Able” is “δύναμαι” which is to “be able or possible: - be able, can (do, + -not), could, may, might, be possible, be of power”. The only reason “ye are able” is because “God is faithful”. To declare that “ye are not able” would require the declaration that “God is not faithful”. God’s character determines what God commands; and what God commands is always in accordance to our ability; the moral law always respecting our ability by brilliantly declaring “with all thy” (Matthew 22:37).
Since God’s moral character determines God’s moral commandments, when dealing with the moral commandments of God, we are directly dealing with the moral character of God and only subsequently dealing with the capabilities of men. The moral character of God is the primary issue while the moral capacities of men are only the secondary or necessarily connected issue.
(I properly recognize that God’s commandments are ultimately derived from the intrinsic value of His well-being, seeing that His well-being is naturally and eternally of intrinsic value, whose likeness we were made in the image of. God commands that which promotes the highest well-being of all and condemns that which demotes the highest well-being of all; commanding the means that are relatively good and condemning the means that are relatively harmful, in relation to or in accordance with the end which is intrinsically good (well-being) and the end which is intrinsically evil (ill-being). All moral agents necessarily presuppose the intrinsic value of well-being, their consciences condemning that which is harmful to others while commanding that which is helpful to others. God morally requires of men that which is good for all and forbids that which is harmful to all; except in those cases when a moral agent forfeits that right by disregarding the value of others, and therefore brings upon himself the deserved punishment of torment. Because God commands the good and forbids the evil, we can never question the wisdom and goodness of God’s moral commandments without questioning the character and intelligence of the Commander.
It is God’s will that acts voluntarily in accordance with His nature, that acts voluntarily in accordance with His intelligence; His character being derived from His will, which voluntarily declares and determines His public and universal commandments. So while the ultimate foundation of God’s commandments is found in the intrinsic value of His well-being, as demanded by His divine nature or by His divine intelligence, it is still properly true that “God’s character determines God’s commandments”, that is, God’s character ultimately determines what He voluntarily, publicly declares and universally requires of all moral agents. Therefore, to attack the goodness and reasonableness of God’s commandments is to directly attack the character of God.)
“My yoke is easy, and my burden is light.” (Matt 11:30). “His commandments are not grievous.” (1John 5:3). Because His yoke, burden, and commandments are easy, light, and not grievous, therefore “ye are able”. To say “ye are not able” is to say His yoke, burden, and commandments are hard, heavy and burdensome, which would be contrary to the direct and explicit declarations God has given of Himself. The one who misrepresents the commandments must of necessity misrepresent the Commander.
Therefore the declaration of the ability of man is an exaltation of the character of God, and the renunciation of the ability of man is a denunciation of the character of God. The one who rejects the ability of man thereby slanders and undermines the wisdom of God’s Divine Intelligence and the goodness of God’s Divine Character.
[b]THE CONDITION OF THE MORAL CHARACTER OF SINNERS AND THE CONDITION OF THE NATURAL FACULTIES OF SINNERS
The bible describes the moral condition of the unconverted sinners as totally and completely morally depraved, as never doing any good at all, entirely destitute of all virtue, bankrupt of all real righteousness and deplete of all true holiness: Matt 6:22-24, Matt 7:17-18, Luke 11:34-36, Rom 3:10-18, 2Cor 5:17, Titus 1:15-16, James 3:11-12. But total moral depravity is not synonymous with natural inability; inability meaning that the will is no longer free to make the contrary choice. An important distinction must be made between the condition of the moral character of sinners and the condition of the natural faculties of sinners. Moral character and natural capabilities must not be confused, they are not identical. What is constitutional and what is ethical must be sharply distinguished between for a sound theology.
Moral character absolutely could not exist without moral agency, and moral agency absolutely could not exist without natural faculties; specifically, as relating to this discourse, the freedom of the will. Both the morally virtuous and the morally depraved conditions of men, which make up their moral character, are dependent upon the functional faculty or uninjured freedom of the will. Where this does not exist, moral agency and therefore moral character cannot exist. And where moral character does not exist, moral accountability cannot exist.
Individuals that are totally morally depraved still maintain the ability of choosing the good over evil; they still have the faculty of free-will. Moral depravity is not a crippled faculty, but moral depravity is the abuse or improper function of an existing, functioning faculty. Sin is not the inability to do right, sin is an abuse of the liberty of the ability; sin is an unwillingness to use the faculty of the will rightly, to use the gift of free will according to the intended purpose of the faculty Creator.
Free will is a gift from God so that man could rightly choose the good over the evil. But sin consists in voluntarily choosing wrongly, the evil over the good. Man could not be capable of evil if he were not capable of good; neither could man be capable of good if he were not capable of evil. True virtue and true blameworthiness consists in that which is voluntarily chosen, not that which was necessitated. That which is necessitated cannot have moral character, but moral character can only be in connection with that which was voluntarily chosen; which object was morally right or morally wrong.
Inability to do right is not and could not be sin, for inability to do good does not allow for the existence of guilt, it does not allow for voluntary transgression in which sin alone consists. Inability to do good would inevitably be the inability to sin, for sin is the voluntary choice or voluntary violation of God’s reasonable and good law (1John 3:4), sin consists alone in the voluntary moral choice to choose the evil over the option of the good. And inability to sin would inevitably be the inability to be virtuous, for virtue consists in voluntarily choosing the good over the option of evil.
Justin the Martyr of the Early Church said, “Every created being is so constituted as to be capable of vice and virtue. For he can do nothing praiseworthy, if he had not the power of turning either way.” And “unless we suppose man has the power to choose the good and refuse the evil, no one can be accountable for any action whatever.” *7
Turtullian of the same century said, “No reward can be justly bestowed, no punishment can be justly inflicted, upon him who is good or bad by necessity, and not by his own choice.” *8
Origen said, “The soul does not incline to either part out of necessity, for then neither vice nor virtue could be ascribed to it; nor would its choice of virtue deserve reward; nor its declination to vice punishment.” Again, “How could God require that of man which he [man] had not power to offer Him?” *9
(All of the Early Church Fathers, for the first 4-5 centuries, unanimously agreed and affirmed the freedom of the will, especially as an indispensable condition of moral agency and moral accountability. This doctrine was universally a fundamental pillar of the Christian faith, challenged only by the heathen philosophers of the day.)
Since sin does not consist in the inability to choose good over evil, but rather in the voluntarily choosing of evil over the good, men truly deserve hell, not because of any involuntary inability, but rather because of their voluntary unwillingness.
It must be distinctly understood that total moral depravity is respecting moral character but it is not at all any sort of total inability respecting the capabilities of the faculties of the personality. Total moral depravity is rather the utter and absolute unwillingness to choose good over evil. A man who is totally morally depraved still has the capacity of good just as the man totally morally righteous has the capacity of evil, because righteousness and wickedness are respecting voluntary choices or voluntary character and not at all the capabilities and capabilities of the faculties of the personality.
The wicked and the righteous have the faculty of free-will imbedded in their personality, and it must exist as long as they themselves exist. Therefore, the righteous man can “turn from his righteousness” and choose sin (Ezekiel 18:24) and “the wicked” can “turn from all his sin” and choose righteousness (Ezekiel 18:21). The character or choices of an individual can always change, because the faculty of the will always remains in tact and functional.
A man is unable only in that sense that he is unwilling, but not in that he hasn’t the needed and necessary faculties. He is always free to will contrary to his previous will. If this were not true, neither falling from a state of perfection, nor recovering from a fallen state of sin, could be possible at all to anyone. Neither falling, nor converting, nor backsliding, would be or could be possible at all, if a man could not will contrary to his previous will, if the faculty of the will was not functional.
But a man is unable only in that he is unwilling, but not in that he is incapable respecting his faculty. He is unable only because of his character, because of his choices, because of his will, not because of his faculties or natural capabilities. A man who willingly chooses sin cannot willingly choose righteousness only while he is unwilling to choose righteousness, only while he is willingly choosing sin. (Rom 8:5-8) And a man who willingly chooses righteousness cannot willingly choose sin, only while he is unwilling to choose sin, only while he is willingly choosing righteousness. (1John 3:8) But the faculty of the will is always free to choose, always maintaining the power of contrary choice. The faculty of the will can, at all times, either submit itself to the sensibilities, that is, to the lusts of the flesh (1John 2:16) or to the truth and instruction of God revealed to the intelligence by the Spirit of grace (Gal 5:16, Titus 2:11). The will is free because it always has these two opposite choices, to do what feels good for self or what is known as good for others.
Since sin does not consist in the inability to choose good over evil, total moral depravity is not and could not be total natural inability. Total moral depravity simply could not exist without moral ability. Character is not capabilities or capacities. What constitutional and what is ethical are completely separate in nature. A proper distinction between the two is vital to an accurate theological view of sin and sinners, and of God and His government.
[b]FREE MORAL AGENCY CONTINUED EVEN AFTER THE FALL OF ADAM AND EVE
Free moral agency did not terminate with the fall of Adam and Eve when they ate from “the tree of knowledge of good and evil” (Gen 2:9). Eating from the “tree of the knowledge of good and evil” did not eliminate moral agency, and thus eliminate moral accountability, but it rather expanded and enlarged it. The “eyes of them both were opened” (Gen 3:7), and they became like God, “knowing good and evil” (Gen 3:22). With this increase of moral knowledge came the increase of moral obligation and moral accountability. The increase of moral knowledge never terminates moral agency or moral accountability but rather enhances and enlarges it.
God himself addressed Cain as a free moral agent, capable of both good and evil even after the fall of Adam and Eve: “And the Lord saith unto Cain, why art thou wroth? And why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.” (Genesis 4:6-7) Cain had no reason to be “wroth”; he had no reason for his “countenance” to be “fallen”, because his free moral agency still remained in tact, his moral capabilities remained functional.
Even after the fall of Adam and Eve, mankind maintained the ability to “doest well” and to “doest evil” and to “rule” over sin. The contingency and possibility to do good and evil, to be righteous or to be wicked, still remained apart of man’s realm of capability. Cain and Abel, the offspring of the same exact parents, after the fall, were still moral agents. But one was righteous and the other wicked because of their voluntary choices. Abel’s works were “righteous” (1John 3:12) and Abel himself was “righteous” (Matt 23:35) But Cain was wicked and did evil works (1John 3:12). Cain could have done well just as much as his blood brother Abel did; he could have done righteously and could have been righteous, and he could have been acceptable to God. He was not forced to sin by circumstances, by fate, by nature, by his parents, or by God. His will still operated under the law of liberty, not the law of necessity. He had the contingent choice of two moral possibilities and he voluntarily selected one over the other; and therein is the first condition of moral accountability – the moral ability or the power of contrary choice.
[b]GOD’S MORAL LAW OR MORAL GOVERNMENT ADDRESSES ALL MORAL AGENTS AS FREE, APPEALING TO THEIR MORAL CAPABILITIES
Those that are totally depraved sinners still maintain the faculty of free will, which is the power of contrary choice. The bible everywhere addresses the natural ability of totally depraved individuals. God often appeals to the free will of sinners to turn away from sin and be converted:
“Choose you this day whom ye will serve;” Joshua 24:15
“Wash yourself, make yourself clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they be read like crimson, they shall be as wool. If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: but if refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.” Isaiah 1:16-20
“Seek ye the Lord while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is near: let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon.” Isaiah 55:6-7
“Sow to yourselves in righteousness, reap in mercy; break up your fallow ground.” Hosea 10:12
“Turn yourselves from all your transgressions; so iniquity shall not be your ruin.” Ezekiel 18:30
“Cast away from you all your transgressions…..make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit” Ezekiel 18:31
“For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.” Ezekiel 18:32
“Return ye now every one from his evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.” Jeremiah 18:11
“Therefore now amend your ways and your doings, and obey the voice of the Lord your God; and the Lord will repent him of the evil that he hath pronounced against you.” Jeremiah 26:13
“Save yourselves from his untoward generation.” Act 2:40
“God… commands all men every where to repent” Acts 17:30
“Ye have obeyed from the heart” Romans 6:17
“Let us cleanse ourselves from all filthiness of the flesh” 1Corinthians 7:1
“If any man therefore purge himself” 2Timothy 2:21
“Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil and he will flee from you.” James 4:2
“Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners, and purify your hearts, ye double minded.” James 4:8
“Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep; let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness.” James 4:9
“Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord” James 4:10
“Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth” 1Peter 1:22
“And 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.” Revelations 22:17
Jesus spoke of one individual who first said “I will not” when confronted with a request, but then “afterward repented” and did according to it. And there was another who first said he would, but afterward repented and did it not. (Matt 21:28-30) This clearly shows that a man can change his mind; that is, he can change his will; he can will contrary to his previous will, because the will is at all times a free faculty with the power of contrary choice. If this were not true, this parable could not be true, and Christ would be found a liar, which He most certainly is not.
Forced obedience and forced disobedience is a contradiction in terms. Obedience and disobedience must be willful, voluntary, and intentional; they must be from the heart (Matthew 12:35, Matthew 15:18-19, Romans 6:17).
The unconverted are totally responsible for their impenitent state, for their hardness against the truth (Romans 2:5), as all sinful men are completely responsible for their immoral state, because of the freedom of their will. God therefore appeals in scripture to the will of man, to turn away from sin and turn to Him, to be completely and utterly dependant upon the Holy Spirit for instruction and guidance into all the ways of righteousness and holiness, to be entirely dependant upon His grace and mercy for the forgiveness of all repented sins. The only thing that keeps sinners from the forgiveness of God is an unwillingness to turn from sin and to seek after Him. (Matthew 7:7, 2Peter 3:9)
“They that would not come [to Christ], ought not to impute it to another, but only to themselves, because, when they are called, it was in the power of their free will to come.” Augustine *10
[b]THE CRIMINALITY OF TRANGRESSION: SINNERS ARE REBELS NOT VICTIMS
True total moral depravity is when a sinner never chooses to do rightly or benevolently, but only wickedly or selfishly. Those who never choose to do rightly, which are all men prior to conversion to Christ, are totally morally depraved. But moral depravity is not natural inability. Character and capabilities must not be confused; character and constitution are not identical. Character does not consist in your faculties, but in the usage of those faculties. Inability would not, could not, and is not sin. Only unwillingness to do rightly, when there is the capability of doing rightly, is sin - sin that is punishable by eternal torment.
Sinners sin because they want to, not because they have to, and that is where the criminality of transgression consists. Sinners are criminals in their will, not victims of their nature, constitution, or faculties. Sinners are criminals because they sin when they do not have to sin; sinners are sinners because they rebel against God when they could surrender and obey God. Sinners are criminals because they sin, and they sin because they want to. A sinner is a sinner by choice, not by force or necessity, and is therefore a rebel and not a victim, with nobody to blame for his sin but himself.
A mans guilt is proportioned to his ability, being guilty only to the extent that he was capable of better. Justice does not allow guilt to exceed ability; ability must always precede guilt. Capability determines responsibility and responsibility determines accountability. Capability (ability), responsibility (obligation), and accountability (awarding and punishing according praiseworthiness or blameworthiness) are in an inseparable relation one towards another, so that none can exist if one does not exist; they equally limit each other. They are an inseparable chain that stands or falls together. One is not accountable unless he is responsible, and one is not responsible unless he is capable.
“Sin is always a wrong voluntary attitude or purpose of life, or a wrong motive of heart. Sin is not a fixed something back of the will controlling its actions. The will determines the nature of character... We are sinners simply because we choose to sin or live selfishly. We are never held accountable for what we are not the author of. Ability is always the measure of responsibility.” Gordon Olson *11
Jesus rightly rebuked the unrepentant because they were unwilling; He did not cruelly rebuke the unable for not doing (John 5:40) They were criminals who rightly needed rebuking, because they were unwilling, not because they were unable. Sinners are voluntarily unwilling, not constitutionally unable. Men cannot blame Adam, Eve, Satan, God, society, or nature for their sin and impenitence. Those who are unconverted are unconverted, not because of God or anything else, but because of themselves, because they “would not come” unto Jesus that they “might have life” (John 5:40). Sinners have nothing but their own will to blame for their rebellion against the law of God and their refusal to come to Jesus Christ.
As the Saintly A. W. Tozer rightly said, “What man ought to do, he can do” *12
We are accountable only to our obligations. A man cannot be accountable for that which he was not obligated to do. And our obligations are respecting our abilities only. A man cannot be obligated to do that which he was unable to do. Therefore those who must do better can do better and those who can do better must do better. Account-ability is the giving of account of one’s use of ability, being accountable in accordance to ones capabilities. You are accountable only for what you can do; and what you can do, you are accountable for.
All sinners voluntarily choose to sin, to abuse their ability; to do what they know is wrong. And therein is the criminality of transgression, the guilt of rebellion, and the justice of eternal damnation.