Pink quote question

[Branson]

"Suppose a man owed me $100 and could find plenty of money for his own pleasures but none for me, yet pleaded that he was unable to pay me. What would I say? I would say that the only ability that was lacking was an honest heart. But would it not be an unfair construction of my words if a friend of my dishonest debtor should say I had stated that an honest heart was that which constituted the ability to pay the debt? No, I would reply: the ability of my debtor lies in the power of his hand to write me a check, and this he has, but what is lacking is an honest principle. It is his power to write me a check which makes him responsible to do so, and the fact that he lacks an honest heart does not destroy his accountability."

My question is this: Is he saying that we have the ability to choose Christ, but we just never will because of our depraved heart? Or is the ability in itself gone because of our hearts? We can't choose because we won't or we won't choose because we can't? Does that make sense?

 

[Semper Fidelis]

"Suppose a man owed me $100 and could find plenty of money for his own pleasures but none for me, yet pleaded that he was unable to pay me. What would I say? I would say that the only ability that was lacking was an honest heart.

He notes the first answer here. The man lacks an honest heart. He knows he owes but denies it.

But would it not be an unfair construction of my words if a friend of my dishonest debtor should say I had stated that an honest heart was that which constituted the ability to pay the debt? No, I would reply: the ability of my debtor lies in the power of his hand to write me a check, and this he has, but what is lacking is an honest principle.

The friend of the debtor claims that the man is somehow off the hook because the problem is not the debt itself but the lack of honesty. Who can blame a man for owing $100 if he has a dishonest heart?

Get it? It's absurd. The man owes $100 but the blameworthy party now becomes the person who expects a dishonest man to pay.

It is his power to write me a check which makes him responsible to do so, and the fact that he lacks an honest heart does not destroy his accountability."

I think this is clear at this point.

I don't know the context but, if we look at Romans 1, Paul notes that men know Who God is but suppress the truth. Men owe worship to God but then, dishonestly, claim that they can't render that worship to God because they have already given that worship to another object. Man has the capacity for worship but they refuse to honestly give it to the Creator. Consequently it would be folly to focus on the inability for honesty as an excuse for failure to pay a debt.

 

[Branson]

Ok i got it. I was confused about if man still had the capacity and refused, or if the capacity in itself was gone altogether. Thanks for the answer!