Does a Command Imply the Natural Ability to Obey?

A common argument I see from Arminians is to cite a biblical command, such as the command to repent in Acts 17:30, and then to assert that the command implies the natural ability to obey the command. In actuality, there is no such logical necessity. Rather, the Arminian assertion includes itself as an unstated premise in the argument, producing a circular argument.

Moreover, the argument is contrary to reason, not the result of it. When Jesus arrived in Bethany at the request of Mary and Martha (John 11:1-44), He had delayed too long, and their brother Lazarus had already died, in fact, days earlier. Yet, what did Jesus do? He called into the tomb, "Lazarus, come out" (verse 43). And, indeed, the revived Lazarus did exactly that. He rose from his grave, and came to Jesus, still in his funeral garments. 

Now, my question, Mr. Arminian, should be an obvious one: Did Jesus's command to Lazarus to rise from death imply that Lazarus had a natural ability to do so? 

Only a madman would say "yes," so the Arminian assertion is demonstrated to be false.

Southern Presbyterian Theologian James Henley Thornwell addressed this question: "If God still continues to be man's sovereign, and man God's lawful subject, [and] if the Lord still possesses the power to command and man is still under obligation to obey, it should not be thought strange that God deals with man according to this relation and actually enjoins upon him an obedience to law which He has no determinate purpose to give. This can be regarded as nothing more than the rightful exercise of lawful authority on the part of God; and to deny that He can consistently do this without giving man the necessary grace to obey is just flatly to deny that God is sovereign or that man is subject"