Ahh, but the command is not one simply put forth as some measure of hoop to jump through. It is an obligation all men have. The creature is under moral obligation to acknowledge his Creator and be thankful...to submit himself to Him and be obedient.
The analogy you give is flawed, for God does not teach the reprobate to sin. Sin proceeds from the heart of man. God does not create fresh evil in man's heart...He works according to His purpose with what's already there.
Man is under obligation to obey. God is under no obligation to make them willing to do so. Thus there is no conflict between His command for all to obey and His selective enabling of some to do so to the exclusion of others.
I hesitate to invoke the name of Pelagius here, x, but the rationale you provided above is right along the same lines as his. He believed that God could not justly command something unless all men had the inate ability to obey. He felt that the universality of Original Sin and its effect upon the will of man (leaving him morally unable to obey by virtue of his depraved heart) would render God's commands unjust, so he rejected Original Sin. In similar manner, you are saying that God could not justly command something of a man and at the same time sovereignly ordain his disobedience. What you seem to be forgetting is the fact that God is not preventing man from doing what he would otherwise do, as though man could have obeyed had not God interfered or intervened.
(let me be clear..I'm not accusing you of being a Pelagian, only pointing out a flaw in reasoning similar to his)
The disobedience proceeds from the evil in man's heart. Whatever God ordains for that individual, that fact must be kept in focus lest we reach a point where God appears to be the author of that person's evil.
I expanded on it in #10, Fru.