In the last BLOG I gave a quote from Solano Portela: “Also even though we perceive inconsistencies in their theological structure; even though they may be proclaiming that salvation is the result of the supposed ‘free-will’ of man; in spite of all that, when they are on their knees to pray, when they are truly troubled and seeking for God, they forget their theology and pray to a sovereign Almighty God, who accomplishes his will; they pray to a God who is everything, acknowledging that they themselves are nothing.”
I gave another quote with my own comment before and then after that quote. It will be reproduced here: “We are at a huge divide here in terms of theology and of history. Let me give you a quote from the Historical Introduction to Luther’s Bondage of the Will. “Arminianism [semi-Pelagianism] was, indeed, in Reformed eyes a renunciation of New Testament Christianity in favour of New Testament Judaism; for to rely on oneself for faith is no different in principle from relying on oneself for works, and the one is as un-Christian and anti-Christian as the other” (p. 59). Do we see this point at all? In the eyes of the Reformers semi-Pelagianism (we call it Arminianism) was not even Christian. It was simply a return to a form of works for salvation that came from self even if it was less works than the Pelagians called for. This was Luther’s view and we should not apply the whitewash to it.”
People today are willing to give up what Luther and the Reformers taught in order to have unity. But what a price for that unity. If Luther and the Reformers taught the Gospel as set out in Scripture, then were they prideful in teaching it in contrast to the whole world and even the religious leaders of the world? Is it possible that many people that go under the title “Reformed” have actually jettisoned the birthright of the Reformed doctrine and settled for a bowl of doctrinal stew? The heart of the biblical Gospel as taught by the Reformers was the denial of free-will and to recognize that we are in bondage to sin. It is only then that we can repent of any form of self-reliance and works in order to trust in grace with a faith that is given by grace. Can Solano Portela really be Reformed in the Reformation sense of the word and write what he wrote? Mr. Portela wants to set out that it is prideful for people to think that Arminians cannot be saved. Luther would say it is prideful to say that people can be saved when they deny the Gospel. The Reformers said that free-will was a return to Judaism, but Mr. Portela says that these people can be saved. Again, this is not an attack on Mr. Portela but is an effort to show the difference between what the Reformers taught and what people who call themselves Reformed write today.
If faith is a gift of God that comes from a heart that no longer trusts in itself and anything that it can do, then we can see how a faith that self must work up would be contrary to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If I am working up faith from myself and my will that is not completely in bondage to sin, then assuredly I am relying on at least one work that I can do. People can go around saying that they are saved by grace, then, and yet be trusting in an act of their will which is to make them out to be saved by at least one work. If one work contributes to salvation, then salvation is not all of grace. If one work contributes to salvation, then why not go on to two works, three works, or perhaps even more? Is the Gospel all of grace or not? In theory Arminianism is a return to New Testament Judaism and is really reliance upon self for the act of closing with Christ. No truly Reformed person (believing in the Gospel of grace as taught at the Reformation) can go along with that.
I am not disagreeing that the real issue is over what Scripture teaches. That is precisely where the real Gospel is set out. That is also what Luther’s Bondage of the Will is all about. It is a long treatment of what the Bible teaches on the issue. It is not sufficient, then, to simply say that it is pride or that it is not being gracious or tolerant to say that asserting free-will as historically taught by Arminian teachers is a denial of the biblical Gospel. It is, however, standing in line with the Reformers and what was considered to be Christian orthodoxy for a long time after that. The acceptance of free-will in that sense would have been considered by the Reformers as being intolerant of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Anytime we tolerate one belief, we become intolerant of other beliefs. We are either tolerant of the Gospel of Jesus Christ or we refer to it as pride. We are either tolerant of the Reformers or we spit them out of our theological food. But both free-will and the Reformers cannot be tolerated at the same time.
God Loves... Himself 
Leave a comment