As we move somewhat slowly into this issue, we must remember where we have been and where we are going. The first step was to see that Arminian theology sets out the doctrine of free-will and responsibility as meaning that for a person to have responsibility means that the person has ability. As we will see in future BLOGS, Reformed people in history have meant that man has ability in many ways but in a way that heightens his condemnation in light of his inability. Arminian theology sets out that man has some ability which must be exercised in order to be saved. We also previously saw that a word can stand for a vast amount of theology that is vital to the Christian faith.
What we want to see today is just how important and even vital the link is between man’s responsibility and free-will in terms of the glorious Gospel of grace alone. This is part of the movement to show that anything linked to grace in terms of what is necessary to salvation is at least in words a denial of the Gospel. We also want to show just how vital Reformed theology is to the Gospel and how it must never be compromised.
The necessity and sufficiency of grace in the Gospel is set out by Scripture when it always attributes salvation to grace and grace alone. Salvation is by faith in order that it may be by grace (Romans 4:16). When we see Scripture setting out salvation being by faith, we can know it is by faith in order that it may be by grace alone and so by Christ alone to the glory of God alone. The doctrine of the responsibility of man and his free-will and/or inability cannot be separated from the Gospel. If a person does have free-will in the sense that Arminian theology holds, then this is not consistent with grace alone for salvation. If man’s responsibility implies ability as indeed Arminian theology sets it out to be, then this is inconsistent with grace alone for salvation. This was the primary issue at the Reformation and it continues to be the primary issue. A person can have a belief in something called Reformed theology and still not hold the heart of it if this part is denied. Luther himself said that this was the most important issue and hinge on which all turned (Bondage of the Will, p. 319 in 1957 edition). If we miss this, we have missed the vital link of the Reformation and of Reformed theology.
William Cunningham, in his Historical Theology, puts it this way: “The subject of free-will is, as it were, the connecting link between the doctrines of original sin and of divine grace-between men’s natural condition as fallen, involved in guilt and depravity, and the way in which they are restored to favour, to holiness and happiness” (p. 569, Stillwater edtion). This truly gets at the heart of the issue and sets out our doctrines for us with a degree of clarity that cannot be done in another way. How is man restored to the favor of God and to holiness and happiness? Is it based on something within him or totally on the grace of God? Does man have some little part of him that is still good and so is able to respond to God without the work of grace or does man have to have grace in all ways and even the power of grace to respond to God?
Speaking of Martin Luther, John Calvin, Zwingli, Bucer and others, Packer and Johnson said that “all the leading Protestant theologians at the first epoch of the Reformation, stood on precisely the same ground here. On other points, they had their differences; but in asserting the helplessness of man in sin, and the sovereignty of God in grace, they were entirely at one. To all of them, these doctrines were the very life-blood of the Christian faith (p. 58). On the same page the same authors quote another author approvingly: “Whoever puts this book down without having realized that evangelical theology stands or falls with the doctrine of the bondage of the will has read it in vain.” While some have wondered why I responded with vigor to this issue, it is because I see it in line with the Reformers. This is the very life-blood of the Christian faith. It is not just a slight issue with minor ramifications; the doctrines that are attached to the Arminian view of responsibility are at odds with the Gospel of grace alone.
We are all at a crossroads. We can take seriously what all the Reformers thought was an essential part of the Gospel or we can ignore this for the sake of peace. We will either seek for peace and a form of unity in all corners or we can begin to seek what God says in His Word on this issue. If evangelical theology stands or falls on this issue what are we going to do? If this is the very “life-blood of the Christian faith,” what are we going to do? This issue must be studied and prayed over by each person. This must be something more than an intellectual belief; this must be the conviction of the soul. What one means when teaching about responsibility and grace is the heart of the Gospel and the character of God. The Gospel is what it is in order to display the character and glory of God. Any deviation from the Gospel is an attack upon the sufficiency and glory of God. The Gospel depends completely on the sufficiency of God or mostly on it. This issue and the word “responsibility” is, therefore, utterly vital.
God Loves... Himself 
Leave a comment