What is the source and status of faith? Is it the God-given means whereby the God-given justification is received, or is it the condition of justification which it is left to man to fulfil? Is it a part of God’s gift of salvation, or is it man’s own contribution to salvation? Is our salvation wholly of God, or does it ultimately depend on something that we do for ourselves? Those who deny the latter (as the Arminians later did) thereby deny man’s utter helplessness in sin, and affirm that a form of semi-Pelagianism is true after all. It is no wonder, then, that later Reformed theology condemned Arminianism as being in principle a return to Rome (because in effect it turned faith into a meritorious work) and a betrayal of the Reformation (because it denied the sovereignty of God in saving sinners, which was the deepest religious and theological principle of the Reformer’s thought). Arminianism 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 (Johnson and Packer’s introduction to Luther’s Bondage of the Will).
The free act of the will apart from God (even just a little bit) is a flat out denial of the sovereignty of God (wholly) in saving sinners. While some may give it lip service and say they believe in both a free-will and a sovereign God, that is like believing in a pan of frozen boiling water. It simply cannot be. The human will cannot be free from God in a choice and yet have God be sovereign over it at the same time. The human will cannot be free from God to choose salvation for itself and have a salvation that is by grace alone at the same time. A free-will choice for salvation is a denial of biblical faith. It is a different conception of faith than the Reformers taught. If justification is “by” faith alone in the sense that it is because of faith, then that is a work. But the Reformers taught that “by” in the phrase ‘justification by faith alone’ meant that faith was the instrument that received Christ or grace alone. Faith is not rewarded, but instead is an instrument that receives. The instrument itself is a work of grace as well.
In the modern climate where it is demanded that a person be gracious to all, it is hard to state the so-called bald facts of the Gospel and its exclusive nature in the gracious and winsome manner that moderns expect and call for. However, Paul stated in the context of the exclusivity of the Gospel that if he strove to please men he would not be a bond-servant of Christ (Gal 1:10). It is entirely possible (and probable) that the desire to be gracious to all is simply a way of pleasing men. When wrestling with the issues of the Gospel, it is not gracious (according to grace and truth) to try to please men when they are not in line with the Gospel. Arminianism, though in reality it is a form of semi-Pelagianism, was found to be a betrayal of the Reformation. Has Arminianism changed? Have the doctrines of the Reformation changed? Has the Gospel of grace alone changed? Maybe we need to wonder if the modern day way of looking at the Gospel has departed from both Scripture and the Reformation. The Gospel of grace alone is offensive to Pelagians even if they call themselves Arminians and even perhaps Reformed.
Martin Luther and the Reformers fought all forms of Pelagianism in the Reformation and were willing to die for the Gospel of grace alone. Later Reformed thinkers thought that Arminianism was in principle a return to Rome for the following reasons: 1) It turned faith from an instrument that received grace to one of a meritorious work. 2) It denied the absolute sovereignty of God in salvation. 3) It relied on self for faith which was in reality to rely on self for a work. Logically speaking, Arminianism is a flat-out denial of the Gospel of grace alone. That sounds ungracious, but the real issue has to do with how true it is. It is not unbiblical to tell a person that s/he does not believe in the true Gospel of grace alone. In fact, it is to be a man-pleaser to accept a person who denies the Gospel rather than offend the person. True love will offend with the true Gospel and the true Gospel is offensive.
There is no way around the issue. Our broad tent may allow us to have more folks in the tent, but it also drives out the living God who only dwells where the true Gospel is. Could it be that in our land today that we deny the true Gospel of grace alone because we have so focused on justification by faith alone that we have forgotten the broader principles that it fits within? If we yank justification by faith alone out of its corresponding principles of the utter helplessness of man in sin and the sovereignty of God in giving grace, we have a different doctrine than the Reformers did. The doctrine of the will is not just some mysterious teaching on the will, it is vital to the teaching of grace alone and Christ alone. That means that it is vital to justification by faith alone as well. We live in a day that holds to something called justification by faith alone while denying what the Reformers meant by it. As the country is swirling down to the pit, surely it is obvious that the Gospel the majority preaches is dead wrong.
God Loves... Himself 
Leave a comment