The guardians of ‘free-will’ have exemplified the saying: ‘out of the frying-pan, into the fire.’ In their zeal to disagree with the Pelagians they start denying condign merit, and by the very form of their denial they set it up more firmly! By word and pen they deny it, but really, in their hearts, they establish it, and are worse than the Pelagians upon two counts. In the first place, the Pelagians confess and assert condign merit straightforwardly, candidly and honestly, calling a spade a spade and teaching what they really hold. But our friends here, who hold and teach the same view, try to fool us with lying words and false appearances, giving out that they disagree with the Pelagians, when there is nothing that they are further from doing! ‘If you regard our pretences, we appear as the Pelagians’ bitterest foes; but if you regard the facts and our hearts, we are Pelagians double-dyed.’ (Luther, Bondage of the Will)
To the Reformers, the crucial question was not simply, whether God justifies believers without works of law. It was the broader question, whether sinners are wholly helpless in their sin, and whether God is to be thought of as saving them by free, unconditional, invincible grace, not only justifying them for Christ’s sake when they come to faith, but also raising them from the death of sin by His quickening Spirit in order to bring them to faith. Here was the crucial issue; whether God is the author, not merely of justification, but also of faith; whether, in the last analysis, Christianity is a religion of utter reliance on God for salvation and all things necessary to it, or of self-reliance and self-effort. (“Historical and Theological Introduction” to Bondage of the Will)
Notice that in the paragraph above the word “crucial” is used twice. To the Reformers the crucial question was “whether sinners are wholly helpless in their sin” and therefore whether God saves them by His “free, unconditional, invincible grace” and raises them from the death of sin in order to bring them to faith. Notice the language of the Packer and Johnson in the Introduction of the book. They set out a contrast that they thought (at least at the time) was a crucial issue. Does God justify sinners “for Christ’s sake when they come to faith” or is it that He raises “them from the death of sin by His quickening Spirit in order to bring them to faith”? This paragraph is another paragraph with thoughts of monumental importance in it. In earlier BLOGS this question has been looked at, but not exactly in the same way.
The authors show us how that for the pioneer Reformers the issues of depravity and a free and unconditional (in man) grace are inextricably linked together. It is to the degree that the depravity and helplessness of sinners are set out that the greatness and freeness of grace can be set out. It is only if sinners are entirely helpless in sin can they be entirely saved by grace. In other words, if sinners are not entirely helpless in sin then salvation is not entirely by grace. So to the degree that the entire helplessness of sinners is not set out, it is to that degree that salvation by grace alone cannot be taught. But even more, since this is far more than just an intellectual exercise, to the degree that the sinner is brought to his or her own helplessness is the degree that the sinner can rest in grace alone. To the degree that the sinner does not die to his or her own helplessness, is the degree that the sinner trusts in his or her own ability to help self.
This cannot be emphasized too much. If sinners are not brought to a real sense of their utter inability, they will rely on their ability to some degree. If sinners are not brought to a real and experiential sense of their utter helplessness before God, they will think that they can help themselves in some way even if it is just a little. But as long as sinners think that they can help themselves just a little, that little destroys the teaching of grace alone just as much as a works salvation. In fact, going back to the first paragraph above by Luther, he would say it is worse to teach Arminianism than it is to teach Pelagianism. The Arminian is hiding the essence of the doctrine of Pelagianism behind orthodox words and as such is really teaching Pelagianism in reality. To teach sinners that they can do something is worse than teaching them that they can do it all. It is worse because it is hiding the heart of Pelagianism behind a more orthodox language and that means that it is a more subtle deception.
The heart of man is born Pelagian and the heart of religious man is still Pelagian unless God renews it and gives it life and sight. The heart of man can be Pelagian be hidden in a Reformed pulpit and underneath a Reformed creed. The heart of a Pelagian will blind itself to its own Pelagianism with its adherence to what is close to the truth and even with the words of truth. But the Pelagian heart with a Reformed theological mind is twice as dangerous as the open Pelagian. That is because it is a heart and mind that has deceived itself and with conviction it will deceive others.
God Loves... Himself 
Leave a comment