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)
Is our salvation wholly of God, or does it ultimately depend on something that we do for ourselves? Those who say 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 favor 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. In the light of what Luther says to Erasmus, there is no doubt that he would have endorsed this judgment. (“Historical and Theological Introduction” to Bondage of the Will)
In earlier BLOGS from the same section of Luther’s Bondage of the Will it is clear that justification by faith alone must be interpreted in the context of the bigger principle of grace alone. This is very important for many reasons, but the issue of grace which is always and only sovereign grace is at the forefront. If salvation is wholly of God, then salvation depends on grace alone. If salvation depends on the ‘free-will’ of man for the slightest thing, then grace is something less than grace alone and that means grace is no longer grace (Rom 11:6). If a person actually believes the so-called ‘free-will’ is able to come up with faith on its own and as its own act, then that person denies the utter helplessness of man in sin and denies the sovereign grace of God because salvation now rests in the choice of man. What this does is make that work of faith out to be something that God responds to and saves the sinner, which despite the protestations and denials actually makes faith to be a meritorious work.
This clearly shows that all that believe and rest upon their own act of the will for faith are Arminians at best which is to be semi-Pelagian. That is to deny in reality the doctrine of salvation by grace alone regardless if the person claims to believe in justification by faith alone and even grace alone. As long as a person rests in or trusts in a ‘free-will’ that person cannot believe in justification by grace alone. A ‘free-will denies grace alone on three counts. One, it ultimately depends on the ‘free-will’ for faith rather than grace. Two, it trusts in the person for faith rather than God who alone can give grace. Three, it denies the utter helplessness of man and so the need of sovereign grace in salvation. This is a strong denial of the heart of the Reformation in terms of the Gospel.
If it is true that “Arminianism was, indeed, in Reformed eyes a renunciation of New Testament Christianity in favor of New Testament Judaism; for to rely on oneself for faith is no different in principle from relying on oneself for works,” then even our professing Reformed folks today need to wake up. If indeed Luther would have agreed with that, and indeed he would have, then what is being taught today in most places is not the Gospel of grace alone that Luther preached in the Reformation. If what is being taught today is not the Gospel that God blessed in the Reformation, then either the Gospel has changed or the Gospel has virtually been lost in our day.
This thought is not comfortable and it is not thought to be winsome or gracious in our day, but that does not mean it is false. The Pharisees hated the truth of the Gospel as it cut to the root of their legalism and their Pelagianism (not called that then). The Judaizers of the New Testament were better than the Pharisees in appearance as they just wanted Christ plus just one thing (circumcision). They wanted just one thing other than grace alone. But that one thing meant that they preached a different Gospel. What is the difference between the one thing of circumcision and the one thing of faith? Both are works of the flesh that extend beyond grace alone. Both are looked to as not that much more. But both destroy the Gospel of grace alone since grace will have no rivals because God saves to the glory of His grace and not because of anything found in or done by sinful men. That one thing, according to Luther, made them worse than the Pelagians. Perhaps being gracious and winsome requires one to say something different, but Luther was more concerned about the Gospel and the truth of God than to be considered gracious and winsome before men.
God Loves... Himself 
Leave a comment