In short, Paul sets ‘him that worketh’ and ‘him that worketh not’ side by side and leaves none in the middle between them. He declares that righteousness is not reckoned to him that worketh, but is reckoned to him that worketh not, if only he believes. There is no way by which ‘free-will,’ with its effort and endeavour, can dodge or escape; it must either be numbered with ‘him that worketh’ or with ‘him that worketh not.’ If with ‘him that worketh’, you have heard Paul say that righteousness is not reckoned to it, If with ‘him that worketh not, but believeth’ on God, righteousness is reckoned to it. But then it will not be the power of ‘free-will’, but a new creation by faith, and if righteousness is not reckoned to ‘him that worketh’, it becomes clear that his works are nothing but sins, evil and ungodly in God’s sight. (Luther, Bondage of the Will)
Luther is taking two statements from Romans 4:1-6 and setting them side by side in order to show what is really going on in the text and how far the text actually reaches.
What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? 2 For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. 3 For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” 4 Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works.
The reach of this text is to each and every work of human souls. Romans 4, quoting from Genesis, tells us that Abraham believed God and it was credited or reckoned or imputed to him as righteousness. Now, how was Abraham credited righteousness? The text first says (v. 2) that if he was justified by works he would have had something to boast about, but instead (v. 3) Abraham had righteousness credited to him. So Abraham obtained righteousness by faith and not by works, which means no works at all. If faith itself is a work, then justification is by one work. But the text says no works at all and so faith is not a work.
To the one that does work (v. 3), what that person receives is not credited as favor or grace, but simply what is due that person. But the text then sets out with great clarity that it is to the one that does not work but instead believes that this person is credited righteousness, and that is true because God credits righteousness apart from works. Now this passage is utterly devastating to the ‘free-will’ position. In fact, ‘free-will’ cannot survive in the avalanche of the truth of grace from this passage. To assert ‘free-will’ it has to be asserted that the will is free of grace at some point as well as total depravity so that the will can operate and function in its own power of choice. The word “free” means something in that context. What free power does the will have when the righteousness of God does not come by a work or any group of works together? If the will does operate free from grace, even if that is just the smallest amount of freedom, what it does is a work. But the text above teaches that God reckons or credits righteousness apart from works.
As Luther points out, the will is in one of two groups but not both. The ‘free-will’ is either in the group that does not work or in the group that does work. The text does not limit the group that does work to those who work totally for salvation, but simply to those that work at all. If the will has to be free in order to make a ‘free-will’ choice, then what it does while free of grace is a work of the flesh. So for a ‘free-will’ to make a choice it would necessarily be a work. Yet, according to Romans 4, righteousness is given to those that do not work. Luther taught in The Bondage of the Will and in the Heidelberg Disputation that a person must not trust in themselves or in their own ability in order to be saved. The Heidelberg Disputation puts it like this: “It is certain that man must utterly despair of his own ability before he is prepared to receive the grace of Christ.” It is not that the person must mostly despair of his or her own ability before s/he is prepared to receive grace, but that person must utterly despair of his or her own ability to receive grace that is all grace. Why is that? One reason is that until a person utterly despairs of his own ability that person is trusting in his own will which can do nothing but a work of the flesh. If a person is trusting in one work of the flesh, that person is not trusting in grace alone. In other words, a person trusting in his or her act of the ‘free-will’ is trusting in a work of the flesh rather than grace alone to be saved. The Gospel is that sinners are saved by grace alone and are given righteousness by grace alone and one work makes grace no longer to be grace. The teaching of ‘free-will’, therefore, is opposed to the Gospel of grace alone. The will that is bound, on the other hand, is necessary for justification to be by grace alone which is the only kind of grace there is.
God Loves... Himself 
November 19, 2011 at 10:34 pm |
I think your concept of “free will” versus “grace” is severely flawed, and here is why: in your scheme, Adam (before he sinned) had to choose between trusting in himself and his own works versus trusting in God and grace. That’s absurd, and is total Pelagianism. The truth is, even before sinning Adam had to cooperate with grace and free will, a “synergism” so to speak, so to put those two in opposition to eachother is error because they are not opposed. This error becomes even more manifest when we consider that Jesus had to keep the commandments perfectly, but this was never a “human works alone” scenario because Jesus is a Divine Person with a Divine Nature!
And for information about widespread errors about “imputation” (a concept the Bible never teaches) see this article.
November 20, 2011 at 12:49 am |
My view is not Pelagianism at all much less total Pelagianism. It is free-grace rather than free-will. Adam’s will was never free from God and His sovereignty at any point, so clearly that is not Pelagianism of any kind. One cannot have a “synergism” between two contradictory statements. For the will to be free, it must be free of God, His grace, and then free of sin in some way. If you are going to term it a ‘free-will,’ then at least use the term in a meaningful way rather than strip it of meaning and then try to still use the term.
Adam either lived by the strength of God or he had to trust in his own strength in the Garden as well. Did Adam do works acceptable to God in his own strength and apart from the strength of God before the Fall? I don’t think so. Jesus did all He did by the power of the Spirit which shows He did not live by a ‘free-will’ in your sense, but by a supernatural power.
The teaching of imputation is not an error but the biblical truth. The soul is either declared to be righteous on the basis of what Christ has done or it is declared righteous on the basis of what it has done to keep the Law. Paul does not let us have a middle ground which is what you are trying to do and what ‘free-will’ advocates have to try to do in order to keep their scheme. Galatians 5:4 speaks of people having fallen from grace as a way of salvation. What did they do? They tried to say that one was saved by Christ and one work of their own. But Paul said that in trying to add that one work they had fallen from grace and now they must keep the entire Law. Apart from the imputation of the righteousness of Christ there is no way of sinners being saved in a way where God can be just and the justifier. The Bible does indeed teach grace alone, Christ alone, and so it does teach the imputation of the righteousness of Christ.
But lest you go on to argue more, consider the basis of this imputation. It is when God takes a sinner and joins that sinner to Christ and in some way they are one. In this marriage, as Ephesians 5 speaks of it, what is the sinners (sin) Christ takes to Himself and pays that debt and what is Christ’s (a perfect righteousness) that is counted as the sinners because of being joined and united to Christ. So this righteousness either comes to sinners on the basis of Christ alone or on the basis of keeping the Law alone. You cannot join the two since Paul was very specific in saying that it is grace alone or the Law alone. Roman Catholicism teaches a false gospel which boils down to sinners working in order to be declared just.