If the source of grace is the predestinating purpose of God, then it comes by necessity, and not by any effort or endeavour on our part, as I showed above. Again: If God promised grace before the law, as Paul argues here and in Galatians, then it does not come by works or by law, else the promise would come to nothing; and faith also (by which Abraham was justified before the law was given) would come to nothing, should works prevail. Again: since the law is the strength of sin, displaying it without removing it, it makes the conscience guilty before God and threatens wrath. This is Paul’s meaning when he says; ‘the law worketh wrath’ (Rom 4:15). How then could righteousness be procured by the law? And if we get no help from the law, how can we get help from the power of our will alone? (Luther, Bondage of the Will)
Now if the purpose of the Law is to increase sin in order to drive human souls to see their utter helplessness in sin, then the Law must be taught and preached in order for man to see his utter helplessness in sin and his absolute need of Christ to do all for him. “The law worketh wrath” (Rom 4:15) and “The Law came in so that the transgression would increase” (Rom 5:20). Most men don’t mind hearing that God loves them and sent His Son to die for their sins and leaves it up to them to be saved or not, but they don’t want to and usually will not hear of a God that has sovereign rights over them and that all they do is sin and so they are helpless in sin.
Thesis 13 of Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation puts it this way: “Free will, after the fall, exists in name only, and as long as it does what it is able to do it commits mortal sin.” Gerhard Forde, in his writing about Luther One Being A Theologian of the Cross, has some powerful things to note on this Thesis:
Once again the opening salvo is a categorical rejection of what the theologian of glory must maintain if there is to be room “to do our best.” There must be some free will, no matter how miniscule. But the very claim is itself evidence of bondage over against the electing God. The fallen will cannot accept such a God. That is its bondage. The theologian of the cross, however, sees that that is exactly the problem, and therefore recognizes and confesses that, since the fall, free will does not exist in reality. It is an empty name. Perhaps it once existed, but no longer. Since this is the case, furthermore, when the fallen will sets out “to do its best,” it commits deadly sin. This proposition is, of course, a mighty offense. We would normally admit that in doing our best we fall short of the goals we try to reach. But to say that even in trying we commit deadly or mortal sin seems outrageous. This thesis was perhaps the most offensive of all to the papal party in Luther’s day. That is indicated by the fact that it was the only one from this Disputation actually attacked in the bull “Exsurge Domine” threatening Luther with excommunication. Luther’s reply to the bull indicates how important he considered this thesis to be. He said it was “the highest and most important issue of our cause.”
These points must be driven home in each heart, both those who teach and preach so that it can be driven home to the people of God and those being evangelized. In what Luther considered his most important book (Bondage of the Will) he makes this point in several ways, but it is so clear at this point. The doctrine of man’s total depravity which is to say that man can do nothing but sin was at least at the heart of “the highest and most important issue” to Luther. It is not some little issue that can be brushed to the side as if it is no bearing on vital issues. Yet, in our day that is precisely what has been done. For some reason over the years the doctrine of justification by faith alone has had the vital nerve cut from it. To Luther the bondage of the will was vital to the doctrine of justification by grace alone and without it there was no justification by grace alone. The doctrine of justification by faith alone was meant to guard what justification by grace alone really meant. But in our day the doctrine of ‘free-will’ is thought to be of little importance and that people can believe in justification by faith alone and still hold to a ‘free-will.’
The doctrine of election is also thought to be a secondary doctrine of little importance in many circles, though indeed no one wants to admit that. But the doctrine of election is necessary if grace is to be in the hands of a sovereign God who dispenses grace at His mere pleasure and who can not possibly be moved to show grace to anyone apart from being moved by Himself. But Luther shows that if grace is indeed sovereign, then it cannot come by “any effort or endeavour on our part.” The act of a ‘free-will’ is an effort and an endeavor. This shows with great clarity that a person cannot consistently hold to sovereign grace and ‘free-will’ at the same time. In fact, one cannot hold to any true form of grace at all unless it is sovereign grace. There is only one kind of grace in the universe and in reality and that is sovereign grace. ‘Free-will,’ on the other hand, at the heart of it is man trying to keep one last little island of control and power for himself to distribute grace to himself. The battle over ‘free-will’ is not about some little thing, but it is over the very nature of depravity, the nature of grace, and the Gospel itself.
God Loves... Himself 
Leave a comment