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)
Thesis 13 of Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation sets out that “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.”
What Luther is saying in Bondage of the Will and in the Heidelberg Disputation is that after the fall the will has no power and no ability to do anything but sin. Even if the will tries to do its very best and actually attains the very best that it can do, it has done nothing but sin. In another place Luther calls this “splendid sins.” If that is true, and it is the historical position of the Reformed as to what Scripture teaches, then once again the case is closed. Arminianism and any form of Pelagianism are based on the teaching that ‘free-will’ can do something and at the point of doing that something (act of faith, choice) the will is free enough from grace and depravity to make that act that leads to salvation.
When a person makes the assertion that the will is free and that it is the act of the free will that enables grace to save that soul, at least two things must be true for that to be true. One, the will is not totally depraved and is not totally unable to do what is good. When the ‘free-will’ is asserted there is no way to escape the point that for the will to be free that will must be free enough from depravity at the point of making the choice for Christ to make a truly free choice. The second point, which has been made several times in former posts, is that the will must be free from grace enough to make a free choice.
The previous paragraph shows us, and hopefully quite clearly, why Luther thought that this was “the highest and most important issue of our cause.” The assertion of ‘free-will’ in a consistent manner demands the denial of total depravity and of grace alone. This shows, once again, where the bondage of the human will is the point of contact or intersection between the depravity of the human soul and the grace of God in saving human souls. If the soul is not truly in the grips of the bondage of sin and beyond any hope of any power and hope in itself then salvation is not by grace and grace alone. If salvation is by Christ and His works alone, then the will is helpless in the matter and can contribute nothing to what Christ has accomplished. True faith, therefore, cannot look to itself for any help or any choice or any action to contribute to salvation. True faith, since it has its origin in God and His work of grace in the soul, must always look to grace alone. If indeed all these things are true, and they have been the position of the Reformed in history, then the teaching of ‘free-will’ is another gospel. What Luther thought was “the highest and most important issue of our cause” because of its link with the Gospel of sovereign grace, has now been relegated to the non-essential category. That is the same thing as saying that the Gospel is no longer all that essential. We live in a day where deception has brought a deep darkness into the professing Church and what is taught as the Gospel in our day even by many professing Reformed is simply another gospel. Once one work is allowed back in the Gospel, it becomes another gospel which is very close to what Rome taught at that time.
God Loves... Himself 
December 21, 2011 at 8:58 pm |
Richard – it seems to me that the apostles never spent time arguing about the non-existance of the will. The gospel, the good news was that fallen, dead, depraved men who could do no good, not one, we pointed to their condiition and advised that the good news was for them to look to Christ for a supernatural miracle. That miracle was no less than bestowing life. The natural biblical gospel leaves no room for arguing anything of the will. Like the Israelites in the wilderness who were pointed to the pole for God to deliver them, such is the Gospel! They were faced with the need to believe in their inescapable condition and apart from anything in them, look to God, for a work of Grace by faith alone.
The same is true with the Gospel. Men unfortunately has made up all sorts of non-biblical instructive phases. They were never used in scripture nor by any evangelist or apostle. Accept Christ? Have a personal relationship with Christ. Make him Lord. If the bible or the apostles did not instruct this way, why do we allow preachers to use such language?
December 21, 2011 at 10:51 pm |
Thanks for the comment. I approach this from a different angle. The apostles also never spent time telling people that they did have a ‘free-will” either, but now that it is almost a universal assertion it must be dealt with. The Gospel of John (1:12-13) is very clear that the new birth is not of the human will, and John 3:3-8 shows us the priority of the Spirit in giving the new birth as He pleases.
Throughout the Scriptures when the Gospel comes to us and declares that salvation is by grace apart from works, that includes the work of the will of man. The fallen human nature wants its dependence to be just a little on self, and so men posit the will in all that is done. The doctrine of the will is the place where the depravity of man and the grace of God meet. The doctrine of the will is nothing more, at least in one sense, of the inability of man and the depths of the depravity of the sinner. Until a sinner sees and understands that s/he can do absolutely nothing to save himself, that sinner will look to self and trust in self rather than in what grace will do. Man always either looks to himself for faith or to God for faith. Each time sinners are commanded or called to repent and believe, they will either look to self to do it or bow before God and cry out for Him to give them a believing heart.
So, in order not to go real long, all the teachings of grace in the Bible, the teachings about the Law in the Bible, and indeed all the calls to faith in the Bible have the teaching about the will right there. For example, Romans 8:7 says that “because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so.” When the verse says that it is not even able to do so, it is speaking of the ability of the person to keep the law of God.
Each time a command is given in Scripture, we either think we can keep it or we look to God to give grace to seek to keep it. The Law was not given in order to justify men, but to drive them to Christ. The Law was not given in order to sanctify men, but to drive them to Christ to be their sanctification. So the command to believe should drive us away from our own abilities and wills in order to look to Christ alone. Luther saw that Rome had brought in this doctrine of the ‘free-will’ and in doing so they were diminishing true grace. Modern people do the same thing as well. When they bring in the ‘free-will’ to do what grace alone can do, they are teaching people to look to self rather than the sovereign God who alone can give grace.
December 22, 2011 at 9:11 am |
Excellent point Richard. I never looked at it that way. From that point, Paul and the apostles wrote much against free will. Not refuting it in name repeatedly, but repeatedly inferring what Grace was, and ultimately what it was not! Romans 8 says, if by the Spirit, you put to death the deeds of the body you will live. Man must first and foremost realize that he is in debt to a gracious God to seek his Spirit apart from anything he can bargain to receive the Spirit. Repentance is not the avenue for God to grant it. Rather a contrite and broken spirit that realizes its utter inability and cries out like David in Psalm 51, appealing to God for mercy according to nothing in David, only according to the attributes of God, his lovingkindness, his tender mercies and ultimately his promise that he would pour out just the same.
The man who thinks that God will act because he has repented is actually proud and will receive the opposite of Grace, God says he resists just such a man. But he gives grace to the humble. What a simple concepts, but oh how God has blinded the minds of so many to not see this. How did he open our eyes to see this. What wonderous love is this, Oh my soul.