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 (Thesis 13 of the Heidelberg Disputation)
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. (Gerhard Forde, On Being A Theologian of the Cross, comments on Thesis 13)
Roman Catholicism, in defending its position that was at best semi-Pelagianism, took issue with Luther’s position against ‘free-will” and did so strongly. Luther thought of those who advanced a theology which included ‘free-will’ as those who stood for a theology which glorified human nature and human beings, but the theologian of the cross was one that stood for the glory of God and His grace as opposed to human ability and human goodness. In order to maintain the theology of glory, there must be a ‘free-will.’ On the other hand, to truly maintain the theology of the cross there can be no ‘free-will” of the human being. Those who stand for ‘free-will’ do at some point oppose the electing grace of God in reality. True enough the words can be used, but a true theology of the electing grace of God cannot be maintained beyond just the words if one asserts ‘free-will.’
As Forde asserts, “The fallen will cannot accept such a God” and “the very claim is itself evidence of bondage over against the electing God.” What is it that the human is in bondage to in fighting the electing grace of God? The human is in bondage to the will of self rather than having been delivered by grace. It is one or the other and cannot be both. Romans 11:6 shows how acute the problem is: “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.” Whatever is of grace is wholly and totally of grace. Whatever a will that is said to be free can add to grace makes grace no longer to be pure grace which is to say it is not grace at all. The cross of Christ is where all grace that a sinner receives was purchased. The sinner must never look to self for anything to purchase or in any way obtain grace by, but instead is to look to Christ alone as the only way grace is to be obtained. The sinner must never think that grace can be obtained by a choice of his or her will, but instead grace can only be obtained by grace alone.
The human will that asserts and fights for ‘free-will’ is in reality fighting against the grace of God and in particular the electing grace of God. When people fight against the electing grace of God, what they are doing is fighting against the only kind of grace there really is. The grace of God can only be obtained by a sovereign God who alone can give grace and can never be brought under obligation or be moved to show grace in a way that is not out of love for Himself and His own glory. The desire to fight for the ‘free-will’ is nothing more than a demonstration of the bondage of sin and the opposition of the natural man to grace alone and to the electing grace of God which is the only kind of grace there is.
It matters not what theological stripe a person claims to be or what creed of confession a person claims to hold. In many important ways it does not matter what the theology of the mouth is either. What matters is the theology of the heart since that alone gets at what a person really is. A true lover of the free grace of God cannot stand for ‘free-will’ at the same time as the two cannot exist together. So many confessing Reformed people in the modern day think that they can have a theology which upholds Reformed theology while they can work with those who strongly deny free grace while upholding ‘free-will.’ This simply cannot be in reality. Those who think they can work with those who deny free grace by holding to ‘free-will’ in reality are in reality denying free grace in their own hearts. The two positions cannot be held in the same heart that the Christ of grace alone lives in. This is seen by the professing Reformed who would rather break with those who deny ‘free-will’ both in theory and in words rather than those who deny free grace in reality. Oh how far the Gospel of grace alone has fallen in the eyes and hearts of those who are supposed to be willing to die for it. Oh how far the Gospel of grace alone is denied in reality by those who prefer the honor of men in religion to the reality of grace.
God Loves... Himself 
Leave a comment