God Loves… Himself

The issues at hand require some very careful walking. There is no doubt that this is a hard issue and yet it is a vital issue. I would simply ask that people read this very carefully and move slowly in this section. A quote from William Cunningham is very instructive:

One of the leading forms which, in the present day, aversion to divine truth exhibits is a dislike to precise and definite statements upon the great subjects brought before us in the sacred Scriptures. This dislike to precision and definiteness in doctrinal statements, sometimes assumes the form of reverence for the Bible,–as if it arose from an absolute deference to the authority of the divine word, and an unwillingness to mix up the reasonings and deductions of men with the direct declarations of God. We believe that it arises,– much more frequently and to a much greater extent,– from a dislike to the controlling influence of Scripture-from a desire to escape, as far as possible without denying its authority, from the trammels of its regulating power as an infallible rule of faith and duty (The Reformers and The Theology of the Reformation, 525)

There must be some precision in statements in order to set out the truth of a doctrine and to set out what it is not. The subject of today’s BLOG is the Reformed view of responsibility. There is no way to set out what every aspect of every person has believed about this, and this is not to pretend that all people that have claimed to be Reformed have believed the same thing. Nevertheless, what is going to be attempted is a statement that many Reformed people in history have held. Readers are to be warned that some of what is going to be said might sound like Arminianism, but in fact it is not. Again, please read the whole BLOG and the ones to come very carefully before passing an overall judgment.

While it does sound like Arminian teaching to some, it is true that without ability of some kind there is no obligation or responsibility of some kind. What we have to do is to distinguish between a certain kind of ability and then a certain kind of inability. Distinguishing in this way sets out what the true nature of the Reformed teaching of inability is. It may sound like fine distinctions to some, but this is vital to understanding the real issue. Let me start this part of the discussion with a quote from B.B. Warfield. “We may point out, therefore, that the doctrine of inability does not affirm that we cannot believe, but only that we cannot believe in our own strength” (Shorter Writings, Vol II, p. 726). This quote helps us from the start to at least get the idea that we must distinguish between certain kinds of ability and the true nature of inability. It is not that man is unable to believe and do certain things because he lacks the ability to do so from anything of his body, but this inability is something spiritual and moral. But we still must assert very strongly that inability stresses that man cannot believe in his own strength.

We can gain some insight from the Law of God which was never given as a way of life. The Law came in to show man his sin (Romans 5:20; 7:7-8; Galatians 3:19). The Law was meant to show man his death in sin and lead him to Christ and the way of life. Man has never had the ability to keep the Law in and of himself. The Law is to be proclaimed to all men in order to show them their need for Christ as Savior from sin and of Christ as their life in order to keep the Law. The Law is preached in order that men may see that they cannot keep the Law and so flee to Christ. The doctrine of inability in this case is to show men that they need to be delivered from their ideas of strength and ability and to rest in grace and Christ. The call to men to believe is also of the same nature. We preach to men who cannot believe and yet we tell them that they are commanded to believe. Why do we command people to believe in Christ when we know that they cannot? It is because there is nothing wrong with them in one sense and so they should believe in Christ. But we also preach to them so that they can see that they cannot do it in their own strength and will go to Christ for grace to fulfill their obligation. Men are to believe because he is obligated to believe with what Christ gives him to believe. We are to believe with the strength of Christ.

For the moment we will let this rest here and pick this up in the next BLOG. What we must learn is that the commands of Scripture never teach us what we can do in and of our own strength, but what man must do from the strength and ability of Christ. Human beings do not have the ability to love God from themselves as that must come from God. Only when Christ is our life and living in us do we have any strength to please God.

As we move somewhat slowly into this issue, we must remember where we have been and where we are going. The first step was to see that Arminian theology sets out the doctrine of free-will and responsibility as meaning that for a person to have responsibility means that the person has ability. As we will see in future BLOGS, Reformed people in history have meant that man has ability in many ways but in a way that heightens his condemnation in light of his inability. Arminian theology sets out that man has some ability which must be exercised in order to be saved. We also previously saw that a word can stand for a vast amount of theology that is vital to the Christian faith.

What we want to see today is just how important and even vital the link is between man’s responsibility and free-will in terms of the glorious Gospel of grace alone. This is part of the movement to show that anything linked to grace in terms of what is necessary to salvation is at least in words a denial of the Gospel. We also want to show just how vital Reformed theology is to the Gospel and how it must never be compromised.

The necessity and sufficiency of grace in the Gospel is set out by Scripture when it always attributes salvation to grace and grace alone. Salvation is by faith in order that it may be by grace (Romans 4:16). When we see Scripture setting out salvation being by faith, we can know it is by faith in order that it may be by grace alone and so by Christ alone to the glory of God alone. The doctrine of the responsibility of man and his free-will and/or inability cannot be separated from the Gospel. If a person does have free-will in the sense that Arminian theology holds, then this is not consistent with grace alone for salvation. If man’s responsibility implies ability as indeed Arminian theology sets it out to be, then this is inconsistent with grace alone for salvation. This was the primary issue at the Reformation and it continues to be the primary issue. A person can have a belief in something called Reformed theology and still not hold the heart of it if this part is denied. Luther himself said that this was the most important issue and hinge on which all turned (Bondage of the Will, p. 319 in 1957 edition). If we miss this, we have missed the vital link of the Reformation and of Reformed theology.

William Cunningham, in his Historical Theology, puts it this way: “The subject of free-will is, as it were, the connecting link between the doctrines of original sin and of divine grace-between men’s natural condition as fallen, involved in guilt and depravity, and the way in which they are restored to favour, to holiness and happiness” (p. 569, Stillwater edtion). This truly gets at the heart of the issue and sets out our doctrines for us with a degree of clarity that cannot be done in another way. How is man restored to the favor of God and to holiness and happiness? Is it based on something within him or totally on the grace of God? Does man have some little part of him that is still good and so is able to respond to God without the work of grace or does man have to have grace in all ways and even the power of grace to respond to God?

Speaking of Martin Luther, John Calvin, Zwingli, Bucer and others, Packer and Johnson said that “all the leading Protestant theologians at the first epoch of the Reformation, stood on precisely the same ground here. On other points, they had their differences; but in asserting the helplessness of man in sin, and the sovereignty of God in grace, they were entirely at one. To all of them, these doctrines were the very life-blood of the Christian faith (p. 58). On the same page the same authors quote another author approvingly: “Whoever puts this book down without having realized that evangelical theology stands or falls with the doctrine of the bondage of the will has read it in vain.” While some have wondered why I responded with vigor to this issue, it is because I see it in line with the Reformers. This is the very life-blood of the Christian faith. It is not just a slight issue with minor ramifications; the doctrines that are attached to the Arminian view of responsibility are at odds with the Gospel of grace alone.

We are all at a crossroads. We can take seriously what all the Reformers thought was an essential part of the Gospel or we can ignore this for the sake of peace. We will either seek for peace and a form of unity in all corners or we can begin to seek what God says in His Word on this issue. If evangelical theology stands or falls on this issue what are we going to do? If this is the very “life-blood of the Christian faith,” what are we going to do? This issue must be studied and prayed over by each person. This must be something more than an intellectual belief; this must be the conviction of the soul. What one means when teaching about responsibility and grace is the heart of the Gospel and the character of God. The Gospel is what it is in order to display the character and glory of God. Any deviation from the Gospel is an attack upon the sufficiency and glory of God. The Gospel depends completely on the sufficiency of God or mostly on it. This issue and the word “responsibility” is, therefore, utterly vital.

The issue about words is a very important issue. It is not just that a word may mean something; it is that it does mean something. But even more, one word can mean multiple things. Some words have more than just a definition. They have concepts, philosophical and theological issues wrapped up in them. With some words it is virtually impossible to deal with the word just as a word but instead it must be dealt with as a concept or theology. That is true of the word “responsibility.” It is no longer just what this word has meant, but it has to do with what the meaning of this word is in the context it is used and then the theology behind the word. There are other words in history that have been used like this.

During the Reformation and ever since the Reformation the word “justify” has been an issue. During the Reformation the pioneer Reformers and Roman Catholics did battle over that word. Roman Catholics said that the word had to do with what God accounted to the person according to each person’s works. A person could only be justified if the person did enough works to be justified. The Reformers said that the word “justify” had a legal or forensic meaning in Scripture and so God justified sinners by declaring them just based on the righteousness of Christ. That issue is still with us today.

Another word that was battled over in the Reformation was the word “alone.” Martin Luther in particular said that a person was justified by faith alone. Roman Catholics argued that Luther’s view was false and that a person had to have works to be justified. Luther said that Scripture taught that a person was justified by faith apart from works and so that is one side of what he meant by faith alone. Another aspect of the word “alone” is that a person is justified by faith alone in order that it may be by grace alone. Unless a person is declared just by God through faith alone, justification and salvation are not by grace alone. If justification is not through faith alone and by grace alone, it will not be by Christ alone either. It would also not be to the glory of God alone. That one little word “alone” is a shining little word that is necessary to defend the Gospel of grace alone and Christ alone. It was not and is not wrangling about words, it is about the Gospel.

Going back into history over one millennium earlier than the Reformation, we find another word that split Christendom into pieces and caused much squabbling and suffering. In reality, however, there was a truth and a theology that had to be defended with a word. This was during the time of Arianism which taught that Jesus Christ was a created being and not of the same substance as the Father. Modern day Arians are known as the Jehovah’s Witnesses in that they teach more or less the same thing about Christ. The Council of Nicea was convened by Constantine in the year 325 and was the first ecumenical council. It was attended by 318 bishops and many others. While Arianism did not have many committed followers at this council, he did have Eusebius of Nicomedia who had much influence with and over Constantine. The chief opponent of Arianism was Athanasius. The council decided on a statement that in part that had some important words (highlighted & italicized) for the history of the Church:

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible, and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten of the Father, that is, of the substance (ousias) of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one substance (homoousion) with the Father, through whom all things were made…

This creed (just part of it listed above) was signed and Arius was banished. Constantine decreed the death penalty for those who would not agree to this creed. While it appeared that the battle was over, it was not. Eusebius of Nicomedia signed the creed and retained his status with Constantine. The political wrangling began and Arius was allowed to return. Athanasius was ordered to reinstate Arius at Alexandria and was banished when he refused to do so. The political and religious wrangling continued but we must understand that the truth of the Gospel was at stake. Athanasius was banished five times and would not give in though the whole world seemed to be against him. He fought this battle until he died.

What Athanasius began to see, however, is that the word homoousion was not adequate in and of itself. While it meant that the Father and the Son were one substance, which Athanasius was willing to die for, it did not protect the equally important teaching that the Father and the Son are in some way different. What they had to do, then, was to adopt the word homoiousion. If you read the words carefully, you will notice that there is only a one letter difference (“i”) between the two words. That one letter, however, changes the word from meaning the “same substance” to “of similar substance.” In fighting Arianism that one letter meant the difference between truth and heresy. In fighting other issues the word that was heresy in one sense (homoiousion) was needed to preserve the truth in another sense.

Another group of theologians came on the scene and were called “The Great Cappadocians.” They were Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil of Caesarea, and Gregory of Nyssa. They were instrumental in helping people wrestle with the difference between the Greek and the Latin which was causing some problem in understanding. They called attention to the distinction between ousia (the Greek equivalent of “substantia”) and hypostasis (translated into Latin as “persona”). The teaching basically boiled down to this: In God there is only one ousia (substance), and that one substance or ousia is shared by the three hypostases (Persons) of Father, Son, and Spirit. In other words, these great battles over words were actually great battles over the nature of the Trinity and the full deity of Christ. The orthodox understanding and teaching of the Trinity and the deity of Christ rest on those battles to a large degree.

The battle for the Gospel is continuing today. One word that we must grasp and understand is “responsibility.” We must understand what it means and what it means in its written context and its theological context. Some may think that this is just wrangling over words, but it is not. There are huge theological issues that revolve on this word in the sense that they revolve around its meaning. The understanding of justification by grace alone through faith alone rests in some way on how this word is understood. How we understand the character of God is in some way influenced by this word. How we understand the depravity of man and the will is greatly influenced by how we understand this word. Perhaps it is best to say that how we understand this word is determined by what we really believe about other things. This is not wrangling over words and trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, this already is a mountain that is set before us in Scripture and in history. We must not ignore what is going on by the use of slippery language. We must defend the Gospel at all costs.

The issues surrounding the BLOGS on Morris Chapman’s article in SBC Life deserve an answer and a response. For another critique of his article, click here.

First, I am convinced that the Gospel was seriously compromised by what the article said and implied. Second, I should have been more careful in being sure that the BLOGS were not a personal attack. They were not intended as a personal attack but were written as a defense of the Gospel of grace alone. I made more of a personal reference to the writer at least once. For the personal reference I apologize and for any personal slight that I made. The intent was and should have been kept to the issue at hand. Third, there were some serious misunderstandings of the BLOGS. I was accused of hyper-Calvinism. I strongly deny this but I personally think that those men have the right to say what they did on this particular site and appreciate the fact that they obviously meant what they said. If we leave things as intellectual arguments alone, we show that we do not love the truth. While I am convinced that I am not in reality what they say, I do appreciate their willingness to stand up and say what they said with conviction. Fourth, there have been some concerns raised in some circles about the tenor of the way the discussion progressed or digressed. It has been suggested that we try to keep a better tenor and tone of the discussions. Therefore, there will be a few more rules set out in the future about things like this.

Next, it has been suggested that the Spurgeon Baptist Association of Churches was not accurately represented by what I wrote. Some said that that they were not represented and others said that they were represented. It is indeed my personal views and writings rather than what everybody in Spurgeon believes. I personally believe that it is very healthy to discuss theological issues and even butt heads in order to get at the truth. If we are so sensitive that we cannot be wrong, then it is possible that what we believe as true is also from a motive of self. We are to love the truth and pursue the truth even if it means wrestling with ourselves and others. We are also supposed to speak the truth in love, but then again we have no love in reality if we have no truth. It takes love to have truth and truth to have love. We must always remember that we are to love God first and as an overflow of knowing Him in truth and love, we will love in truth.

Last, if anyone has a problem with what I write, please contact me personally or respond to the BLOG itself here. It is biblical to go to the person you have the problem with and not go to others first.

Hopefully with the air somewhat cleared, we can get back to the issues that need to be dealt with. What we have to do at this point is to look at some of the major issues. The first is responsibility. We need to look and see how Reformed theologians and pastors and Arminian theologians and pastors have used this word or concept. Even more than that, we have to get a grasp of the teaching on inability in order to see the real issue. It is only when these issues are seen in a fuller sense will the real problems with the statement of “the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man” or “the grace of God and the responsibility of man” as “necessary elements in salvation” can be really seen. These are not silly little issues and this is not wrangling about words. This will take several BLOGS and the whole position will not be seen in just one or perhaps not even a few. The heart of this argument (giving reasons) is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. While you may not believe that, that is what Luther and the Reformers said. It is also the teaching of Jesus and Paul. It is much of what the Gospel of grace alone is all about.

The Arminian use of the word “responsibility” has meant and still includes the meaning of ability. Over and over again we are told that to have true responsibility a person has to have ability. If you want to search this out, simply go and read any book on Arminian theology and you will find it to be so. By definition an Arminian is one that believes in free will which in that sense includes the ability of the person to do what God commands. Listed below are quotes from several sites where you may read this exact point along with a few quotes. (Note, I am not necessarily endorsing all of the content on each of these sites but simply using what is written there in an attempt to show the difference). If you had any doubts before, surely these quotes will wipe those away. Calvinists and Arminians differ on what “responsibility” means and in fact it is at the heart of the issues between the two theological camps. This is not just an issue about wrangling with words, it is an issue that is at the heart of the Gospel of grace alone.

“Arminians deny the total depravity of man, in that they hold that the will of man is free and has the ability to choose Christ and the salvation that is in Him. Such teaching is false and delusive. The will of man is free only to choose according to his moral nature, and as his nature is under the dominion of sin, man chooses accordingly. “Man by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation-, so as a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.” (‘Confession of Faith,’ Ch. 9, Sec. 3). ‘The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them.”

Man’s Inability and Responsibility

Arminians hold that responsibility infers ability, and therefore maintain that when sinners are called upon to believe and to repent, that they have the power to do so. Such teaching is false to the core. The call given in the gospel, and given by all who preach the gospel in its fullness, to believe and repent is the outward call. It is the prerogative of the Holy Spirit alone in His internal and regenerating work to make the outward call effectual. ‘Many are called, but few are chosen.’ Although man through the fall lost his ability, he is still responsible and accountable to God, and because responsible he is duty bound to make use of the outward means and ordinances appointed by God, and the efficiency of which is dependent alone on His power. God has established a connection between the means and the end desired. He commands us to use them, and He has promised to bless them. To separate the means from the end, which the Lord has ordained for the salvation of sinners is to be guilty of separating what the Lord has joined. A despising and a neglecting of the means is a despising of the salvation the means bring before us. ‘And how shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?

Reference: click here.

III. AN EVALUATION OF THE DOCTRINES At the heart of the controversy between Calvinism and Arminianism is the emphasis on the sovereignty of God by the Calvinists and on the free will of man, or human responsibility, by the Arminians. Arminian theology teaches that man has free will and that God will never interrupt or take that free will away, that God has obligated Himself to respect the free moral agency and capacity of free choice with which He created us. Calvinism, on the other hand, emphasizes that God is in total control of everything, and that nothing can happen that He does not plan and direct, including man’s salvation. Both doctrinal positions are logical, both have Scriptures to back up each of their five points, and both are, in my opinion, partially right and partially wrong. As Philip Schaff put it in his History of the Christian Church, “Calvinism emphasizes divine sovereignty and free grace; Arminianism emphasizes human responsibility. The one restricts the saving grace to the elect; the other extends it to all men on the condition of faith. Both are right in what they assert; both are wrong in what they deny. If one important truth is pressed to the exclusion of another truth of equal importance, it becomes an error, and loses its hold upon the conscience. The Bible gives us a theology which is more human than Calvinism and more divine than Arminianism, and more Christian than either of them. ” (New York, Charles Scribner’s & Son, 1910, VIII 815 f)

Reference:click here.

1) Arminianism denies the imputation of sin; no one is condemned eternally because of original sin. Man is condemned because of his own sins. This appears at variance with Romans 5:12-21. (2) Though variously interpreted, Arminians generally teach that the effects of the Fall were erased through prevenient grace bestowed on all men, enabling individuals to cooperate with God in salvation. There is, however, no clear indication of this kind of prevenient grace in Scripture. (3) Arminians teach that the Fall did not destroy man’s free will; furthermore, they teach that prevenient grace moves upon the heart of the unbeliever, enabling him to cooperate with God in salvation by an act of the will. While it is true that man must bear responsibility in responding to the gospel (John 5:40), man’s will has been affected because of the Fall (Rom. 3:11-12; Eph. 2:1); man needs God’s grace in order to be saved (Eph. 2:8; Acts 13:48; 16:14). (4) Arminians relate predestination to God’s foreknowledge of man’s actions. They stress that God knew beforehand who would believe, and He elected those. In Arminianism, election and predestination are conditioned by faith. The word foreknowledge (Gk. prognosis), however, is basically equivalent to election (cf. Rom. 11:2; 1 Pet. 1:20). The data of God’s foreknowledge originates in advanced planning, not in advanced information. (5) Arminianism stresses human participation and responsibility in salvation: recognition of sin, turning from sin, repentance, confession, and faith. For Arminianism, repentance involves change of actions, forsaking sins, whereas the biblical word repentance (Gk. metanoia) means “change of mind.” Although the stress on human responsibilities is significant, if it involves multiple conditions for salvation, this stress becomes a serious matter because the purity of salvation-by-grace-alone is then at stake. The sole condition of salvation stressed in scores of Scriptures is faith in Christ (John 3:16, 36; Acts 16:31; Rom. 10:9, etc.).

Reference: click here.

In some inexplicable way God has seen fit to incorporate human freedom and responsibility into His all-inclusive plan. Even though the Lord is in sovereign control of the details in His creation, He never forces any man to do anything against his will. The fact that He judges sin means that He is not responsible for the commission of the sins He judges. When a person sins it is because he has freely chosen to do so. Similarly, when someone is confronted with the terms of the gospel, he can freely choose to accept or reject Christ’s offer of forgiveness of sins. Because it is free choice, he will be held responsible for the decision he makes (see John 12:48). In my view, personal and moral responsibility require free will. While I disagree with those who say that our wills are in total bondage, I am not implying in my use of the terms “freedom” and “free will” that humans are autonomous. We do not control the fundamental realities of our lives (e.g., our time on earth and our abilities), and yet our choices are ours.

Reference: click here.

At the heart of the controversies between Calvinism and Arminianism is the emphasis on the sovereignty of God by the Calvinists and on the sovereignty (free will) of man – or human responsibility – by the Arminians. Calvinism emphasizes that God is in total control of everything and that nothing can happen that He does not plan and direct, including man’s salvation. Arminianism teaches that man has free will and that God will never interrupt or take that free will away, and that God has obligated Himself to respect the free moral agency and capacity of free choice with which He created us.

Reference: click here.

According to the Calvinist belief, man’s inclination to sin has ensnared his will. Even though he can make choices according to his nature, man’s character has been so corrupted that he can never choose what is pure. Calvinists point to verses in Mark 7:21-23 and Romans 3:10-12, which say that man’s heart is utterly wicked and that no one seeks God because they have all wandered down the wrong path. Thus, man cannot accept Christ without God’s intervention. In essence, Calvinism states that man only has the free will to choose evil and that he does not have the capacity to choose God. On the other hand, Arminianism says that man’s sinful nature has not completely hindered his ability to choose God. Rather, Arminians believe that man can freely choose good or evil. They read John 3:16 and emphasize the phrase “whoever believes in Him”, as it seems to indicate man has a choice to accept or reject Christ. In John 7:17, the prophet writes, “If anyone chooses to do God’s will, he will find out whether my teaching comes from God or whether I speak on my own.” This highlights man’s capacity to choose God. Arminians say that, through choice and faith, man can receive God’s gift of salvation.

Reference: click here.

As you can easily see from the sites and quotes above there is a huge difference in the way that Arminians and Calvinists view the word “responsibility.” The difference is so vast that when applied consistently these positions teach a different gospel. If a person writes the “sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man,” he might mean two very different and distinct things. One view is consistent with the Gospel of grace alone. The other view is consistent with grace and works being the gospel at hand. When dealing with differing gospels or differing views of the Gospel, there is no just wrangling with words. This is a deadly serious issue and eternal issues are at stake. We must treat this issue with the seriousness that it deserves.

A DEFENSE OF CALVINISM
NOTE: THIS MESSAGE IS FROM C.H. SPURGEON’S AUTOBIOGRAPHY, VOLUME 1.

The late lamented Mr. Denham has put, at the foot of his portrait, a most admirable text, “Salvation is of the Lord.” That is just an epitome of Calvinism; it is the sum and substance of it. If anyone should ask me what I mean by a Calvinist, I should reply, “He is one who says, Salvation is of the Lord.” I cannot find in Scripture any other doctrine than this. It is the essence of the Bible. “He only is my rock and my salvation.” Tell me anything contrary to this truth, and it will be a heresy; tell me a heresy, and I shall find its essence here, that it has departed from this great, this fundamental, this rock-truth, “God is my rock and my salvation.” What is the heresy of Rome, but the addition of something to the perfect merits of Jesus Christ-the bringing in of the works of the flesh, to assist in our justification? And what is the heresy of Arminianism but the addition of something to the work of the Redeemer? Every heresy, if brought to the touchstone, will discover itself here. I have my own Private opinion that there is no such thing as preaching Christ and Him crucified, unless we preach what nowadays is called Calvinism. It is a nickname to call it Calvinism; Calvinism is the gospel, and nothing else. I do not believe we can preach the gospel, if we do not preach justification by faith, without works; nor unless we preach the sovereignty of God in His dispensation of grace; nor unless we exalt the electing, unchangeable, eternal, immutable, conquering love of Jehovah; nor do I think we can preach the gospel, unless we base it upon the special and particular redemption of His elect and chosen people which Christ wrought out upon the cross; nor can I comprehend a gospel which lets saints fall away after they are called, and suffers the children of God to be burned in the fires of damnation after having once believed in Jesus. Such a gospel I abhor.

FREE GRACE NO. 233
DELIVERED ON SABBATH MORNING, JANUARY 9TH, 1859,
BY THE REV. C. H. SPURGEON,
AT THE MUSIC HALL, ROYAL SURREY GARDENS.

“Not for your sakes do I this, saith the Lord God, be it known unto you: be ashamed and confounded for your own ways, O house of Israel.” – Ezekiel 36:32.

THERE are two sins of man that are bred in the bone, and that continually come out in the flesh. One is self-dependence and the other is self-exaltation. It is very hard, even for the best of men, to keep themselves from the first error. The holiest of Christians, and those who understand best the gospel of Christ, find in themselves a constant inclination to look to the power of the creature, instead of looking to the power of God and the power of God alone. Over and over again, Holy Scripture has to remind us of that which we never ought to forget, that salvation is God’s work from first to last, and is not of man, neither by man. But so it is, this old error – that we are to save ourselves, or that we are to do something in the matter of salvation – always rises up, and we find ourselves continually tempted by it to step aside from the simplicity of our faith in the power of the Lord our God. Why, even Abraham himself was not free from the great error of relying upon his own strength. God had promised to him that He would give him a son – Isaac, the child of promise. Abraham believed it, but at last, weary with waiting, he adopted the carnal expedient of taking to himself Hagar, to wife, and he fancied that Ishmael would most certainly be the fulfillment of God’s promise; but instead of Ishmael’s helping to fulfill the promise, he brought sorrow unto Abraham’s heart, for God would not have it that Ishmael should dwell with Isaac. “Cast out,” said the Scripture, “the bondwoman and her son; for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman.” Now we, in the matter of salvation, are apt to think that God is tarrying long in the (page168) fulfillment of His promise, and we set to work ourselves to do something, and what do we do? Sink ourselves deeper in the mire and pile up for ourselves a store of future troubles and trials. Do we not read that it grieved Abraham’s heart to send Ishmael away? Ah! and many a Christian has been grieved by those works of nature which he accomplished with the design of helping the God of grace. Oh, beloved, we shall find ourselves very frequently attempting the foolish task of assisting Omnipotence and teaching the Omniscient One. Instead of looking to grace alone to sanctify us, we find ourselves adopting Philosophic rules and principles which we think will effect the Divine work. We shall but mar it; we shall bring grief into our own spirits. But if, instead thereof, we in every work look up to the God of our salvation for help, and strength, and grace, and succor, then our work will proceed to our own joy and comfort, and to God’s glory.

That error, then, I say is in our bone, and will always dwell with us, and hence it is that the words of the text are put as an antidote against that error. It is distinctly stated in our text that salvation is of God. “Not for your sakes do I this.” He says nothing about what we have done or can do. All the preceding and all the succeeding verses speak of what God does. “I will take you from among the heathen.” “I will sprinkle clean water upon you.” “I will give you a new heart.” “I will put my Spirit within you.” It is all of God: therefore, again recall to our recollection this doctrine, and give up all dependence upon our own strength and power. The other error to which man is very prone, is that of relying upon his own merit. Though there is no righteousness in any man, yet in every man there is a proneness to truth in some fancied merit. Strange that it should be so, but the most reprobate characters have yet some virtue as they imagine, upon which they rely. You will find the most abandoned drunkard pride himself that he is not a swearer… Human nature with regard to its own merit, is like the spider, it bears its support in its own bowels, and it seems as if it would keep spinning on to all eternity.

It is against all human merit that I am this morning going to speak, and I feel that I shall offend a great many people here. I am about to preach a doctrine that is gall and vinegar to flesh and blood, one that will make righteous moralists gnash their teeth, and make others go away and declare that I am an Antinomian, and perhaps scarcely fit to live. However, that consequence is one which I shall not greatly deplore, if connected with it there should be in other hearts a yielding to this glorious truth, and a giving up to the power and grace of God, who will never save us, unless we are prepared to let Him have all the glory.

I. I shall endeavor to EXPOUND THIS TEXT. “Not for your sakes do I this saith the Lord God.” The motive for the salvation of the human race is to be found in the breast of God, and not in the character or condition of man.

Two races have revolted against God – the one angelic, the other human… However, the God who in His infinite justice passed over angels, and suffered them forever to expiate their offenses in the fires of hell, was pleased to look down on man. Here was election on a grand scale; the election of manhood, and the reprobation of fallen angelhood. What was the reason for it? The reason was in God’s mind, an inscrutable reason which we do not know, and which if we knew probably we could not understand. Had you and I been put upon the choice of which should have been spared, I do think it probable we should have chosen that fallen (page 170) angels should have been saved. … But God, who doeth as He wills with His own, and giveth no account of His matters, but who
deals with His creatures as the potter deals with his clay, took not upon Him the nature of angels, but took upon Him the seed of Abraham, and chose men to be the vessels of His mercy. This fact we know, but where is its reason? Certainly not in man. “Not for your sakes do I this. O house of Israel, be ashamed and be confounded for your own ways.” Here, very few men object. We notice that if we talk about the election of men and the non-election of fallen angels, there is not a cavil for a moment. Every man approves of Calvinism till he feels that he is the loser by it; but when it begins to touch his own bone and his own flesh then he kicks against it. Come, then, we must go further. The only reason why one man is saved, and not another, lies not, in any sense, in the man saved, but in God’s bosom. The reason why this day the gospel is preached to you and not the heathen far away, is not because, as a race, we are superior to the heathen; it is not because we deserve more at God’s hands; His choice of
Britain, in the election of outward privilege, is not caused by the excellency of the British nation, but entirely because of His own mercy and His own love… Because it seem’d good in thy sight.”…

Now, in the great decree of election, the only reason why God selected the vessels of mercy must have been because He would do it. There was nothing in any one of them which caused God to choose them. We all were alike, all lost, all ruined by the fall; all without the slightest claim upon His mercy; all, in fact, deserving His utmost vengeance. His choice of any one, and His choice of all His people, are causeless, so far as anything in them was concerned. It was the effect of His sovereign will, and of nothing which they did, could do, or even would do; for thus saith the text: “Not for your sakes do I this, O house of Israel!”

As for the fruit of our election, in due time Christ came into this world, and purchased with His blood all those whom the Father hath chosen. Now come ye to the cross of Christ; bring this doctrine with you, and remember that the only reason why Christ gave up His life to be a ransom for His sheep was because He loved His people, but there was nothing in His people that made Him die for them. I was thinking as I came here this morning, if any man should imagine that the love of God to us was caused by anything in us, it would be as if a man should look into a well to find the springs of the ocean, or dig into an anthill to find an Alp. The love of God is so immense, so boundless and so infinite, that you cannot conceive for a moment that it could have been caused by anything in us. The little good that is in us – the no good that is in us – for there is none, could not have caused the boundless, bottomless, shoreless, summitless love which God manifests to His people. Stand at the foot of the cross, ye merit-mongers, ye that delight in your own works; and answer this question: Do you think that the Lord of life and glory could have been brought down from Heaven, could have been fashioned like a man, and have been led to die through any merit of yours? Shall these sacred veins be opened with any lancet less sharp than His own infinite love? Do you conceive that your poor merits, such as they are, could be so efficacious as to nail the Redeemer to the tree, and make Him bend His shoulders beneath the enormous load of the world’s guilt? You cannot imagine it.

After Christ’s death, there comes, in the next place, the work of the Holy Spirit. Those whom the Father hath chosen, and whom the Son has redeemed, in due time the Holy Spirit calls “out of darkness into marvelous light.” Now, the calling of the Holy Spirit is without any regard to any, merit in us. If this day the Holy Spirit shall call out of this congregation a hundred men, and bring them out of their estate of sin into a state of righteousness, you shall bring these hundred men, and let them march in review, and if you could read their hearts, you would be compelled to say, “I see no reason why the Spirit of God should have operated upon these. I see nothing whatever that could have merited such grace as this – nothing that could have caused the operations and motions of the Spirit to work in these men.” For, look ye here. By nature, men are said to be dead in sin. If the Holy Spirit quickens, it cannot be because of any power in the dead men, or any merit in them, for they are dead, corrupt and rotten in the grave of their sin. If then, the Holy Spirit says, “Come forth and live,” it is not because of anything in the dry bones, it must be for some reason in His own mind, but not in us. Therefore, know ye this, men and brethren, that we all stand upon a level. We have none of us anything that can recommend us to God; and if the Spirit shall choose to operate in our hearts unto salvation, He must be moved to do it by His own supreme love, for He cannot be moved to do it by any good will, good desire, or good deed, that dwells in us by nature.

it is simply and only because of God’s mercy. He is not moved to anything He does for you by anything that you do for Him; His motive for blessing you lies wholly and entirely in the depths of His own bosom. Blessed be God, His people shall be kept.

“Nor death, nor Hell shall e’er remove His favorites from His breast; In the dear bosom of His love They must forever rest.”

But why? Because they are holy? Because they are sanctified? Because they serve God with good works? No, but because he in his sovereign grace has loved them, does love them, and will love them, even to the end.
We shall feel that we did nothing, and that we were nothing, but that God did it all – that we had nothing in
us to be the motive of his doing it, but that His motive lay in Himself; therefore unto Him shall be every particle of the honor forever and ever. Now, this, I take it, is the meaning of the text; distasteful it is to the great majority, even of professing Christians in this age. It is a doctrine that requires a great deal of salt, or else few people will receive it. It is very unsavory to them. However, there It stands. “Let God be true, and every man a liar.” His truth we must preach, and this we must proclaim. Salvation is “not of men, neither by man; not of the will of the flesh, nor of blood,” nor of birth, but of the sovereign will of God, and God alone.

Why, if left to yourselves you will laugh at the message – despise it. It will glance off from you like an arrow from a man that is girt about with mail, and you will go away to despise God again, as you have done before. Do you not see, then, that if God ever shall save you, it cannot be for your sakes; but must be from His own infinite love; it cannot be from any other reason, since you have rejected Christ, despised His gospel, trodden under foot the blood of Jesus, and have refused to be saved. If He saves you, it must be free grace, and free grace alone.

Remember, then, this must be true: if God shall save thee, it must be because He will do it. It cannot be because there is anything good in thee, for thou deservedst now to die, and if He spare thee it must be sovereign love and sovereign grace.

III. And now, having thus preached this doctrine, and enforced it, I come to a very solemn PRACTICAL APPLICATION. And here may God the Holy Spirit help me labor with your hearts! First, since this doctrine is true, how humble a Christian man ought to be. If thou be saved, thou hast had nought to do with it; God has done it. If thou be saved, thou hast not deserved it. It is mercy undeserved which thou hast received…

In light of some of the confusion regarding what has been writte on this blog, the following are excerpts from a sermon by Charles Spurgeon regarding the doctrine of man’s inability. We will continue the review of Morris Chapman’s articles in the coming days.

HUMAN INABILITY. NO. 182
A SERMON DELIVERED ON SABBATH MORNING, MARCH 7TH, 1858,
BY THE REV. C. H. SPURGEON
AT THE MUSIC HALL, ROYAL SURREY GARDENS.

“No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him” -John 6:44.

Where there is not this coming to Christ, it is certain that there is as yet no quickening; where there is no quickening, the soul is dead in trespasses and sins, and being dead it cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven. We have before us now an announcement very startling, some say very obnoxious. Coming to Christ, though described by some people as being the very easiest thing in all the world, is in our text declared to be a thing utterly and entirely impossible to any man, unless the Father shall draw him to Christ. It shall be our business, then, to enlarge (page 128) upon this declaration. We doubt not that it will always be offensive to carnal nature, but, nevertheless, the offending of human nature is sometimes the first step towards bringing it to bow itself before God. And
if this be the effect of a painful process, we can forget the pain and rejoice in the glorious consequences.
I shall endeavor this morning, first of all, to notice man’s inability, wherein it consists.

I. First, then, MAN’S INABILITY. The text says, “No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him.” Wherein does this inability lie. First, it does not lie in any physical defect…. Nor, again, does this inability lie in any mental lack. The defect, then, does not lie either in the body, or, what we are bound to call, speaking theologically, the mind. It is not any lack or deficiency there, although it is the vitiation of the mind, the corruption or the ruin of it, which, after all, is the very essence of man’s inability. Permit me to show you wherein this inability of man really does lie. It lies deep in his nature. Through the fall, and through our own sin, the nature of man has become so debased, and depraved, and corrupt, that it is impossible for him to come to Christ without the assistance of God the Holy Spirit.

…Now, the reason why man cannot come to Christ, is not because he cannot come, so far as his body or his mere power of mind is concerned; but because his nature is so corrupt that he has neither the will nor the power to come to Christ unless drawn by the Spirit. Coming to Christ is so obnoxious to human nature that, although, so far as physical and mental forces are concerned, (and these have but a very narrow sphere in salvation) men could come if they would: it is strictly correct to say that they cannot and will not unless the Father who hath sent Christ doth draw them. Let us enter a little more deeply into the subject, and try to show you wherein this inability of man consists, in its more minute particulars.

1. First it lies in the obstinacy of the human will. We assert that no man will come to Christ unless he be drawn; nay, we do not assert it, but Christ himself declares it – ‘Ye will not come unto one that-ye might have life;’
and as long as that ‘ye will not come’ stands on record in Holy Scripture, He shall not be brought to believe in any doctrine of the freedom of the human will.” It is strange how people, when talking about free will, talk of things which they do not at all understand “Now” says one, “I believe men can be saved if they will.” My dear sir, that is not the question at all. The question is, are men ever found naturally willing to submit to the humbling terms of the gospel of Christ? We declare, upon Scriptural authority, that the human will is so desperately set on mischief,- so depraved, and so inclined to everything that is evil, and so disinclined to everything that is good, that without the powerful, supernatural, irresistible influence of the Holy Spirit, no human will ever be constrained towards Christ. With common consent, all believers affirm the truth, that men will not come to Christ till the Father who hath sent Christ doth draw them.

And again, we repeat it, until these affections be renewed, and turned into a fresh channel by the gracious drawings of the Father, it is not possible for any man to love the Lord Jesus Christ

4. Yet once more, –conscience too, has been overpowered by the fall… Or if conscience did do that, did it ever lead any man to feel an abhorrence of sin as sin? In fact, did conscience ever bring a man to such a self-renunciation, that he did totally abhor himself and all his works and come to Christ? No, conscience, although it is not dead, is ruined its power is impaired, it hath not that clearness of eye and that strength of hand and that thunder of voice, which it had before the fall; but hath ceased to a great degree, to exert its supremacy in the town of Mansoul. Then, beloved, it becomes necessary for this very reason, because conscience is depraved, that the Holy Spirit should step in, to show us our need of a Savior, and draw us to the Lord Jesus Christ.

“Still,” says one, “as far as you have hitherto gone, it appears to me that you consider that the reason why men do not come to Christ is that they will not, rather than they cannot.” True, most true. I believe the greatest reason of man’s inability is the obstinacy of his will… My text does not say, “No man will come,” but it says, “No man can come.” Now, many interpreters believe that the can here, is but a strong expression conveying no more meaning than the word will. I feel assured that this is not correct. There is in man, not only unwillingness to be saved, but there is a spiritual powerlessness to come to Christ; and this I will prove to every Christian at any rate…

Now, if the quickened child of God finds a spiritual inability how much more the sinner who is dead in trespasses and sin? If even the advanced Christian, after thirty or forty years, finds himself sometimes willing and yet powerless – if such be his experience, – does it not seem more than likely that the poor sinner who has not yet believed, should find a need of strength as well as a want of will? But, again, there is another argument. If the sinner has strength to come to Christ, I should like to know how we are to understand those continual descriptions of the sinner’s state which we meet with in God’s holy Word? Now, a sinner is said to be dead in trespasses and sins. Will you affirm that death implies nothing more than the absence of a will? Surely a corpse is quite as unable as unwilling. Or again, do not all men see that there is a (page 134) distinction between will and power: might not that corpse be sufficiently quickened to get a will, and yet be so powerless that it could not lift as much as its hand or foot? Have we never seen cases in which persons have been just sufficiently re-animated to give evidence of life, And have yet been so near death that they could not have performed the slightest action? Is there not a clear difference between the giving of the will and the giving of power? It is quite certain, however, that where the will is given, the power will follow. Make a man willing, and he shall be made powerful, for when God gives the will, he does not tantalize man by giving him to wish for that which he is unable to do; nevertheless he makes such a division between the will and the power, that it shall be seen that both things are quite distinct gifts of the Lord God.

Then I must ask one more question: if all that were needed to make a man willing, do you not at once degrade the Holy Spirit? Are we not in the habit of giving all the glory of salvation wrought in us to God the Spirit? But now, if all that God the Spirit does for me is to make me willing to do these things for myself, am I not in a great measure a sharer with the Holy Spirit in the glory? And may I not boldly stand up and say, “It is true the Spirit gave me the will to do it, but still I did it myself, and therein will I glory; for if I did these things myself without assistance from on high, I will not cast my crown at his feet; it is my own crown, I earned it, and I will keep it.” Inasmuch as the Holy Spirit is evermore in Scripture set forth as the person who worketh in us to will and to do of his own good pleasure, we hold it to be a legitimate inference that he must do something more for us than the mere making of us willing, and that therefore there must be another thing besides want of will in a sinner – there must be absolute and actual want of power.

I thought I could come one day as well as another; that I had only to say, ‘Lord, have mercy upon me,’ and believe, and then I should be saved. Now you have taken all this hope away for me, sir; I feel amazement and horror taking hold upon me.” Again, I say, “My dear friend, I am very glad of it. This was the effect which I hoped to produce. I pray that you may feel this a great deal more. When you have no hope of saving yourself, I shall have hope that God has begun to save you. As soon as you say ‘Oh, I cannot come to Christ. Lord, draw me, help me,’ I shall rejoice over you. He who has got a will, though he has not power, has grace begun in his heart, and God will not leave him until the work is finished.” But, careless sinner, learn that thy salvation now hangs in God’s hand. Oh, remember thou art entirely in the hand of God. Thou hast sinned against him, and if he wills to damn thee, damned thou art. Thou canst not resist his will nor thwart his purpose. Thou hast deserved his wrath, and if he chooses to pour the full shower of that wrath upon thy head, thou canst do nothing to revert it. If, on the other hand, he chooses to save thee, he is able to save thee to the very uttermost. But thou liest as much in his hand as the summer’s moth beneath thine own finger. He is the God whom thou art grieving every day. Doth it not make thee tremble to think that thy eternal destiny now hangs upon the will of him whom thou hast angered and incensed? Dost not this make thy knees knock together, and thy blood curdled If it does so I rejoice, inasmuch as this may be the first effect of the Spirit’s drawing in thy soul. Oh, tremble to think that the God whom thou hast angered, is the God upon whom thy salvation or thy condemnation entirely depends. Tremble and “kiss the Son lest he be angry and ye perish from the way while his wrath is kindled but a little.”

This wonderful teaching is what Luther was defending when he wrote his magnum opus of Bondage of the Will. Whatever else theologians and Christians must do, they must preserve the Gospel of grace alone. By grace alone the Reformers meant that human beings are saved by the grace of God and nothing within man and nothing that man can do. No works can assist or contribute to the Gospel in any way at all. Romans 3:24-25 and Ephesians 1:3-14 and 2:1-10 shine forth the glory of a Gospel of grace apart from works (or alone). The Gospel is by grace alone so that it will set forth the love of God as uncaused and merited by man. It is grace that teaches us that the love of God is caused within the triune God alone. Until man has been humbled to the point where he trusts in nothing of himself and nothing that he can do, he is not ready to trust in grace alone. The Gospel is to the praise of the glory of His grace and nothing of man. Grace points to the unworthiness of man and the worthiness of Christ, not to how man deserves to be saved. The fact that God saves on the basis of a sheer and utterly beautiful grace shows how the five solas are linked. It is grace that shows that the Gospel is all to the glory of God. Grace must be revealed in and taught by Scripture or else no one would believe it. It is grace alone that shows how it must be Christ alone or there is no salvation and no Gospel. It is grace that teaches us that faith must receive the grace of God apart from any merit or works of man or it would no longer be grace. “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly” (Galatians 2:21). For any person to attempt any work to add to or assist in grace is to imply that there was no need for Christ. As Romans 11:6 so forcefully puts it, “but if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.” Any addition of man’s works to grace makes grace to be something other than grace. That is why it must be grace alone or it is no longer grace. If it is no longer grace, it is no longer to the glory of God alone.

The wonder of justification by faith alone has received a lot of treatment from academic theologians throughout the years, and is beginning to receive some renewed attention. The problem, however, is that if sola gratia (grace alone) is not also dealt with, the whole issue of sola fide (faith alone) is in reality lost. The heart of the biblical doctrine of justification is not just that it is by faith alone, but that in the biblical context it is by faith alone in order to preserve the doctrine of grace alone. A quote from the Historical Introduction to the 1957 edition of Luther’s Bondage of the Will shows this: “the doctrine of justification by faith was important to them because it safeguarded the principle of sovereign grace” (p. 58). Going one step further, when a person teaches that it is the will of man that comes up with faith; this is also is a step away from the doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone. Is salvation wholly the work of God or partially the work of God with some assistance of man? Our answer to that in some way determines how we view the Gospel and the biblical teaching of grace alone.

I hope that the issues are clear at this point. The focus on justification by faith alone is needed, but for the Reformers the real issue was justification by grace alone through faith alone. The real issue is grace in order to set forth the glory of God in the Gospel and salvation. No one is really protecting justification by faith alone as the Reformers meant it unless they are dealing with it in such a way as to show that the Gospel is by grace alone in order that it may be to the glory of God alone. This is why I have set out sola gratia last. It is not in order to minimize it in the slightest, but to throw extra attention on it. The glory of God is the primary cause and reason of the Gospel. The real issue of the Gospel is whether it is Christ alone that saves or not. If so, then the Gospel is all of grace. If so, then justification by faith alone is for the sole purpose of protecting the Gospel of grace alone in a way where it is God alone who shows forth His glory in it.

“In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved” (Ephesians 1:4-6).

Here we see the reason that God saves. It is to the praise of the glory of His grace. The Gospel does not provide a way of salvation that man may apply to himself, but it is all of grace. It is a grace that will allow no pretenders to its throne. It is a grace that will not allow any rival the slightest power or pretense to any of the glory. It is a grace that erects its throne on the sovereignty and glory of almighty God. It is a grace that is the outshining of the glory of God that tabernacled itself in the Person of Jesus Christ while on earth (John 1:14). In that it shows that whatever is all of grace is all of the glory of God. In that it is a grace that shows itself as the love of God that is moved solely from the self-existence of God and not by anything in man. An attack on the teaching of sola gratia is an attack on the teaching of the Gospel and the very glory of God Himself. We must defend this teaching with our breath and our lives. If we should die for the Gospel if need be, then we must defend grace to that degree too.

This points to what some see as the defining doctrine of the Reformation and the very heart of the Gospel. This refers to the basis on which God justifies sinners. In light of what faith is, justification is God’s declaration of the sinner as just or righteous in His sight. As a holy and just God, He can and will only declare sinners just on a proper basis. The teaching of faith alone points to the issue that God declares sinners just on the basis of Christ apart from the works of man. God declares human beings just on the basis of Christ bearing the wrath of the Father for the sins of human beings and crediting or imputing to human beings the righteousness of Christ. To believe in Christ alone is to believe that Christ suffered for all of my sins and gives me a perfect righteousness apart from my own merit or my works. That is to say that to believe in Christ is to believe and trust in Him without and apart from my own works. Faith alone teaches us that we are to receive the promises of God in Christ without trusting in any or our own goodness or works at all. Thus, justification by faith alone is the declaration that God declares a man just on the basis of Christ apart from the works of man at all, but simply by the man receiving Christ apart from anything else. Faith alone preserves the biblical doctrine that salvation is by grace alone and to the glory of God alone. Men are saved through faith in order that salvation would be by grace apart from any works of man (Romans 4:16) and so would be to the glory of God alone. That leaves men with nothing to boast in.

Thus it should be clear at this point how the previous three solas of the Reformation come to bear at sola fide. While many today are opposed to this, they must see how this ties in with the other points of the Reformation. They should also see how it is linked with the sola gratia which follows this point. Sola fide cannot be rejected without rejecting all the other points of the Reformation. There is no Gospel by faith alone unless God does all for His own glory. There is no Gospel by faith alone unless it is taught in the Word of God. There is no Gospel of faith alone unless salvation is truly by Christ and His words for salvation apart from the works and goodness of man. There is no Gospel of faith alone unless salvation is all of grace and grace alone.

There are those in our day that teach of a salvation that is by grace and indeed by faith. What they mean by those terms, however, are not derived from Scripture and not according to the glory of God alone. Others teach of a salvation that is of grace but not by Christ alone. To be blunt, a so-called Gospel that does not have all of these points in it is at the very least unbalanced in its message of the Gospel. A Gospel that is by faith alone may say that the faith is simply an intellectual belief that a proposition is true and so the sinner is saved by grace alone. However, that is to turn the biblical concept of faith and grace around to be something dreamed up by man. A biblical faith is something that God gives and is the sight of the soul (Hebrews 11:1-6) by which it perceives the glory of God in the Gospel. A biblical grace is really the indwelling Christ who will rule in the heart that He dwells and lives in. In other words, a biblical faith adheres to the Gospel of the glory of God and to Christ alone as the true Savior and Lord of all who really believe.

The Christ that is revealed by Scripture cannot be divided into pieces and offices. The Christ that Scripture teaches does all to the glory of God and works the same thing in His people. The Christ of Scripture is omnipresent and indivisible in His divine nature, and wherever He is, He is all there. So if Christ is indeed Savior of a sinner, He is Lord over that sinner as well. The Christ that is received by faith is not just received as Savior, but received as a whole Christ and not just a partial one. Holy Scripture (Romans 10:9) teaches that we must confess Christ as Lord in order to be saved: “that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved.” We also know that on the last day that everyone will confess this: “and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father” (Phil 2:11). Also note that the confession that Christ is Lord is to the glory of God the Father. This is a link to soli deo gloria in which so many presentations of the Gospel have forgotten in our day.

The teaching of the Reformers of justification by faith alone was really a preservation of the Gospel of the glory of God in the face of Christ. When men hold to justification by faith alone apart from His glory alone some main cog of the Gospel will fall out. We must hold firmly to sola fide and yet just as firmly to all the other points of the Reformation. Let all that we teach come from Scripture and be to the glory of God alone through Christ alone that comes by grace alone. If we do that, we will not distort faith alone as so many do in our day.

Roman Catholicism had people look to the Church for salvation. It dispensed grace by the sacraments and its indulgences. Luther and the Reformers went back to Scripture and saw that Scripture led people to Christ. Christ is grace to His people and Christ Himself is the food of the souls of His people. While Luther is famous for justification by faith alone (faith apart from works), the reason he taught that was to emphasize that people are saved by Christ alone. For salvation, men are to look to Christ alone for their one and only mediator, and as the one and only sacrifice for sins. Men are also to look to Christ alone as their righteousness, sanctification, wisdom, and redemption (I Corinthians 1:30). Jesus Christ alone is also the outshining of the glory of God (Hebrews 1:3) and the human body of Christ was the very tabernacle of the glory of God (John 1:14). There is no other name under heaven by which men may be saved (Acts 4:12) and there is no other way to the Father (John 14:6). There is also no other way to eternal life but by knowing the Father through Christ (John 17:3). In the Gospel of Christ alone we see that it is God that truly deserves all the glory and it is the Gospel of the glory of God in the face of Christ (II Corinthians 4:4, 6).

The tendency in modern denominations and teaching is really a tendency back to Rome or at least its teachings. The reason for a denomination or a people to depart from Christ alone in terms of the Gospel, salvation, and sanctification is because people are departing from Soli Deo Gloria and Sola Scriptura. The return to human reason happened in the times of the New Testament and certainly during many periods within the Church. When churches and men fall away from the glory of God and from the authority of Scripture, they do what makes sense to them and what appears as true in light of common sense. What has really happened in that sense is that man has turned to idols and departed from the living God. Holy Scripture knows of no way of salvation apart from a deep conviction (faith) in Jesus Christ alone. However, if the Word of God is seen as the words of men, then one can take the liberties one wants with those words. One can look back into history and change the meaning of those words as he or she wills. When the fundamental centrality of the glory of God in history and the Church is changed to be centered on man, then everything is seen in a different light.

The different light that is seen is that of the glory of God or that of the worth of man. The Gospel is the way that God maintains His glory and saves sinful man by His glory through Christ. The man-centered way is to think of man as worth saving and so it is hard to see that God would cast man into hell for the rest of eternity. The true nature of sin is lost and sin is no longer seen as a vile act of hatred against God but as simply a mistake. So man is able to make up for his little mistakes and Christ is seen as more of an example rather than as a substitute in the place of man to satisfy the wrath of God. When we think of Christ’s work on the cross as being more of a trade for man rather than by grace, there is really little need for the cross much longer. However, the Scripture thunders out that man is dead in sin and trespasses. The Scripture teaches that man is at enmity with God and that the wrath of God abides on man. There is nothing and no one but Christ and Christ alone who can deliver man from the wrath of God. It is utterly necessary and there is no hope apart from Christ.

During the time of the Reformation these great truths were discovered. Not only was the cross seen as the way of satisfying the wrath of God, but Christ was seen as earning righteousness in the place of sinners. Luther taught that God imputed (reckoning or crediting) the righteousness of Christ to sinners and that as the only acceptable righteousness. He called this an “alien righteousness” and taught that this was a free gift and not something that a man or woman could work to obtain. In this we see that the Gospel is of Christ and Christ alone.

Salvation is not something that can be obtained by buying penances or of being baptized or any other rite that man has come up with. The Gospel is the Gospel of Christ as the only Savior. He is the only way that the wrath of God may be satisfied and He has the only righteousness acceptable to God. That is why human beings must be married to Christ and be one with Him or they will perish. It is only when a human being is one with Christ is Christ then the Husband of the believer and He takes that sinner’s debts (sin) as His, and they are fully satisfied by the blood of the cross. He also gives His bride (the sinner) His righteousness and so that the sinner is able to enter heaven on the basis of Christ and Christ alone. To fall away from Christ alone is to fall away from the Gospel that is the display of the glory of God and the only Gospel that Scripture teaches.