God Loves… Himself

Let us see how Paul proves his view from the Holy Scriptures, and whether ‘words have more force in Paul than in their own place’! ‘Thus it is written,’ he says: ‘there is none righteous, there is none that understandeth, none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are all together become unprofitable, there is none that doeth good, no, not one,’ etc. (Rom 3:10-12). Here let him that can give me a ‘convenient explanation,’ or invent ‘figures’, or contend that the words are ambiguous and obscure! Let him that dares defend ‘free-will’ against these indictments, and I will gladly give way and recant, and be a confessor and assertor of ‘free-will’ myself! It is certain that these words apply to all men, for the prophet introduces God as looking down from heaven upon all men and pronouncing this sentence upon them. (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

When we step back and look carefully at the words of Scripture in the texts above, it is amazing that anyone that bowed to Scripture as the revelation of God and His will could actually believe in free-will. If not one person is righteous in and of himself, then how can an unrighteous soul be free from unrighteousness to choose that which is righteous from righteous intents and motives? How could it be that if no one understands then how can the will be free from misunderstanding and so choose what is right with understanding? How could it be that if no one seeks God that a will is free to choose God if it just up and decides to do so? How could it be that if all are out of the way that the will is free to be on the way? How could it be that if all together are unprofitable that one will alone could be free to choose enough to be profitable? How could it be that if not even one is able to do good that one will would be free enough to do good?

It is easy enough for the modern mind that is restless to be active in its trivial pursuits to read over a few verses of Scripture and not stop to think deeply on the subject. But when we stop and truly think and pray over the verses and God opens them to the mind and the eyes of the heart, the obvious (so-called ‘free-will’) appears as nonsense and that which once appeared as unacceptable becomes clear and even beautiful. Now the heart sees that it was in bondage to self and pride and could not see beyond its own so-called ‘free-will.” Now the soul hates that it once trusted in itself by adhering to its self under the guise of ‘free-will.’ Now the soul sees that it once trusted in itself to trust in Christ rather than being emptied of self in true humility so that true faith could come as a free gift of God by grace alone. Now the soul sees that it once thought it had life because it chose it but now it sees that life comes from God on the basis of grace and grace alone.

The soul used to presume that it had enough righteousness to make a choice for God, but now it sees that all must come through Christ and must be for Christ. The soul used to think that it sought for God, but now it sees that it sought God as a means for seeking self. But now, but grace alone, that soul sees that it has been freed from self so that self can be used as a means of seeking God and His glory. The soul used to think that it was profitable to God because it was outwardly good, tithed, and did some good deeds. But now it sees that all of its good works were as monstrous cloths and the only good that can come from it is by grace alone. But the soul that is bound in the darkness of self-love and pride will not see the horror and futility that the teaching of ‘free-will’ leaves it in. It takes the very work of God in the soul to show the soul how bound it is in darkness and sin. Until the soul has been freed by grace and lives by grace it will not turn with disgust to see what it means to be in the bondage of its own will and to be free of grace.

Luther’s words above show the indignation of the soul that has been freed from itself and looks with horror on all that it did and tried to do by its own power. It cannot imagine that anyone could see these words of Paul and think of itself as free to do as it pleases. How can a soul still believe that it was free at any point and perhaps is now free when the truth of the matter is that all true spiritual life is by grace alone? Oh what darkness the soul that thinks it is free dwells in, yet what freedom the soul that lives by grace dwells in. The soul that has tasted of grace does not want anything to do with the teaching about the freedom of its own will, but instead the soul longs to live by grace alone. In that grace is true spiritual power. In that grace is true glory. In that grace is Christ Himself. The soul that has tasted and knows that the Lord is good wants nothing but pure grace and wants nothing to do with a so-called ‘free-will.’

Paul, writing to the Romans, enters upon his argument for the grace of God against ‘free-will’ as follows: ‘The wrath of God’ (he says) ‘is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold down the truth in unrighteousness’ (Rom. 1:18). Do you not hear this general judgment against all men, but that they are under the wrath of God? What does this mean, but that they merit wrath and punishment? He assigns the reason for the wrath by saying that they do only that which merits wrath and punishment—that they are all ungodly and unrighteous, and hold down the truth in unrighteousness. Where now is the power of ‘free-will’ to endeavour after some good? Paul makes it merit the wrath of God, and pronounces it ungodly and unrighteous! And that which deserves wrath and is ungodly is endeavouring and availing, not for grace, but against it. (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

If it is true, as Luther stated in accordance with Scripture, that all that men can strive for is that which merits wrath, what can the will do in all of its striving and choosing? What can a person do that is born dead in sins and trespasses and by nature a child of wrath? No one has a will that is free from the bondage of sin and of the devil and of being by nature a child of wrath but those who have been born from above. Human beings are born Pelagians and are constantly trying to do things in their own power. At some point a person may be awakened and realize the need for the help of grace, but that does not mean that the heart of the person is broken from seeking grace by some means of self. When the soul seeks for grace by any means of self, works, or self-effort, that soul is not seeking grace but is seeking something else in reality.

Romans 11:6 stands against that line of thinking: “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.” Whatever is of works is no longer of grace and no longer of grace at all. What is of grace and grace alone does not correspond with any effort to earn or merit it in the slightest. In fact, the very nature of grace is that it is free of any cause that is found in the human soul. Grace can only be shown as a result of God Himself and His reasons are found in Himself. When the soul tries to do something as a way to obtain grace from God based on what the soul does, the soul is no longer seeking true grace at all. In other words, in the words of Luther, “that which deserves wrath and is ungodly is endeavouring and availing, not for grace, but against it.” The teaching of ‘free-will’ is not teaching a way of obtaining grace, but a way of striving against grace. The teaching of ‘free-will’ does not teach grace alone but the act of the ‘free-will’ plus grace. There can be no grace alone as long as a person thinks that a ‘free-will’ has anything to do with obtaining grace. The teaching of ‘free-will’ cannot stand alongside of free-grace. The two are opposed to each other and cannot be reconciled.

In an effort to state the above teaching even more clearly, those who adhere to the teaching of ‘free-will’ say that the will is free when it is free from inner influence to make a decision. But when the will is free from the influence and power of grace, that shows without question that salvation is not by grace alone because the will is free from grace alone. At that point there is synergism involved (synergism = two or more workers) rather than the glory of the Gospel of grace alone as taught in monergism (one worker alone). The will that is free from grace is the will that is working for something in its own power and as such will never stop working by its own power and look to grace alone. The will that is free from grace is not working by grace and so all it does it deserves and merits wrath and is not endeavoring for biblical grace, but is actually fighting against it.

Here we see one of the great dangers in modern day versions of “Christianity.” Very little is said against ‘free-will’ and even those who deny it in theory don’t seem to proclaim what grace alone really means. To put it differently, if we don’t proclaim a grace that is free and a will that is bound in sin the Gospel of grace alone will, at the very least, not be proclaimed very clearly. On the other hand, if what has been written in this short BLOG is true, then even preaching about grace alone is not enough unless it is shown that the will is not free to obtain it. The preaching of grace alone requires us to preach and teach that the will is not free or we are not preaching grace alone in a way that can be understood. The grace of God will have no help from sinners in salvation or God would be sharing His glory with another. So regardless of what people profess with their mouths and with their creeds to believe, if they will not stand and fight against the teaching of ‘free-will’ in all corners that it is found they are not preaching and standing for the Gospel of grace alone. We must preach the inability of the will to be free if we are going to preach the Gospel of grace alone from the conviction of sin to the giving of faith as a gift. There is no other way of preaching grace from beginning to end.

Paul, writing to the Romans, enters upon his argument for the grace of God against ‘free-will’ as follows: ‘The wrath of God’ (he says) ‘is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold down the truth in unrighteousness’ (Rom. 1:18). Do you not hear this general judgment against all men, but that they are under the wrath of God? What does this mean, but that they merit wrath and punishment? He assigns the reason for the wrath by saying that they do only that which merits wrath and punishment—that they are all ungodly and unrighteous, and hold down the truth in unrighteousness. Where now is the power of ‘free-will’ to endeavour after some good? Paul makes it merit the wrath of God, and pronounces it ungodly and unrighteous! And that which deserves wrath and is ungodly is endeavouring and availing, not for grace, but against it. (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

 While it may not appear on the surface that Romans 1:18 and following is a formidable argument against ‘free-will and for free-grace,’ if we look a little deeper, Lord willing, we will see things a little differently. The will is only free to the extent that it is free from influences within it. The will is only free if it is free from both bad and good influences or powers which move it. If those things are true, then Romans 1:18 and following is demonstrative evidence that the human soul is in utter bondage to sin and cannot do anything apart from that sin. The only way that a soul in the bondage of sin that is set out in Romans 1 is grace and grace alone. Romans 1:16-17 sets out the Gospel as the power of God for salvation. It is not that the Gospel is the power of God and then we move to the ‘free-will’ of man who makes up what God lacks in order to save man, but the Gospel is the power of God for salvation. Romans 1:18-32 show us very clearly why the Gospel is the power of God and the power of God alone for salvation. Human souls are in bondage to sin because they are turned over to their sin and their hearts are hardened by God. Is the human soul free enough to free itself from the judgment of God?

Verse 18 tells us that “the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them, for God made it evident to them.” The hearts of men are not just neutral in terms of God, but they hate God and work to suppress the truth about Him. Some of the truths about God that men hate are the power of God and the grace of God. The will of men who hate God and are trying to suppress the truth of God are not free to love God and to do all to His glory. These people are acting according to their own nature and that nature is fully against God. They work to suppress the truth of God in their minds, hearts, and lives of unrighteousness.

Romans 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

 What is the punishment of people who exchange the truth of God for a lie? They are given over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity. Verse 26 continues: “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions.” Verse 28 sets out the same thought as well: “And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.” What we see, then, is that those with sinful hearts desire and seek to suppress the truth of God and their punishment is to be given over to futile speculations and darkened hearts. They are given over to hardened hearts and depraved minds. They are given over to the lusts of their hearts and degrading passions. A passion is a strong desire that the soul follows along “passively.” In other words, a passion drives the soul rather than the soul being free to do what is holy, right and good.

What Romans 1:18-32 does, then, is set out what Luther says. It stands against the teaching of ‘free-will’ and the assertions that human beings must have it. The human soul is not free to overcome its own passions. The human soul is not free to overcome the power of God who is the One who turns the souls over to sin and darkened hearts. The soul is in bondage to sin and can do nothing right or good unless it is set from its bondage by grace and grace alone. The soul that is described in Romans 1:18-32 is a soul that is utterly dependent on grace to make it alive as it has nothing to make itself alive with. It is the soul that is dead in sins and trespasses and by nature is a child of wrath (Eph 2:1-3). It is a soul that must be made alive God and God alone as set out in Ephesians 2:4-10. It is a soul that cannot help itself at all and is utterly dependent on free grace rather than having a ‘free-will’ to assist.

I do not accept or tolerate that middle way which Erasmus (I think, with good intentions) recommends to me, namely, to allow a very little to ‘free-will’. So that the contradictions of Scripture and the aforementioned inconveniences may be more easily removed. The case is not bettered by this middle way, nor is anything gained. For unless you attribute all and everything to ‘free-will’, in the way that the Pelagians do, the contradictions in the Scripture still remain, merit and reward are done away, the mercy and justice of God are done away also, and all the inconveniences which we intend to avoid by allowing to ‘free-will this tiny, ineffective power continue with us; as I explained above. So we have to go to extremes, deny ‘free-will’ altogether, and ascribe everything to God! Thus will the Scriptures be free from contradictions; and the inconveniences, if not removed, may be borne with. (Luther, The Bondage of the Will)

Here is a powerful blast from Luther against Erasmus and his so-called “middle way.” Erasmus, and Luther admitted he might have had good intentions, knew that Pelagianism was wrong but he could not go with Luther to grace alone. So Erasmus tried to find a middle way as so many had done before him and so many have done after him. Instead of denying ‘free-will’ and leaving all to God and His grace, Erasmus wants to leave just a little to ‘free-will’ and so have something of a middle way. But Luther shows the problems with this. In one sense the middle way is not middle at all. It is simply less than grace alone. No matter how much you ascribe to grace and no matter how little power you assign to the ‘free-will’, when grace and ‘free-will’ are joined together you will always end up with less than the Gospel of grace alone.

The only two logical positions (logical within themselves) are Pelagianism and Augustinianism (Calvinism). Pelagianism ascribes to man the power (‘free-will’) while Augustinianism ascribes to God all the power (grace). While many try to find a middle road, they never reach the biblical position of grace alone. But the human heart does not want to give up all hope in self (‘free-will’) and look to God and His grace alone, so it is always looking for a mediating position. But any mediating position, regardless of how little is left to the will to do, leaves a person with the same problems of reconciling Scripture with Scripture. No amount of the will or man’s ability can be reconciled with grace alone. No matter how many men try, they will always fail because the gospel that results from such a mixture is another gospel.

This is the same problem that we find in the New Testament. The Judaizers were a group of Jews who wanted to add a little to the Gospel of grace alone. Some wanted to add circumcision and others wanted to add bits of the Law. That is the same thing as saying that the Gospel if by grace alone plus circumcision or the Gospel is by grace alone plus keeping this aspect of the Law. Paul referred to those things as another gospel. What is the difference between those things and saying that the Gospel is by grace alone plus an act of the will? At the heart of it the message is the same. What is circumcision but a decision or act of the will that a person makes to do something? What is having one little bit of the Law to keep that is not an act of the will to do? All of these things amount to the same thing and that is an effort to have an act of the human will added to grace alone. Any act of the so-called ‘free-will’ is a middle road position and is a different Gospel. The ‘free-will’ may be simply a choice that grace must have to work with. The ‘free-will may be the choice to be circumcised. The ‘free-will’ may include the choice to keep some bit of the Law. All of those refer to man’s ability to do something apart from grace alone. All of those in reality are at war with grace alone. All of those are a different gospel.

Any little bit that is attributed to the will leaves us wrestling with and adjusting Scripture and its teaching on grace alone. It leaves us with some power or ability left to man which controls or determines salvation. That and history should teach us the folly of looking to human reason and ability in the Gospel. In order to ascribe everything to God we will have to deny ‘free-will’ to do so. Yes, that is rather inconvenient in the modern climate within the denominations. However, if we don’t believe the Gospel of grace alone it will lead to a greater inconvenience on judgment day. Oh how crushing it is to the pride to denounce all power and ability to self, but that is why so many fight the Gospel of grace alone. Oh how awful it would be to lose positions of honor and power if we deny any ability to the will of man, but how awful it would be to lose our very soul as a result of our refusal to do so. The Gospel of grace demands nothing less than the complete and utter renunciation of our own ability and will.

By what logic did you learn these inferences? Why not the opposite—‘grace is preached; therefore, “free-will” is done away’? ‘The assistance of grace is commended; therefore “free-will” is abolished’? To what end is grace given? Is it that grace may be, as it were, the fancy dress in which ‘free-will’, proud and self-sufficient in its strength, blithely disports itself on May-days? Wherefore, though I am no rhetorician, I am going to invert your reasoning, by a sounder rhetoric than yours, as follows: ‘All the passages in the Holy Scriptures that mention assistance are they that do away with “free-will”, and these are countless. Therefore, if the matter is assessed by the number of testimonies, victory is mine. For grace is needed, and the help of grace is given, because “free-will” of itself can do nothing. (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

Erasmus tried to find a middle road, but his middle road led him to a dead end. He tried to make the inference that because grace was given that this established the freedom of the will, but Luther saw through that. Earlier Erasmus had tried to say that the will had almost no power at all and could barely do anything by itself. Luther had that advantage in terms of argument at that point and he continues to press that home. It is perhaps here that we see the truthfulness of Luther’s position at its clearest. Grace and ‘free-will’ are opposites and cannot abide together. To the degree that the ‘free-will’ is asserted is to that same degree that grace is denigrated. If salvation is by grace alone, then there is no room for ‘free-will’ in salvation at all. If salvation is by the ‘free-will’ to any degree, then it is not by grace alone at all. The intrusion of ‘free-will’ into the Gospel of grace alone is the intrusion of that which makes grace no longer to be grace (Rom 11:6).

The Gospel of grace alone reaches to sinners who are dead in their sins and trespasses and are by nature children of wrath (Eph 2:1-3). In their spiritual deadness they are dead to spiritual things and are not free in those things at all. The sinner must not look to his deadness in order to make himself alive, but instead see that he is dead and needs the power of grace and life to make him alive. Ephesians 2:4-10 speaks of grace and grace alone as making the sinner alive in Christ Jesus. There is no help from the free-will mentioned and there is also no room at all for it. God will not share the glory of His grace with no one. God saves sinners by grace alone because He saves to His glory alone. God saves sinners by His grace alone because there is nothing in the sinner in terms of merit or righteousness that can move Him to save them. God saves by grace alone because there is nothing that the will of those dead in sin can do to help or assist in saving themselves. Whatever is of grace is of grace and whatever is of works is of works. The two cannot mix in this way and at this point.

What is it that people think the ‘free-will’ can do anyway that grace cannot do? What power is there in the will that grace cannot do? What merit is there in an act of the will that Christ could not merit? What righteousness in the act of the will is there that the righteousness of Christ is not enough for? For an act of the will to assist in salvation the will would have to be perfectly holy for that to be acceptable to God. Surely, then, the biblical teaching of grace alone shines out with unfettered glory at this point. No act of the will can be acceptable to God unless it is perfectly holy or has perfect merit. No act of the will that is less than perfect can possibly assist in anything that God will accept. For the will to be truly free it must be free from sin and from grace. Yet the will is never free from sin and can do nothing apart from grace alone. So the teaching of grace alone utterly destroys any hope of anyone of being helped in salvation by ‘free-will.” For the Gospel of grace alone, then, to be preached, the hope in ‘free-will’ must be given up and the soul must look away from any hope in itself and all hope must be in Christ.

Luther has left us right where we need to be. By pointing to Scripture and grace alone he has utterly destroyed the teaching of ‘free-will.’ Yet in our day the vast majority of people do not see this as an important topic. So many who think of themselves as Reformed don’t see that by their holding hands with Arminians and Pelagians on this issue (working together) that they are standing against the Gospel of grace alone themselves. How can a man preach the Gospel of grace alone unless he seeks to destroy any hope that a person has in his own merit, righteousness, power, and therefore will? How can a man preach the Gospel of grace alone when he says that those who believe and preach ‘free-will’ preach the same Gospel that he does? These things cannot be and so they should not be. The Gospel of grace alone is what Christ has done and the Spirit does alone. A gospel that includes the ‘free-will’ is not something that is of grace alone. It may be of grace provided, but it is not of grace alone in procuring and applying salvation. The teaching of ‘free-will’ cannot point to grace alone because it necessarily points to the will as a player in the Gospel. Any amount of ‘free-will’ in the Gospel is a different gospel.

When William Tyndale was charged and then later executed, one of the heresies he was charged with was his denial of ‘free-will.’ Tyndale was burned at the stake in October of 1536 which was eight years before Luther died. It was stated in the more modern (1957) introduction of Luther’s Bondage of the Will that true Christianity stands or falls with the doctrine of the will. This was at the heart of the Reformation and was and is a truth that a person must truly hold to in order to hold to the Gospel as Luther and the Reformers did. In being burned at the stake as he was Tyndale reminds others of what happened to John Wycliffe in 1428 though he died in 1384. His remains were dug up and burned as a heretic. Wycliffe strongly desired for the people to read the Bible in their own language. Tyndale desired that as well. Both men were outlaws and put their lives on the line in order to get the Word of God to ordinary people.

In our day a lot of noise has been made over the inerrancy of Scripture, yet not as much over the Gospel that the Bible teaches. Tyndale and Wycliffe wanted the Scriptures to go out, but both stood firm on justification by faith alone. Wycliffe got into trouble early on because of his teaching on predestination. One cannot logically or consistently believe in predestination and free-will at the same time. The point, however, is that both Wycliffe and Tyndale were those who believed strongly in the Scriptures and then both were persecuted over what the Bible actually taught. Luther translated the Bible into German and also believed fervently in the bondage of the will and predestination.

It is easy to stand for inerrancy in the modern day though one may be thought a fool to do so. It is also rather easy to believe in predestination if one does not push that too hard. But it is still hard to truly hold to the bondage of the human will. The men of old were persecuted and excommunicated not only for their beliefs about the Bible, but because of what the Bible taught about predestination and free-will. The religious institutions did not like it in their days and they do not like it in our day. The doctrine of ‘free-will’ is, in the words of John Owen, the Pelagian idol. Oh how men trust in their idol rather than God. Oh how angry men get when their idol is challenged. While some will attack the Bible itself to get rid of its teaching on the sovereign God, the sovereignty of grace, and the bondage of the human will, others will hold to inerrancy on the one hand and attack the biblical teachings with the other. The Gospel of free-grace is hated by those who deny Scripture and those who hold to inerrancy with tenacity.

In the modern day lip-service is given to inerrancy while the teachings of the Bible are denied. There are those who claim to believe in the depravity of human souls and the bondage of the will but they will not take a stand on these issues as vital to the Gospel. They join hands with those who are best practical Pelagians and decry those who truly hold to the bondage of the will as hyper-Calvinists. The Gospel is at best weakened and watered down when this happens, but one could speculate that political expediency in denominations is considered more important than the doctrine of the will. However, to Luther and Tyndale (and perhaps Wycliffe) the doctrine of the will was vital to the Gospel. It was Rome who persecuted them and charged them with heresy because they denied the freedom of the human will, yet today people have rejected the heart of the Reformation by rejecting (at least in practice) the bondage of the will.

We need to seek the Lord to raise up men who are fear God and not men. We need to seek the Lord to rise up men who are not in love with the honor, positions, and finances that are found in many denominations. We need men like Wycliffe, Tyndale, and Luther who will declare the bondage of the human will so that they can preach a real Gospel of grace alone through faith alone. Until the Lord gives men in our day real convictions that they are going to live and die by regardless of the wind blowing in the denominations and regardless of the finances and honor given by the denominations, we will not hear the Gospel in our day. In order for our day to see a true repentance and a true revival, the true Gospel must be preached. Until men reach the point of caring for nothing but the glory of God they will not preach the bondage of the will with power which is what must happen for the Gospel to be truly taught. Instead people want unity rather than truth. They want words instead of power. They want honor and friends in high places instead of the power of God from on High. Wycliffe, Tyndale, and Luther loved their God and the Scriptures enough to translate the Scriptures into the common language upon the pains of death. But they also loved the Gospel enough to preach against ‘free-will’ and in doing so they were persecuted even more. After all, why translate the Scriptures if they were not willing to die for what the Scriptures taught? May God help us in our own day to wake up to the truth of the bondage of the will and its necessary connection to the Gospel. We can proclaim an inerrant Bible and even study it a lot, but if we miss the bondage of the will we miss the Gospel itself.

In looking at this great doctrine of the enslaved will, it is important to be reminded again and again that this doctrine is not just a horrible doctrine that just a few horrible individuals in history have believed. It has been believed by the greatest of theologians and the greatest of the creeds that this doctrine is at the heart of the Gospel. It is not the Gospel itself by itself, but apart from it there is no need of the Gospel of grace alone. To the degree that a person denies (whether literally or practically) the doctrine of the enslaved will, is precisely the degree that a person will veer from grace alone in the Gospel. The problem with that is that grace will not stand for any co-workers at all. Grace will not stand for anything that wants to share in its glory.

The God of all glory has created all things for His own glory. The God of all glory has designed all creation that it would manifest His glory and He has designed the Gospel that it would be to the praise of the glory of His grace alone (Eph 1:5-6). The doctrine of the enslaved will is a necessary teaching for the Gospel of grace alone and the Gospel of the glory of God. No one can shout forth the glory of God and His grace alone that also trumpets man’s ability in spiritual things. If that which comes from man is from the strength of the self and the will of self, then it is the self that is shining forth. But if what comes from man is the shining forth of the glory of God, then it is God and His glory that is shining forth. If we teach the ability of man in spiritual things, then we may be praised by modern people but we will not be declaring the truth of grace alone.

Luther and the Reformers were used to set forth a Gospel of grace alone and revival broke forth and raced throughout the earth. The Gospel that they preached was the Gospel that was built and depended on grace alone, but to that end they preached the enslavement of the will of man in spiritual things. Even if people in the modern day preach the same doctrines with the same words as the Reformers, apart from a clear declaration of the enslaved will of human souls the same Gospel will not be taught. The Reformers were concerned to defend the sovereignty of grace because that is the only kind of grace there is. Apart from the enslaved will the sovereignty of grace is compromised. A Gospel that teaches explicitly or implicitly a salvation that is anything less than grace alone (which is a sovereign grace), is a different gospel than that of the New Testament.

A great problem with those who teach the ‘free-will’ of man is that they cannot preach the free grace of God consistently. They will use words that salvation is by grace alone, but they cannot show how that can be. A Gospel that is to the glory of God alone is a Gospel that is of the will of God alone. It is only when it is God who wills salvation of Himself and according to Himself and His own glory that salvation is by grace alone and to His glory alone. As soon as the so-called ‘free-will’ of man edges into the picture, salvation stops being by grace alone and to His glory alone and man (so to speak) has a share in the matter. The Gospel, after all is the Gospel of God and as long as human beings trust in themselves (part of that is the ‘free-will’) they will not trust in Christ alone. A.G. Illierap, in his personal testimony, points to this as a major issue:

For some time past I had been in the not uncommon condition of “sinning and repenting, sinning and repenting;” my will power for resisting temptation, never at any time very strong, growing weaker and weaker. At last, realizing my utter helplessness, I lost all confidence in myself, and despaired of ever being any better. But, blessed by God, deliverance is found when a man despairs of self. Sorely baffled, in deep anguish of soul, knowing not whither to turn for help, with bitter tears and sincere repentance I was constrained in my misery to fall helplessly at the feet of Jesus, my agony of spirit speaking louder than any words. I was not left long in my despair, for “the Lord is night unto them that are of a broken heart, and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit.”…I realise now, that not until a man loses faith in himself, can he possibly know his need of a Saviour. Thus it is recoreded that “when we were yet without strength, in due season, Christ died for the ungodly” (Rom 5:6). While we have hope in ourselves our case is hopeless, but as soon as we give up all pretensions to merit or righteousness of our own, and submit ourselves as lost and ruined sinners to God, He willing, and on a perfectly righteous basis (see Rom 4:26) justifies us “freely by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus” (Rom 3:25). Thus I found it.

This testimony points to the fact that a human being cannot trust in his or he own will or self and trust in Christ alone at the same time. So many in the modern day hold to the great doctrines of the past and yet do so in a manner where they trust in themselves. They trust in their intellects to believe certain truths. They trust in their own wills (though they say words as if it is all of God) to trust in Christ. They are Pelagians at heart though they give verbal assent to Reformed creeds. It is not enough to give intellectual assent to these great truths of the past and of the Bible. But instead, one must truly give up all hope in self and in the will of self in order to rest in Christ alone. Until the soul despairs of all hope in itself (including its own will and power or choice) it will not rest in Christ alone. This is the great truth that Luther and the Reformers found in Scripture and in their own experience. Until a sinner utterly despairs of self that sinner has faith in self to some degree. Until that great truth is discovered and actually experienced in the soul, the sinner has hope in self even if that sinner is orthodox to the letter. We live in a dark day, not only because of the lack of orthodoxy, but perhaps to some degree because of orthodoxy that rests in the mind alone. True enough there are also those who rest in themselves, their orthodoxy, and their elevated feelings, but still that is not resting in Christ alone. We must utterly despair of anything to do with self and look to Christ alone.

What need now of Christ? What need now of the Spirit? We have now found a passage which stops the mouths of all; not only does it clearly assert the freedom of the will, but it clearly teaches also that keeping the commandments is easy! What a fool was Christ, who shed His blood to purchase for us the Spirit, Whom we do not need, in order that we might be able to keep the commandments with ease, when we are so already by nature!  (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

If the soul has the ability to keep one command of God by its own freedom, then why couldn’t it keep all the commands of God? Luther points out that if the soul is free to keep the commands God, then in reality there is no absolute need of Christ and of the Spirit. Why did Christ need to go to the cross to purchase the Spirit for those who can already keep the commandments by their old nature? This is a cutting point that goes to the nature of sanctification as well. It seems as if many believe (at least practically) that the sinner is declared just by grace and then in many ways left to his or her own devices in the matter of sanctification. That position is just as bad as those who believe that one can be saved by works as well.

The Pelagian (Arminian) position really turns the Gospel of grace alone upside down. The only cause that God needs to save a person is Himself and His own glory. In fact, if God saved a person for something in themselves that would make God an idolater as He would not be doing all out of love for Himself and His own glory. This shows that the Pelagian (Arminian) position has turned grace into something that is no longer grace (Rom 11:6). Any work, no matter how slight, makes grace to be no longer grace. An act of the human will that is not of grace is an act of human flesh and so is a work of the flesh. God cannot be moved by a work of the human will/flesh rather than Himself and His own glory. The only reason that God saves sinners is to the praise of the glory of His grace (Eph 1:6). God bestows His grace on sinners only for the sake of His glory in Christ Jesus. The Pelagian (Arminian) position is inconsistent with a salvation that is by grace alone.

God the Father loved the Son and sent the Son to save sinners for the glory of His own name. Jesus Christ went to the cross primarily out of love for the Father. The Holy Spirit applies salvation as He is breathed forth from the Father and the Son. Pelagianism (Arminianism), then, tries to bring another aspect into salvation that gives God a reason or cause other than Himself to save sinners. In other words, Scripture teaches that God will not share His glory with another. “I am the LORD, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images” (Isaiah 42:8). “For My own sake, for My own sake, I will act; For how can My name be profaned? And My glory I will not give to another” (Isa. 48:11).

The verses above show how much God loves His glory and how much He protects it. The gospel according to Pelagianism (and Arminianism), despite the protests to the contrary, is a message that involves human beings providing God a cause to save and so they share in the glory. As Romans 3:26-27 says in setting out why God saves and why He does not, it is for the demonstration of His righteousness and there is no room for boasting at all. “For the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded.” The case, it would seem, is closed. God does not save for any reason found in human beings, but He finds all the reasons and causes necessary to save in Himself. This totally excludes all boasting and glorying of human beings in their own choices or merit.

The Gospel that trumpeted out of the Reformation is the Gospel that rings forth during times of true revival. The Pelagianism of Finney could bring about moral reformation as such, but it could not be a message of true sovereign grace. If the grace preached is not sovereign grace, then it is no grace at all. There is no other kind of grace that can save sinners. In fact, the Bible knows of no other kind of grace at all because the only kind of grace there can be is a sovereign grace. The grace that takes sinners who are dead in sins and can do nothing to save themselves is a grace that is moved and caused by God Himself. Oh the danger souls are in who listen to those who preach in accordance with ‘free-will’ and those who will not deny it. The soul will either look to grace alone or it will look to itself for something. The soul that looks to itself for something, including an act of the will, is a soul that is not looking to Christ alone and is not resting in grace alone. ‘Free-will’ is at war with God and His Gospel of grace alone. We must wake up to this Trojan horse that has been brought into the walls of the city and befriended it by those claiming to be defenders of the Gospel.

What need now of Christ? What need now of the Spirit? We have now found a passage which stops the mouths of all; not only does it clearly assert the freedom of the will, but it clearly teaches also that keeping the commandments is easy! What a fool was Christ, who shed His blood to purchase for us the Spirit, Whom we do not need, in order that we might be able to keep the commandments with ease, when we are so already by nature!  (Luther, Bondage of the Will)  

These words from Luther should blow the cobwebs from our minds and souls and help us to see what the real issue at hand is. It is not that the teaching of ‘free-will’ is just a little different and perhaps slightly wrong, but it cuts at the very nerve of the Gospel. If the will is free enough to make moral choices apart from Christ, then where does that freedom end? We are either saved by Christ alone or by one or many things plus Christ. The teaching of ‘free-will’ is a direct assault on the Gospel of grace alone and Christ alone.

What can it mean to have a ‘free-will’ in light of what it means to be a spiritual person? Is the will free to understand spiritual things? Is the will free to do a spiritual act apart from Christ? If believers are not free to do one acceptable thing (spiritual fruit) apart from Christ, then how can an unbeliever do one acceptable thing apart from Christ? Is the will free to do what it wants in the spiritual realm when in fact we can only function in the spiritual realm with the fruit of the Spirit? There is a spiritual realm in which all that is done there is by the work and fruit of the Spirit. The reason it is the spiritual realm is because it is the realm in which the Holy Spirit works. True enough there are unholy spirits working, but we would not call them spiritual in the same way.

What is clear at this point is that the will is not free from the work of Christ and is not free from the work of the Spirit. Is the will ever able to do one good thing that is spiritual apart from grace? For the will to be free the will must be free from restraints and helps in order to do what it pleases. But if the will is free from the bondage of sin, then the Scriptures are wrong which teach the absolute bondage of the sinner in sin. If the will is free from the power of grace, then salvation is not of grace alone. So once again it can be seen that ‘free-will’ is an idol that sinners trust in rather than Christ alone and grace alone.

Can the will procure (purchase, obtain, lay hold of) any part of its own salvation? Is the will free to procure any part of its salvation? We can only turn from a teaching like that with disdain and disgust. Christ alone has procured salvation for His people. The will cannot do one thing to earn, merit, or apply salvation to itself. But if Christ alone has procured salvation, then what can the will do to obtain salvation itself? Anything it would try to do would be nothing less than an effort to insert itself into the salvation which Christ alone has purchased and the Holy Spirit alone applies. Oh the darkness that ‘free-will’ brings into the discussion and it attempts to overshadow the work of Christ and the Spirit.

Is the will of God free to save those whom He pleases? ‘Free-will’ teaches us that God cannot save those whom He pleases because the will of man is free to do as man pleases in the realm of salvation. Yet Scripture gives the account that God says that “I WILL HAVE MERCY ON WHOM I HAVE MERCY, AND I WILL HAVE COMPASSION ON WHOM I HAVE COMPASSION” (Romans 9:15). In other words, God is free to save whom He will. If the will of man is free to save according to its own will, then God is not free. Once again, the idol of the will is clear to see in that man wants to rest and trust in his own will rather than the grace of God alone.

Was Christ free to fully save all those that the Father gave Him to save or not? This shows again how the teaching of ‘free-will’ attacks the work of Christ. In fact, as can be seen in this post, the so-called ‘free-will’ of man is at war with the Trinity and the work of each Divine Person of the Trinity. This is why many Christians of old thought of the teaching of ‘free-will’ as that of something less than Christianity. This is also seen in how grace comes to the human soul. Is the will free to procure any part of grace as it pleases or is grace always in the hands of God to give as He pleases? The doctrine of ‘free-will’ is at war with God and the Gospel of grace. For grace to be grace it must always be at the mere pleasure of God and for there to be no cause in the human being to receive grace. Oh how this awful teaching is at war with God for His glory and many people who call themselves Reformed today still think of Pelagianism (under the guise of Arminianism) as teaching the same Gospel as they do. No, no and a trillion times no. The gospel of ‘free-will’ is now and always will be at war with God’s Gospel of grace alone.

What need now of Christ? What need now of the Spirit? We have now found a passage which stops the mouths of all; not only does it clearly assert the freedom of the will, but it clearly teaches also that keeping the commandments is easy! What a fool was Christ, who shed His blood to purchase for us the Spirit, Whom we do not need, in order that we might be able to keep the commandments with ease, when we are so already by nature! (Luther, Bondage of the Will )

Luther, despite his sarcasm, or perhaps even more through the use of it, makes a very powerful point. This point deserves to be declared and proclaimed from the rooftops. It is not as if ‘free-will’ is a rather small and innocuous teaching that can go along with the biblical teaching of grace, but it is opposed to the work of Christ and the work of the Holy Spirit. ‘Free-will’ stands opposed to the biblical teaching of justification by grace alone and sanctification by grace as well. In fact, it cuts at the very heart of who God is and who man is. While Scripture tells us that “it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy” (Rom 9:16), the teaching of ‘free-will’ teaches that in some way it does depend on the man who wills.

What does the sinner need Christ for? To supply some things so that man can apply it to himself? Does the sinner need Christ for a few things, many things, and perhaps most things; or does the sinner need Christ alone? The teaching of ‘free-will,’ though perhaps not all who hold to it see where it leads, leads to the insufficiency of the work of Christ. How many of the sins of man can man pay for Himself? None, absolutely none and so man is cast utterly upon Christ for the payment of sin so that God will be propitiated. Man is not free to pay for one sin and his vaunted ‘free-will’ is utterly powerless in this case. How much righteousness can man contribute to his own salvation? None again, so man and his much ballyhooed ‘free—will’ is utterly powerless in this situation as well. What can man’s ‘free-will’ do to obtain the Holy Spirit? Nothing at all because the Spirit was purchased for sinners by Christ Himself and so there is absolutely nothing left for man to do even if he could.

What can the so-called ‘free-will’ of man do to break the power of the bondage of sin and of the devil? Puny little man is helpless in the bondage of his sin until the omnipotent power of God breaks that bondage and sets man free from it. Can the ‘free-will’ of man give himself an understanding of spiritual things? Of course not since the Scripture is utterly clear that the “natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised” (I Cor 2:14). Can the ‘free-will’ of man give himself a view of the glory of God? Can the ‘free-will’ of man shine the light of this glory in his own heart? Of course not because it is God alone who can do this: “For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” (II Cor 4:6). Can this mighty will of man procure salvation for himself or any part of it? Oh no, it is Christ alone who can do this. Salvation comes to sinners apart from what sinners can do and apart from any merit or work they can do. Salvation is by grace and grace alone. ‘Free-will,’ in terms of what it is, stands opposed to that. ‘Free-will’ is not just some harmless deviation from the truth of grace alone, but is opposed to it at all points.

What does it mean to have ‘free-will’ in light of the work of Christ? Did Christ die to save men who can do part of the work by their ‘free-wills’ or did He die to deliver men from their complete bondage to sin? We can argue this in a philosophical way, but we must see this from a Christ-centered and biblical way. Christ died to completely save sinners and not just provide them some, or even a lot, assistance. The Gospel is from beginning to end of grace and grace alone. It does not good for sinners to give lip-service to that and then go out saying that teachings (like ‘free-will’) that contradict it are not that big of a deal. Man cannot look to ‘free-will’ in the slightest if man is going to look to Christ alone and grace alone to save. One cannot have it both ways. It is not Christ alone and also mostly Christ and a little of my will. It is not Christ alone and virtually all of Christ plus a little of my will. It is either Christ alone or it is not Christ alone. No matter how little man tries to add to Christ alone it is still an addition which denies Christ alone. That makes it a different gospel.

In his day God moved in the heart of Luther and the gloves came off and Luther punched away with bare knuckles at all systems of thought that were opposed to Christ alone. God raised Luther up and then used that pure Gospel to shine forth His glory and bring about a true revival. We cannot be gracious and nice (in the modern sense) about these things and expect a revival to come. Being gracious in these things is to be opposed to true grace.