God Loves… Himself

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 is responding to Erasmus who quotes Deuteronomy and states that it is easy to keep the commandments. With sarcasm dripping from his pen, Luther demolishes Erasmus’ thought and along with it the teaching of ‘free-will’ as well. True enough it may not be obvious at first glance, but with a little thought it will easily be seen. The position of Erasmus was essentially that of the Pelagian position, that if the Bible commands you to keep the commandments then you have the power to do so. The passage in question, Deuteronomy 30:14, tells us that “the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it.” Erasmus made the deduction that since the word is in you and it is in you that you may observe it that the will must be free to do so. But Luther went in a different direction and in doing so makes a very powerful point.

If the will is already free enough to keep the commands of God and that without salvation, then what need do we have of Christ and the Spirit? Galatians 3:13-14 makes the point that Christ died that believers would have the Holy Spirit: “13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the Law, having become a curse for us– for it is written, “CURSED IS EVERYONE WHO HANGS ON A TREE “– 14 in order that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith.” This is very important and we must pay close attention to it, especially when we link the teaching of Romans 8:3-4 with Galatians: “For what the Law could not do, weak as it was through the flesh, God did: sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and as an offering for sin, He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in us, who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.”

Galatians 3:13-14 teaches with clarity that Christ died so that believers would receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. Romans 8:3-4 teaches us that what the Law could not do (holiness, power to keep the Law) that God did. God sent the Son to be an offering for sin, but one reason He did so is so that the requirement of the Law might be fulfilled in His people. The power of these verses demonstrates to us that our will is not free to keep the Law since it took the death of Christ to purchase the Spirit who alone can fulfill the Law in the people of God. The will does not have the power to keep the Law or be holy, but instead it takes the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit in the soul of a human being to fulfill the Law.

There are many teachings that these verses shed light on. One, they show quite clearly that the will of human souls is not free and does not have the power to keep the Law apart from the work of Christ and the Holy Spirit. In fact, to assert the freedom of the will in this context is to denigrate the work of Christ and of the Holy Spirit. Second, this teaching shows that the Law of God has not been abrogated. Not only does Christ not do away with the Law of God, but He died in order to purchase the Holy Spirit who would work in human souls so that He could fulfill the Law in and through them. This shows the great error of those who are teaching the so-called New Covenant teaching today. The Law has not been done away with, but instead it is worked in the heart and life of believers by the Holy Spirit. The Gospel of grace alone is not that the Law has been done away with, but instead in accordance with the true teaching of the New Covenant God works in the souls of His people that they may fulfill it.

We see the so-called ‘free-will’ put to the test here by Luther. If the will is free enough to keep the Law now, then there was no need for Christ to have gone to the cross and suffered in order to purchase the Spirit so that believers could have the Law fulfilled in them. The will is utterly powerless to keep the Law until Christ Himself and His Spirit are in the soul working love for God and His people in them. The Law was not given in order that we may keep it, but to be a tutor to lead people to see their utter inability to keep it and so teach them their need of Christ and the cross. But that also teaches us the need of the Spirit to keep the Law. Today we have people asserting the power of the will and trying to do away with the Law of God. Both, at the very least, are very dangerous teachings. Both are opposed to the true work of Christ in purchasing the Spirit and in the work of the Spirit in working obedience to the Law in the souls of His people. The Law teaches that we must have Christ in us now.

So the words of the law are spoken, not to assert the power of the will, but to illuminate the blindness of reason, so that it may see that its own light is nothing, and the power of the will is nothing. ‘By the law is knowledge of sin,’ says Paul (Rom 3:20). He does not say: abolition, or avoidance, of sin. The entire design and power of the law is just to give knowledge, and that of nothing but of sin; not to display or confer any power. The knowledge is not power, nor does it bring power; but it teaches and displays that there is here no power, and great weakness….It is from this passage that I derive my answer to you; that by the words of the law man is admonished and taught, not what he can do, but what he ought to do; that is, that he may know his sin, not that he may believe that he has any strength. (Luther, The Bondage of the Will)

This concept that Luther sets out is just one of the many concepts concerning the will that is vital to understanding the Gospel of grace alone. It seems like human beings, apart from a close examination of Scripture and/or another person pointing it out; just assume that what God commands man has the will to do. But that statement, while seemingly innocent enough on the surface, is at the heart of Pelagianism. To some it is an Arminian thought, and so not as bad, but in reality it is a Pelagian concept. A.A. Hodge sets the heart of Pelagianism out like this:

(a.) Moral character can be predicated only of volitions. (b.) Ability is always the measure of responsibility. (c). Hence every man has always the plenary power to do all that it is his duty to do. (d). Hence the human will alone, to the exclusion of the interference of an internal influence from God, must decide human character and destiny.

Pelagianism, then, reads the commands of Scripture and believes that man must have the power to keep the commands. This is utterly vital. Whenever, then, we hear people saying and writing that man has the power to keep the commands because God commands, know that you are hearing Pelagianism. On the other hand, A.A. Hodge sets out what is Augustinian or Reformed:

(a.) Man is by nature so entirely depraved in his moral nature as to be totally unable to do any thing spiritually good, or in any degree to begin or dispose himself thereto. (b.) That even under the exciting and suasory influences of divine grace the will of man is totally unable to act aright in co-operation with grace, until after the will itself is by the energy of grace radically and permanently renewed. (c.) Even after the renewal of the will it ever continues dependent upon divine grace to prompt, direct, and enable it in the performance of every good work.

Notice the massive difference between the two and yet notice how the Reformed view is right in line with what Luther taught that Scripture taught. It is true that the Arminian and semi-Pelagian thinks that there is a middle position between the two, but that is nothing but an illusion. It is called “the semi-Pelagian” view and not “the semi-Reformed” view. The semi-Pelagian and the Arminian hold to the view that man is able to cooperate with grace because of the free-will to some degree. But the Reformed view is the biblical view and shows that man cannot do one good or spiritual thing apart from grace. The Law is brought to bear upon the conscience of the human soul and it is to show what sin is and the inability of the human soul to keep it. The Law, when brought to bear upon the conscience and the depths of the human soul, is a tutor that leads the soul to Christ. The semi-Pelagian and Arminian view that thinks that preaching the commands shows that man must be able to some degree to keep the Law does not lead man to grace alone but to grace plus human ability.

When some use the Law to show man his ability, they are using the Law in ways that it was not given for. Paul himself said that the Law was used to show him that he could not keep the Law.
Rom 7:8 But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died; 10 and this commandment, which was to result in life, proved to result in death for me; 11 for sin, taking an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me.

Paul’s teaching of the Law does not contradict what God used the Law to do to him. The Law was preached to and read by Paul, but when that happened he saw sin in his heart and he died. What he died to was his own efforts to keep the Law and righteousness as a result of the Law. Paul the Pharisee lost all hope in his own works and righteousness once he heard and understood the true nature of the Law. So the Law must be preached in its fullest extent so that men and women may know that they don’t have any power at all to keep it. Then they will look to Christ and to Christ alone.

So the words of the law are spoken, not to assert the power of the will, but to illuminate the blindness of reason, so that it may see that its own light is nothing, and the power of the will is nothing. ‘By the law is knowledge of sin,’ says Paul (Rom 3:20). He does not say: abolition, or avoidance, of sin. The entire design and power of the law is just to give knowledge, and that of nothing but of sin; not to display or confer any power. The knowledge is not power, nor does it bring power; but it teaches and displays that there is here no power, and great weakness….It is from this passage that I derive my answer to you; that by the words of the law man is admonished and taught, not what he can do, but what he ought to do; that is, that he may know his sin, not that he may believe that he has any strength. (Luther, The Bondage of the Will)

Luther’s approach to the Law should awaken many to their own unexamined presuppositions that they have. When many read or hear the Law of God, they assume that man must have enough power in the will to obey the Law. It does take, after all, power to obey. But human beings simply assume that they have the power to obey the Law without really thinking about it. Could God have another reason in giving the Law? It is just as logical to think that God gives the Law to show man his inability in order to show man his need of Christ. The real question, then, is what Scripture teaches on the issue.

The Law is a transcript of the holiness of God. Can we be like God in our own power? Can man be like God in the power of the flesh? As seen above, the Law was given and men both then and now approach it in two (broadly speaking) categories. They look at the Law and assume that they have the power to keep it and to do that they must think of themselves as sufficient to do so. The second group looks at the Law and knows that they don’t have the power to keep it and need to be saved from their sins of breaking it and to have grace in the heart to keep it. Paul was very clear on this issue and the second approach is the biblical approach.

Galatians 2:19 “For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God 20 “I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith

In these three verses from Galatians Paul could not have been much clearer. One use of the Law is in order that sinners may die to the Law. But note that it is not the Law that dies, but that the sinner dies to the Law. In other words, sinners are not to look to themselves and their own power to keep any part of the Law, but instead they are to die to their own ability and any strength in themselves to keep the Law. Sinners are to die to themselves in relation to keeping the Law as their own righteousness. It is in this way that Law serves as a tutor to lead sinners to Christ. It drives them to an end of their own strength and ability to keep the Law and so they must have Christ.

Romans 5:20 The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 7:4 Therefore, my brethren, you also were made to die to the Law through the body of Christ, so that you might be joined to another, to Him who was raised from the dead, in order that we might bear fruit for God. 7:6 But now we have been released from the Law, having died to that by which we were bound, so that we serve in newness of the Spirit and not in oldness of the letter. 7:9 I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died;

The verses listed above from Romans should nail the case down and put it beyond question. The Law does not assume ability in human beings at all in terms of keeping it. But instead the Law was given so that transgression would increase and grace would abound. Once again we see that the sinner must die to the Law and the sinner must die to the power and ability of self to keep the Law. The Law was not given to sinners so that they could see the power they have in themselves and keep the Law, but to show them their sin so that they could see that they have no power to keep the Law and so die to themselves and their own ability to keep it. Until the sinner dies to self the sinner is in bondage to the Law as a way of salvation. But the Law was never given as a way of salvation or for sinners to save or partially save themselves, but as a way for sinners to die to themselves and so rest in Christ and Christ alone. The fallen mind says we have the ability, but Scripture emphatically says we don’t.

So the words of the law are spoken, not to assert the power of the will, but to illuminate the blindness of reason, so that it may see that its own light is nothing, and the power of the will is nothing. ‘By the law is knowledge of sin,’ says Paul (Rom 3:20). He does not say: abolition, or avoidance, of sin. The entire design and power of the law is just to give knowledge, and that of nothing but of sin; not to display or confer any power. The knowledge is not power, nor does it bring power; but it teaches and displays that there is here no power, and great weakness….It is from this passage that I derive my answer to you; that by the words of the law man is admonished and taught, not what he can do, but what he ought to do; that is, that he may know his sin, not that he may believe that he has any strength.  (Luther, The Bondage of the Will)

In this passage from Luther we see a great dividing point. While the Pelagian (and differing forms of semi-Pelagianism) see that God gives the law and that man must have some ability or God would not give the law to them, Luther derives his answer from Scripture. It is true that the Pelagian answer is from so-called common sense, yet it is common from a fallen soul. Human beings fell into pride and self-sufficiency, so the Pelagian answer is really the answer of the proud and self-sufficient soul. The Pelagian answer says that what God commands a person to do what a person has the ability to do, but that it is simply the presupposition of a proud and fallen soul. Luther builds his case on Scripture.

 In Romans 3:20 Paul tells us that “through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.” With a little of the context this is seen with even more clarity: “19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin” (Rom 3).

In verse 19 the Law has something to say and the reasons that it speaks is given. The Law speaks so that “every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God.” This passage gives the purpose of the Law. It is not given so that those with ability may or may not choose to keep it, but so that every mouth would be closed. The Law was not given so people can keep it and be justified in the sight of God. So the Law was not given as a way for sinners to justify themselves, but it is given as a means to know sin. Notice the correlation between knowing sin in verse 20 and the shutting the mouth in verse 19. That is what the Law does when it is understood.

 Paul also gives us the same thought in Romans 7 as he shows us what this looks like: “7 What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “YOU SHALL NOT COVET.” 8 But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died.” It is not that the Law just gives a bare knowledge about what sin is, but when applied by the Spirit the Law comes pierces and sin comes alive and the person sees that the Law speaks to the sin in the depths of his or her heart.

 The command to believe is not to show us what we can do, but what needs to be done. The command to believe does not tell us that we can believe, but that we must believe if we are going to be saved. This points to an awful reality that is so widespread today. Human beings have taken the Law that is supposed to show them their sin and break them from their self and self-will and instead they use it as a means of self-righteousness. People take the command to believe and instead of falling on their faces and crying out for hearts that can believe they think they have it in their own ability to do so. This shows us the self-sufficient and blinded hearts of so many today. They rely on themselves (free-will) and use that which God has given to break them from themselves as a way to attain righteousness in their own eyes.

 Romans 3:19-20 and 7:7-9 are very clear. The Law has a purpose and it is not to be a path for people to follow to obtain righteousness. The Law is to show people that they cannot keep it and to shut their mouths toward God and His righteous judgment of condemnation on them apart from Christ. The Law is used by the Spirit to pierce the soul and to lay open the depths of the heart and the intents of it. When it does that, no one can claim to be worthy of anything but eternal damnation and to look to nothing but sovereign grace to save. When the Law is preached there will be animosity in the unregenerate soul and it will hate what it hears. But maybe the mouth will be shut.

What is excluded from that which is ascribed to ‘free-will’? What need is there of the Spirit, or Christ, or God if ‘free-will’ can overcome the motions of the mind to evil? Again, where is that ‘probable view’ which says that ‘free-will’ cannot even will good? Victory over evil is here ascribed to that which neither wills nor desires good! Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will

Luther, who earlier in this work on the enslaved will, has set out why this teaching is so important. It is necessary to teach the enslavement of the will so that men can see the depths of their sin and of the necessity of sovereign grace. The Arminians and the Pelagians have to ascribe some freedom to the will, but when they do so they are left in the uncomfortable position of being forced to the position that to the degree the will is free is the degree that there is no need of the Spirit and of Christ. This so-called freedom leaves them in the position of saying that their ‘free-will’ can overcome the power of evil in the mind and heart. This refusal of men to give up their ‘free-will’ is a resisting of the humiliation of soul that is necessary to be saved according to Luther.

So these truths are published for the sake of the elect, that they may be humbled and brought down to nothing, and so saved. The rest of men resist this humiliation; indeed, they condemn the teaching of self-despair; they want a little something left that they can do for themselves. Secretly they continue proud, and enemies of the grace of God. This, I repeat, is one reason—that those who fear God might in humility comprehend, claim and receive His gracious promise.

The teaching of the enslaved will gets to the heart of man’s depravity and why he needs a sovereign grace to do it all rather than just a supply of grace he can get the hands of his own will on. Part of the work of grace in the elect is to bring them to a deep sense of their sinfulness and helplessness and then to look to grace alone. As long as men and women leave themselves a ‘free-will’ they are leaving themselves some little something that they can do for themselves. This is nothing less than idolatry because it puts the dispensing of grace in the hands of weak and fallible men rather than the hands of the one and only sovereign God.

God saves to the glory of His grace and that glory He will not share with another. When men reserve any little piece of the will to themselves they are asserting, whether they intend to or not, that grace is not enough and that they must do something to save themselves. Imagine the arrogance and pride of man that things s/he can overcome the power of the evil one by himself and apply grace to himself. While the vast majority of people adhere to ‘free-will’ today, and would perhaps deny the previous assertion as to what it does, nevertheless that is what the position entails. So we have Luther going after the heart of the Arminian and Pelagian position because that position is so opposed to grace alone which is a sovereign grace. After all, there is no other kind of grace in reality other than sovereign grace. When people leave room for their own supposed ‘free-will’ they are actually denying the truth of the only kind of grace there is (sovereign grace).

The adherence to ‘free-will’ is, then, an act of hostility to God. In the words of John Owen, it is the idol of the Arminian. The Arminian and the Pelagian do not want God to be sovereign and so they leave a little room for their own ‘free-will.’ This is hostility and enmity to God. God saves sinners by grace alone according to His good pleasure and sinners want to apply grace to themselves according to their good pleasure. Surely this is an abomination and is a false Gospel. If people are not willing to stand up and call the teaching of ‘free-will’ for what it really is, then they are not contending for the true faith of Scripture. There are so many today who are like Erasmus and want peace within the ranks and denominations at all costs. But we are to stand for the Gospel at all costs even if the world would burn around us as a result. We are to contend for the glory of God and not bow to the honor of men. When we preach and teach the Gospel we are to be more concerned with the glory of God than talking some human being into making a decision that comes from their vaunted ‘free-will.’ If we will not tell men and women that they are totally dependent on the grace of God to save them, we are not preaching the Gospel that Paul preached. There is only one Gospel and it is the Gospel of the grace of God. He is sovereign and all grace is sovereign. If we are ashamed of that and will not preach that, then we are ashamed of God and of the Gospel. We would then be ascribing to ‘free-will’ what grace alone can do. That is idolatry in any court.

For although the first man was not impotent, inasmuch grace assisted him, yet God by this commandment shows him clearly enough how impotent he would be without grace. And if he, who had the Spirit, could not with his new will will a good newly proposed (that is, obedience), because the Spirit did not add that to him, what can we, without the Spirit, do about the good that we have lost? By this dreadful example of that first man, it was shown us, with a view to breaking down our pride, what our ‘free-will’ can do if it is left to itself, and is not continually moved and increased more and more by the Spirit of God…that this passage, and others like it (‘if though art willing’. ‘if thou do’) declare, not man’s ability, but his duty.                Martin Luther, Bondage of the Will

The soul must be shown how impotent it is without grace. We must also dig a little deeper into what that means. A soul that is impotent is not just impotent or powerless for the most part. It is not 90% powerless, not 80% powerless, not 10% powerless, and it is not even 99.99999% powerless. It is completely and totally powerless to do good. The soul does not just need a little grace and not even a lot of grace, it needs grace to do the work in it.

The Gospel of justification by faith alone had the intent of shining forth the glory of God’s grace in salvation alone. Salvation is by grace alone, not by the power of the human will to a small degree and God’s grace making up the rest. With that in mind, it is clear what the intent of the Law and the commands of God are. It is not that God gives His commands with the expectation that human beings can keep them in accordance with the true intent of the commands. God commands that all of His commandments be kept out of perfect love to Him and to human beings. In one sense all of the commands that God gives are commandments that show His perfections and how human beings are to reflect His glory in the world.

Paul teaches in Galatians 2:19 “For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God.” Sinners must die to the Law in order that they may live to God. But it is through the Law that a person dies to the Law. It is only when the Law is set out in such a way that a person sees that s/he has no ability to keep that Law that the person dies to the Law and to the strength of the self and will to keep that Law. It is not that the Law dies, but that something in the person dies to the Law. The problem is not the Law, but instead it has to do with our proud hearts thinking we can keep the Law in our own strength or perhaps with a little help from grace. No, we are not made sick by the Law to show us that we need some help, but instead we die to the Law. The Law was given in order to show us something about ourselves. We cannot keep it and so we must look to grace alone.

Galatians 3:11 tells us “that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.” No one can be justified by the Law nor can they be justified partially by the Law. The Law tells us that man has no ability to be justified by the Law in any way and in no parts at all. Again, the Law is given in order to teach us that we must have Christ in order to save us from the penalty of the Law as well as be the One in the soul who works in the soul by grace that it may fulfill the Law. Christ fulfilled the Law in one sense while on earth, but He now fulfills the Law in and through His people by keeping it in them. After all, that is at least part of the New Covenant.

Galatians 3:19 and then v. 24 tells us the purpose of the Law. “Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.” The Law was not given because human beings have the ability to keep the Law, but to show them their sin and their inability to do so. When the Law shows us the depth of our sin and our inability, it shows us our need for Christ as a sacrifice and Christ as our life. The commands of God, therefore, do not show us what we have the ability to do but what is our duty to do. They do not teach us that we are to do the best we can and grace will make up for what we lack, but that we have no ability at all to keep them in any degree as commanded. It teaches the sinner to die to self and the power of self and to look to Christ alone. It is only when the sinner has died to self and its ability to keep the Law that it can look to Christ alone for grace alone. In other words, the Gospel is not preached or heard until sinners see that they must keep the Law but have no ability to do so. This is at the very heart of the Gospel of Christ alone and grace alone to the glory of God alone.  Man’s ability is the hallmark of Pelagianism while man’s inability and the ability of Christ by grace are dual hallmarks of Christianity. Other than a little lip-service here and there to these things, we have little of true Christianity in our day.

For although the first man was not impotent, inasmuch grace assisted him, yet God by this commandment shows him clearly enough how impotent he would be without grace. And if he, who had the Spirit, could not with his new will will a good newly proposed (that is, obedience), because the Spirit did not add that to him, what can we, without the Spirit, do about the good that we have lost? By this dreadful example of that first man, it was shown us, with a view to breaking down our pride, what our ‘free-will’ can do if it is left to itself, and is not continually moved and increased more and more by the Spirit of God…that this passage, and others like it (‘if though art willing’. ‘if thou do’) declare, not man’s ability, but his duty.                         Martin Luther, Bondage of the Will

Here is another real issue. Was the first man (Adam) really left to his own devices and in his own strength to do what God had commanded him? When God blew into the nostrils of Adam did He sustain him by the Spirit or simply leave him alone? We know from the New Testament (I John 4:7-8) that God is the only origin and source of love and that love is needed for any true obedience. Yet love is the fruit of the Spirit. So it is safe to think of Adam as having the Spirit, though certainly not in the same way as those who come after Christ purchased the Spirit for His people, and needing the Spirit to commune with God and walk in true obedience. But we also see what happened to Adam when he followed his own ways and heart. He fell. Adam was free in his obedience as long as he was upheld by the Spirit. But once he went his own way, he was no longer free in the things of God. It takes the Holy Spirit working in human beings by grace to give them the freedom of obedience. No human being has ever been free to do good apart from the grace of God.

When we look at Adam we should loose all hope and confidence in self. Adam fell into sin and that without being born a sinner. Involved in his sin, if we can look at Satan’s promise to Eve, was that he could be god to himself which was to choose good and evil for himself. That was part of what the devil promised Eve and part and parcel of that is what is promised by those who hold to a free-will. The teaching of free-will is that the soul can choose good or evil for itself. Genesis 3:5 gives us this awful picture: “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” This is the promise of free-will as well. The promise to know in Genesis 3:5 is not just to know about, but an experiential knowing and the ability that goes along with it.

Luther teaches us that the command to Adam and his failure to obey does not teach us ‘free-will’ but instead should teach us how much we need the Spirit in order to obey and to keep from falling. So again, if Adam who was not born into sin did sin when he stepped out on his own what does that teach us about his so-called ‘free-will’ and then of our own? It teaches us that we will slide freely into sin and yet are not free to be holy apart from grace. “Apart from Me, you can do nothing” (John 15:4-5).

From Adam, then, we get a clear picture of a vitally important truth. The will is not free to do good because it has no power to do good apart from grace. The commands of God, then, do not declare to us anything about our ability to keep them but simply set out to us our duty. In one sense, however, the commands of God rightly understood do declare to us something about our ability in the sense they show us our utter inability to obey by the power of our own wills. The commands of God should teach us our utter need of grace to be saved from our breaking the law, but also our utter need of grace to give us strength to keep the law.

Luther’s points here are clear and to the point. The will is not free to do good apart from grace. The will that is free from grace operates in a free (in a sense) bondage in the realm of evil. The will that is apart from grace has no ability to do good and all it does is evil. It has no power to do anything else. The will apart from grace will always do evil and nothing but evil even when it is doing outwardly good things and when it is religious. The will apart from grace (perhaps) is doing its greatest evil when it is the most religious. In that it is more like God than in anything else. May God by His grace deliver us from our efforts to be like Him by doing good in our own strength and make us truly holy which can only come from Him.

Luther gives Erasmus’ definition of ‘free-will” in the following quote: “‘Moreover, I conceive of “free-will” in this context as a power of the human will by which a man may apply himself to those things that lead to eternal salvation or turn away from the same.’” Luther then responds to that definition with words that applied to Erasmus but should also make people wake up today. The definition that Erasmus gave was what so many think is true today and is the root of so many so-called “gospel appeals.” Luther’s reply is a shot across the bow of practically every denomination today as well.

Luther’s reply to Erasmus (see The Gospel and the Enslaved Will 82 for another part) was devastating and virtually unanswerable. If the power of the human will is such that man may (and therefore can) apply to himself the things that lead to eternal salvation, then grace is no longer in the hands of God to give as He pleases and the sovereignty of grace is in the will of human beings. However, regardless of the fine points of various groups that hold to the teaching of ‘free-will,’ that is still true. As long as anyone holds to the so-called ‘free-will’ of man, that person has wrested grace from the hands of God and bestows it on the will of human beings. This is certainly something that the devil is quite proud of and is his work because it is nothing less than human beings wanting to be like God. That was his original promise to Eve.

Genesis 3:5 gives the heart of the original promise of Satan to the woman and tells us quite a bit about what the original sin looked like. “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” It is the promise to be like God, but also knowing good and evil. In other words, one part of the attractiveness of this lie was that true freedom was to be able to choose for yourself what good and evil is. It at least includes the power of ‘free-will’ which is to do as the person pleases as s/he sets his or her own standard of good. So the person is able to choose what s/he chooses and think of it as good as s/he pleases. The ‘free-will,’ then, is at the heart of the fall. It is still at the heart of human souls wanting to be like God.

It is because of the so-called ‘free-will’ that human beings still trust in themselves to be able to choose grace and to choose to apply grace when they please. The freedom to apply grace is certainly an attempt to usurp the rights of God as God alone can give grace as He pleases. Luther saw this so clearly and, while his work on The Bondage of the Will remains a classic, it does not appear to be read carefully or at least agreed with much at all. While it is the document of the Reformation that sets out the heart of the biblical Gospel better than any other, it does not seem to be agreed with too much in our day. A ‘free-will’ is that which is to be at war with God over who can give grace and when it can be given. For a human being to assert that his will is free is to assume the role of Divinity and to say and believe that the will can do that which God alone is free to do.

The Scripture tells us that man is dead in sins and trespasses and must be make alive by God. The Scripture tells us that man is completely helpless. The Scripture tells us that apart from Christ man can do nothing spiritual and can bear nothing regarding spiritual fruit. Yet so many today tell us that man can apply grace to himself. That is what the teaching of ‘free-will’ means. It is true that many may not say that they believe that, but what do they think a ‘free-will’ does with its freedom? What is it free to do? Is the will free from grace (so a ‘free-will’ must be to be free) and yet applies grace to itself at the same time? The will is never free from its utter inability and insufficiency before God. It is always utterly dependent on God and so it is not free at all in the spiritual realm.

Luther was blunt and straight to the point on this one. He saw this as something less than Christianity and thought that it was Pelagian. “Which means that nobody since the Pelagians has written of ‘free-will’ more correctly than Erasmus! For I said above that ‘free-will’ is a divine term, and signifies a divine power. But no one to date, except the Pelagians, has ever assigned to it such power.” While Luther says that this view is Pelagian and perhaps even beyond what the early Pelagians had stated, that is what is being taught today (either explicitly or implicitly) about the will. While people do not call themselves Pelagians when they assert their own power of the will, they are in fact precisely Pelagian in the area of the will. While many think of this as a minor area, Luther thought of it as going to the heart of the Reformation and the Gospel. We need to think, study, and pray through these areas once again. We cannot hope to see a true revival apart from the true Gospel, though many false fires may erupt from false gospels. No true Gospel can be preached that relies on the Pelagian view of the will even if it is called Reformed. While that sounds harsh, we must be clear that the true Gospel is all of grace and grace alone. Period.

Luther gives Erasmus’ definition of ‘free-will” in the following quote: “‘Moreover, I conceive of “free-will” in this context as a power of the human will by which a man may apply himself to those things that lead to eternal salvation or turn away from the same.’” Luther then responds to that definition with words that applied to Erasmus but should also make people wake up today. The definition that Erasmus gave was what so many think is true today and is the root of so many so-called “gospel appeals.” Luther’s reply is a shot across the bow of practically every denomination today as well.

What shocking language Erasmus writes here. It is shocking in light of Scripture which teaches us that the human soul can do nothing apart from Christ. It is shocking in light of God who is absolutely sovereign in all matters and in all places. It is shocking in light of the nature of grace which does not and cannot respond to anyone or anything but God alone. God only saves to the praise of the glory of His grace (Eph 1:5-7). When a soul is saved by grace, it is not saved because of a decision it makes or what it does. It is saved because of the choice of God and His choice is always because of Himself.

Luther, in response to Erasmus, says this: “Erasmus informs us, then, that ‘free-will’ is a power of the human will which can of itself will and not will the word and work of God.” This is also what people today assert when they stand up for ‘free-will.’ Luther gets at the heart of the situation and what the real issue is. For a will to be able to do what Erasmus says it can (and all others who assert ‘free-will’) that is a will that can will the work of God. If the will can will the work of God, then “what is here left to grace and the Holy Ghost? This is plainly to ascribe divinity to ‘free-will’! For to will the law and the gospel, not to will sin, and to will death, is possible to divine power alone.”

While Luther would be hated today by many who think of themselves as Reformed he had a knack for getting to the heart of the situation and laying it bare for all eyes to see. When the real teaching of ‘free-will’ is set out, it can be seen that for a will to be free in the sense of being able to apply to self the things of God that means that the will is able to do what God alone can do. God alone is free to give grace as He pleases. While Scripture sets out so clearly that it is God alone who is able to be gracious to whom He will be gracious, at the heart of the ‘free-will’ teaching is the idea that man can apply grace to himself or not or at least make a decision that God responds to and so gives grace. In Exodus 33:18 Moses prayed this: “I pray You, show me Your glory!” The Lord responded with this in verse19: “And He said, “I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of the LORD before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion.””

So Scripture shows that the glory of God is bound up with His showing grace to whom He will show grace to. Yet the teaching of ‘free-will’ is that man is able to apply grace to himself. Despite the protestations of others regarding this plain way of putting it, Luther was right. The teaching of ‘free-will’ is not only opposed to the Gospel of grace alone, it is also opposed to the sovereignty and glory of God. In a very real way ‘free-will’ is man trying to share in the glory and works of God. Yet Scripture tells us that God will not share His glory with another and that He saves to the glory of His grace. ‘Free-will’ is an attempt of man to be sovereign over himself and wrest that from God. ‘Free-will’ is the attempt of man to share in the glory of salvation. ‘Free-will’ is the attempt of man to apply grace to himself rather than look to the Lord to apply grace to him.

The Gospel of grace alone is under attack today from many places. One of those places is from those who assert ‘free-will’ and then those who will not stand up and declare what the teaching of ‘free-will’ really is. John Owen and many Puritans referred to ‘free-will’ as the idolatry of man. They were right. Yet today there are many in Reformed circles that think of ‘free-will’ as something that may not be quite right but does not effect the Gospel. It may not effect the gospel they preach, but the biblical Gospel of Christ alone and grace alone stands in opposition to ‘free-will” and its desire to ascend to the throne of the living God. The refusal to fight the teaching of ‘free-will’ and to join hands with those who teach it is a decision to stand against the Gospel of grace alone. You cannot have free grace and free-will at the same time unless it is God who has both of them. You cannot defend ‘free-will’ or those who teach it and free grace at the same time either. We live in a day where free grace is not truly defended much at all.

Luther gives Erasmus’ definition of ‘free-will” in the following quote: “‘Moreover, I conceive of “free-will” in this context as a power of the human will by which a man may apply himself to those things that lead to eternal salvation or turn away from the same.’” Luther then responds to that definition with words that applied to Erasmus but should also make people wake up today. The definition that Erasmus gave was what so many think is true today and is the root of so many so-called “gospel appeals.” Luther’s reply is a shot across the bow of practically every denomination today as well. Perhaps the creed of a particular church or denomination denies that, but what is the real belief in the depths of the heart? Even if the creed denies that, does the teaching of the church follow along the lines of Erasmus in the minds of the people? Do denominations and churches take the time to carefully explain that a person does not have the power to apply to self the things of eternal salvation? If we do not carefully explain to people that they cannot apply to themselves the things that lead to salvation, they will assume they can even if we teach through the creeds. The depraved heart is blind to spiritual things and it hates the idea that it cannot do for itself what needs to be done.

A church that claims to be Reformed can indeed proclaim the basic truths about Christ and what He has done and call people to believe or to trust in those. But is that anything different than a Pelagian could do? The Pelagian calls upon people to believe and assumes that people don’t need to be taught that they can believe if they want to. The Pelagian will call upon people to believe in the facts and assume that people know that they can make the choice if they please. But when professing Reformed people say the same words and do not tell people that it is not in their power to do so, they are doing nothing different and nothing better than the Pelagian. The Reformed person is at that point a practical Pelagian regardless of what his or her creed says. If you command a person to do something, that person will simply assume that s/he has the power to do it unless it is explained otherwise. So in the preaching and teaching of Reformed people across the land what we have is a practical Pelagianism. The Gospel of grace alone has been deeply hidden in and by the creeds of orthodoxy and Pelagianism is alive and “well” across our land and across the world. Anyone who stands up and says that we should teach these things is considered to be a hyper-Calvinist. While hyper-Calvinism is a problem, the fear of it as it is feared today actually drives people to being Pelagian in practice. Most of what people fear about hyper-Calvinism is really just the plain teachings of the doctrines of grace.

Luther responded to Erasmus with strong words, and in so doing indicted the modern generation as well. “I showed above that ‘free-will’ belongs to none but God only. You are no doubt right in assigning to man a will of some sort, but to credit him with a will that is free in the things of God is too much. For all who hear mention of ‘free-will’ take it to mean, in its proper sense, a will than can and does do, God-ward, all that it pleases, restrained by no law and no command; for you would not call a slave, who acts at the beck of his lord, free. But in that case how much less are we right to call men or angels free; for they live under the complete mastery of God (not to mention sin and death), and cannot continue by their own strength for a minute.”

If we would but spend a few hours on the previous paragraph it would change a lot about the way we view things. What do people think when we say that they have a ‘free-will” or even let them go on thinking that they are free in that sense? Can a will apply salvation to itself by its own choice and act when salvation is of grace from beginning to end? Can a person that clearly states that s/he has a free-will actually believe in the Gospel of grace alone? Can a person that believes that s/he has a free-will actually rest and trust in grace alone? Can a person that has never been taught the truth about the will rest in grace alone? The truth of the matter is that Luther was right. A belief about the nature of free-will is assumed by those who have not been taught what the Bible says about it. Salvation must be applied by someone. Either each person applies it to himself by an act of the will or the person is dead in sin and God applies it by grace. The Gospel of Scripture which is the Gospel of grace alone demands that we teach people that they cannot apply to themselves grace or we don’t truly teach the Gospel of grace alone. The will that chooses God and so God does something is a will that is choosing a gospel that is of works at the very heart of it. A will that is able to apply grace to itself is a will that can co what God alone can do. The Pelagian that teaches free-will is teaching that men can do what God alone can do and it is a gospel of works. The professing Reformed person that urges men to repent and believe and does not teach men about their deadness in sin and the truth of grace which alone can save men is doing nothing more than the Pelagian. What, then, is the real difference? This is one way that bridges are built between Pelagians and the professing Reformed in our day.