God Loves… Himself

Since, therefore, we have lost the meaning and the real reference of this glorious term, or, rather, have never grasped them (as was claimed by the Pelagians, who themselves mistook the phrase) why do we cling so tenaciously to an empty word, and endanger and delude faithful people in consequence?… But this false idea of ‘free-will’ is a real threat to salvation, and a delusion fraught with the most perilous consequences…If we do not want to drop this term altogether—which would really be the safest and most Christian thing to do—we may still in good faith teach people to use it to credit man with ‘free-will’ in respect, not of what is above him, but of what is below him. That is to say, man should realize that in regard to his money and possessions he has a right to use them, to do or to leave undone, according to his own ‘free-will’—though that very ‘free-will’ is overruled by the free-will of God alone, according to His own pleasure. However, with regard to God, and in all that bears on salvation or damnation, he has no ‘free-will’, but is a captive, prisoner and bondslave, either to the will of God, or to the will of Satan.
Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will

Martin Luther thought that his book The Bondage of the Will was his most important work. This is the book that set out his thinking on what was the most important issue or a necessary teaching in what was vital to the Reformation. He was so clear that the denial of ‘free-will’ was vital for the Gospel. The denial of ‘free-will’ was vital to understand the nature and ability of human beings and then of the sovereignty of God. Yet in our day this great and glorious truth, along with the corresponding truths of the utter inability of human souls and of the absolute sovereignty of God, are being denied. They are being denied by those who clearly and without equivocation deny them as true and they are being denied by those who give lip-service to the words of the teaching as true but deny them in reality.

In the quote from Luther above it is crystal clear that Luther thought of the teaching and application of ‘free-will’ as dangerous to everyone and contrary to the Gospel itself. He considered the doctrine of the enslaved will as vital to the Gospel itself. Galatians 1 is clear that there is no other Gospel and anyone who teaches a Gospel contrary to what Paul taught was to be anathema (eternally cursed). So we can be quite confident and state that what Luther taught was either in accordance with the teaching of Paul and Scripture or it was not. It seems clear that Luther put such a stress on the issue of the enslaved will that he thought it was vital to the Gospel. In fact, he thought that a person must deny his or her ‘free-will’ in order to be saved. A person cannot trust in his or her will and in Christ alone at the same time. A person cannot trust in the power (even if it is just a little) of his or her will and trust in the power of God in Christ alone at the same time. A person cannot trust in his own ability and the ability of God alone at the same time. A person cannot trust in his own work of the will and in grace alone at the same time. A person cannot trust in his own ability to believe and in the work of grace to give faith at the same time.

In the modern day it is thought that to be gracious is more important than to hold to grace alone. It is thought that we must work with all who hold to some basic teachings of Jesus Christ rather than be like Luther who believed that the ‘free-will’ must be denied in order to hold to Christ alone. In the modern day it is thought that we must work together with people who differ with us in the areas of the will and sovereign grace in order to have unity and see the kingdom progress. Yet with Luther he thought it was important to deny ‘free-will’ and assert sovereign grace in order that the Gospel would be preached. Luther thought that we must not work with those who deny the Gospel. Yet we must continue to face the question of whether Luther taught what Paul taught and the fact that the modern day does not teach what Luther taught.

So we must continue to face the question of whether the Gospel in its purity was set forth by God in the Reformation or not. If the pure Gospel was preached by Luther and Calvin in the Reformation, then it was the same Gospel that Paul preached. If Luther did not preach the Gospel that Paul preached, then he preached another gospel which is no Gospel at all. If Luther preached that the enslaved will was necessary to the teaching of sovereign grace (which is the only kind of grace there is), then if we don’t preach and teach it then we are not teaching the Gospel of grace alone. Paul preached a Gospel of grace alone. Did Luther? Modern people should realize that they have to think of Luther as preaching the pure Gospel or a false one. We cannot have it both ways. Yet if we want to hold that the Reformation was true, then what if we don’t preach what Luther did? The conclusion should be obvious, even if we don’t like it. The Gospel is rarely preached in our day.

Since, therefore, we have lost the meaning and the real reference of this glorious term, or, rather, have never grasped them (as was claimed by the Pelagians, who themselves mistook the phrase) why do we cling so tenaciously to an empty word, and endanger and delude faithful people in consequence?… But this false idea of ‘free-will’ is a real threat to salvation, and a delusion fraught with the most perilous consequences…If we do not want to drop this term altogether—which would really be the safest and most Christian thing to do—we may still in good faith teach people to use it to credit man with ‘free-will’ in respect, not of what is above him, but of what is below him. That is to say, man should realize that in regard to his money and possessions he has a right to use them, to do or to leave undone, according to his own ‘free-will’—though that very ‘free-will’ is overruled by the free-will of God alone, according to His own pleasure. However, with regard to God, and in all that bears on salvation or damnation, he has no ‘free-will’, but is a captive, prisoner and bondslave, either to the will of God, or to the will of Satan.
Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will

These words of Luther, once again, get at the very heart of Christianity. Language and words are so misleading and can lead to such danger that we must be very careful. Luther tells us that the term ‘free-will’ deludes faithful people and is a real threat to salvation and is a delusion fraught with the most perilous consequences. It is so easy to read over those words and go on. But if those things are true, then why do ministers just throw out these words with ease and not explain them? If the very idea of ‘free-will’ is so dangerous, then why don’t ministers labor to show how false, threatening, and even delusional that the idea is? Perhaps it is true that almost no one really believes what Luther taught in his day (the foundation of the Reformation) was and is true. Perhaps we do nothing but give lip-service to this great work on The Bondage of the Will and give it no real heed at all. To do so, however, is to ignore at our great peril what Luther said about the real Gospel.

In the modern day it appears that ministers are afraid to take on this issue of the will. If we teach people the truth about it, that will run them out of the churches. But if we don’t teach on this issue, it will put their souls and our own in great peril. For Luther there was no preaching of the Gospel of justification by grace alone through faith alone apart from teaching on the bondage of the will. For Luther, then, souls are put in great peril when this is not taught because there is no Gospel apart from it. This should be pounded on over and over from the pulpits across the land but now we are told that it is not important to the Gospel. Perhaps it is not important to the so-called gospel that is preached across America today, but it is utterly vital to the biblical Gospel of grace alone.

The blunt truth of the matter is that souls have no ‘free-will’ in terms of true salvation and are in the hands of the one and only sovereign God who can do with them as He pleases. Each and every soul is either a slave of Christ or a slave of the devil. Each and every soul is under the dominion of either Christ or the devil. Each and every soul is either in the kingdom of God or of the devil. There is no third option. There is not an option that a soul is under the dominion of his or her own free-will. No soul is a slave to his or her own will in terms of ultimate reality, though that is what it appears to be like. Slavery to the self is really slavery to the devil who is the ultimate in sinful self.

If we do not teach the truth about the inability of the soul, we will not teach a Gospel of grace alone. If we do not teach people their utter peril of trusting in their own ‘free-will,’ then we will not teach people the utter necessity of resting in Christ alone for all things and that includes faith. If we call people to Christ without instructing them of the peril of coming to Christ in their own strength, they will be deluded. It appears that the “shepherds” in our land are so afraid of teaching this that the Gospel is virtually lost in our land and we are given over to the children of libertines and Pharisees. But these things are part of the perils of souls who do not teach the truth about the will. In America the Gospel of grace alone has virtually been lost, and that is true among those who think they are the theological sons and daughters of the Reformation. Part of the problem is that we no longer think it is important stress the fact that human souls are not free but are in bondage. Perhaps that is one aspect of human souls being in bondage.

Since, therefore, we have lost the meaning and the real reference of this glorious term, or, rather, have never grasped them (as was claimed by the Pelagians, who themselves mistook the phrase) why do we cling so tenaciously to an empty word, and endanger and delude faithful people in consequence? There is no more wisdom in so doing than there is in the modern foible of kings and potentates, who retain, or lay claim to, empty titles of kingdoms and countries, and flaunt them, while all the time they are really paupers, and anything but the possessors of those kingdoms and countries. We can tolerate their antics, for they fool nobody, but just feed themselves up—unprofitably enough—on their own vainglory. But this false idea of ‘free-will’ is a real threat to salvation, and a delusion fraught with the most perilous consequences.    (Martin Luther,  The Bondage of the Will)

Luther, quite clearly, was against even the use of ‘free-will’ in preaching and theology. He was not just against the phrase, but was against using the idea itself. This is a loud exclamation to his teaching on the subject. No only did Luther believe that the teaching of the bondage of the will was necessary to the Gospel, but he saw that even the words ‘free-will’ were dangerous. As he demonstrated earlier, the term is really an empty word which conveys no truth and reality. So why do people continue to use it?

So many wish to think of themselves as Reformed in the modern day and still hold to the phrase ‘free-will’ and not be ashamed to join together with those who hate the teaching of the bound will. Luther is held up as one who “re-discovered” justification by faith alone, yet so few realize what he really meant by it. They show this when they refuse to hold with Luther his fear and utter disdain of the concept and words ‘free-will.” To Luther, who was ready to lose his life over justification by faith alone, the denial of ‘free-will’ and adherence to bondage of the will was necessary to believe in justification by faith alone. One the one hand he said that it endangered and deluded faithful people. On the other, and perhaps more strongly, he said that “this false idea of ‘free-will’ is a real threat to salvation, and a delusion fraught with the most perilous consequences.” One again, he wrote this book to show what justification by faith alone really meant. To put it simply and bluntly, Luther would deny in clear terms anyone who said that s/he believed in justification by faith alone if they denied the bondage of the will. He would ask how a person can deny the heart of the gospel and yet hold to the outside of it.

Why is it that people in the modern day refuse to denounce ‘free-will’ as something which threatens the Gospel? On a theological level it is because they don’t understand what Luther taught that the Bible taught about justification by faith alone. On a personal level, they don’t want to deal with the loss of positions, honor, and the esteem of others. This is nothing different than the Pharisees who loved the approval of men more than the approval of God. While the Pharisees prayed, fasted, and gave alms for the approval of men, modern day folks preach, teach, and hold denominational positions for the approval of men. They hold to the thought of being Reformed or biblical on one side of the issue but their hearts are still in the grips of the approval of others. Yes, it is hard for people to come out of the Reformed closet and state the clear truth about justification by faith alone. But when they don’t, perhaps they are demonstrating the bondage of the will even though they will not teach it.

Jesus said that “whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes in His glory, and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels” (Luke 9:26). Well, some will say, “I certainly believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ and in salvation in His name alone. But if I denounce free-will and hold to the bondage of the will and its importance to the gospel, then I will lose my position, my church, and respect of all I know.” Jesus also said that “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:44). Those are His words as well. There is no following Christ and being unashamed to follow Him apart from teaching what He taught. He did not teach the ‘free-will’ of man, but instead taught the bondage of the will over and over. There is no Gospel but a Gospel of grace alone. Unless we teach the bondage of the will and apply it to our own souls and the souls of others, we do not teach the Gospel of grace alone which means we cannot teach justification by faith alone as well. Why do people continue to use the term ‘free-will’ in our day? It is because they will not follow Jesus Christ in proclaiming the Gospel regardless of what men said about Him or did to Him. John Owen said that ‘free-will’ was an idol. We must repent of our idols.

Since, therefore, we have lost the meaning and the real reference of this glorious term, or, rather, have never grasped them (as was claimed by the Pelagians, who themselves mistook the phrase) why do we cling so tenaciously to an empty word, and endanger and delude faithful people in consequence? There is no more wisdom in so doing than there is in the modern foible of kings and potentates, who retain, or lay claim to, empty titles of kingdoms and countries, and flaunt them, while all the time they are really paupers, and anything but the possessors of those kingdoms and countries. We can tolerate their antics, for they fool nobody, but just feed themselves up—unprofitably enough—on their own vainglory. But this false idea of ‘free-will’ is a real threat to salvation, and a delusion fraught with the most perilous consequences.                    Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will

Luther was a lot different than modern people who want to join hands with those who hold to ‘free-will’ for the purposes of getting the “gospel” to the world. The problem with that, however, is that Luther thought of ‘free-will’ as being a real threat to salvation. How can those who hold to the Gospel of grace alone hold hands with those who say they believe it but their theology demands that they cannot believe it? In the words of the Southern Presbyterian John L. Girardeau, the anthropology of the Arminian “is not essentially different from the Socinian and Pelagian.” He goes on to say this: “the distinctive doctrines of Arminianism not only make salvation impossible by denying that it is by grace, but also implying that it is by works. Not that it is intended to say that Arminians in so many words affirm this.” But even more, according to Girardeau, “The question is, do the peculiar tenets of the Arminian scheme necessitate the inference that salvation is by works? I shall attempt to show that they do.”

It is no wonder that the state of true religion (Christianity) is at such low ebb today. It is not just that the vast majority of people hold to a scheme of salvation that holds to works in some way for salvation or at least implies it, but those who claim to be Reformed and hold to sovereign grace alone for salvation are holding hands with those who clearly do not hold that. They are building bridges and working together, yet they are holding hands with those that hold views that are clearly contradictory to the Gospel of grace alone. Luther is so clear that the teaching of ‘free-will’ in the arena of salvation is “a delusion fraught with the most perilous consequences.” Yet today we have people who think of themselves as Reformed who see no difference in the gospel they preach than that of Arminians and Pelagians. When we don’t see a real difference, perhaps there is no real difference.

A.W. Tozer said that our creeds can be used to hide our real theology from us. So when a person with a Reformed creed evangelizes and has the same gospel as that of Arminians and Pelagians, we can assume that the creed has hidden an Arminian or Pelagian heart from that person. If those who evangelize and preach the same gospel as Arminians and Pelagians do, then we can assume that those people in the depths of their souls are Arminians and Pelagians. In the old days men who were Reformed stood against the Arminian and Pelagian distortions of the Gospel of grace alone. Today we are more tolerant and gracious. It seems that men would rather be tolerant of that which is a threat to real salvation and a delusion with perilous consequences than they are with those who hold to the true doctrines of grace alone.

So in our day denominations are attempting to join those who say they believe in grace alone and those who don’t in some form of unity. How can a person who really believes in the Gospel of grace alone join hands with those who truly don’t? I would submit that a person who loves the Gospel of grace alone cannot support the preaching of those who don’t preach grace alone even by inference. The teaching of ‘free-will’ in the area of the Gospel of grace alone is dangerous and the lovers of the Gospel should not hold hands with them. It is that dangerous and we should not tolerate this even if it means that we are outcasts. Self-denial is not about denying ourselves various luxuries, but it is also about denying error at the cost of friendships and of denominations. Those who hold the true Gospel of grace alone must not give in to anything less and should be willing to lose the whole world and all besides in order to stand for the true Gospel. When we don’t, what we see in the Unites States will happen and continue to spiral down at a rapid pace. May God give us grace in our intestinal fortitude to stand for the Gospel of grace alone and turn from all that is not.

Since, therefore, we have lost the meaning and the real reference of this glorious term, or, rather, have never grasped them (as was claimed by the Pelagians, who themselves mistook the phrase) why do we cling so tenaciously to an empty word, and endanger and delude faithful people in consequence? There is no more wisdom in so doing than there is in the modern foible of kings and potentates, who retain, or lay claim to, empty titles of kingdoms and countries, and flaunt them, while all the time they are really paupers, and anything but the possessors of those kingdoms and countries. We can tolerate their antics, for they fool nobody, but just feed themselves up—unprofitably enough—on their own vainglory. But this false idea of ‘free-will’ is a real threat to salvation, and a delusion fraught with the most perilous consequences.                                  Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will

The concept and idea of ‘free-will’ has been lost and according to Luther was lost even in his day. Luther saw it as an empty word, that is, without any real meaning in one sense. But in using this term the false ideas that it conveys deludes even faithful people. Why should people continue to use the term since it deludes even faithful people? If it deludes the faithful it utterly deceives those who are not. Why would we want to deceive those we are proclaiming the Gospel to? While it may be the case that the term ‘free-will’ could be used if it is extensively explained both as to what it is and what it is not, it would be much simpler and more accurate not to use the term at all.

So many today want to say things like free-will and God’s sovereignty as if both things can be true. In fact, the sovereignty of God may describe  His free-will, yet man cannot truly be free in the way that people naturally think of when they hear the term since God is sovereign. The whole concept of ‘free-will’ is from a humanistic idea of a people that are centered upon humanity. That is patently false and is really a form of idolatry. Human beings are created by God and for God. They can only find their true meaning and the limits of the so-called will according to who He is. There is no such thing as free-will in the universe when human beings are either slaves of the devil and sin or slaves of Christ. Those who are slaves of the devil are actually slaves of self rather than having a freedom of self. The self is in slavery to the devil and self. The devil works through the human self in order to carry out his will, while Christ lives in His people and works in them to do according to the will of God. In other words, the self is never free from the bondage of sin and the devil until it is translated into the kingdom of Christ. When it is in the kingdom of Christ, it is then a slave of righteousness. Whether the soul is the slave of the devil or of God the soul has no power to do good apart from Christ and that which comes from Christ. The will is never free, then, to do good. Christ alone is free to do good and to do it through His people.

Luther spoke of those who were in fact paupers and yet would lay claim to kingdoms and countries. He thought of those as rather harmless in one sense and yet filled with vainglory. In other words, there were people who were beggars who owned nothing and yet would try to pass themselves off as those who owned countries and kingdoms. That is much like human beings who claim to have “free-will’ in our day. God alone has ‘free-will’ in any meaningful sense of the word and yet human beings think of it as obvious that they have it. Yet it is far less for a pauper to lay claim to a kingdom and much riches than it is for a human being to lay claim to ‘free-will” which God alone has in any meaningful way. Indeed paupers filled themselves with pride in their claim to have kingdoms, but so do human beings who fill themselves with pride in their claim to have ‘free-will.’ It is nothing more than an attempt to ascend to the throne of God when it is seen for what it really is. It is man being like God.

But to go on, the idea of human beings having ‘free-will’ is a real threat to salvation. It is not that people have ‘free-will’ to choose to be saved and so to deny this ‘free-will’ is dangerous to evangelism, but to assert it is what is the real threat to salvation. It is a threat because it is “a delusion fraught with the most perilous consequences.” A person who thinks that s/he can repent and believe as s/he pleases is a person who thinks that s/he can do what God alone can do as s/he pleases. That person will trust in self rather than in God to save. That person will put off seeking God to be born again trusting in self to be able to do it when it wants to. Oh how Pelagianism and its forms (including Arminianism) are so destructive to the true Gospel. Luther, who in a sense re-discovered justification by faith alone thought of the teaching of ‘free-will’ as a threat to salvation. Yet today those who call themselves Reformed have no problem of thinking of ‘free-will’ as no real threat to truth and the Gospel. We have descended into spiritual darkness once again that at least rivals the time of Luther and the Reformation. However, in our day this teaching of ‘free-will’ is widespread and has brought about mass delusion. Perhaps we are more deceived.

It is a settled truth, then, even on the basis of your own testimony, that we do everything of necessity, and nothing by ‘free-will’; for the power of ‘free-will’ is nil, and it does no good, nor can do, without grace…It follows, therefore, that ‘free-will’ is obviously a term applicable only to the Divine Majesty; for only He can do, and does (as the Psalmist sings) “whatever he wills in heaven and earth’ (Ps. 135:6). If ‘free-will’ is ascribed to men, it is ascribed with no more propriety than divinity itself would be—and no blasphemy could exceed that! So it befits theologians to refrain from using the term when they want to speak of human ability, and leave it to be applied to God only. They would do well also to take the term out of men’s mouths and speech, and to claim it for their God, as if it were His own holy and awful Name. If they must at all hazards assign some power to men, let them teach that it must be denoted by some other term than ‘free-will’; especially since we know from our own observation that the mass of men are sadly deceived and misled by this phrase. The meaning which it conveys to their minds is far removed from anything that theologians believe and discuss. The term ‘free-will’ is too grandiose and comprehensive and fulsome. People think it means what the natural force of the phrase would require, namely, a power of freely turning in any direction, yielding to none and subject to none. Martin Luther, Bondage of the Will

It is an enlightening thought of Luther’s to say that theologians should refrain from using the term ‘free-will’ in reference to men and only claim it for God. What do people think they have when they are told that they have a ‘free-will’ or if it is just assumed that they have one? Does the natural man, even if some things are explained to him or her, assume that s/he has the power to do as s/he pleases? The natural man that is dead to spiritual things would assume that s/he has the power to do what is needed unless it was clearly explained to him or her. Much like the Ethiopian eunuch who was asked by Philip if he “understand what” he was “reading?” The reply to this was this: “Well, how could I, unless someone guides me?” How are people to understand their own nature and inability if no one explains it to them? How will people understand the sovereignty of true grace if no one explains it to them? But today in the flight from biblical teaching we want people to make a decision for Jesus and call it an act of faith. We want people to pray a prayer and call it faith. But we don’t explain to them from Scripture their sinful nature, their inability, and the truth of grace. Even among so-called Reformed circles these things are not considered to be essential or important.

What happens when we use the term “free-will” and don’t explain what it means? As Luther points out, people just assume that it means that they can turn any direction they please and that it all depends on them. What if someone tells them that they are dead in their sins without explaining it to them? They will come up with their own idea of what that means and so it is the same thing as teaching error. What happens if we don’t teach people that being dead in sin means that they are unable to repent and believe unless God gives them a new heart? They will just assume that they can repent and believe in their own strength and power and they will perform some acts that they believe is true repentance and faith from their own power and so they will be greatly deceived. There is a great deception going on in our day because people will not teach the truth. If we teach the truth the Arminians and Pelagians will not like it and people will not fill our buildings, or at least that is what we think. But if we don’t teach the truth at this essential point we will be filling our buildings with unbelievers and will have deceived them.

If, as Luther says, nothing good can really be done by using the term ‘free-will,’ then why is it still being used? If nothing beneficial can be done by using it, but really only cause harm, then great harm has been done and is still being done by those who use it. But even more, if we don’t declare the truth that the opposite of ‘free-will’ is true; we will also be doing great harm. Many people are being deceived today by those who have the name “Reformed” but who in fact are to some degree or another Pelagian in their hearts. When we don’t tell people the truth of the nature of their own hearts, they will remain deceived about who they really are and the power that they think they have. If they are never brought to an end of their own self-sufficiency and power they think they have, they will never repent of their pride and self and so will never truly see the need of a new heart and a real faith in Christ. It is that serious and Luther believed that. He really believed that.

If they must at all hazards assign some power to men, let them teach that it must be denoted by some other term than ‘free-will’; especially since we know from our own observation that the mass of men are sadly deceived and misled by this phrase. The meaning which it conveys to their minds is far removed from anything that theologians believe and discuss. The term ‘free-will’ is too grandiose and comprehensive and fulsome. People think it means what the natural force of the phrase would require, namely, a power of freely turning in any direction, yielding to none and subject to none.  Martin Luther, Bondage of the Will

Luther was very concerned about what people thought the term ‘free-will’ meant. It is thought to be virtually heretical (if not fully heretical) even by many people who think of themselves as Reformed to deny free-will. But Luther understood that to use the term without a lot of definition and clear teaching people will misunderstand what is meant. Notice that he uses the language that “if the must at all hazards assign some power to men.” He is afraid that when we assign power to men it is a great hazard to do so. Luther was far less afraid of hyper-Calvinism (what we would call it today) than he was of assigning power to human beings by using the term ‘free-will.” He thought that the meaning conveyed to the minds of the people would be far different than what the theologians meant by it. But today the theologians evidently believe much of what the people then misunderstood.

While it is the standard today for people to fight if one does not want to use the phrase ‘free-will,’ that comes from a human-centered point of view. Luther was God-centered and so he was afraid that people would think of their own power too highly in light of the sovereignty of God. Today people are afraid of human beings and want to water down the sovereignty of God in order to make people feel better. Indeed we are so backwards in our day that we have seeker-sensitive churches and seeker-sensitive services that do nothing but water everything down so that the so-called seeker will be comfortable. While the term “seeker-sensitive” is old, the idea is still prevalent. But we are supposed to seek God first and foremost. We are supposed to seek God above all things. When the church is at worship it is supposed to seek God in spirit and truth rather than make seekers comfortable. If a person is truly seeking God, then that person will not be comfortable. The presence of a holy, holy, holy God is not comfortable to anyone outside of Christ at any time, and believers are uncomfortable when God comes among His people.

The natural man understands the term ‘free-will’ as the power to turn himself and choose what he wants to. He thinks that he can choose to do good as he pleases and that he can choose God for salvation as he pleases. The term ‘free-will’ in that sense is utterly opposed to the Gospel of grace alone and that was what Luther fought. He defended the grace and glory of God and not human beings. Human beings have to understand God in truth in order to understand themselves. The priority must be to defend the freedom and sovereignty of God at all costs rather than the so-called ‘free-will’ of man which is so misunderstood and vaults man to the throne of God. If preachers are going to be faithful to the Gospel of Jesus Christ in any day the common idea of ‘free-will’ must be taken on and attacked in order for people to understand the Gospel.

The Belgic Confession sets this out with clarity:
Therefore we reject all that is taught repugnant to this concerning the free will of man, since man is but a slave to sin and has nothing himself unless it is given him from heaven. For who may presume to boast that he of himself can do any good, since Christ saith, No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him? Who will glory in his own will, who understands that to be carnally minded is enmity with God? Who can speak of his knowledge, since the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God? In short, who dare suggest any thought, since he knows that we are not sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves, but that our sufficiency is of God? And therefore what the apostle saith ought justly to be held sure and firm, that God worketh in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure. For there is no will nor understanding conformable to the divine will and understanding but what Christ hath wrought in man, which He teaches us when He saith, Without Me ye can do nothing.

The language of this Confession is stark and clear. It sets out what is true and what is false. It leaves us with virtually no wiggle room at all. Man is a slave to sin and has nothing unless it is given him from heaven. No one of himself can do any good thing. No one can be or do or understand anything conformable to the divine will but what Christ does in the person. The Confession here is quite clear in denouncing the so-called ‘free-will’ of man in many ways. It allows for no good to come from a man other than what Christ has worked. So clearly there can be no good choice of a human soul to make for God unless Christ has worked in that soul a new heart. The teaching of the enslaved will is necessary to the Gospel of grace alone that comes from the one and only Sovereign God.

It is a settled truth, then, even on the basis of your own testimony, that we do everything of necessity, and nothing by ‘free-will’; for the power of ‘free-will’ is nil, and it does no good, nor can do, without grace…It follows, therefore, that ‘free-will’ is obviously a term applicable only to the Divine Majesty; for only He can do, and does (as the Psalmist sings) “whatever he wills in heaven and earth’ (Ps. 135:6). If ‘free-will’ is ascribed to men, it is ascribed with no more propriety than divinity itself would be—and no blasphemy could exceed that! So it befits theologians to refrain from using the term when they want to speak of human ability, and leave it to be applied to God only. They would do well also to take the term out of men’s mouths and speech, and to claim it for their God, as if it were His own holy and awful Name. If they must at all hazards assign some power to men, let them teach that it must be denoted by some other term than ‘free-will’; especially since we know from our own observation that the mass of men are sadly deceived and misled by this phrase. The meaning which it conveys to their minds is far removed from anything that theologians believe and discuss. The term ‘free-will’ is too grandiose and comprehensive and fulsome. People think it means what the natural force of the phrase would require, namely, a power of freely turning in any direction, yielding to none and subject to none.                       Martin Luther, Bondage of the Will

If the will does nothing good and can do nothing good apart from grace, then clearly the will is not free to do good apart from grace. The will, therefore, is not free. The term “free-will,” therefore, is a term that really can only be used of God. The will that is free, that is, has the power to do as it pleases, can only be ascribed to God alone and ascribing it to human beings is blasphemy in that regard. While it may be the case that it is not improper to refer to the will as free in certain limited regards, this is not how most people use or understand the term. Luther is getting at what people usually understand the term to mean. Most people think of ‘free-will’ as meaning the freedom to do what a person pleases to do. But the Bible does not assign that power to human souls at all. God alone can do as He pleases and be subject to no one else.

Luther spoke of how it is blasphemy to assign the power to do what the will pleases to human beings. In this he is looking at things from a God-centered perspective. In the modern day human souls are the focus of self and thought to have virtually boundless ability to do as they please and resist God as they please. But Luther saw that as man taking self to the throne of God. In other words, the teaching of ‘free-will’ was no minor issue to Luther. In fact, he had no use for the term as people used it and thought that it was ascribing to man what should only be ascribed to God. Yet today we have people who think of themselves as Reformed building bridges to Arminians if not Pelagians while they get angry at those who stand on the teaching of election and the bondage of the will. We truly live in amazing times.

The Belgic Confession speaks very clearly to this as well:

Therefore we reject all that is taught repugnant to this concerning the free will of man, since man is but a slave to sin and has nothing himself unless it is given him from heaven. For who may presume to boast that he of himself can do any good, since Christ saith, No man can come to Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him? Who will glory in his own will, who understands that to be carnally minded is enmity with God? Who can speak of his knowledge, since the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God? In short, who dare suggest any thought, since he knows that we are not sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves, but that our sufficiency is of God? And therefore what the apostle saith ought justly to be held sure and firm, that God worketh in us both to will and to do of His good pleasure. For there is no will nor understanding conformable to the divine will and understanding but what Christ hath wrought in man, which He teaches us when He saith, Without Me ye can do nothing.

So we have Luther and the Belgic Confession speaking with a great deal of clarity on this issue. All teaching concerning the free will of man in salvation was repugnant to the writers of that confession. While it was at the very least repugnant to the writers, to Luther it was blasphemous. That was what the Reformed people used to believe. What does it say about our day? To say the least we have fallen a long way.

Note, however, that if we meant by ‘the power of free-will’ the power which makes human beings fit subjects to be caught up by the Spirit and touched by God’s grace, as creatures made for eternal life or eternal death, we should have a proper definition. And I certainly acknowledge the existence of this power, this fitness, or ‘dispositional quality’ and ‘passive aptitude’ (as the Sophists call it), which, as everyone knows, is not given to plants or animals. As the proverb says, God did not make heaven for geese!                                   Martin Luther, Bondage of the Will

Luther hits on a vital point here and that is getting at what the will is and its location among the real powers that control things. Human beings have a will which makes them subjects by which the Spirit can work on them and live in them in order that they may will to love God and be instruments of His glory. Human beings have a will that makes them subjects with obligations that have to do with eternal life and eternal death. Luther thinks of this as a ‘dispositional quality’ or ‘passive aptitude.’ These are things that animals and plants do not have. However, neither is a ‘free-will’ something that humans have that makes them like God.

Human beings are fallen into sin and as such are governed by self and pride. The original temptation given to Eve was that she would be like God. In this human beings are still given over to it and this teaching regarding the will demonstrates this as clearly as anything does. The modern idea of a ‘free-will’ would never even enter the mind of a person that had never fallen. A person that had never fallen would not want a ‘free-will’ as described by so many philosophers and theologians. That person would recognize that it is the desire to be like god and that to be free would be to be free of the power and wisdom of God’s grace and love and to be left to the power of self. This would be intolerable to the soul that loved God in truth and love. The soul that loves God does not want to be free as such but instead to be a slave of the living God and a slave to His grace and love. In that slavery is true freedom to love to the glory of God where the will that is free (so-called) is in real bondage to self and pride.

In this we have an analogy in the Scriptures with life. All are commanded to give up their lives so that they may have true life, yet if they do not they will lose their lives. In giving up and denying one form of life one finds true life, yet if one seeks what is thought of as life on this planet one loses real life. So those who desire their ‘free-will” will find that they are in real bondage, yet those who desire to be the slaves of Christ will find true freedom. The will is not and never will be free to love and live to the glory of God apart from the power of grace and love in the soul. It was never made to be free in that sense. Neither was the will made to be able to choose and control grace and love our of a libertarian freedom. The human soul was made to be at the feet of God and to be at His pleasure.

There is no libertarian freedom anywhere in all existence. God is utterly free to do all He pleases in one sense, but He is not free to be holy and then to do something that contradicts His holiness. The devil is always restrained by the hand of God and the devil cannot choose to do good and to love. Human beings are always ruled over and the slaves of either the devil or Christ. There are no other choices and there are no other powers. Human beings are born dead in sin and trespasses and so their dispositions and aptitudes are towards sin and only sin. It takes the new birth by the hand of God to be rescued from the dominion of darkness and transferred to the kingdom of the Beloved Son (Col 1:13). There is no freedom to do that for self. No human being is more powerful than the devil and cannot rescue self from self and the devil. Only God can do that. Yet after the human being has been rescued there is also no power to live in love and holiness but that of the grace of God. So human beings were not and never will be free. We are always ruled over by another and are always in one kingdom or another.

This teaching of Luther from the Bible should wake up those who are living as if they have free-will regardless of their theological profession. “Free-will” as commonly taught is really a form of bondage and is teaching people that they can do what they cannot do. It is as dangerous as it is popular. Human beings simply do not want to face the fact that when they live as if they have ‘free-wills’ they are actually a demonstration of the fall where humanity wanted to be as God. The devil wanted to be as God and then deceived human beings into believing that. The deception goes on.

You describe the power of ‘free-will’ as small, and wholly ineffective apart from the grace of God. Agreed? Now then, I ask you; if God’s grace is wanting [lacking], if it is taken away from that small power, what can it do? It is ineffective, you say, and can do nothing good. So it will not do what God or His grace wills. Why? Because we have now taken God’s grace away from it, and what the grace of God does not do is not good. Hence it follows that ‘free-will’ without God’s grace is not free at all, but is the permanent prisoner and bondslave of evil, since it cannot turn itself to good. This being so, I give you full permission to enlarge the power of ‘free-will’ as much as you like; make it angelic, make it divine, if you can!—but when once you add this doleful transcript, that it is ineffective apart from God’s grace, straightaway you rob it of all its power. What is ineffective power but (in plain language) no power? So to say that ‘free-will’ exists and has power, albeit ineffective power, is, in the Sophists’ phrase, a contradiction in terms. It is like saying ‘“free-will” is something which is not free’—as if you said that fire is cold and earth hot. Fire certainly has power to heat; but if hell-fire (even) was cold and chilling instead of burning and scorching, I would not call it ‘fire’, let alone ‘hot’ (unless you meant to refer to an imaginary fire, or a painted one).        Martin Luther, Bondage of the Will

The doctrine concerning the freedom of the will cannot be separated from the concept of the power of the will. The will is not free to carry out what it desires if it does not have the power to do so. The natural man hates the teaching on the bondage of the will and anything that does away with his freedom, but Scripture is what sets out the truth of the matter and not the desires of fallen man. If the Bible says that those in the flesh or those whose minds are set on the flesh is death and hostile toward God, then that is the truth of the matter and not what human beings desire to be the case.

Romans 8:6 puts the matter out of reach in many ways for those who assert freedom of the will. “For the mind set on the flesh is death, but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace, 7 because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.” The text gives us two options for the soul. That mind that is set on the flesh is a mind that is in spiritual death. The mind that is set on the Spirit is a mind that is set on spiritual things and partakes of the fruit of spiritual things (life and peace). Verse 7 starts off with the word “because” and gives us a reason that verse 6 is true. That reason is that the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God and does not subject itself to God. The last part of verse 7 tells us why the mind does not subject itself to the law of God, “for it is not even able.” The mind set on the flesh is not free to choose as it will, but instead it has no ability to do so.

The heart wants to rise against that and assert its freedom. It does not want to admit that it has no ability to subject itself to the law of God. It reasons that it does not lie, steal, and does not commit adultery. In doing so, it thinks, it loves God. But the soul is to do what it does and not to do what it does not do out of love for God. The simply doing and not doing according to command does not mean that the soul loves God. It may simply mean that it does not want to be punished for doing or not doing against a particular command. The mind set on the flesh is hostile to God and does not love God in what it does. The mind that is hostile to God cannot love God and has no freedom or ability to do so because it has no power to love what it hates. The soul that is set on the flesh cannot please God in any way, shape, form, or fashion in reality.

Until a human being has some grasp of what original sin (his or her own) and the bondage of sin that entails a human being (self) does not understand the Gospel. Salvation is not just from some sin and hell in the future, it is from a heart that is hostile to God and hates God. Salvation is from a sinful nature that cannot please God in any way. A heart that is hostile to God and dead in its sins and trespasses is a heart that is not free to love and obey God. This heart cannot please God in any way and that includes an act of belief or faith. The soul is not saved because it believes, but it is saved when and only when the hostility of it toward God is taken away. Only then is there an ability and power in the soul to please God when it is grace that is working in the soul to do so. Only then is the soul a true image of God. The enslaved will is a necessary teaching as the dark background upon which the glory of sovereign grace is displayed so that human beings may behold the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.