God Loves… Himself

To accept the principles which Martin Luther vindicates in The Bondage of the Will would certainly involve a mental and spiritual revolution for many Christians at the present time. It would involve a radically different approach to preaching and the practice of evangelism, and to most other departments of theology and pastoral work as well. God centered thinking is out of fashion to-day, and it recovery will involve something of a Copernican revolution in our outlook on many matters. But ought we to shrink from this? Do we not stand in urgent need of such teaching as Luther here gives us—teaching which humbles man, strengthens faith, and glorifies God—and is not the contemporary Church weak for the lack of it? The issue is clear. We are compelled to ask ourselves: If the Almighty God of the Bible is to be our God, if the New Testament gospel is to be our message, if Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to-day and for ever—is any other position than Luther’s possible? Are we not in all honesty bound to stand with him in ascribing all might, and majesty, and dominion, and power, and all the glory of our salvation to God alone? Surely no more important or far-reaching question confronts the Church to-day (Johnson and Packer’s introduction to Luther’s Bondage of the Will).

The principles advocated by Luther would certainly involve a mental and spiritual revolution for virtually all Christians and for professing Christians. As 16th century people were blinded by the religion and culture of their day, so is ours. Scripture warns against self-deception, the deception of sin, and the deception of the Deceiver. All of these deceptions can happen in the professing Church and in culture. The world that has virtually taken over the professing Church will stand against true Christianity in the world and in the Church. The manner, method, content, and aim of preaching and evangelism are not even close to what it was during the Reformation and then for some time after. What follows is from the Puritan preacher and writer, John Owen,

Let me add this to them who are preachers of the word, or intend, through the good hand of God, that employment: It is their duty to plead with men about their sins, to lay hold on particular sins, but always remember that it be done with that which is the proper end of law and gospel;–that is, that they make use of the sin they speak against to the discovery of the state and condition wherein the sinner is; otherwise, haply, they may work men to formality and hypocrisy, but little of the true end of preaching the gospel will be brought about. It will not avail to beat a man off from his drunkenness into a sober formality. A skilful master of the assemblies lays his axe at the root, drives still at the heart. To inveigh against particular sins of ignorant, unregenerate persons, such as the land is full of, is a good work; but yet, though it may be done with great efficacy, vigour, and success, if this be all the effect of it, that they are set upon the most sedulous endeavors of mortifying their sins preached down, all that is done is but like the beating of an enemy in an open field, and driving him into an impregnable castle, not to be prevailed against. Get you at any time a sinner at the advantage, on the account of any one sin whatever? Have you any thing to take hold of him by?—bring it to his state and condition, drive it up the head, and there deal with him. To break men off particular sins, and not to break their hearts, is to deprive ourselves of advantages of dealing with them (Of The Mortification of Sin in Believers).

The words of Owen in a very real sense are nothing more than an enlargement of Scripture which tells us that people will gather to themselves teachers who will tickle their ears rather than preach the truth (II Tim 4:3). Even Paul, who brought the Gospel to so many, exclaimed this: “So have I become your enemy by telling you the truth?” (Gal 4:16). The truth is not heard gladly by most people. We must not nod our heads and think that these things are not true of those who are orthodox. How many have eased up in preparation or in an actual sermon out of fear that it would make folks mad? Oh, sure, we will use language to excuse our sin. We will say that we don’t want to offend people or don’t want to harm those who are spiritually weak. But it is easy for the orthodox to tickle the ears of the hearers who love orthodoxy as well. It is easy to deal with the known sin of the world and go after that. It is easy to go after the sin of the liberals. It is easy to even go after certain sins and think we have done our duty. But do we really deal with the hearts of the listeners? Sure we will use the word “heart” and so on, but do we really try to show men, women, and children their utter helplessness in their sin? That might mean that we would be accused of being a hyper-Calvinist or of going too far. The real danger, however, is that we will not go far enough and leave many people deceived in their sin. We will drive people into an armory of self-deception where their hearts are hardened and our weak weapons aimed at the outside in nice words will make no impression at all. Our gracious words will do nothing but bounce off hardened hearts and be heard in a way that confirms people in their sin. That is not preaching in the Reformation way at all. It is not how Luther said we must teach if the Gospel is to be interpreted correctly. It is preaching in a modern way that leaves people in their sin while deceived about their eternal destinies. It will take a radical revolution in our preaching before we see change.

To accept the principles which Martin Luther vindicates in The Bondage of the Will would certainly involve a mental and spiritual revolution for many Christians at the present time. It would involve a radically different approach to preaching and the practice of evangelism, and to most other departments of theology and pastoral work as well. God centered thinking is out of fashion to-day, and it recovery will involve something of a Copernican revolution in our outlook on many matters. But ought we to shrink from this? Do we not stand in urgent need of such teaching as Luther here gives us—teaching which humbles man, strengthens faith, and glorifies God—and is not the contemporary Church weak for the lack of it? The issue is clear. We are compelled to ask ourselves: If the Almighty God of the Bible is to be our God, if the New Testament gospel is to be our message, if Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to-day and for ever—is any other position than Luther’s possible? Are we not in all honesty bound to stand with him in ascribing all might, and majesty, and dominion, and power, and all the glory of our salvation to God alone? Surely no more important or far-reaching question confronts the Church to-day (Johnson and Packer’s introduction to Luther’s Bondage of the Will).

The principles which Luther sets out, vindicates, and powerfully argues for in The Bondage of the Will would demand a change in the modern Church. They do not demand a minor change, not do they simply demand a lot of change. They demand a radical change. It would be a change so radical that it would require a repentance from man-centered thinking and practices to those of God. While the externals are different from the Reformation that God sent in the sixteenth century, the heart of the matter is not. The core problem with Roman Catholicism in Luther’s day was a denial of the Gospel of grace alone through faith alone. When the true Gospel that is centered and focused upon God is not the focus of a professing church, then the focus becomes on man and on ways for man to obtain salvation or ways to obtain the favor of God. That is the state of the professing Church today.

It is hard for people to hear and apparently extremely hard for ministers to hear, but the version of Christianity of modern America is not what thundered forth during the time of the Reformation. Indeed we have some that hold to the creeds and writings that came forth from Luther, Calvin and others, but some basic things have changed. When one removes God from the center of those creeds and writings (at least in practice if not in theory), then the very heart of those creeds and writings has been changed. To really go back to the principles of Martin Luther is to take to heart the core beliefs that he had and not just pick some of the things we like. This is not to say that Luther was inerrant or perfect, because he was not. It is to say, however, that the core of his teaching is the core of true Christianity. We are impoverished the more we stray from those things.

The very core of Luther’s teachings can be adhered to in the externals while denying the very heart of them. The deepest core belief of Luther seemed to revolve around his teaching that all is to be done to the glory of God. While this sounds good to many on the surface (and most professing believers would intellectually agree to the statement), that is far different than having that as the cherished belief and love of the heart. If all things are for the glory of God, then that means that we must take God at His Word concerning the depravity of man’s heart and his utter inability to do spiritual things of himself. That would also mean that we would have to take the sovereignty of God out of our creeds and truly apply them to whatever we think and do. It is easy to give lip-service to a statement that God is sovereign, but it is far harder to really grapple with that fact in all of life. It is easier to give lip-service to God’s sovereignty than it is to bow to it. It is easier to give lip-service to God’s sovereignty and preach about it in sermons than it is to apply it to all of life. It is easier to speak nice words about God than it is to declare His absolute sovereignty over all of human life. We would rather think of God and His sovereignty as being focused on us and helping us fulfill our plans. But God and His sovereignty are God-centered. He is focused on Himself and His glory. We are to bow in humility before Him and seek His plans and His glory in His way.

Are ministers today really ready for the radical change and revolution that is needed today? Oh, many will talk about revival and this or that. Many will talk about the need for Reformed teaching and this or that. But do we really want to step off of our own thrones and bow in submission to God? Are we really ready to step out of the pulpits of the land in order to die to self and have the life of Christ preach in and through us? Are we really ready to die to the honor of men that Christ would be honored? In all honesty, I don’t see that as something men are ready to do. There are too many like the Pharisees who liked their positions of honor and power more than Christ.

Have we not grown used to an Erasmian brand of reaching from our pulpits—a message that rests on the same shallow synergistic conceptions which Luther refuted, picturing God and man approaching each other almost on equal terms, each having his own contribution to make to man’s salvation and each depending on the dutiful co-operation of the other for the attainment of that end?—as if God exists for man’s convenience, rather than man for God’s glory? Is it not true, conversely, that it is rare to-day to hear proclaimed the diagnosis of our predicament which Luther—and Scripture—put forward: that man is hopeless and helpless in sin, fast bound in Satan’s slavery, at enmity with God, blind and dead to the things of the Spirit? And hence, how rarely do we hear faith spoken of as Scripture depicts it—as it is expressed in the cry of self-committal with which the contrite heart, humbled to see its need and made conscious of its own utter helplessness even to trust, casts itself in the God-given confidence of self-despair upon the mercy of Jesus Christ—‘Lord, I believe; help Thou my unbelief!’ Can we deny the essential rightness of Luther’s exegesis of the texts? And if not, dare we ignore the implications of his exposition? (Johnson and Packer’s introduction to Luther’s Bondage of the Will).

When was the last time you heard a sermon that diagnosed the heart of sin and the sin of the heart of man that devastated you and allowed you to see that grace alone was the only way of salvation? When was the last time you had someone set forth the fact that human beings are hopeless and helpless in their sin? Instead, what we hear is some form of semi-Pelagianism that puts God at the feet of man hoping that man will do something so that He can save them. Do we hear sermons that set out how sinners are bound tight and are in slavery to sin and Satan? Do we hear sermons and writings that set out the nature of sin as enmity against God? Is sin set out as that which blinds sinners to the things of God and that sinners are truly dead to the things of the Spirit?

When sin is not set out for what it is, then only a shallow repentance from sin is possible. It is only possible to repent from sin to the degree we understand sin. But, says the modern person, sinners must believe in order to be saved. That is correct, but how can one believe unless one repents from unbelief? How can one be delivered from sin unless one repents of sin? It is easy enough for sinners to repent of certain sins and perhaps most of outward sins. So if we don’t dive to the depths of the sin of their hearts they don’t know that they must repent of the sins of their hearts as well. If we don’t show them the nature of their hearts, then they won’t see the need of the new birth. If we don’t set out the depths of the sin of their hearts, they won’t see the real issue of depravity nor the real need to be delivered from the depths of their bondage of sin.

Another problem of not getting to the bondage of the will in preaching and setting out the true nature of sin is that man will not find out what true faith is. Apart from a realization deep in the soul of the nature of sin and of man’s utter helplessness in sin man is not humbled and contrite and so does not see the true nature of faith. Apart from that deep realization of the helplessness of the soul in sin the soul will not see its inability to trust in Christ and to even cast itself on mercy. It is only when the soul that has reached an end to all hope in self that it can see that it must despair of self in order to have the gift of faith that God gives and not trust in self. Luther would teach us that until the soul has been deeply humbled and broken from its own self and self-will that it is not ready to be saved.

The Scripture sets out saving faith and the humbling of the soul in much the same way. It is those who are weary and tired of their burden of sin that find rest in Christ (Mat 11:27-30). The Lord is only pleased to dwell with those who are contrite and humble (Isa 57:15). It is only those who are turned and become as little children that can be said to be saved (Mat 18:3). It is only those who have denied self that can be said to follow Christ (Mat 16:24). God resists the proud but gives grace to the humble (I Peter 5:5). Verses like that describe the Philippian jailor who came trembling at the feet of Paul and cried out what must he do to be saved (Acts 16:27-30). God does not save the proud and He does not give salvation to those who have not repented but are still in their sin. But instead the salvation that He gives includes the repentance from sinful hearts and a transfer from the dominion of the devil to the kingdom of the Beloved Son. We live in a day where we are more afraid to offend people by telling them the truth of their sin than we are of offending God and not telling His enemies that they are offending and are at enmity with Him. While some buildings are filled with those who hear sweet things (maybe even orthodox) rather than the truth about themselves, the kingdom of heaven is populated only by those who have truly repented. True preaching will offend those who hate to hear about their sin. After all, they hated Christ first.

Have we not grown used to an Erasmian brand of reaching from our pulpits—a message that rests on the same shallow synergistic conceptions which Luther refuted, picturing God and man approaching each other almost on equal terms, each having his own contribution to make to man’s salvation and each depending on the dutiful co-operation of the other for the attainment of that end?—as if God exists for man’s convenience, rather than man for God’s glory? Is it not true, conversely, that it is rare to-day to hear proclaimed the diagnosis of our predicament which Luther—and Scripture—put forward: that man is hopeless and helpless in sin, fast bound in Satan’s slavery, at enmity with God, blind and dead to the things of the Spirit? And hence, how rarely do we hear faith spoken of as Scripture depicts it—as it is expressed in the cry of self-committal with which the contrite heart, humbled to see its need and made conscious of its own utter helplessness even to trust, casts itself in the God-given confidence of self-despair upon the mercy of Jesus Christ—‘Lord, I believe; help Thou my unbelief!’ Can we deny the essential rightness of Luther’s exegesis of the texts? And if not, dare we ignore the implications of his exposition? (Johnson and Packer’s introduction to Luther’s Bondage of the Will).

The vast majority of pulpits in modern America appear to be Erasmian rather than Lutheran. The deepest question, however, has to do with what Scripture really teaches. This gets to the last two sentences from the quote above. Was and is Luther’s exegesis correct or not? If his exegesis was and is correct, then Luther taught the Bible accurately on this subject and his teaching on it is still the biblical teaching. If it was and is wrong, then let us deny the heart of the Reformation because that is what the teaching concerning The Bondage of the Will really was and is. Let us not give lip service to Luther as a great man if he was and is wrong about the heart of the Gospel. The Erasmian brand of preaching that seems to be virtually the exclusive message today is in direct conflict with the heart of the Gospel proclaimed in the Reformation as set out by Luther in The Bondage of the Will.

The message proclaimed today is that God has done all He could do and the issue now rests with man. Whether a person says that or not that is what people hear. If the preacher is not clear that God is not on equal terms with and is not waiting on man to do something so that He (God) can save men, fallen man will always think it depends on himself. The Gospel is not dependent on the cooperation of man because it is the Gospel of grace alone. If a human soul is to be saved, it must be saved in total dependence on God or salvation is not by grace and Christ alone. God is not standing by at the convenience of man just waiting to save man. The Erasmian position is that God is just waiting on man to believe or make a choice of the will so that God can save the man. But that is utterly unbiblical and even blasphemous. Man should see the Lord and wait on the Lord to save him. There is simply no other way of salvation other than God saving man at His own pleasure rather than waiting on the pleasure of man to do so.

We are told that man is a responsible being and we are to treat him as such. It is true that man is responsible before God, but we must ask what that means. We must know that to have responsibility is not the same thing as to have ability. We must also search out what we are responsible to do and not do. We are not responsible to do in the sense that we have ability to do anything to contribute to salvation in the least. We are not responsible to come up with anything that puts God under some obligation or for man to obtain merit before God. But until we repent of our synergistic preaching or implications of our preaching we are not preaching the Gospel of grace alone with clarity. We can tell people that they are dead in their sins, but unless we explain what that means those who are dead will not understand it in the least. We can proclaim to people that they are totally depraved, but they will not understand that either unless we say what it means and what it don’t mean. Neither will they understand those things without specific application to their own hearts.

Erasmian preaching can be nice and gracious and treat man as if he had a free will even if we deny it in our theory. While Erasmus believed those things, unless we state with clarity and conviction with specific application to the soul the opposite we will still be Erasmian in our practice. We will be practical Erasmians. There are so many who claim to believe Reformed theology and yet they are truly Erasmian in practice. There is no real difference between those who agree with Erasmus in theology and those who don’t refute those beliefs with clarity. The fallen nature of man will always hear with fallen ears and until we declare his fallen nature in this area we have not declared his fallen nature at all. In other words, we will have no position to preach the Gospel of grace alone.

These things need to be pondered by Protestants to-day. With what right may we call ourselves children of the Reformation? Much modern Protestantism would be neither owned nor even recognized by the pioneer Reformers. The Bondage of the Will fairly sets before us what they believed about the salvation of last mankind. In the light of it, we are forced to ask whether Protestant Christendom has not tragically sold its birthright between Luther’s day and our own. Has not Protestantism to-day become more Erasmian than Lutheran? Do we not too often try to minimize and gloss over doctrinal differences for the sake of inter-party peace? Are we innocent of the doctrinal indifferentism with which Luther charged Erasmus? Do we still believe that doctrine matters? Or do we now, with Erasmus, rate a deceptive appearance of unity as of more importance than truth? (Johnson and Packer’s introduction to Luther’s Bondage of the Will).

In our modern day we think we are modern and know how to treat others better. However, we must also remember how Jesus spoke to the Pharisees. He who was love incarnate spoke out of love for God and for the people of God. But He thought that truth was important enough to speak forcefully and clearly. When the Gospel is at stake we must not be more “nice” and “gracious” than Jesus was of the Pharisees. In history when the Gospel was at stake, God used men who spoke the truth of the Gospel forcefully. Not all of them were successful by the standards of our day, but they spoke for God. Men like Erasmus who courted the favor of others and spoke so graciously as to water the truth down were popular in their day but were seen for what they really were later on. Luther saw then that the minimizing and glossing over of theological differences in order to keep party peace was simply doctrinal indifferentism which was really a denial of the Gospel. Yet the spirit and attitude of Erasmus is widespread today.

The man-centeredness of Erasmus was the real problem and is still the problem today. Luther accused Erasmus of being too man-centered and he was correct. Luther was bound to the principle of Soli Deo Gloria or to God alone be the glory. To this end Philip Watson spoke about Luther’s theology in Let God Be God:

Hence the possibility is given, broadly speaking, of two main types of religion, according as one or the other of these two factors predominates and becomes the centre of gravity, so to speak, in the relationship. If the religious relationship centres in man—if my relation to God depends essentially upon me—then it can be described as anthropocentric or egocentric; if it centres in the eternal and the divine, then it is theocentric. Now it might well seem as if all religion must, in the nature of the case, be theocentric; for if the word ‘God’ is to have any meaning at all, it cannot but signify the dominant centre of live and of all existence. And it is true that no religion is entirely lacking in awareness of this fact. All religions display at least some traces of theocentricity. Such traces, however, do not generally suffice to form what may be termed the leitmotif of the religion; they are not determinative of its character as a whole, but in one way and another are subordinated to the egocentric tendency…Similarly in religion, although I do not as readily perceive or accept all that this implies; and it is the most natural thing for me still to live and think as if I myself were the centre around which all else, including God, moved. If find it exceedingly difficult to rid myself of this illusion and allow God really to be the centre, that is, really to be God.

Within the previous quote we see the real problem of trying for unity apart from a pursuit of truth and of solid doctrine. Of course not all would admit that is what they are trying to do. However, a true theocentricity is at the heart of true Christianity. The Lord Jesus Christ was focused and centered upon God and His glory in all He did. He would not refuse to speak the truth to people even when they did not want to hear it. While many excuse doctrinal indifference because they insist on being nice and gracious to others, when they do so it is likely that they are guilty of being man-centered. As Watson says above, all religions have some traces of theocentricity. However, that does not mean that they are truly centered upon God in all ways. But even more, man can pretend to be God-centered as long as he thinks God is centered upon him. A real and robust God-centeredness is when God is understood to be God-centered as well.

Doctrine matters in regards to the Gospel because there is only one Gospel (Gal 1). Without a robust doctrine we have no true Gospel. Without a center upon a God-centered God we have no true Gospel but instead have a man-centered pottage which the birthright of the Reformation has been traded for. We must not mistake what is offered up as Arminianism or Reformed in our day as what came from the Reformation. It is a massive mistake to do so.

These things need to be pondered by Protestants to-day. With what right may we call ourselves children of the Reformation? Much modern Protestantism would be neither owned nor even recognized by the pioneer Reformers. The Bondage of the Will fairly sets before us what they believed about the salvation of last mankind. In the light of it, we are forced to ask whether Protestant Christendom has not tragically sold its birthright between Luther’s day and our own. Has not Protestantism to-day become more Erasmian than Lutheran? Do we not too often try to minimize and gloss over doctrinal differences for the sake of inter-party peace? Are we innocent of the doctrinal indifferentism with which Luther charged Erasmus? Do we still believe that doctrine matters? Or do we now, with Erasmus, rate a deceptive appearance of unity as of more importance than truth? (Johnson and Packer’s introduction to Luther’s Bondage of the Will).

When Johnson and Packer wrote these things in the late 1950’s things were not as bad as they are now. Of course there has been a small resurgence of sorts in Reformed thinking, but one could question just how deep that resurgence has actually went. It is one thing to adhere to a Reformed creed or confession, but it is quite another to go with the pioneer Reformers to the places they went regarding the sovereignty of grace and the utter helplessness of man in sin. Just how much of modern Christendom really follows the Reformers and the Gospel they preached? How many Protestants still protest against the gospel as preached by Rome? How many Protestants have been swallowed up by the same basic gospel that Rome teaches while they protest against less important things?

The Bondage of the Will is not a metaphysical book that stimulates the intellect with nothing else important to say. Instead, this book gets at the heart of the Gospel itself. It must be made clear that if we do not follow Luther at this point we are not really following him at all in terms of the Gospel which was the most important part of the Reformation. If we do not follow Luther at this point, then we do not follow the pioneer Reformers at this point either. This shows that we are not really the children of the Reformation in our day because almost nobody follows Luther and the pioneer Reformers at this point. The Bondage of the Will, as Packer and Johnson point out, sets before us what the pioneer Reformers believed about the Gospel or about how men and women are to be saved.

The birthright of Protestantism is inextricably linked to the Gospel as set out by the pioneer Reformers. That Gospel is not popular today at all, though some hold to the same terminology. The term “hyper-Calvinist” is now thrown around a lot and addressed to those who hold to the bondage of the will as Luther did. We are told that we are to be gracious and winsome which is to be like Erasmus rather than Luther or Calvin. We are told that we must join hands with those who do Christian things but do not hold to the same Gospel as Luther did. We are told that there are major things and minor things and that the Trinity and justification by faith alone are the major things. Indeed justification by faith alone is a major thing, but only if the terms and doctrines within it are stated as the Bible does. We have more men who are like Erasmus running around than those who are like Luther and Calvin.

Indeed there are many who try to say that we are not to be unkind (state the real issue of differences) with those who differ from us and we are to be quiet for the sake of peace within groups and within denominations. So we end up (as Johnson and Packer state) minimizing and glossing over differences even regarding the Gospel in order to attain to some type of unity. This is to desire an appearance of unity, even though it is nothing more than an appearance, more than the truth and more than Gospel truth. Men claim that it is for the sake of the Gospel that they minimize certain truths, but in fact it is more likely that they minimize the Gospel for the sake of their own positions within groups and denominations. When they do this they deceive themselves and others.

Paul set out the fact that there is only one Gospel. In fact, he was very ungracious and non-winsome when he said that. In Galatians one he was clear: “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ” (vv. 6-7). He then proceeds to say that if anyone preaches a different Gospel that person is to be accursed. Being gracious and winsome can lead us to the deceptive practice of selling the Gospel for denominational influences and getting along with others. However, as Galatians 1:6 tells us, we are “quickly deserting Him.” If Luther and the pioneer Reformers were right about the Gospel, then when we depart from their teachings we are departing from God Himself. Leaving the Gospel is leaving God Himself.

Is our salvation wholly of God, or does it ultimately depend on something that we do for ourselves? Those who deny the latter (as the Arminians later did) thereby deny man’s utter helplessness in sin, and affirm that a form of semi-Pelagianism is true after all. It is no wonder, then, that later Reformed theology condemned Arminianism as being in principle a return to Rome (because in effect it turned faith into a meritorious work) and a betrayal of the Reformation (because it denied the sovereignty of God in saving sinners, which was the deepest religious and theological principle of the Reformer’s thought). Arminianism was, indeed, in Reformed eyes a renunciation of New Testament Christianity in favour of New Testament Judaism; for to rely on oneself for faith is no different in principle from relying on oneself for works, and the one is as un-Christian and anti-Christian as the other (Johnson and Packer’s introduction to Luther’s Bondage of the Will).

While it is not thought to be politically correct to make stark and confrontational statements about Arminianism or other theologies, it is nevertheless required if one wants to be faithful to Scripture. The heart of Roman Catholic doctrine is that man is not helpless in sin and can do things to obtain grace for himself. The heart of Arminian theology is that man has some part of the will that is free enough to make a choice which ends up in salvation. This is in truth turning faith into a work of some sort and it is to make those who hold that to have at the heart of their theology a gospel more like that of Rome than of the Reformation. That is why the study of the will is so vital. Without a solid understanding of what it means to be in bondage to sin and utterly helpless apart from the sovereign grace of God a person’s creedal theology will not take them that far from Rome at its most important point. It is a return to Rome in terms of what it means at the heart of salvation.

At the heart of Arminianism is the denial of the sovereignty of God in saving sinners. The final verdict is not up to the grace of God, but it is up to the free-will of the sinner. Johnson and Packer think of the sovereignty of God in saving sinners as “the deepest religious and theological principle of the Reformer’s thought.” A denial of that, then, is to deny the theology of the Reformation at its deepest religious and theological principle. Yet, there are many who think of themselves as Reformed because they hold to an older creed and yet deny the very heart of the Reformation. It is a rejection of New Testament Christianity and in many ways a return to the basic principle of Rome and also of the Pharisees. It is a rejection of the grace of God for the will of man.

There is no room in New Testament Christianity for anything but grace alone. While it is true that many use the words of grace alone, but they don’t hold to the heart or substance of what the words meant in the New Testament nor the Reformation. Romans 4:16 sets out the reason that justification is by faith alone: “For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace.” The degree that faith is not in accordance with grace is the degree that faith is a work. If faith depends on a free-will that in order to be free it is free from the internal works of God in the soul, then faith is a work and salvation is not by grace alone. When we point men to faith and do not teach them that their faith can be in themselves to trust in Christ, we are not teaching them that they must trust in Christ alone. If we trust in our own wills, even if it is just a small part, then we are not trusting in Christ alone and we are not looking to grace alone.

Romans 11:6 sets out the great danger of grace plus one work: “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.” If one adds a work to grace, then grace is no longer grace. If a person adds circumcision to grace, then that person has fallen from grace as a way of justification (Gal 5:4). This is not a minor issue, but is rather at the very heart of the Gospel itself. If the will is not in bondage to sin completely, then it does not take grace alone to save the soul. But if it does not take grace alone to save the soul, then how many works does it take? Just one little work leavens the whole lump of grace. It permeates grace and makes it to be something less than what it is. One little drop of poison will bring impurity to a lot of water. One little act of the will does not seem like much, but it overthrows the Gospel of grace alone as the Reformers saw so clearly. One little act of a free-will is a denial of justification by faith alone as taught by the Reformers. One little act of a free-will is a denial of the teaching of the utter helplessness of man in sin. One little act of a free-will is a denial of the sovereignty of God over the whole of salvation. Our day is rampant with men who are gracious and winsome, but like Erasmus they deny the Gospel of grace alone and do so while saying that they hold to the old creeds. We live in dark times in terms of spiritual power. Maybe God is bringing Christendom down so that grace alone may rise.

What is the source and status of faith? Is it the God-given means whereby the God-given justification is received, or is it the condition of justification which it is left to man to fulfill? Is it a part of God’s gift of salvation, or is it man’s own contribution to salvation? Is our salvation wholly of God, or does it ultimately depend on something that we do for ourselves? Those who deny the latter (as the Arminians later did) thereby deny man’s utter helplessness in sin, and affirm that a form of semi-Pelagianism is true after all. It is no wonder, then, that later Reformed theology condemned Arminianism as being in principle a return to Rome (because in effect it turned faith into a meritorious work) and a betrayal of the Reformation (because it denied the sovereignty of God in saving sinners, which was the deepest religious and theological principle of the Reformer’s thought). Arminianism was, indeed, in Reformed eyes a renunciation of New Testament Christianity in favour of New Testament Judaism; for to rely on oneself for faith is no different in principle from relying on oneself for works, and the one is as un-Christian and anti-Christian as the other (Johnson and Packer’s introduction to Luther’s Bondage of the Will).

If the only source of true faith is the grace of God, then if we teach that faith comes from the free-will of man or remain silent on the source we are not telling the truth about the Gospel. It is thought by many that God gives faith but we must not tell men that and simply tell them to repent and believe. But if we don’t tell them that part of their repentance is to repent of any hope in themselves and that includes a belief that they can choose at any time to be saved, we have not told them about true repentance. If we don’t tell them that part of true faith is not to have any faith in their own faith or belief, then we have not told them about true belief or faith.

One of the divinely predicted characteristics of the “perilous times” in which we are not living is that “evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived” (II Tim 3:13). The deeper reference of these words is to spiritual seducers and deceivers. Men with captivating personalities, men who occupy prominent places in Christendom, men with an apparently deep reverence for Holy Writ, are beguiling souls with fatal error. Not only are evolutionists, higher critics, and modernists deluding multitudes of our young people with their sugar-coated lies, but some who pose as the champions of orthodoxy and boast of their ability to “rightly divide the Word of Truth,” are poisoning the minds of many to their eternal destruction (Arthur W. Pink from The Doctrine of Salvation).

The source of faith is a vitally important topic to deal with in evangelism. It is either man’s contribution to salvation or it is God’s. If man thinks that it is his contribution, and he thinks that he can do this of his own free-will at any moment, then he is utterly wrong about the nature of salvation and of his own sin. If man thinks that salvation depends on his act of free-will and all that he needs to do is to pray a prayer or make a choice, them man will never look to Christ alone and grace alone for salvation. If man is not looking to Christ alone and grace alone for salvation, then he does not have faith alone either. The Gospel that depends on the slightest effort of the so-called free will is a false Gospel altogether because it cannot be by Christ alone and grace alone.

The closer a person is to truth and yet does not teach the purity of truth on issues like this the truth is used to blind sinners to reality. There are so many spiritual seducers and deceivers in the world who are very orthodox and yet at what they think is a minor point their orthodoxy is used to hide or blind their own eyes and the eyes of others from the whole truth. In the book of Galatians we see this in several places. The Judaizers just wanted to add one thing to Christ. They had a lot of truth, but they wanted to add circumcision. But Paul told them that adding that one thing was to bring the whole Gospel crashing down in their cases. That one thing meant that “Christ will be of no benefit to you” (Gal 5:2). It meant that they were “under obligation to keep the whole Law” (5:3). It meant that they “were severed from Christ” and “have fallen from grace” (5:4). They had so much right and only went astray at one point. That one point led to eternal destruction.

In the modern day the point that the Reformers thought so vital to the Gospel is brushed away as something not so important. But if we add one act of will or one choice of a free-will to the Gospel as so many do today, we have added that one thing. It is no longer grace alone and that means that justification by faith alone has been destroyed. The Gospel of grace alone means that nothing can come from the human will that does not come from God Himself. A free-will by definition is a will that is free from the internal work of God. One little act of the will brings the whole Gospel crashing down for that soul. If we depend on our own free-will, Christ will be of no benefit to us. If we depend on one act of our own free-will, then we are under obligation to keep the whole Law. If we depend on one act of our own free will, then we are severed from Christ and have fallen from grace. It may be only one point, but a whole lot depends on that one point. It is not a minor point at all, but leads to eternal destruction.

What is the source and status of faith? Is it the God-given means whereby the God-given justification is received, or is it the condition of justification which it is left to man to fulfil? Is it a part of God’s gift of salvation, or is it man’s own contribution to salvation? Is our salvation wholly of God, or does it ultimately depend on something that we do for ourselves? Those who deny the latter (as the Arminians later did) thereby deny man’s utter helplessness in sin, and affirm that a form of semi-Pelagianism is true after all. It is no wonder, then, that later Reformed theology condemned Arminianism as being in principle a return to Rome (because in effect it turned faith into a meritorious work) and a betrayal of the Reformation (because it denied the sovereignty of God in saving sinners, which was the deepest religious and theological principle of the Reformer’s thought). Arminianism was, indeed, in Reformed eyes a renunciation of New Testament Christianity in favour of New Testament Judaism; for to rely on oneself for faith is no different in principle from relying on oneself for works, and the one is as un-Christian and anti-Christian as the other (Johnson and Packer’s introduction to Luther’s Bondage of the Will).

What follows are some thoughts on faith from Theodore Beza’s Confession (1560). His thoughts show the same basic thought as Luther. Faith does not originate and come from the sinner, but instead it comes from God. Faith does not come from a will that is free from God (a free-will), but from a will that has been renewed and made alive by God and so it is now spiritually capable to receive Christ alone for its righteousness and its all. It is not just an intellectual faith which one has of the facts, but it is a renewed soul actually receiving Christ as his or her life. IN this we can see grace in salvation from beginning to end. It is grace that chooses the sinner and it is grace that gives faith in the renewal of the soul and in uniting it to Christ. That was Luther, Calvin, and Beza. That is Bible.

The Holy Ghost then is the same by whom the Father puts and keeps His elect in possession of Jesus Christ His Son, and consequently of all the graces which are necessary to salvation. But first it was necessary that the same Holy Spirit make us capable and fit to receive (Eph 1:17) the same Jesus Christ, which He does in creating within us by His mere divine goodness and mercy what we call faith, the only instrument of taking hold of Jesus Christ (John 3:1-13, 33-36) when He is offered to us, and the only vessel to receive Him…

He created in us likewise this means of faith which He requires of us. Now the faith of which we speak is not to believe only that God is God and that the contents of His Word are true (for the devils have this faith and cannot but tremble at it, James 2:19), but we call faith a certain knowledge (I Cor 2:6-8) which the Holy Ghost by His grace alone and goodness engraves more and more in the hearts of the elect of God, by which each one of them being assured in his heart of his election, applies and appropriates to himself the promise of his salvation in Jesus Christ. Faith, I say, believes not only that Jesus Christ is dead and risen for sinners (Rom 8:16, 39), but proceeds to embrace Jesus Christ in whom alone he trusts and so assures himself of his salvation that he doubts not (Eph 3:12). For that reason St. Bernard said, according to all the Scriptures that follow, “If you believe that your sins may not be put away, but by Him whom you offended, and also who is not subject to sin, you do well; but yet join thereunto another point, that is to say that you believe also that by Him your sins are forgiven…

How this is to be understood, which we say as St. Paul says, that we are justified by faith alone. The reason is because faith is the instrument which receives Jesus Christ and as a consequence receives His righteousness, i.e., all perfection. When we say then as St. Paul said that we are justified by faith alone, it is not to say that faith is a virtue which makes us righteous in ourselves before God (for that would be to set ourselves in the place of Jesus Christ, who alone is our perfect and entire righteousness); but we understand that we are justified by faith because it embraces Him who justifies us, i.e., Jesus Christ, in such a way that it unites and knits us together with Him to be partakers of all the goodness which He has—He, who being granted and imputed to us, is fully sufficient to make us perfect and accepted as righteous before God…

But this it appears that to be assured of our salvation by faith is not any arrogance or presumption; but on the contrary, it is the only means for taking all pride from ourselves and to give all glory to God. For faith alone teaches us to go out of our own selves and to know that in us there is nothing but the matter of damnation, and sends us to one alone—Jesus Christ, by whose righteousness alone it teaches and assures us that we will find salvation before God…