God Loves… Himself

Again: since by the single offence of the one man, Adam, we all lie under sin and condemnation, how can we set our hand to anything that is not sinful and damnable? When he says ‘all’, he excepts none; not the power of ‘free-will’, nor any worker, whether he works and endeavours or not; he is of necessity included with the rest among the ‘all’. Neither should we sin or be condemned by reason of the single offence of Adam, if that offence were not our own;…Original sin itself, then, does not allow ‘free-will’ any power at all except to sin and incur condemnation. (Luther, The Bondage of the Will)

In this short paragraph Luther gets at the heart of one side of the issue of why ‘free-will’ is impossible for fallen men to have. Again, while men say that they are free to choose as they please; the soul always pleases to choose sin. Part of the bondage of sin is that men do choose what they please but that they are only pleased with sin. What people cannot see is that they choose sin because as sinners they are only pleased with sin. This shows us that men think they are free because they choose what they want, but instead it is what they want that they are in bondage to.

Romans 5 is quite clear that all have sinned in Adam and all are under condemnation. Ephesians 2 is equally clear that men are by nature children of wrath. In the context of sinners being by nature children of wrath, the text says that they are “indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind.” They also do these things because they are dead in sins and trespasses (Eph 2:1) and simply live “according to the course of the world” which is “according to the prince of the power of the air.” Not only that, but all of that is in line with the spirit that works in the sons of disobedience. Romans 8:7 tells us that “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.”

Now, as Luther puts it, “how can we set our hand to anything that is not sinful and damnable?” Because of the fall human beings are born into sin and are by nature children of wrath and they are dead in their sins and trespasses. These people follow the course of the world which is according to the course of the world. These people have a spirit that is working in them and that working is to follow anything but the true ways of God. We then see that those who are dead in sin are fleshly and so their mind is set on the flesh and so they are hostile to God and have no ability (cannot) to subject themselves to God. Can a person like that do anything that is not sinful and damnable? It is one thing to think of the things in the previous paragraph as true of some other people, but then to apply it to self and to all men is difficult. Even more, it is to be fully applied. It is not just that some are born dead in sin and are by nature children of wrath, but all are born that way. It is not just that some follow the course of the world, but all follow the course of the world because they are flesh and nothing but flesh.

The doctrine of original sin and total depravity are at the heart of Christianity. While many will allow that all men are less than perfect, for we all know the universal truth is “to err is human,” it is harder to admit that all men are sinful in all they do and deserve damnation for their best works. Even their works of righteousness are as filthy rags as Isaiah sets out. To assert that man has a ‘free-will’ is to assert that man can do something that is not sinful and damnable. The will is not free from its bondage to sin, its death in sin and trespasses; its nature of wrath, its hostility to God and its inability to subject itself to the law of God. All of these things show that the sinner is not free but is in willful and loving bondage to sin. Can a person with a sinful nature who does nothing but sin do one thing that could please God? Clearly the answer is no, so just as clearly it is seen that the will is not free to do one act that is pleasing and acceptable to God.

If the doctrine of original sin is true (and assuredly it is), then the doctrine of ‘free-will’ must be rejected with abhorrence. There is no freedom or power of the will for sinners to do anything but to sin and incur condemnation. The will in that state is not free to do one act free from sin and so obtain salvation. The sinner that is dead in sins and trespasses needs Christ alone to make that sinner alive and that sinners needs Christ to do this by grace alone. Sinners that are by nature children of wrath do not need one bit of the will that is free to make a choice, but instead they need a completely new heart and new nature so that Christ will live in them. Sinners that have nothing but hostility toward God need a new heart and the indwelling love of God rather than just a bit of freedom to make a choice. Sinners that have no ability to keep the Law need Christ to give them His perfect righteousness and then live in them by His Spirit to keep the Law. No sinner can do one thing or even partially do one thing that is not worthy of the wrath and condemnation of God. Those sinners need grace and grace alone, not the act of a fallen will that can do nothing but sin. Oh how preachers need to preach grace alone.

Again: since the law is the strength of sin, displaying it without removing it, it makes the conscience guilty before God and threatens wrath. This is Paul’s meaning when he says; ‘the law worketh wrath’ (Rom 4:15). How then could righteousness be procured by the law? And if we get no help from the law, how can we get help from the power of our will alone? (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

What standard of righteousness does the human will have? Where does the human will get its power? The Law came in for the purpose of showing man his sin and even stirring up his sinful heart so that man would die to any hope of obtaining righteousness by himself and his own power. If the very purpose of the Law was so that transgression would increase, then its purpose is not to be a standard or way of obtaining righteousness. If the very purpose of the Law was to show the sin of the soul and therefore of the will, then it could not provide help or power to the human will to obtain righteousness.

Romans 5:20 The Law came in so that the transgression would increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more,

Romans 3:19 Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.

What must be seen in this great thought of Luther which is derived from Scripture is that the purpose and power of the Law are exactly opposite of what the ‘free-will’ tries to do with the Law and must do with the Law if it is going to be able to maintain its position. The Scriptures constantly point away from the power and ability of the human flesh to do anything good or anything that would please God, while those who maintain the ‘free-will’ have to constantly maintain their position against Scripture.

How does the Law help sinners procure their own righteousness? Its purpose was to reveal sin and the hostility of the human heart toward God. There is nothing in the Law that has anything that helps sinners procure the slightest bit of their own righteousness. God provides a perfect righteousness in Christ and allows for no other since there is no other perfect righteousness. The Law shows how imperfect human hearts and deeds are, so it can provide no help at all in procuring righteousness for the ‘free-will’. The Law was given as a tutor to teach people to go to Christ for their righteousness, so it could never do one thing to lead people away from Christ the only perfect righteousness available.

How does the Law provide help, power, or ability to the human will so it can make one good choice by itself apart from the power of grace in the soul? It was never given for that purpose and it has no power to do so. The Law was given to show human beings that they cannot (word of ability) keep the Law in and of themselves at any point and in any way. This is to say that the will has no power to do one good thing in and of its own power. It is Christ and His Spirit alone in the soul that can give the soul power to keep any commandment to any degree. The Law drives people to Christ and is the tutor to show people that they have no ability to keep the Law and that they have total inability as part of their total depravity.

So the Law provides no help at all to the human will to obtain righteousness in any way other than to show the will what it cannot do so it will bow in utter humility and its own inability and seek Christ in its helplessness. It is only when the human soul sees that it has no power or ability to obtain anything from God to any degree that it will look to grace and grace alone. Until the soul sees that it has no way or procuring righteousness, it will not look to Christ alone for a perfect righteousness. Until the soul sees that it has no power or ability of will to do anything to make God respond to it, then it will never look to grace alone to give it life and righteousness in Christ. The only place where there is life is in Christ and the only spiritual good and power must come from Christ as the Vine. Oh how terribly wrong and misleading people are when they do not teach people that they are unable to procure righteousness in any way and that their wills have no power to help with anything. It is misleading because until the soul arrives at that point in brokenness it will not arrive at the point of looking to Christ alone to be saved by grace alone.

Again: If God promised grace before the law, as Paul argues here and in Galatians, then it does not come by works or by law, else the promise would come to nothing; and faith also (by which Abraham was justified before the law was given) would come to nothing, should works avail. (Luther, Bondage of the Will )

The human soul can never be free to choose a third option. Souls are declared just by God on the basis of grace alone or by the law. Some try to intermingle those, but a grace that comes by law is not grace at all. This leaves all people with only two ways of salvation. It is either by grace alone or works to some degree, though Scripture is quite clear that if you want to have one work in salvation then you are obligated to keep the whole law. But the Gospel is about God’s promise to save and it is wholly based on His promise and so it all depends on grace alone. This is so important to keep in mind, for as Galatians 2:21 puts it, “I do not nullify the grace of God, for if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.” If the Gospel has one work which means one act of a ‘free-will’ that participates, then the grace of God is nullified and righteousness comes in a way that is not according to Christ alone and grace alone.

Again, this is so vital. God promised grace before He gave the law. This shows that the promise of God does not depend on the Law, but instead the fulfilling of the Law depends on His promise. God declares sinners just based on Christ alone and they are declared just totally and only because of Christ. Jesus Christ went to the cross because of the promise of God and not because sinners kept the Law in any way, but rather because they had broken the Law in all ways. Many people agree with what Christ has done on the cross and agree that there is no way for God’s justice for one sin or all sins to be satisfied other than by Christ. But how does a person obtain the righteousness needed to be declared righteous? The text above (Gal 2:21) says that “if righteousness comes through the Law, then Christ died needlessly.” In other words, the righteousness that a sinner needs does not come by the sinner keeping the Law, but instead that righteousness comes by Christ alone.

The point seems to be rather clear. God promised that He would justify sinners, but to do so He had to do two things. One, He had to take the sins of sinners away in a just way so that He could be both just and the Justifier of the one that has Christ (Rom 3:26). Two, He had to give a perfect righteousness to sinners in a just way or as a holy God of perfect truth He could not declare them just. But both the taking away the sins of sinners and granting to them a perfect righteousness is based on His promise rather than the sinner keeping of fulfilling the Law. If the salvation of the sinner depends on the sinner’s ‘free-will’ at any point, then salvation is not completely and totally of grace and of promise.

Abraham was declared just through faith before the Law was given and Galatians shows that all sinners that are declared just in the eyes of God are declared just based on grace rather than the Law. Abraham stands against all who would teach that sinners are justified by anything they do. He was justified through faith apart from any work of the Law at all because the Law was not given until close to 500 years later. Abraham looked to the promise of God alone and apart from the Law and He was declared just. All sinners must look to the promise of God alone apart from the Law as well. Looking to the promise of God alone is not looking to the ‘free-will’ to make a choice, but instead it is looking to God for new life. When the sinner is declared just by God, the sinner has Christ as his or her life and now has Christ as his or her life. When Christ is the life of the sinner, Christ is the true vine for that sinner and as such all righteousness continues to come from Christ.

The soul of each sinner either looks to Christ alone or to self alone or to Christ plus some degree of self. When a sinner looks to the ‘free-will’ to do something that is free from grace, that sinner is looking to a work of the flesh to do something in order to obtain something from God. But the only way to obtain grace from God is for God to decide to show grace and for it to come by promise rather than by anything that the sinner can do. The Law came in to increase the transgression, as Romans 5:20 teaches: “The Law came in so that the transgression would increase.” The Law was never given as a way of justification or as something to have any part of justification. The will was never given as a way to keep the Law in order to obtain any part of justification either. The whole Gospel depends on one thing and one thing alone and that is on God Himself and His promise of grace. The Gospel of grace alone is so glorious and so beautiful and must not be tarnished by adding an act of the will to it.

I here pass by arguments of great strength drawn from the purpose of grace, from the promise, from the power of the law, from original sin, and from God’s election; every one of which by itself could utterly overthrow ‘free-will’, thus: If the source of grace is the predestinating purpose of God, then it comes by necessity, and not by any effort or endeavour on our part… (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

In trying to bring the focus down to one thought it is hard to get people to take their focus off of their own ability, power, and choice. They cannot understand why the Gospel is all about the grace of God and not them. They cannot understand why it is not up to them and their own choice to be saved. Luther says this and puts it in such a way in one sentence that one would think that all would see the truth of it. The sentence is like this, though changed a bit from the wording of Luther: “If the source of grace is the predestinating purpose of God, then it is not by any effort or work of our will.” I put the sentence that way to show that if grace is part of God’s purpose and will, then it cannot be because of the choice and effort of man. If the ultimate reason that grace comes is because of God’s purpose, then it cannot be because of the purpose or will of man. It is one or the other and not a combination of the two. If the ultimate cause for grace is that God chooses, then the ultimate cause for grace is not man. Any focus on man’s choice would then be changed to man chooses because God chooses for man to choose. But in that case the will is not free.

What if we changed Luther’s sentence to say this: “If the source of God is the predestinating purpose of God, then it comes by His will and effort and not any effort or work on the part of man of his will.” There is no grace but that which is from God and is for the purposes of God. The reason for this is that grace is not just some abstract thought or power in the universe, but instead grace is when God gives Himself. God gives grace in sending Christ to die on the cross to purchase grace for sinners. This grace is applied in the soul by the Holy Spirit. But what is that grace that was purchased and applied? It is Christ being the life of the sinner. It is the Holy Spirit dwelling in the sinner. It is God making man a partaker of the divine life. So giving grace is not apart from God giving Himself, and dare anyone say that God Himself can be at the beck and call of the mere choice of a human will?

What power or ability is there in the human will that can purchase grace for itself? What power or ability is there in the human will to apply grace to itself? What power or ability is there in the human will to be able to cause God Himself to dwell in the human soul? What power or ability is there in the human will to be the source, cause, goal or anything else to do with grace? Since there is no power or ability in the human soul to do the slightest thing to earn, obtain, procure, or do anything toward getting grace; we must conclude that grace is at the sole pleasure of the will of God who shows grace to the glory of His grace. But again, if the source of grace is indeed God’s predestinating pleasure, then it cannot be by the will of man.

It has been argued that God is so sovereign that He is able to set Himself to the side and leave sinners to their own freedom. Quite simply and clearly, that is absurd. God is the one that ordains and moves all things according to His eternal plan. He cannot (as sovereign) stand aside and let things go according to the fallen reason of human beings, but instead He orders all things according to His perfect wisdom, plan, and glory. But even more, can God stand aside and put Himself in the hands of sinners to do with as they please? No, the wisdom, holiness, justice and sovereignty of God demand that all be done according to Him rather than be at the whim of sinners driven by whims, lusts, and passions. So God will not and cannot simply give Himself and His creation over to the hands of sinners to do with as they please.

To get even more nauseating, imagine that God gives Himself to sinners for them to apply to themselves as they please and to reject as they please is the height of absurdity. God will never share His glory with another and He can never hand over the reigns of the universe to anyone else. Grace, since it is really God Himself, can never be handed over to the whims and passions of sinful men. Men hate true grace before they are converted since they hate God. Men hate true grace and actually killed grace incarnate when they put Christ on the cross. Sinful men will only handle grace sinfully as well. But instead of men applying grace to themselves to be used as they please, it is God who must apply grace as He pleases in accordance with perfect wisdom. A grace that is not sovereign grace in the hands of God administered as He pleases is not grace at all. If at any moment God put grace in the hands of man to give to himself or anyone else as man pleased, at that moment it would cease to be grace. Grace is from God and His mere good pleasure which shows that it cannot be according to ‘free-will’ or anything else of man. Luther was right. The predestinating purpose of God in giving grace shows ‘free-will’ to be nothing more than man’s attempt to overthrow God and true grace and put grace in his own hands. When ‘free-will’ is seen in its true colors, it is a vile thing. It is nothing more than an attempt by man to be his own god and use the true God as man pleases.

I here pass by arguments of great strength drawn from the purpose of grace, from the promise, from the power of the law, from original sin, and from God’s election; every one of which by itself could utterly overthrow ‘free-will’, thus: If the source of grace is the predestinating purpose of God, then it comes by necessity, and not by any effort or endeavour on our part. (Luther, The Bondage of the Will)

In these few words Luther points to something which actually does overthrow the doctrine of ‘free-will’ and any hope that those who place in their ‘free-will’ may think they have. In other words, this is not just about some metaphysical teaching which has little to do with anything if anything at all. This is at the heart of the Gospel of grace alone. The doctrine of ‘free-will’ cannot be maintained in face of the covenant of grace, the promises of grace, and from the doctrine of election which shows that men are saved by the choice of God and not their own choice. These things show that men are saved entirely by the grace of God and not by anything they are, have done, are doing, or could possibly do. Salvation is by grace alone and God alone can show grace as He pleases for grace to be grace.

Ephesians 1: 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love 5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. 11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,

Ephesians 2:7 so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

Romans 9:23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,

1 Timothy 1:14 and the grace of our Lord was more than abundant, with the faith and love which are found in Christ Jesus. 15 It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all. 16 Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life.

Luther takes us back to the source of grace and the reason for grace, which is precisely what the Bible does over and over again though it may not use that exact language. The source of grace is either in God and His purposes or from man and his purposes. This is utterly vital in terms of the nature of grace and the Gospel. Sinners must not just know about Christ; they must actually and really have Christ. Sinners must not just know that Christ is life; they must actually have Christ as their life. The source of this life is either Christ or the will of self. The source of this life either comes as a result of God’s choice or of man’s choice. I Corinthians 1:30 states that “it is by His doing you are in Christ Jesus”, which shows that it is the work and will of God that puts man in Christ rather than the work and will of man that does so. The source of grace is God Himself and cannot be by the choice of man.

The reason for grace is either God showing grace to the praise of His glory or of man choosing grace to save himself. The reason for grace in the life of those who profess to be saved is either the grace of God in a person moving that person to share in the life and love of God and so that person desires grace that God may be glorified or a person choosing grace from selfish (includes selfish religious purposes or reasons too) reasons. The doctrine of ‘free-will’ is an attack on both the source of grace and the reason for grace. A will that is truly free is free from sin and from grace and so does not need grace and as such will never choose true grace for the glory of God. A will that could be truly free (hypothetical) would never have the same purposes for grace that God does and so the ‘free-will’ would overthrow God’s purposes of grace. This is precisely what happens in churches where the doctrines of grace are not loved and the doctrine of ‘free-will’ is set forth. Though the name of God is used along with the names of Jesus and the Spirit, they are just there to help the ‘free-will’ along. But true grace shows us that the triune God does not just help people, but true grace is the triune God working in people by grace to make them lovers of His grace and glory. Grace comes to human souls because of God and His purposes rather than because of the human will and human purposes. It is the difference between a God-centered universe and one in which all things are contingent on the arbitrariness of the human will free of God.

Free will, after the fall, exists in name only, and as long as it does what it is able to do it commits mortal sin (Thesis 13 of the Heidelberg Disputation)

Once again the opening salvo is a categorical rejection of what the theologian of glory must maintain if there is to be room “to do our best.” There must be some free will, no matter how miniscule. But the very claim is itself evidence of bondage over against the electing God. The fallen will cannot accept such a God. That is its bondage. The theologian of the cross, however, sees that that is exactly the problem, and therefore recognizes and confesses that, since the fall, free will does not exist in reality. It is an empty name. Perhaps it once existed, but no longer. Since this is the case, furthermore, when the fallen will sets out “to do its best,” it commits deadly sin. This proposition is, of course, a mighty offense. We would normally admit that in doing our best we fall short of the goals we try to reach. But to say that even in trying we commit deadly or mortal sin seems outrageous. This thesis was perhaps the most offensive of all to the papal party in Luther’s day. That is indicated by the fact that it was the only one from this Disputation actually attacked in the bull “Exsurge Domine” threatening Luther with excommunication. Luther’s reply to the bull indicates how important he considered this thesis to be. He said it was “the highest and most important issue of our cause.” (Gerhard Forde, On Being A Theologian of the Cross, comments on Thesis 13)

The will that is free of grace and the influence of God’s grace is completely powerless to do what is morally good in the sight of God. Not only that, but the will that is free of grace has no other option but to be in bondage to sin and so everything that the soul does that does not have grace is sin. Even the best of the works of those who are free of grace are sin. Even the most religious actions of those who are free of grace are sin. This line of thinking, which Luther found in Scripture and Augustine, brought the wrath of Rome upon him. In our day  it will also bring the wrath of all those who are religious and trust in a ‘free-will’ rather than grace alone.

When Jesus taught the sovereignty of grace, though not in those words, people became angry. When Paul taught that God was sovereign in giving grace, people became angry. Today, there are very few around who still teach a clear form of grace alone and oppose ‘free-will.’ It still makes people angry from staunch Pelagians to those who consider themselves quite Reformed. It is not a comfortable and easy thing to be taught that all you do and all that you are capable of doing is sin. All that you do in your good works and even if you become the most religious person in the world all you are doing is vile and reprehensible in the sight of God. A person can become Pope or the head of a denomination and be considered quite holy in the eyes of men, but if that person trusts in his or her own will rather than grace alone all that person does is filthy rags in the eyes of God.

What did Paul brag about? Did he brag about his own works and his own religiosity? No, instead he saw those things as detestable and to be repented of. He despised all the things of his very zeal in religion and wanted Christ and Christ alone. He saw himself as the chief of sinners rather than a holy man. He said that men should boast of nothing but the cross of Christ. He said that men should only boast of what God had done through them. No, Paul was no friend of ‘free-will’ which is to say he opposed all that came from sinners themselves and did not come from the grace of God. Paul saw that sinners were by nature children of wrath as such were dead in sins and trespasses. Paul saw that anything that came from people whose very nature was of wrath and were dead in sins and trespasses would be nothing but sin. They could not just choose to have God show grace on them and they could not just choose to be saved. Grace must raise them from the dead and grace must bring life into their souls so that they would be able to come to Christ by grace alone.

Luther, then, was right on track with Jesus and Paul when he saw this as “the highest and most important issue of our cause.” If it is a person’s ‘free-will’ that brings that person to Christ, then grace is no longer the sovereign choice of God. If it is a person’s ‘free-will’ that brings that person to Christ, then it is not grace that brings the person to Christ. We cannot have it both ways. This is why this was so vital to Luther as he looked at Scripture. All things spiritual and good come from grace alone or they do not. If something does not come from grace alone, then how can that please God and where does it come from? Oh how wicked it is for men to assert that some act of man apart from grace alone can please God and even cause a person to be saved. We must not only strongly reject and refuse to  teach that great error, but part of rejecting it means that we  must also oppose it as a false gospel.

Free will, after the fall, exists in name only, and as long as it does what it is able to do it commits mortal sin (Thesis 13 of the Heidelberg Disputation)

Once again the opening salvo is a categorical rejection of what the theologian of glory must maintain if there is to be room “to do our best.” There must be some free will, no matter how miniscule. But the very claim is itself evidence of bondage over against the electing God. The fallen will cannot accept such a God. That is its bondage. The theologian of the cross, however, sees that that is exactly the problem, and therefore recognizes and confesses that, since the fall, free will does not exist in reality. It is an empty name. Perhaps it once existed, but no longer. Since this is the case, furthermore, when the fallen will sets out “to do its best,” it commits deadly sin. This proposition is, of course, a mighty offense. We would normally admit that in doing our best we fall short of the goals we try to reach. But to say that even in trying we commit deadly or mortal sin seems outrageous. This thesis was perhaps the most offensive of all to the papal party in Luther’s day. That is indicated by the fact that it was the only one from this Disputation actually attacked in the bull “Exsurge Domine” threatening Luther with excommunication. Luther’s reply to the bull indicates how important he considered this thesis to be. He said it was “the highest and most important issue of our cause. (Gerhard Forde, On Being A Theologian of the Cross, comments on Thesis 13)

Roman Catholicism, in defending its position that was at best semi-Pelagianism, took issue with Luther’s position against ‘free-will” and did so strongly. Luther thought of those who advanced a theology which included ‘free-will’ as those who stood for a theology which glorified human nature and human beings, but the theologian of the cross was one that stood for the glory of God and His grace as opposed to human ability and human goodness. In order to maintain the theology of glory, there must be a ‘free-will.’ On the other hand, to truly maintain the theology of the cross there can be no ‘free-will” of the human being. Those who stand for ‘free-will’ do at some point oppose the electing grace of God in reality. True enough the words can be used, but a true theology of the electing grace of God cannot be maintained beyond just the words if one asserts ‘free-will.’

As Forde asserts, “The fallen will cannot accept such a God” and “the very claim is itself evidence of bondage over against the electing God.” What is it that the human is in bondage to in fighting the electing grace of God? The human is in bondage to the will of self rather than having been delivered by grace. It is one or the other and cannot be both. Romans 11:6 shows how acute the problem is: “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.” Whatever is of grace is wholly and totally of grace. Whatever a will that is said to be free can add to grace makes grace no longer to be pure grace which is to say it is not grace at all. The cross of Christ is where all grace that a sinner receives was purchased. The sinner must never look to self for anything to purchase or in any way obtain grace by, but instead is to look to Christ alone as the only way grace is to be obtained. The sinner must never think that grace can be obtained by a choice of his or her will, but instead grace can only be obtained by grace alone.

The human will that asserts and fights for ‘free-will’ is in reality fighting against the grace of God and in particular the electing grace of God. When people fight against the electing grace of God, what they are doing is fighting against the only kind of grace there really is. The grace of God can only be obtained by a sovereign God who alone can give grace and can never be brought under obligation or be moved to show grace in a way that is not out of love for Himself and His own glory. The desire to fight for the ‘free-will’ is nothing more than a demonstration of the bondage of sin and the opposition of the natural man to grace alone and to the electing grace of God which is the only kind of grace there is.

It matters not what theological stripe a person claims to be or what creed of confession a person claims to hold. In many important ways it does not matter what the theology of the mouth is either. What matters is the theology of the heart since that alone gets at what a person really is. A true lover of the free grace of God cannot stand for ‘free-will’ at the same time as the two cannot exist together. So many confessing Reformed people in the modern day think that they can have a theology which upholds Reformed theology while they can work with those who strongly deny free grace while upholding ‘free-will.’ This simply cannot be in reality. Those who think they can work with those who deny free grace by holding to ‘free-will’ in reality are in reality denying free grace in their own hearts. The two positions cannot be held in the same heart that the Christ of grace alone lives in. This is seen by the professing Reformed who would rather break with those who deny ‘free-will’ both in theory and in words rather than those who deny free grace in reality. Oh how far the Gospel of grace alone has fallen in the eyes and hearts of those who are supposed to be willing to die for it. Oh how far the Gospel of grace alone is denied in reality by those who prefer the honor of men in religion to the reality of grace.

If the source of grace is the predestinating purpose of God, then it comes by necessity, and not by any effort or endeavour on our part, as I showed above. Again: If God promised grace before the law, as Paul argues here and in Galatians, then it does not come by works or by law, else the promise would come to nothing; and faith also (by which Abraham was justified before the law was given) would come to nothing, should works prevail. Again: since the law is the strength of sin, displaying it without removing it, it makes the conscience guilty before God and threatens wrath. This is Paul’s meaning when he says; ‘the law worketh wrath’ (Rom 4:15). How then could righteousness be procured by the law? And if we get no help from the law, how can we get help from the power of our will alone? (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

Thesis 13 of Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation sets out that “Free will, after the fall, exists in name only, and as long as it does what it is able to do it commits mortal sin.” Gerhard Forde, in his writing about Luther One Being A Theologian of the Cross, has some powerful things to note on this Thesis:

Once again the opening salvo is a categorical rejection of what the theologian of glory must maintain if there is to be room “to do our best.” There must be some free will, no matter how miniscule. But the very claim is itself evidence of bondage over against the electing God. The fallen will cannot accept such a God. That is its bondage. The theologian of the cross, however, sees that that is exactly the problem, and therefore recognizes and confesses that, since the fall, free will does not exist in reality. It is an empty name. Perhaps it once existed, but no longer. Since this is the case, furthermore, when the fallen will sets out “to do its best,” it commits deadly sin. This proposition is, of course, a mighty offense. We would normally admit that in doing our best we fall short of the goals we try to reach. But to say that even in trying we commit deadly or mortal sin seems outrageous. This thesis was perhaps the most offensive of all to the papal party in Luther’s day. That is indicated by the fact that it was the only one from this Disputation actually attacked in the bull “Exsurge Domine” threatening Luther with excommunication. Luther’s reply to the bull indicates how important he considered this thesis to be. He said it was “the highest and most important issue of our cause.”

What Luther is saying in Bondage of the Will and in the Heidelberg Disputation is that after the fall the will has no power and no ability to do anything but sin. Even if the will tries to do its very best and actually attains the very best that it can do, it has done nothing but sin. In another place Luther calls this “splendid sins.” If that is true, and it is the historical position of the Reformed as to what Scripture teaches, then once again the case is closed. Arminianism and any form of Pelagianism are based on the teaching that ‘free-will’ can do something and at the point of doing that something (act of faith, choice) the will is free enough from grace and depravity to make that act that leads to salvation.

When a person makes the assertion that the will is free and that it is the act of the free will that enables grace to save that soul, at least two things must be true for that to be true. One, the will is not totally depraved and is not totally unable to do what is good. When the ‘free-will’ is asserted there is no way to escape the point that for the will to be free that will must be free enough from depravity at the point of making the choice for Christ to make a truly free choice. The second point, which has been made several times in former posts, is that the will must be free from grace enough to make a free choice.

The previous paragraph shows us, and hopefully quite clearly, why Luther thought that this was “the highest and most important issue of our cause.” The assertion of ‘free-will’ in a consistent manner demands the denial of total depravity and of grace alone. This shows, once again, where the bondage of the human will is the point of contact or intersection between the depravity of the human soul and the grace of God in saving human souls. If the soul is not truly in the grips of the bondage of sin and beyond any hope of any power and hope in itself then salvation is not by grace and grace alone. If salvation is by Christ and His works alone, then the will is helpless in the matter and can contribute nothing to what Christ has accomplished. True faith, therefore, cannot look to itself for any help or any choice or any action to contribute to salvation. True faith, since it has its origin in God and His work of grace in the soul, must always look to grace alone. If indeed all these things are true, and they have been the position of the Reformed in history, then the teaching of ‘free-will’ is another gospel. What Luther thought was “the highest and most important issue of our cause” because of its link with the Gospel of sovereign grace, has now been relegated to the non-essential category. That is the same thing as saying that the Gospel is no longer all that essential. We live in a day where deception has brought a deep darkness into the professing Church and what is taught as the Gospel in our day even by many professing Reformed is simply another gospel. Once one work is allowed back in the Gospel, it becomes another gospel which is very close to what Rome taught at that time.

If the source of grace is the predestinating purpose of God, then it comes by necessity, and not by any effort or endeavour on our part, as I showed above. Again: If God promised grace before the law, as Paul argues here and in Galatians, then it does not come by works or by law, else the promise would come to nothing; and faith also (by which Abraham was justified before the law was given) would come to nothing, should works prevail. Again: since the law is the strength of sin, displaying it without removing it, it makes the conscience guilty before God and threatens wrath. This is Paul’s meaning when he says; ‘the law worketh wrath’ (Rom 4:15). How then could righteousness be procured by the law? And if we get no help from the law, how can we get help from the power of our will alone? (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

Now if the purpose of the Law is to increase sin in order to drive human souls to see their utter helplessness in sin, then the Law must be taught and preached in order for man to see his utter helplessness in sin and his absolute need of Christ to do all for him. “The law worketh wrath” (Rom 4:15) and “The Law came in so that the transgression would increase” (Rom 5:20). Most men don’t mind hearing that God loves them and sent His Son to die for their sins and leaves it up to them to be saved or not, but they don’t want to and usually will not hear of a God that has sovereign rights over them and that all they do is sin and so they are helpless in sin.

Thesis 13 of Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation puts it this way: “Free will, after the fall, exists in name only, and as long as it does what it is able to do it commits mortal sin.” Gerhard Forde, in his writing about Luther One Being A Theologian of the Cross, has some powerful things to note on this Thesis:

Once again the opening salvo is a categorical rejection of what the theologian of glory must maintain if there is to be room “to do our best.” There must be some free will, no matter how miniscule. But the very claim is itself evidence of bondage over against the electing God. The fallen will cannot accept such a God. That is its bondage. The theologian of the cross, however, sees that that is exactly the problem, and therefore recognizes and confesses that, since the fall, free will does not exist in reality. It is an empty name. Perhaps it once existed, but no longer. Since this is the case, furthermore, when the fallen will sets out “to do its best,” it commits deadly sin. This proposition is, of course, a mighty offense. We would normally admit that in doing our best we fall short of the goals we try to reach. But to say that even in trying we commit deadly or mortal sin seems outrageous. This thesis was perhaps the most offensive of all to the papal party in Luther’s day. That is indicated by the fact that it was the only one from this Disputation actually attacked in the bull “Exsurge Domine” threatening Luther with excommunication. Luther’s reply to the bull indicates how important he considered this thesis to be. He said it was “the highest and most important issue of our cause.”

These points must be driven home in each heart, both those who teach and preach so that it can be driven home to the people of God and those being evangelized. In what Luther considered his most important book (Bondage of the Will) he makes this point in several ways, but it is so clear at this point. The doctrine of man’s total depravity which is to say that man can do nothing but sin was at least at the heart of “the highest and most important issue” to Luther. It is not some little issue that can be brushed to the side as if it is no bearing on vital issues. Yet, in our day that is precisely what has been done. For some reason over the years the doctrine of justification by faith alone has had the vital nerve cut from it. To Luther the bondage of the will was vital to the doctrine of justification by grace alone and without it there was no justification by grace alone. The doctrine of justification by faith alone was meant to guard what justification by grace alone really meant. But in our day the doctrine of ‘free-will’ is thought to be of little importance and that people can believe in justification by faith alone and still hold to a ‘free-will.’

The doctrine of election is also thought to be a secondary doctrine of little importance in many circles, though indeed no one wants to admit that. But the doctrine of election is necessary if grace is to be in the hands of a sovereign God who dispenses grace at His mere pleasure and who can not possibly be moved to show grace to anyone apart from being moved by Himself. But Luther shows that if grace is indeed sovereign, then it cannot come by “any effort or endeavour on our part.” The act of a ‘free-will’ is an effort and an endeavor. This shows with great clarity that a person cannot consistently hold to sovereign grace and ‘free-will’ at the same time. In fact, one cannot hold to any true form of grace at all unless it is sovereign grace. There is only one kind of grace in the universe and in reality and that is sovereign grace. ‘Free-will,’ on the other hand, at the heart of it is man trying to keep one last little island of control and power for himself to distribute grace to himself. The battle over ‘free-will’ is not about some little thing, but it is over the very nature of depravity, the nature of grace, and the Gospel itself.

If the source of grace is the predestinating purpose of God, then it comes by necessity, and not by any effort or endeavour on our part, as I showed above. Again: If God promised grace before the law, as Paul argues here and in Galatians, then it does not come by works or by law, else the promise would come to nothing; and faith also (by which Abraham was justified before the law was given) would come to nothing, should works prevail. Again: since the law is the strength of sin, displaying it without removing it, it makes the conscience guilty before God and threatens wrath. This is Paul’s meaning when he says; ‘the law worketh wrath’ (Rom 4:15). How then could righteousness be procured by the law? And if we get no help from the law, how can we get help from the power of our will alone? (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

Luther makes another devastating point. The source of grace is either the sovereign God or ourselves. Clearly, the law has no way of bringing grace since the purpose of the law was not to bring grace or give grace but to show people their sin and their helplessness in sin. Now if the source of grace is from God, then God must determine what the conditions are for it to be received and not man. If grace is from man, then man determines the conditions that he is able to obtain grace. But there is no question that Scripture teaches that the source of grace is all from God and man can do nothing as a source to obtain it.

This next question is whether God gave man one thing to do in order to obtain grace. Did God, as the source of grace, give man something to do apart from grace so man could obtain grace for himself? Did God purchase grace through Christ and leave man one thing to do to obtain grace for himself? The question reveals the absurdity of ‘free-will.’ God promised grace before the law was given and He gave no condition for His grace. Grace, in order to be grace, must always be without cause or worth in the individual that receives it. Any work makes grace no longer to be grace (Rom 11:6). The promise of grace did not depend on the law and it did not depend on the fallen human will to do something in order to obtain it. Grace depends on nothing and not one but the sovereign character of God who gives grace at He mere pleasure to the praise of the glory of His grace (Eph 1:5-7).

The promise was based on the character of God and before the law was given. The promise was not based on any act of man. Abraham was declared just before the law was given and before arguments for ‘free-will.’ God told Abraham what He was going to do and Abraham believed it. Abraham either believed by grace or he believed on the basis of a ‘free-will.’ If we say that the faith of Abraham was by grace, then we can be consistent when we assert that Abraham was declared just on the basis of grace alone. But if we assert that Abraham was declared just on the basis of God’s promise plus Abraham’s ‘free-will’ in choosing to believe that promise, then salvation is conditioned on something apart from grace alone and in effect Abraham would have been declared just on the basis of grace plus one work of the will of Abraham. If grace is contingent on the will of man that is free from grace rather than the grace of God, then grace comes by something other than grace and so is no longer grace at all.

Romans 4:15 tells us that “the Law brings about wrath.” That is in line with Romans 3:19 which tells us that “we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.” Even more, Romans 5:20 sets out that “The Law came in so that the transgression would increase.” The Law brings wrath, it is meant to shut every mouth so all the world will become accountable to God, and to give the knowledge of sin and even so that transgression would increase. There is no intent and no power in the Law to help the sinner in the slightest. All that the Law does is to show sinners their utter inability instead of their ability. The Law declares that there is no hope from man.

If we look through the haze of all the things that have been thrown up and simply look at what Scripture teaches and of the nature of grace, there is no doubt that grace has no rivals and will have not help from the human will. The human will depends on grace to do one thing right and to have the freedom to do one right act rather than grace depending on the human will to do one act by itself in order to receive grace. The human will has utterly no help from the Law and so it must receive grace by an act of God or by an act of its ‘free-will.’ But if the grace of God must wait on the human will to act, that is a grace that is no longer grace. That also leaves the will operating apart from grace for one choice in order to obtain grace. So the Law reveals the helplessness of the will to obey the Law and grace reveals that it is always from the sovereign hand of God. In a very real sense, the case is closed.