God Loves… Himself

What, pray, can be said for grace against ‘free-will’ clearly and plainly, if Paul’s discourse here is not clear and plain? He exalts grace against ‘free-will’ in categorical terms; using the clearest and simplest words, he says that we are justified freely, and that grace is not grace if procured by works. With the greatest plainness he excludes all works in the matter of justification, and so sets up grace alone, and justification that is free. Yet in this light we still seek darkness, and because we cannot give ourselves great credit, yes, all the credit, for justification, we try to give ourselves some tiny little credit—solely in order that we may gain that point that justification by the grace of God is not free and without works! As though Paul’s denial that any of our greater works contributes to our justification were not much more a denial that our tiny little works do so! Especially when he has laid it down that we are justified only by God’s grace, without any works—indeed, without the law, in which all works, great, small, congruently or condignly meritorious, are contained. (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

While it is unusual for the modern mind to think of there being a problem putting ‘free-will’ together with free-grace, Luther shows how the two cannot fit together in reality. The real issue at hand, then, is for people to come to grips with a true understanding of ‘free-will’ and free-grace. Luther says that Paul “exalts grace against ‘free-will’ in categorical terms.” What does that mean in a practical sense? It means that Paul exalts grace against ‘free-will’ in all manners, in all ways, and at all times. If grace is exalted in categorical terms, then there is no room for ‘free-will’ in the matter of justification specifically and salvation in general. Another way to look at this would be to say that wherever grace is exalted in truth, ‘free-will’ is denied and trampled on in truth. Grace and ‘free-will’ are two opposing streams of thought and cannot be reconciled. Again, whatever is of grace cannot be by works in any way. Whatever is of grace cannot be by the work of a ‘free-will’ because a will that is truly free is one that is free from sin and grace and so it cannot be by grace alone. By definition these things cannot go together, so when Paul exalts free-grace in categorical terms he is categorically denying ‘free-will’ in terms of its ability to procure grace.

Romans 11:6 sets out this teaching very plainly by saying that “if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.” This is a categorical denial of any power to anything but that of grace. If the Gospel is of grace alone apart from works, then the Gospel is of grace alone apart from ‘free-will’ too. Any denial of a work or works in the context of the Gospel of grace alone is a denial of the ‘free-will’ since it is the will that does a work. As Luther notes, this categorical use of grace denies any hope or any trust in then will and its choices and works. When one peels back the blindness about grace in the sense that it denies that grace simply finishes what human beings lack, it is seen that ‘free-will’ and the works of that will is not just inconsistent with free-grace, but contradicts free-grace.

Another place where Paul exalts free-grace in a categorical way is Romans 3:24 where he says that sinners are “justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.” This is a passage which has been dealt with in previous posts, but it makes the point again. If we interpreted this passage literally it would read something like “being justified without cause by His grace.” This tells us that there is no cause within the sinner that justifies the sinner and the only cause of salvation is grace alone. The teaching of ‘free-will’ declares that there is a cause found in the sinner and that is the one little work of the choice or decision of the ‘free-will.’ But if the teaching of ‘free-will’ is correct, then Paul could not have asserted that there is no cause but grace in justification. God does not wait for the sinner to make a choice of the will in order to declare the sinner just, but God changes the heart of the sinner and unites that sinner to Christ apart from any cause in the sinner to do so.

Another way to approach this glorious teaching of the Gospel of free-grace is to look at the nature of grace in the sense that grace is not just some power operating in the universe, but grace is an attribute of God. When grace is shown, it is God showing Himself. When grace is exerted, it is God that is exerting Himself. So when it is said that the Gospel is a Gospel of free-grace, what is really being said (if one understands it) is that the Gospel is all of God and is in accordance with the grace of God who is gracious to whom He will be gracious. When the Scriptures teach that sinners are “justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,” they are exalting the beauty and glory of God who saves sinners according to Himself. To assert grace alone, then, is to assert that the Gospel is all about what God as triune has planned and accomplished and what God as triune applies. The weak and miserable action of a choice of the ‘free-will’  not only is not  needed, but it  is also enmity against God.

What, pray, can be said for grace against ‘free-will’ clearly and plainly, if Paul’s discourse here is not clear and plain? He exalts grace against ‘free-will’ in categorical terms; using the clearest and simplest words, he says that we are justified freely, and that grace is not grace if procured by works. With the greatest plainness he excludes all works in the matter of justification, and so sets up grace alone, and justification that is free. Yet in this light we still seek darkness, and because we cannot give ourselves great credit, yes, all the credit, for justification, we try to give ourselves some tiny little credit—solely in order that we may gain that point that justification by the grace of God is not free and without works! As though Paul’s denial that any of our greater works contributes to our justification were not much more a denial that our tiny little works do so! Especially when he has laid it down that we are justified only by God’s grace, without any works—indeed, without the law, in which all works, great, small, congruently or condignly meritorious, are contained. (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

What a powerful and virtually unanswerable statement by Luther. There are, however, some things that are between the lines or perhaps could be said to be an undercurrent that is the energy that carries what is on the surface along. What must be seen is that Luther asserts that justification is by grace alone apart from any and all works. The teaching of ‘free-will,’ even the slightest bit of it, is in direct opposition to the words of Paul and his teachings on grace alone. If the Gospel includes the fact that sinners are justified by grace alone, then the Gospel excludes any help from the ‘free-will’ in all cases and in all ways. This is to say that Luther believed that the Gospel of justification by grace alone could not be preached apart from the bondage of the human will and apart from the utter helplessness of human souls in sin. Another issue, seen from previous writings of Luther and postings on those writings, is that this grace is always sovereign grace. So when Luther speaks of Paul exalting grace against works, he is setting out the real issue which is the grace of a sovereign God which lacks nothing in Christ versus something a human being can add to it or merit.

When grace is exalted, it is the glory of God’s grace that is being exalted. We must look below the surface of the words to see what is going on. God saves to the praise of the glory of His grace (Eph 1:5-6) and not based on any works or any single work of the human being. The grace of God is so glorious and so exalted that it must never have any human being contribute to the procurement of it. Luther is so clear that “grace is not grace if procured by works,” which comes from and is based on Romans 11:6. When Paul teaches that the soul is justified or saved by grace apart from works, he meant each and every work of the human soul. A soul that is saved by grace alone must be saved apart from one work and even a partial work in order for it to be by grace alone. The grace of God points back to the fact that salvation is entirely of God and man can do nothing to add to who god is. The grace of God points to the fact that salvation is entirely of the works of Christ which totally and in every way procures salvation for all those who are truly saved.

The word “procure” is a word that brings the teaching of ‘free-will’ out of the darkness and into the light so that it may shrivel into the nothingness that it is and any hope that a poor sinner has in it may die. To procure is the action of obtaining something. It is not just the purchase of something; it is also the actual acquiring of what was purchased. Can the ‘free-will’ actually purchase any part of its own redemption? Can the ‘free-will’ actually acquire what Christ has purchased? Now it can be seen what the ‘free-will’ must do if it is to do anything in the realm of salvation. In order for the ‘free-will’ to have a part in the salvation of the soul, it must at least have the ability to actually purchase part of its own salvation or to actually acquire and obtain the purchased salvation. It is precisely this which Paul and then Luther denied ever so strongly. But it is this point that the adherents of ‘free-will’ must defend if their teaching is going to mean anything meaningful at all.

As long as any person claims that ‘free-will’ has anything to do with salvation, that person must demonstrate where grace is lacking in either the purchase or the procurement (obtaining/acquiring) of that salvation. As Luther pointed out which he based on Romans 11:6, “grace is not grace if procured by works.” How many claim today that Christ has purchased the whole of salvation but that the actual obtaining of it depends on the act of the ‘free-will.’ What they are missing, however, is that Christ’s purchase included the procuring of salvation. The only way that salvation can be obtained or procured is by the Holy Spirit applying what Christ purchased and that is by grace alone. One cannot hold to ‘free-will’ and still hold to a Gospel of grace alone in truth.

For if we are justified without works, all works are condemned, whether small or great; Paul exempts none, but thunders impartially against all. (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

Luther, in his statements like the one above, was himself thundering against all works and any one work for salvation. His work, from which the above quote came from, was a defense of the biblical teaching on The Bondage of the Will. He wrote that work to defend the doctrine of justification by faith apart from works which was necessary in order to maintain the doctrine of salvation by grace alone. In other words, the teaching of the bondage of the will was and is the connection between two main teachings He was absolutely sure of. Those two teachings He thought were the main springs of Christianity. One, that man was totally and utterly helpless in sin. Two, it was a verity that grace alone could save and that grace was a sovereign grace. The teaching that man has a ‘free-will’ denies both of those teachings and as such is an attack on the Gospel of grace alone. Luther wrote his book in a defense of the Gospel itself. Since Luther saw that the doctrine of the bondage of the will was necessary to maintain the Gospel because it is the point where the depravity of man and the grace of God connect. The Gospel of grace apart from works is not a teaching that falls in some vacuum, but instead it is all about the character of God and the nature of human beings. Paul and Luther thundered against all works and any one work for salvation because any work or all works undermined the truth of the Gospel of grace alone.

Romans 3:24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;
Gal 5:2 Behold I, Paul, say to you that if you receive circumcision, Christ will be of no benefit to you 3 And I testify again to every man who receives circumcision, that he is under obligation to keep the whole Law. 4 You have been severed from Christ, you who are seeking to be justified by law; you have fallen from grace.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.
Titus 3:7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

In the verses above it is quite clear that sinners are justified by grace and grace alone. There is no work possible when something is by grace alone. If a person seeks to be justified by works of the law or a work of the law, that person has fallen from grace in the sense that the person is not seeking justification on the basis of grace alone. Remember, Paul started off the book of Galatians stating that if an angel or anyone else preached a different gospel, that person was to be eternally cursed (Gal 1:6-8). The Judaizers believed that one could not be saved apart from being circumcised. So it is this one work that Paul is primarily going after in the book of Galatians.

It is quite clear from Galatians 5:2-4 that this one work of circumcision did not mean that it was grace plus one little thing, but Paul said that those who did that one little thing had fallen from grace as a way of salvation but that they were also under obligation to keep the whole Law. This is a powerful and even stunning point made by Paul. There are two ways of salvation. One is totally, wholly, and only by grace alone and the second is totally, wholly and only by works alone. There can be no mixing of the two at all. To seek justification by grace alone means that the soul must leave all works behind and look to grace alone. To seek justification by works alone means to leave grace behind and seek it by works alone. It is one or the other, it cannot be by both. If the soul wanted to rest or trust in one work, then the soul was obligated to the system of works for salvation. The soul could not try to add one work to grace because that would mean it was no longer by grace alone and that one work meant that the soul had only one way of salvation left to it and that was by works.

Indeed Luther and those who believe that he was accurate on what he wrote on the Gospel may sound crazy and very narrow. But are they narrower than the Bible itself? No, Scripture sets out two ways of salvation and two only. One is by grace alone where Christ has earned salvation as a whole and gives it by grace alone. The second is by the works of each individual person. To have grace alone a person must give up all works in every sense for justification. Adding one work to grace means that the person has fallen from grace alone and is now obligated to works as a system for salvation. That is why Paul and then Luther so thundered on these subjects. That is why Luther was so opposed to the teaching of ‘free-will.” That one little act of the so-called ‘free-will’ moved a person from trusting in grace alone to a system of obligation to works apart from grace. It is that important and it is that vital. A person that allows for a theology that asserts ‘free-will’ to be considered as the Gospel is not standing for the Gospel of grace alone. It would be to be thought of as gracious while it attacks the truth of grace itself.

For if we are justified without works, all works are condemned, whether small or great; Paul exempts none, but thunders impartially against all. (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

One of the great dangers of ‘free-will’ is that it demands that salvation is by grace plus one little work. Over and over the Scripture speaks of souls being justified by faith. Do the Scriptures mean that it is faith that justifies or that it is the person who has faith is justified by Christ alone and grace alone? It is clearly the latter. For the will to be truly free and so come up with faith itself it must have the ability to manufacture one work or one part of one work apart from grace. It is that little work that goes against the whole of Scripture. When Scripture defines or sets out that to be justified by faith means to be justified by faith apart from works, we must not then go on to say that when Scripture says in other places that a person is justified by faith that we can simply forget the “no works” part. Faith for justification is opposed to one or many works at all for justification. A true faith will lead to works, but one is not saved or justified by those works. The faith that saves or is the instrument God uses to justify sinners is opposed to any and all works that are for salvation or that try to help in salvation. The glory is all His and just on e smallest work spoils grace alone.

Romans 3:28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.
Romans 4:5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness,

Galatians 2:16 nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.
Gal 3:24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.

Ephesians 2:8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10 For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

While many good (at least outwardly) people try to cry out that salvation is by grace alone and Christ alone, they spoil that with their staunch defense of ‘free-will.’ Not only do they spoil it, they totally ruin it at least in terms of concept. God justifies sinners on the basis of faith because He justifies sinners by grace alone and Christ alone. There is no act of the human will that is apart from grace that one can add to grace and still think that it is grace alone that saves. There is no act of the human will that is apart from the power of Christ and the cross of Christ that one can add to the work of Christ and still think that salvation is by Christ alone. The Law was given for the purpose of showing men that they could not do works to be saved, but that has left so many who now just trust in the one work of the will in choosing or in coming up with faith in order to be saved. This little bit of the human will is like leaven which works itself all through the dough. Instead of this one little bit of the human will pointing to grace, it spoils grace because it demands something for itself.

There are many professing believers today who would cry out with vigor if someone tried to bring in one work that man is to do to be saved. They would be indignant if someone said that one is saved by grace plus tithing. They would be indignant if people cried out that people are saved by grace plus attending church. But there is barely a peep (if that) heard when people assert that one is saved by grace that requires an act of the ‘free-will.’ What does grace require of human souls? It does not require an act of the ‘free-will’ because the will is not free to do anything. The whole soul must be regenerated by grace alone before there will be faith. The grace of God is not dependent on the ‘free-will’ of man for it to act, but instead the will of man is dependent on the grace of God to enable it to act. In that case, then, the will is not free but instead it is totally dependent on grace. The ‘free-will’ position leaves man in a position of depending on his own will and that makes it a work. Paul, as Luther said, thundered against many works or one work because he said the soul was justified apart from works. ‘Free-will’ is a work of the human will and so Paul thundered against it as well. The Gospel of Christ is of grace alone through faith alone which means that it is apart from the works of the will or one work of the will. ‘Free-will’ is a work that is brought in to the Gospel and as such makes it a different gospel. Paul and then Luther stood against that.

Then, in the second place, this hypocrisy of theirs results in their valuing and seeking to purchase the grace of God at a much cheaper rate than the Pelagians. The latter assert that it is not by a feeble something within us that we obtain grace, but by efforts and works that are complete, entire, perfect, many and mighty; but our friends here tell us that it is by something very small, almost nothing, that we merit grace [act of a ‘free-will’]…For if we are justified without works, all works are condemned, whether small or great; Paul exempts none, but thunders impartially against all. (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

Luther was very opposed to ‘free-will’ because of its attack on the heart of Christianity and the Gospel of grace alone. The ‘free-will’ seems like such a small thing, but the reality of the matter is that it is at the heart of the Gospel of grace alone. He was also opposed to it because it seemed to be so small and yet it was a vicious attack on the Gospel in reality. It was insidious because it was so well hidden and yet did so much damage. The doctrine of the bondage of the will strikes at the heart of human pride in many ways. It strikes at the pride of self-sufficiency and the pride of man in wanting to determine his own destiny as he pleases. This small, little, even tiny act of the ‘free-will’ (when its darkness is exposed by the light) is that which fallen man loves more than anything else. It shows a love for self and is a very man-centered teaching that is opposed to a God-centered teaching.

The will is not a sovereign but is always ruled over by another. The will is part of the soul and so the soul is sovereign over it (in a manner of speaking) or God is sovereign over the will. Faith either comes from the soul as a self-sovereign or it comes from God as sovereign over the soul. If faith comes from the self, then that is a work of the flesh and so how can that faith be any more an acceptable work to God than the righteous deeds of the Pharisees? True and acceptable faith to God must be the handiwork of the Spirit because of the work of Christ or it is not acceptable to God at all. Again, faith is either a work of the soul or something purchased by Christ and applied by the Spirit. The faith that is from the so-called ‘free-will’ is a work of the flesh and as such could never move God to anything but wrath. Nothing good can come from the flesh and that includes the choice of the flesh.

Those who promote the teaching of ‘free-will’ need to be asked what happens after free-wills make their choices for salvation. Does Christ reign in His temple or does self reign in the temple? It would appear, if one follows the thought consistently, that the one that makes that momentous choice is the one that rules in the temple. If the will is free enough to make that final choice for salvation, then that will continues to be free with each choice after that. This means that the ‘free-will’ that chooses salvation is lord of itself and the captain of its own salvation, but not only that it is the captain of its own soul in sanctification as well. The ‘free-will,’ then, overthrows the lordship of Christ and sets itself up as ruler of the soul.

Since the ‘free-will’ is captain of its own sanctification, then holiness must come from the choices of ‘free-will’ rather than be from God. While Scripture tells us that Christ is our sanctification (I Cor 1:30) and that true holiness is for the soul to share in His holiness (Heb 12:10), the teaching of ‘free-will’ overthrows that as well. If salvation begins with an act of the ‘free-will,’ then surely it must continue by the acts of the will as well. So if justification is by faith plus one act of the will, sanctification can only come to the soul by many acts of the will. Yet Scripture is quite clear that salvation from beginning to end is by grace alone through faith.

The salvation that starts with one act of the ‘free-will’ must have its life (of the soul) from the ‘free-will’ and its continuing acts as well. While Scripture teaches that the self must die so that Christ is the life of the soul, ‘free-will’ teaches that salvation begins with one act of the will and as such it must continue with repeated acts as well. This would include love as well since love is either an act of a ‘free-will’ or it comes by the work of the Spirit of love in the soul. The Scripture teaches that God is the only source of love since He is the origin of love since He is the God who lives in perfect love within His triune being. But ‘free-will’ must assign love as possible for it to work up as well. So the will is set up as a source of holiness, life, and love and be what moves God to give grace. This, surely, is clear that when this is thought to be true the human soul has bowed to self and not God. Oh how deceptive a teaching this is when it creeps into the professing Church and sets itself up and is then bowed down to and trusted in rather than God. It leads to human beings trusting in themselves by their ‘free-will’ rather than the very nature of God. If the soul is justified by grace apart from works, then ‘free-will’ is an idol and it should be treated as such.

Then, in the second place, this hypocrisy of theirs results in their valuing and seeking to purchase the grace of God at a much cheaper rate than the Pelagians. The latter assert that it is not by a feeble something within us that we obtain grace, but by efforts and works that are complete, entire, perfect, many and mighty; but our friends here tell us that it is by something very small, almost nothing, that we merit grace [act of a ‘free-will’]…For if we are justified without works, all works are condemned, whether small or great; Paul exempts none, but thunders impartially against all. (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

One of the great battles of the Reformation was over the issue of ‘free-will’ or bondage of the will in terms of the Gospel. At times it might not have used that language, but the whole issue of the sinfulness of man and his inability was over this issue. While many understand one of the main issues of the Reformation was justification by faith alone, yet that doctrine also had bigger principles that it was being used to defend. This issue of the bondage of the will is at the very heart of the Gospel and as such at the heart of the Reformation. When the heart of the Gospel of grace alone is attacked, one must rise to defend it. As people during and just after the New Testament times were willing to be put to death rather than offer one pinch of incense to Caesar, so the lovers of the Gospel of grace alone must be willing to suffer ridicule in the stand for the true Gospel of grace alone.

Luther saw the great dangers of the leaven involved in that one little choice of the ‘free-will’ to the Gospel and the heart of the Reformation. He saw it as a great danger and how deceptive it was. The problem today is that we don’t. It has become far more important to be thought of as gracious and nice and as willing to work with people who differ on some minor issues. It may be important to work with people who differ on minor issues, but this is not a minor issue. Paul declared without any equivocation that sinners are saved by grace apart from works. Yet the teaching of ‘free-will’ tries to disguise what it really is and sneak one work into the Gospel. But as Paul also declared, anything but grace alone makes grace to be less than grace.

As noted in the last BLOG, while ‘free-will’ is brought into the camp at the point of choosing salvation, it goes farther than that. If the will is free at the point of conversion, then it is also free if not even more free after conversion. Instead of great truth taught by Jesus that apart from Him we can do nothing (John 15:4-5), those who teach ‘free-will’ do teach that we can do something apart from Him. If the will is indeed free, then for it to be free it has to be free at some point from Christ and His work as the Vine. This leaves the deadly problem of works in sanctification and the problem of free choices in all aspects of Christianity. Grace is cast out in truth while it retains the helper of the will rather than the sovereign ruler of the will. Indeed it is just one small thing at the beginning, but like a virus it takes over and begins to run things.

That virus leads us in our day to hear people teach that God cannot violate the ‘free-will’ but instead must wait on the human to do something. Who is sovereign in that case? It makes grace to be at the beck and call of the human being rather than grace as the sovereign act of God. It makes man and his will out to be sovereign in the matter. It makes the choice of man as sovereign rather than the grace of God. But to be clear on the matter, it also makes grace to be less than grace because it means that God gives grace because a human being made a choice. In other words, the act of the ‘free-will’ is something that moves God to give grace, but that means that grace is given because of something the human does. That something, call it what you will, is a work. That means that this choice of man is now the focus rather than grace. It is a different gospel.

So while it is taught that the act of the will is so weak and so nothing it is really not a work, that is nothing more than words hiding reality. This so-called little act of the will, in reality and as it is seen for what it is, actually destroys the heart of Christianity and sets up an idol in its place. It sets up the idol of man and his will in the place of grace and then that idol gains strength as time goes on so that all is now bowing at the idol of ‘free-will’ in the professing Church. The great idol must be entertained and wooed so that men will choose Christ. That great idol must be given campaigns in order to get enough money so that this great idol can be bowed to in the methods of evangelism and missions. That great idol must be coddled so that it will want to attend and tithe so that great buildings erected to the idol of ‘free-will’ can be paid for and attract others who follow this great idol. The doctrine of ‘free-will’ is indeed nothing but a doctrine of idolatry and defending the throne of the idol that tries to set itself up in the temple of the living God. It may appear small, but it is a huge and consuming idol.

Then, in the second place, this hypocrisy of theirs results in their valuing and seeking to purchase the grace of God at a much cheaper rate than the Pelagians. The latter assert that it is not by a feeble something within us that we obtain grace, but by efforts and works that are complete, entire, perfect, many and mighty; but our friends here tell us that it is by something very small, almost nothing, that we merit grace [act of a ‘free-will’]…For if we are justified without works, all works are condemned, whether small or great; Paul exempts none, but thunders impartially against all. (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

Luther has set out to show that the Arminian (semi-Pelagian) teaching of one work of the ‘free-will’ was actually worse than the Pelagian teaching that people should work hard and merit salvation. On the surface something seems wrong with that thought, but the more one looks at it the more sense it makes. In some ways Arminianism (semi-Pelagianism) is worse than the full form of Pelagianism. Once a person sees what an act of a ‘free-will’ really is, then that person can see something of what Luther wrote about and preached about. His opposition to ‘free-will’ might seem like a person making a mountain out of a mole-hill, but Luther looked past the words and the appearances to see where this act of the ‘free-will’ came from and what it led to.

The Reformation was planted firmly in the biblical teaching of grace alone, but that means sovereign grace alone. In earlier BLOGS it was pointed out that there were twin teachings at the heart of the Reformation Gospel and those were the utter helplessness of man and the sovereign grace of God. Both of those teachings meet at the doctrine of the bondage of the will which Luther considered utterly vital to the Gospel of the Reformation. The Gospel is known in the modern day as justification by faith alone, but that is largely truncated in the modern day. The Gospel of justification by faith alone does not stand alone and apart from the twin teachings at the heart of the Reformation Gospel. In fact, they stand or fall together. So when a person asserts that man has ‘free-will’ and can choose salvation on his own and even that he must choose to be saved from his own will, that is an attack on the Gospel of grace alone to those who are utterly helpless in their sin. The doctrine or concept of ‘free-will’ in terms of how it fits with the Gospel is an attack on the Gospel when it is seen in this context.

Pelagianism teaches that a person must work hard to merit salvation, but Arminianism teaches that all a person must do is one act of the ‘free-will” and then that person will be saved. Again, that one act of the ‘free-will’ demands that the will be free enough from its own depravity and deadness to be something less than totally helpless and to have just a little ability rather than total inability. On the other hands, for the will to be free in its acts it cannot be moved in the final choice by grace alone or the will would not be free. So it can be easily seen that the teaching of ‘free-will’ is an assault on the primary teachings of Christianity as it came from the Reformation. Luther saw this but apparently not many see this today. While Luther is lauded as a great Reformer his teaching on this issue is all but ignored. That is much like the Pharisees of New Testament times who would speak highly of and adorn the graves of the prophets while killing the prophets of their own day.

Luther abhorred the fact that people thought that salvation could be had by one small act of the ‘free-will’ while at the same time they denounced Pelagianism. While it may seem that Arminianism is closer to the Gospel of grace alone and just one small act of the will away from grace alone, Luther saw it as valuing the Gospel less. Many if not virtually all the Reformed today think of Arminianism as teaching something just slightly less than a pure Gospel and yet in the family of Christ, but Luther would not have that thought at all. As he said, “if we are justified without works, all works are condemned, whether small or great.” This should provoke us to thought and prayer. Is the Gospel not only compromised by many works, but also by one tiny little work as well? Is the Gospel of grace alone set out by Paul and then any work at all denounced by him?

The teaching of ‘free-will’ in terms of the Gospel is a Trojan horse in the modern professing Church where the professing Church has the blinders on rather than the horse. It has been brought in the walls of the Gospel of grace alone as just one small thing and yet within that one small thing is an attack on the Gospel itself and what makes the Gospel necessary. It is an attack on the utter inability and total helplessness of man in sin which makes grace alone and Christ alone as necessary to the Gospel. It is an attack on the Gospel of Christ alone and grace alone because that one small work of the ‘free-will’ is said to be necessary. If that act of the ‘free-will’ is necessary, then Christ did not do it all and grace is not alone. That one little act then continues on in the realm of sanctification and beyond so that before long it is ‘free-will’ that is on the throne rather than Christ. There used to be a commercial of a hair product which said that “one little dab will do ya.” In the Gospel one little dab of ‘free-will’ will undo ya. The Gospel of grace alone is under full attack today while those who claim to be friends of it are trying to be gracious and winsome to the enemies of it. After all, they say, Arminians believe in justification by faith alone as well. That just shows that the Trojan horse has made massive inroads in our day.

Then, in the second place, this hypocrisy of theirs results in their valuing and seeking to purchase the grace of God at a much cheaper rate than the Pelagians. The latter assert that it is not by a feeble something within us that we obtain grace, but by efforts and works that are complete, entire, perfect, many and mighty; but our friends here tell us that it is by something very small, almost nothing, that we merit grace.
Now, if there must be error, those who say that the grace of God is priced high, and account it dear and costly, err less shamefully and presumptuously than those who teach that its price is a tiny trifle, and account it cheap and contemptible. Paul, however pounds both errors to a single pulp with one word when he says that all are justified freely, without the law, and without the works of the law. The assertion that justification is free to all that are justified leaves none to work, merit or prepare themselves, and leaves no work that can be said to carry either congruent or condign merit. By the one cast of this thunderbolt, Paul shatters both the Pelagians with their total merit and the Sophists with their tiny merit. Free justification does not permit you to set men working for it, for free donation and preparation by working are manifestly incompatible. Furthermore, justification by grace does not permit you to regard the worthiness of any person, as Paul later says in the eleventh chapter: ‘if by grace, then it is no more or works; otherwise, grace is not grace’ (v. 6). So, too, he says in the fourth chapter: ‘Now to him that worketh the reward is reckoned, not of grace, but of debt’ (v. 4). And so my good Paul, the scourge of ‘free-will’, stands undefeated! He lays low two armies with a single word! For if we are justified without works, all works are condemned, whether small or great; Paul exempts none, but thunders impartially against all. (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

It is clear from the quote above that Luther, the one that God primarily used to  rediscover justification by faith alone, was vehemently against ‘free-will’ because he saw it as against the free-grace of God in the Gospel. Not only does the Gospel of justification by grace alone determine what ‘faith alone’ means, it stands opposed to any and all works for salvation. Since justification by grace alone is the larger principle that determines what faith alone means, that shows us that the works (in any way, shape, form, or fashion) that are not consistent with the Gospel of grace alone are not consistent with justification by faith alone. The teaching of ‘free-will’ is that the will is free and (logically) so free of grace and of depravity in the sense that it can make a choice for Christ. However, the will that is free must be free from total depravity and must be free of grace in order to be free, and that shows that salvation is not by grace alone. But if salvation is not by grace alone, it cannot be by faith alone either.

So we are left with Luther’s position that ‘free-will’ is simply a work that is added to the Gospel of grace alone. Luther goes on to use two verses that he has used before, but they are powerful texts in this regard. One, Romans 11:6 sets out that it salvation is by grace then it is no longer of works or grace is no longer grace. In other words, salvation is only grace to the degree it is not of works. So when one sets out that the ‘free-will’ must make a choice and God then moves to save the soul, that one act of the will is a work (because not of grace) and so grace is no longer grace. This simply cannot be stressed too much. One act of a ‘free-will’ in effect destroys the doctrine of grace alone and that one act of what is thought to be a ‘free-will’ by an individual person destroys the soul of that person because that person is trusting in self rather than grace alone.

The second passage Luther uses is Romans 4:4, which says that “to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.” In the context of a ‘free-will’ this teaches us that even if there is only one work for a salvation that is based on that one work would then not be grace but a wage. But again, a ‘free-will’ is a will that is free from grace (at least to a degree) and as such is a work that a human being does that God rewards with salvation. Instead of God being moved by Himself and all causation in salvation being by grace alone and by Christ alone, the teaching of ‘free-will’ leaves the human soul with one little work to do. But that one little work in appearance is a gigantic work in effect because it destroys the person’s hope of looking to grace alone and instead leaves the person trusting in self to trust in Christ and trusting in self to trust in grace. But again, while it appears to be one small or tiny little work, it is gigantic at least in its effects. One little work makes grace to be something other than grace alone and so it is not really grace at all. One little work makes salvation to be contingent on a wage of the human soul and again that makes grace no longer to be grace. The teaching of ‘free-will’ is opposed to the biblical Gospel and it should be fought against at every opportunity as a false gospel.

Then, in the second place, this hypocrisy of theirs results in their valuing and seeking to purchase the grace of God at a much cheaper rate than the Pelagians. The latter assert that it is not by a feeble something within us that we obtain grace, but by efforts and works that are complete, entire, perfect, many and mighty; but our friends here tell us that it is by something very small, almost nothing, that we merit grace.

Now, if there must be error, those who say that the grace of God is priced high, and account it dear and costly, err less shamefully and presumptuously than those who teach that its price is a tiny trifle, and account it cheap and contemptible. Paul, however pounds both errors to a single pulp with one word when he says that all are justified freely, without the law, and without the works of the law. The assertion that justification is free to all that are justified leaves none to work, merit or prepare themselves, and leaves no work that can be said to carry either congruent or condign merit. By the one cast of this thunderbolt, Paul shatters both the Pelagians with their total merit and the Sophists with their tiny merit. Free justification does not permit you to set men working for it, for free donation and preparation by working are manifestly incompatible. Furthermore, justification by grace does not permit you to regard the worthiness of any person, as Paul later says in the eleventh chapter: ‘if by grace, then it is no more or works; otherwise, grace is not grace’ (v. 6). So, too, he says in the fourth chapter: ‘Now to him that worketh the reward is reckoned, not of grace, but of debt’ (v. 4). And so my good Paul, the scourge of ‘free-will’, stands undefeated! He lays low two armies with a single word! For if we are justified without works, all works are condemned, whether small or great; Paul exempts none, but thunders impartially against all. (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

We are still in the broader context of Luther’s assertion that Arminianism (though he did not use that word as Arminius was later) is perhaps worse than Pelagianism. Luther’s points are powerful and very edged. The full Pelagian just admits that you have to do something to merit salvation and so sets out to work for it. However, the Arminian (semi-Pelagian) has just one tiny work to do and that is an act of the will called faith. This is what Erasmus was teaching and it is basically the position of Arminians today. If the will is indeed free, even if not completely free as Erasmus taught, then there is some little something that the will is able to do that merits salvation or moves God to save the soul. It is clear that Erasmus did not want to admit that and it is just as clear that Arminians today don’t want to admit this either. But that one act of the ‘free-will’ regardless of how little the act is and regardless of how much the will is assisted is an act that is needed for salvation and as such makes the salvation of the sinner out to be something less than grace alone.

Luther is convinced that the full Pelagian values salvation more than the Arminian as it works harder to merit it. But the Arminian position thinks that salvation can be had with almost no effort or merit at all. It just needs this one tiny act of the will to accomplish salvation. It is as if God cannot quite accomplish it all and is waiting on man to do this one tiny little thing so that He can finish the work and save the soul. The deception of the Arminian position is quite clear in that the Arminian will still assert that it is grace alone that saves the soul, yet will grow quite angry when it is pointed out that the act of the so-called ‘free-will’ is not consistent with grace alone.

When Paul set out that God justifies sinners freely by His grace (Rom 3:24), he is quite clear that there is no point at which works have merit or a place in the Gospel. Paul goes on to say that men are justified by faith apart from the works of the Law (v. 28), and when he does that he means all works. He did not say that sinners are justified 99.99999999999 percent by faith and that little act of the ‘free-will,’ but that sinners are justified apart from works of the Law. In other words, no work of fallen man has a place in the salvation of the sinner. The Gospel of grace alone comes to the sinner by grace alone and it is to the glory of God alone. The Gospel of grace alone that is to the glory of God alone is received by faith alone and that must be a faith that is by grace or it is a work that contributes something to salvation and destroys the teaching of Scripture of grace alone. If salvation of grace alone is mixed with the work of man then there is some little something that man can boast of and yet Scripture is so clear that man has nothing to boast about (Rom 3:27). All boasting of self is excluded which means that all of salvation is by grace and men are left to boast in nothing but the cross of Christ alone. That one little act of the so-called ‘free-will’ is not so little at all but instead opposes the glory of God in the Gospel of grace alone. It is so tiny and it makes so much sense to the fallen mind, but that is why it is more dangerous than open Pelagianism. Luther points this out and how we should be thankful that the Lord opened his eyes to this.

The guardians of ‘free-will’ have exemplified the saying: ‘out of the frying-pan, into the fire.’ In their zeal to disagree with the Pelagians they start denying condign merit, and by the very form of their denial they set it up more firmly! By word and pen they deny it, but really, in their hearts, they establish it, and are worse than the Pelagians upon two counts. In the first place, the Pelagians confess and assert condign merit straightforwardly, candidly and honestly, calling a spade a spade and teaching what they really hold. But our friends here, who hold and teach the same view, try to fool us with lying words and false appearances, giving out that they disagree with the Pelagians, when there is nothing that they are further from doing! ‘If you regard our pretences, we appear as the Pelagians’ bitterest foes; but if you regard the facts and our hearts, we are Pelagians double-dyed.’ (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

Arminianism was, indeed, in Reformed eyes a renunciation of New Testament Christianity in favor 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. In the light of what Luther says to Erasmus, there is no doubt that he would have endorsed this judgment. (“Historical and Theological Introduction” to Bondage of the Will)

In order to appear before men as gracious and winsome or perhaps as humble, the Arminian error and effort of inserting works into the Gospel of grace alone is said to be wrong but not wrong enough to make it a false gospel. But of course, if trusting in self for circumcision is enough to cause one to fall from grace (as a way of salvation) as Galatians teaches, then surely trusting in self to come up with faith in order to trust in Christ is even more of an egregious error. This is not just a small error, but it is a monumental error at its very heart. It leaves sinners looking to themselves for faith rather than looking to God to give them faith by giving them a new heart to believe. This goes at the very heart of what used to be Reformed evangelism which was to have sinners seek God to give them a new heart. But now we have sinners looking to themselves for faith and evidently they don’t really need a new heart to believe as it was once taught by Jesus in John 3:3-8 and by John in John 1:12-13.

Again, the insertion of a ‘free-will’ into the faith issue is a monumental error that attacks so many of the primary teachings of Scripture. We have seen how it attacks the Gospel of grace alone by inserting the work of faith. It attacks the Gospel of Christ alone because now there is one work left for man to do and so Christ did not complete all the work. It attacks the sufficiency of God as it says that man is sufficient to come up with one work that God cannot do for man. It attacks the background of the total depravity of man which implies that man don’t need salvation by grace alone since there is one little part in man that does not need to be redeemed and that one little part plays a large part in salvation. It destroys the true concept of faith which is to behold the glory of Christ and to receive Christ alone by grace alone, but now it is look to self alone for faith in order for God to respond and save that soul.

Another important point is to look again at the picture that Paul gives of circumcision and of grace in Galatians 5. He tells us that if a person received circumcision, Christ was of no benefit to that person. He went on to say that if a person received circumcision, that person was then obligated to keep the whole Law. The one act of circumcision added to the Gospel of grace alone meant that Christ was of no benefit to that person and that the person was obligated to keep the whole Law. What does Arminianism say but that a person must come up with faith from his or her own ‘free-will’ in order to be saved? What is that but adding a work to the Gospel? Can we say anything less of Arminianism than of the Judaizers? I don’t think that we can. If a person is looking to and trusting in self for faith, then Christ is of no benefit to that person. If a person is looking to and trusting in self for faith, then for that person to be saved that person must keep the whole Law to do so.

In other words, to rely on self for faith is in principle a return to works as said in the Introduction above, but it is even more than that. It is a return to works for salvation to that person. God will accept no work for salvation as the Gospel is a Gospel of grace alone. Salvation is by grace alone from beginning to end and that includes faith. To add one work to that is to make Christ of on benefit to that person and so that leaves them in their system of works. The Gospel is of grace alone and the only other choice is a gospel of works alone. It is one or the other and cannot be of any mixture at all. The person who trusts in self for faith is also obligated to trust in self to keep the Law. The person that rests in Christ alone and grace alone looks to God for a new heart which is able to believe and so the faith itself is a gift by His free grace. Those who will not stand against the so-called gospel of faith by self and the rest by grace are not really standing for the Gospel of grace alone, but instead are actually standing with those who teach the gospel of self-faith and so are standing with Pelagianism in its false gospel. But of course they deny that they are Pelagian and in their words and creeds they are not. But their deeds declare that their Reformed words are covering over a Pelagian heart.