God Loves… Himself

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)

Where are the Reformed people today who will stand up and state what Arminianism really is? This is not to say that just because a person professes to be an Arminian means that the person is necessarily unconverted, but the doctrines and teachings of Arminianism were clearly and strongly denied by Luther to be Christian. According to the writers (Packer and Johnson) of the Introduction to Luther’s Bondage of the Will, it was also that way to Reformed eyes as a whole at one point. While this may be repetition, it is important enough to be repetitive. It has everything to do what the doctrines of total depravity, sovereign grace, and justification by faith alone really mean.

The Scripture is quite clear that sinners are saved by faith apart from works (Rom 3:28), or in other words it is justification by faith alone. But the reason it is by faith alone is in order that it may be by grace alone (Rom 4:16). This is a vital point that is, perhaps, a real dividing point. The whole purpose that salvation is by faith apart from works is because that is the way that it is by grace alone. If salvation is by faith alone for the purpose that it may be by grace alone, then any work that worms its way into faith has some impact on the bigger principle of grace alone. If at any point salvation comes by faith and that faith is a work of the human will apart from grace, then salvation by grace alone is destroyed. As Romans 11:6 teaches, “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.” Grace is no longer grace is one work enters in. So if faith is a work of the human will, salvation by grace alone has been destroyed.

New Testament Judaism said that it relied on grace but still looked to one work that was needed. Paul said that one work was a different Gospel (Galatians 1:6-10 in context of the book). In Galatians Paul was fighting against the Judaizers and he said that they had fallen from grace (Gal 5:1-4). It is not that the Judaizers were teaching that salvation was by works, but that one needed Christ and the one work of circumcision. They taught that one must be circumcised in order to be saved. But what did that do? Circumcision was something you relied on yourself to do. It was not Christ who had accomplished it and it was not applied by the Holy Spirit. So instead of relying on Christ alone and grace alone to be saved, the Judaizers taught that there was one work that you had to do to be saved. That was a contradiction of the Gospel of grace alone and Paul stood strongly against it.

The Arminian (semi-Pelagian) says that the will is free and is free enough that man must make a choice for God in his own power. The will may be aided by grace to some point by not enough for grace to be the decisive factor between one sinner and another. For a will to be free it must be free to some degree of depravity and also free from grace to some degree. In other words, it is a work of the human flesh and as such it is a work that man does and God is said to respond to that and save the one with faith. But that destroys any real concept of grace alone and the purpose of faith. It leaves human beings in their own hands relying on their own strength and power to come up with faith. But that is precisely the problem. It leaves human beings looking to themselves for faith in order to be saved rather than looking to Christ alone for grace alone which is what true faith really does. It becomes a faith in my ability to have faith and then faith in my own faith rather than a true resting in grace alone. Reformed people need to stand firmly against this type of teaching because it is a renunciation of the Gospel of grace alone. When Reformed people do not stand against this teaching, they show themselves to be less than Reformed but also as those who use true creeds and true words to stand with error rather than oppose it. They are also using Reformed truth to hide Pelagian hearts.

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)

Is our salvation wholly of God, or does it ultimately depend on something that we do for ourselves? Those who say the latter (as the Arminians later did) thereby deny man’s utter helplessness in sin, and affirm that a form of semi-Pelagianism is true after all. It is no wonder, then, that later Reformed theology condemned Arminianism as being in principle a return to Rome (because in effect it turned faith into a meritorious work) and a betrayal of the Reformation (because it denied the sovereignty of God in saving sinners, which was the deepest religious and theological principle of the Reformer’s thought). Arminianism was, indeed, in Reformed eyes a renunciation of New Testament Christianity in 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 earlier BLOGS from the same section of Luther’s Bondage of the Will it is clear that justification by faith alone must be interpreted in the context of the bigger principle of grace alone. This is very important for many reasons, but the issue of grace which is always and only sovereign grace is at the forefront. If salvation is wholly of God, then salvation depends on grace alone. If salvation depends on the ‘free-will’ of man for the slightest thing, then grace is something less than grace alone and that means grace is no longer grace (Rom 11:6). If a person actually believes the so-called ‘free-will’ is able to come up with faith on its own and as its own act, then that person denies the utter helplessness of man in sin and denies the sovereign grace of God because salvation now rests in the choice of man. What this does is make that work of faith out to be something that God responds to and saves the sinner, which despite the protestations and denials actually makes faith to be a meritorious work.

This clearly shows that all that believe and rest upon their own act of the will for faith are Arminians at best which is to be semi-Pelagian. That is to deny in reality the doctrine of salvation by grace alone regardless if the person claims to believe in justification by faith alone and even grace alone. As long as a person rests in or trusts in a ‘free-will’ that person cannot believe in justification by grace alone. A ‘free-will denies grace alone on three counts. One, it ultimately depends on the ‘free-will’ for faith rather than grace. Two, it trusts in the person for faith rather than God who alone can give grace. Three, it denies the utter helplessness of man and so the need of sovereign grace in salvation. This is a strong denial of the heart of the Reformation in terms of the Gospel.

If it is true that “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,” then even our professing Reformed folks today need to wake up. If indeed Luther would have agreed with that, and indeed he would have, then what is being taught today in most places is not the Gospel of grace alone that Luther preached in the Reformation. If what is being taught today is not the Gospel that God blessed in the Reformation, then either the Gospel has changed or the Gospel has virtually been lost in our day.

This thought is not comfortable and it is not thought to be winsome or gracious in our day, but that does not mean it is false. The Pharisees hated the truth of the Gospel as it cut to the root of their legalism and their Pelagianism (not called that then). The Judaizers of the New Testament were better than the Pharisees in appearance as they just wanted Christ plus just one thing (circumcision). They wanted just one thing other than grace alone. But that one thing meant that they preached a different Gospel. What is the difference between the one thing of circumcision and the one thing of faith? Both are works of the flesh that extend beyond grace alone. Both are looked to as not that much more. But both destroy the Gospel of grace alone since grace will have no rivals because God saves to the glory of His grace and not because of anything found in or done by sinful men. That one thing, according to Luther, made them worse than the Pelagians. Perhaps being gracious and winsome requires one to say something different, but Luther was more concerned about the Gospel and the truth of God than to be considered gracious and winsome before men.

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)

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

The context of the statement just above has to do with where faith comes from. This is not a secondary issue, but instead is at the heart of the doctrines of depravity and of justification. If sinners are dead in sins and trespasses and the will is bound to sin, then the will is not free to make a spiritual choice out of love for Christ. When the inability of man was taught, it had to do with the utter helplessness of man in sin. If the sinner can do one thing for himself, including and especially a work of the will to come up with faith so that God will save him, then that is a clear denial of man’s depravity and utter helplessness in sin. While there are most likely many who assert that man is dead in sin, if our preaching and evangelism do not teach that and build on that we are like those that Luther spoke of in the first quote from above. It is to deny one thing in terms of doctrine and yet teach it in practice.

We must note very carefully that a denial of man’s utter helplessness in sin, whether by doctrine or by practice, is to be a semi-Pelagian which is what Arminianism really is. Arminianism is not semi-Reformed, it is semi-Pelagian. Arminianism (by definition) must deny the utter helplessness of man in sin because it affirms and champions a ‘free-will.’ A will that is free is free from the bondage of sin at that point and is also free of the power of efficacious grace. Clearly, then, Arminianism is in principle a return to Rome. It does this in at least two ways. One, in effect it turns faith into a work. Two, it denies the sovereignty of God in saving sinners. When a person denies the sovereignty of God in saving sinners, that person cannot uphold salvation by grace alone at the same time. When God’s sovereignty is dismissed at any point, it is also at that point that biblical grace is dismissed as well. What Arminianism does is replace biblical grace at the point of faith and replace it with the work of the human will. That is an error that denies the Gospel of grace alone.

In the modern theological world men are expected to be gracious and winsome. For some reason humility is now thought of as always thinking that other views could be right and I could be wrong, so discussion must always be kept at a very civil level and to actually say that another is wrong is to be proud. Yet the statements above (quote from the Introduction of Bondage of the Will) are vitally important to the Church or all ages if they are even close to being correct. If Arminianism is “a renunciation of New Testament Christianity in favor of New Testament Judaism” because “to rely on oneself for faith is no different in principle from relying on oneself for works,” then there is a lot of New Testament Judaism going on in our day under the guise of Christianity. If it is true that “the one is as un-Christian and anti-Christian as the other,” then there is a lot of un-Christian and anti-Christian teaching going on today in Evangelical circles and in Reformed circles as well. If Arminianism is as un-Christian and anti-Christian as Pelagianism, then the professing Church is literally filled with anti-Christians today.

But again, the issue pointed out is that it has to do with relying on oneself for faith rather than grace for faith. A reliance on self for faith is not only un-Christian, it is anti-Christian. One can teach a lot about justification by faith alone and miss the bigger principle of grace alone and so miss the real point of justification by faith alone. But it is also true that if we miss the point that faith must come by grace alone, salvation is then by works. Those who teach that are more dangerous than the full Pelagians because their error is more disguised by truth.

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)

‘Justification by faith only’ is a truth that needs interpretation. The principle of sola fide is not rightly understood till it is seen as anchored in the broader principle of sola gratia. What is the source and status of faith? Is it the God-given means whereby the God-given justification is received, or is it a condition of justification which it is left to man to fulfill? Is it a part of God’s gift of salvation, or is it man’s own contribution to salvation? Is our salvation wholly of God, or does it ultimately depend on something that we do for ourselves? (“Historical and Theological Introduction” to Bondage of the Will)

If a person teaches another that s/he needs to come up with faith and does not teach them about what faith is and where it comes from, then that person is in reality teaching a person to look to self and trust in self for salvation. It may be that the person is taught to look to Christ alone in words, but if the soul looks to itself to look to Christ then it is trusting in itself to trust in Christ and that is a work. That is nothing different than teaching a person that s/he has a condition for salvation to fulfill and that if that condition is fulfilled God will justify that soul. Since human beings are born Pelagians and all Pelagians look to self for all things, every soul will look to self first for what is needed. If the soul is not taught that faith is a gift of God, it will simply assume that it can have faith on its own. It will naturally (what is according to its Pelagian nature) assume that faith is what it must do.

The Gospel of Scripture is that of grace alone (Rom 3:24-4:9; 11:6; Eph 2:4-10). There is no work that Christ did not do and as such leave it for men to obtain or work up on their own. Instead of looking to themselves for faith, men should look to God for a new heart so that they can believe. In this way and in this way alone is salvation wholly of God and does not depend on the human will for many or one work for salvation. The work of salvation has been accomplished by Christ and only the Holy Spirit alone can apply it to the soul. There is nothing the human soul can do to obtain salvation or even to obtain faith by which Christ is received. This is wholly the work of God and it is by grace alone apart from all works of human beings.

If the heart of sin is unbelief, then to be rescued from the bondage of evil and of sin includes the rescue from a heart that is dead in its unbelief and made alive in faith and unity with Christ. A heart of belief cannot be the work of unbelief and a heart of faith cannot come from non-faith. A work of life cannot be by the work of death and a work of the Spirit cannot come from the heart of the flesh. A work that pleases God cannot come from a heart that is at enmity with Him and a work of love for God cannot come from a heart that hates God. A work of grace cannot come from an unregenerate heart and a work through Christ cannot come from one who is not in Christ. The salvation of God cannot depend on the work of man and a new heart by the work of the Spirit cannot depend on the act of the old heart. This all shows how absurd it is to depend on the work of faith from the human soul.

This should also show the danger of not teaching people where faith comes from. We can be very orthodox in teaching what God does in order to justify sinners, but if we don’t tell sinners all the works of God in salvation and how justification is applied we are ultimately leaving the sinner in their own hands to come up with faith. If we teach sinners that they must believe and yet do not teach them that they must be born again to believe and how true faith really comes, then how are we telling them the whole story of the Gospel? How are we being anything worse than Pelagians if we ultimately give sinners part of the Gospel of grace alone and then leave them in their own hands (practically speaking) to come up with faith and a believing heart?

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)

‘Justification by faith only’ is a truth that needs interpretation. The principle of sola fide is not rightly understood till it is seen as anchored in the broader principle of sola gratia. What is the source and status of faith? Is it the God-given means whereby the God-given justification is received, or is it a condition of justification which it is left to man to fulfill? Is it a part of God’s gift of salvation, or is it man’s own contribution to salvation? Is our salvation wholly of God, or does it ultimately depend on something that we do for ourselves? (“Historical and Theological Introduction” to Bondage of the Will)

This is a vital point in the doctrine of justification by faith alone in the teaching of the Reformers and perhaps especially Luther. The source of faith is vital to the whole issue. It is not just whether a person believes something intellectually or not, it also has to do with the source of the faith. In the paragraph from the Introduction just above, if one follows the paragraph slowly and carefully, it is clear that the broader principle of grace alone and that source of faith are tied together. They cannot be separated. Again, we have very few options in this situation. Faith is either what God gives by grace as a means to receive a free justification, or it is man’s contribution or addition to what God has done. Faith is either what Christ has purchased for His people or it is something that man does to make salvation possible for himself. Faith is that which comes from a regenerate heart that has been washed in regeneration by the Holy Spirit or it is that which a will that is free to some degree from depravity and from grace is able to do on its own. We cannot have it both ways and there is no middle ground because regeneration is either all of grace or it is partially caused by the will of man.

Regeneration is either how God brings life to the soul and as such makes it a believing soul with Christ as its life or it is the result of what God does when the soul comes up with faith on its own. Regeneration produces a believing soul or a ‘free-will’ comes up with faith and that causes God to respond with regeneration. Again, there is no real in between here. Something is the real cause of regeneration and of faith. Either regeneration produces a believing heart or a ‘free-will’ produces something that moves God to regenerate. If God responds to the one that comes up with faith from a ‘free-will,’ then faith is the condition for salvation that man must fulfill. That means that salvation is not totally and completely of grace and grace alone, but instead it would depend on something man is able to do and does for himself.

This backs us up into a corner and forces us to look at the situation with some clarity. We cannot run from this with our fingers in our ears. The Gospel of Christ alone and grace alone forces us to a position that faith itself is the gift of God and so salvation is utterly and wholly of the Lord and His grace. If not, then in some way salvation does depend on something that man does for himself. Ephesians 2:4-9 speaks very clearly to this: “But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 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; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.”

Sinners are dead in sins and trespasses and are by nature children of wrath (Eph 2:1-3). There is nothing in them to cause God to raise them from the dead (regeneration) and give them life. He did this because of Himself. When dead sinners are raised to life, it is not because of anything in them that they are raised to life. It is because of the character and purposes of God. It is when dead sinners are raised to life and there is nothing in them to cause this or move God to do it that it can be said “by grace you have been saved.” What does God do this? Is it because the sinner comes up with faith and fulfilled a condition? No, it is that He may show the surpassing riches of His grace in Christ Jesus. How do we know that it was because of grace alone and not because of faith? It is because the text (v. 8) gives us the reason (“for”). Dead sinners are raised to life and will be trophies and receptacles of grace for eternity because it is by grace that they have been saved. The whole of salvation (the broader principle of salvation) is that it is all of grace and nothing but grace. This grace comes through faith, but even that is the gift of God. It is absurd to say that the text is not speaking of faith but of grace when it says “and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God.” Of course grace is not of man and of course grace is a gift and can be from nothing else. The text also goes on to show that both grace and faith are not the result of works in order that no one would boast.

Once again the text is quite black and white though many try to muddy the waters. If faith is not of grace, then faith is a work of the will of man and of the flesh of man. But whatever the text is speaking of (grace or faith or both) it says that it is not the result of works. So faith cannot be of the human will and must be a gift of God. This is necessary to make sense of this text and is necessary for salvation to be by grace alone. If it is of works (or of one work) then grace is no longer grace (Rom 11:6). Those who preach and teach in a way that makes salvation out to be by works or by a work of the human will are not preaching and teaching a Gospel of grace alone. Doing that is to teach a salvation of works and is to fall from grace. Those who teach a so-called gospel of works hiding it under the words “faith alone” and “grace alone” are very deceptive and are very dangerous in terms of the true Gospel. They are worse than those who openly teach a Gospel that is by works.

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)

‘Justification by faith only’ is a truth that needs interpretation. The principle of sola fide is not rightly understood till it is seen as anchored in the broader principle of sola gratia. What is the source and status of faith? Is it the God-given means whereby the God-given justification is received, or is it a condition of justification which it is left to man to fulfill? Is it a part of God’s gift of salvation, or is it man’s own contribution to salvation? Is our salvation wholly of God, or does it ultimately depend on something that we do for ourselves? (“Historical and Theological Introduction” to Bondage of the Will)

Again, we must understand the context that we are dealing with. First, we are looking at what Luther said about those who deny Pelagianism and then teach it with different words. Second, we are looking at the term “justification by faith only” and how it is not just a phrase that as long as a person gives some sort of assent that it is true that person is saved. The Gospel is not just a matter of believing some facts, but it is about the grace of God actually doing something in the soul. Justification by faith alone must of absolute necessity be seen in the broader principle of grace alone. If we do not interpret justification by faith alone in the broader principle of grace alone, we will not understand the truth of the Gospel. Apart from the biblical teaching of grace alone justification by faith alone is really a teaching of a work or works for salvation and is in truth a form of Pelagianism.

The broader principle of grace alone drives us relentlessly to ask the question as to the source and status of faith. Our real answer here, even if our mouths say something different, will show to some degree whether we at least intellectually believe in a Gospel of grace alone or whether we are to some degree Pelagian. The three questions above after the question about our source and status of faith gets at the real issue. What are the possible sources of faith? The possible sources would be the ‘free-will’ of man, God, or a third party in some way. The ramifications are enormous on how we answer this question. If we answer that the source of faith is the ‘free-will’ of man, then we are left with the view that salvation is almost all of grace but its final decision rests upon one act of the human will. But for the human will to be free, it must be free from the ravages and bondage of sin as well as the grace of God. So if we assert that the human will is free, then we must admit that total depravity is not true and that salvation is not wholly of grace. Clearly, and that without question, to assert that faith is from the human ‘free-will’ is to assert Pelagianism in some form.

It may be the case that someone would want to argue, though I am not sure how they could. Romans 11:6 speaks to the issue: “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.” The King James Version uses a few more words in verse 6: “And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.” This verse of Scripture sets the matter out for us very clearly. Salvation is either by grace apart from works or works apart from grace. There is no mixture and there is no in between. Salvation is all of grace or all of works since the two cannot be mixed. Pelagianism asserts a salvation by works while the historical position of the Reformed asserts is salvation by grace and grace alone. Arminianism tries to be in the middle, but it fails as there is no middle ground. Admittedly Arminianism is closer to the Reformed position in one sense, but in another sense it is in being closer that it is more dangerous. Justification by faith alone is a teaching that when separated from grace alone makes a person a Pelagian to some degree, though when truly rooted in grace and grace alone it is the Gospel. So we can see how modern Arminianism is in many ways simply a more palatable version (at first glance in appearance)  of Pelagianism and yet Luther says it is worse because it is more deceptive. Those who profess to be Reformed need to be careful because their associations and “fellowship” with professing Arminians can be nothing less than to be enemies of the Gospel.

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)

‘Justification by faith only’ is a truth that needs interpretation. The principle of sola fide is not rightly understood till it is seen as anchored in the broader principle of sola gratia. (“Historical and Theological Introduction” to Bondage of the Will)

If it is the case that justification by faith alone is not rightly understood until it is seen as anchored in the broader principle of grace alone, then the more important teaching on justification by faith alone is grace alone. But the statement is made that it “is not rightly understood till it is seen as anchored in the broader principle” of grace alone. In other words, justification by faith alone is anchored to the teaching of grace alone and to remove it from that or to misunderstand grace alone is to misunderstand what justification by faith alone really means.

For those who believe the Bible as the Word of God, there are only two positions regarding justification, though there are some variances in the positions. The one position says that salvation is by grace alone through faith alone and so it sees that faith itself is part of the grace that God saves with and is His gift to sinners He saves. The second position thinks of faith as the effect of the ‘free-will’ of man and so it does not think of faith as being by grace and itself the gift of God. The first position is really a form of Pelagianism and the second is the Reformed position. There is no consistent middle ground between Pelagianism and what is consistently Reformed. The problem, however, is that the world is full of inconsistent people on both sides. However, those who are inconsistent on the Pelagian side still have Pelagian principles and are usually thought of as Arminian. Those who claim to be Reformed are still thought of as Reformed, though at their inconsistent points they are actually more Pelagian.

2 Timothy 1:9 who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace which was granted us in Christ Jesus from all eternity.

Titus 3:5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit.

The two verses above set out the reality and truth of what saves the sinner and in doing so shows us what justification by faith is anchored in. It is anchored in the purposes, mercy, and grace of God. Sinners have no hope in themselves and any work of their own, but instead there is only one hope and that is that God would have mercy on them and grant them grace. The Timothy passage (from just above) shows that God saves and calls sinners in accordance with His own purpose and grace. When was this granted to the sinner? It was granted in Christ Jesus and that from all eternity. The text says nothing about God saving a person according to his faith or according to a faith that was seen in eternity. A justification by faith alone is based on grace alone and is one where God saves the sinner in accordance with His grace and nothing else but His grace.

The second verse from above also shows that God saves sinners according to His mercy, and He does so by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit. So the salvation of sinner is attributed totally to His mercy and His mercy in this text is seen by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit. In this passage, though it is not explicitly mentioned, we see that faith must come from the regenerating and renewing work of the Holy Spirit. The text clearly says that salvation is not according to our works, and if faith is the work of a ‘free-will’ then salvation is according to at least one work. If faith is not the work of a human ‘free-will,’ then it is the work of the mercy and grace of God who creates faith in the soul that He regenerates and renews.

What we see, then, is that both texts set out that salvation is in accordance with God and not according to a work of faith. Both texts are very clear in their denials in saying that salvation is not according to our works or according to our deeds. For a ‘free-will’ to be free it must be free of both sin and of grace. It is impossible for it to be free from sin and it is impossible for a salvation to be by grace alone and for a sinner to be free of grace at the same time. Any teaching on justification, therefore, that allows for ‘free-will’ is a move toward Pelagianism and away from a Gospel of grace alone and in reality destroys the biblical teaching of justification. Any preaching and teaching of a so-called justification that depends on the ‘free-will’ of man is a different gospel. Any one that claims to be Reformed and yet does not teach a real salvation by sovereign grace alone and will not stand and preach a grace alone that is opposed to ‘free-will,’ has departed from the Gospel of the Reformation. The teaching of justification, even by a professing Reformed person,  that does not set out with clarity that man is totally helpless in sin and that salvation is by sovereign grace is a teaching that has moved from being Reformed and is Pelagian to some degree. That is to disagree with Pelagianism by creed and assert it by what is preached and taught.

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)

‘Justification by faith only’ is a truth that needs interpretation. The principle of sola fide is not rightly understood till it is seen as anchored in the broader principle of sola gratia. (“Historical and Theological Introduction” to Bondage of the Will)

The doctrine of justification by faith alone does not stand out from all the other teachings of the Bible and is not superior to them all. No, it fits with all the other teachings of the Bible and must fit with them. It must also be directly parallel and actually flow out of the teachings of Scripture on the attributes of God. A doctrine must be seen as it comes from Scripture, but also how it flows from a fits with God Himself. It is God alone who saves and so justification by faith alone must be consistent with the character of God.

Romans 3:21-31 and Ephesians 1:1-2:10 are very clear passages of Scripture which set out salvation as the work of God. God is the One who justifies sinners, but He is just and justifier. God is the One who declares sinners righteous, but He does so in a way that declares His righteousness. God is the One who saves sinners by grace alone, and He does so to the praise of the glory of His grace. God is the one who raises dead sinners to life, but He does so to magnify His love and grace for eternity. As one reads the passages listed at the beginning of this paragraph, it is clear that God saves sinners for His own reasons and for His own glory. The causal reason for salvation is God Himself and not what the sinner provides. Faith is part of what God provides by grace and the sinner does not have to look to self in order to work it up. In fact, if the sinner tries to work up faith in order to be saved that is doing nothing less than trying to be saved in a way apart from grace alone.

The Bible is quite clear that the  entirety of what God does He does to manifest His glory and to shine forth the glory of His name. The Gospel is part (large part) of how God manifests His glory and how He takes sinners who are opposed to His glory and live for themselves and makes them lovers of Him and to live for His glory. The Gospel is always according to the glory of God. “According to the glorious gospel of the blessed God” (I Tim 1:11). It is the Gospel of the glory of God. We also see that in II Corinthians 4:4 and 6.

4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 6 For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.

Justification by faith alone must never be yanked from the context of the glory of God. It must not be interpreted apart from the sovereignty of God, but instead in light of the sovereignty of God. It must never be interpreted apart from the grace of God, but instead interpreted in light of the grace of God. It must never be interpreted apart from the satisfaction of the wrath of God, but instead in light of the satisfaction of the wrath of God. It must never be interpreted apart from the self-sufficiency of God, but instead in light of the self-sufficiency of God. The list could go on and on, but this should suffice to make the point. When justification is interpreted outside of the sovereignty of God, the grace of God, the satisfaction of the wrath of God, and the self-sufficiency of God, it will not be a biblical teaching of justification by faith alone. When justification is taught apart from the truth of the sovereignty of God and the sovereign grace of God, it will not be taught according to what Luther and Calvin taught but will by default be a form of Pelagianism. Those who teach a form of Pelagianism in their doctrine of justification by faith alone which may sound Reformed but is not, are dangerous teachers regardless of how nice, gracious, and winsome that they are. While not many would want to admit that, in terms of what Luther would say that might even make them more dangerous. Not only do they condemn Pelagianism and then teach a form of it, they actually believe their Pelagianism is Reformed. But again, if justification is the teaching by which all churches and all people stand or fall, a false teaching of justification is dangerous to all.

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)

‘Justification by faith only’ is a truth that needs interpretation. The principle of sola fide is not rightly understood till it is seen as anchored in the broader principle of sola gratia. (“Historical and Theological Introduction” to Bondage of the Will)

Anyone who preaches justification by faith alone apart from justification by grace alone has missed the point of justification by faith alone. Anyone who preaches justification by faith alone apart from the utter helplessness of man in sin has missed the point of justification by grace alone as well. The doctrine of justification by faith alone does not stand out from all the other teachings of the Bible. Even if one can repeat the words and believe something like that is true that does not mean that the person is saved. This teaching is perverted in our day.

Romans 11:6 is so clear that any work in effect makes grace to be no longer grace. Whatever justification by faith alone means, it must never be thought of as a work or effort of the human will apart from grace. Ephesians 2:8-10 is also so very clear that salvation is by grace alone and faith itself is the gift of God. If salvation is said to be by grace alone through faith alone and yet faith itself is not of grace, then salvation cannot be by grace alone. We can look at Romans 4:4-5 and see this clearly as well. “Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.”

If we think of the Gospel of grace alone as contingent on the faith of the sinner which comes from his own will, then we are left with the position of contradicting Romans 4. To the one who works (faith is the work of a free-will) his salvation is not credited as a favor but what is due. That is what those who teach that a faith comes from a free-will must teach in order to be consistent. If faith is the only think lacking to be saved and that faith is the work of a free-will, then salvation is no longer granted or credited by grace alone but as that which is due to the person. On the other hand, the person that does not work and that includes the work of faith, but simply believes in Him who justifies the ungodly apart from any cause or works on their part, that person’s faith is credited as righteousness. Why is that the case? It is because faith is the gift of God and the person is united to Christ who gives the person a perfect righteousness. So it is not the faith in and of itself that is credited as righteousness, but the object of faith (Christ) which a true faith is united to which gives a perfect righteousness by grace alone.

Luther’s great work on The Bondage of the Will is not some philosophical or metaphysical treatise. No, but rather it is a treatment that is at the heart of the Gospel. William Cunningham set it out that the doctrine of the will was where the depravity of man and the Gospel of grace alone met. When people do not teach the doctrine of the bondage of the will to sinners, then sinners do not understand their depravity and they do not understand the Gospel of graced alone either. What this means, then, is that there are many folks who are orthodox in so many ways but they will not set out the utter helplessness and inability of man in sin. It is not the mere mention that man is dead in sin that will get this across, but a clear and forthright teaching of the helplessness of man and his inability that can get it across to sinners of their utter need of grace alone to save them. As long as sinners look to themselves and have any hope in themselves they will not look to Christ alone and grace alone. This means that those who are orthodox and yet are so afraid of being hyper-Calvinists that they will not teach the helplessness of men are not teaching a pure Gospel of grace alone. When that is not taught, they are not teaching the truth of justification by faith alone either. In that case Pelagianism and its children is being taught by those who are orthodox and the Gospel is hidden underneath orthodox creeds by conservative ministers.

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)

‘Justification by faith only’ is a truth that needs interpretation. The principle of sola fide is not rightly understood till it is seen as anchored in the broader principle of sola gratia. (“Historical and Theological Introduction” to Bondage of the Will)

It is vital to understand that Luther was ready to die for the Gospel of justification by faith alone, but only as it was interpreted in the light of sovereign grace and the utter helplessness and inability of sinners in their sin. He did not see these doctrines as just dogmas to give a mental assent to, but as teachings that the souls must come to an inward conviction of. Not only that but the soul that wants salvation must reach the point of losing all hope in self and of anything that came from self. It is not just an agreement with the doctrine of total helplessness and inability, but it is the soul’s inward realization of that and losing all hope in self so that the teaching describes the soul and the reality that the soul has. The soul realizes that it has no ability and no hope in itself and so is utterly helpless in its sin. The only hope that the soul can possibly have, therefore, is in the sovereign grace of God. The soul must come to the point of a deep realization that God can save that soul if He is pleased to do so by His grace of He may not as He pleases.

Luther was crystal clear that the soul must reach a point of humiliation where it looses all hope in itself and its own ‘free-will’ in order for it to be ready to be saved. Until a soul is utterly emptied of all hope in self it will not look to grace alone for salvation. It will look to itself for some merit or some work that it can do which for most theologies today that would include a work of faith. While they may not call the act of faith a work that is precisely what it is. As long as sinners are not taught and driven away from all hope in themselves and all ability to come up with faith themselves, they will look to themselves for a reason or cause to be saved rather than grace alone. It is far easier to teach the words that a sinner is justified by faith alone and then encourage a sinner to make an act of faith or to say a prayer than it is to teach sinners the correct interpretation of justification by faith alone. Perhaps this is one reason why the biblical teaching of justification is largely unknown in America today.

One of the reasons that the correct interpretation of justification by faith alone is so lost in the modern day is because of so many teachers of Pelagianism in Reformed dress. A person can teach justification by faith alone with a fair amount of orthodoxy and yet miss the proper context and thus its proper interpretation. One thing that has happened in our day with the teaching of justification by faith alone is that the focus is on faith rather than grace. It is also true that the doctrine of man’s depravity can be taught apart from what it really means and so it is another danger. It is perfectly orthodox to teach that human beings are sinners and are in bondage to sin, but that is still leaving out some important points. Until sinners are taught and brought to a deep realization of the reality of their utter helplessness and inability in sin they will not see the utter need of grace and the utter need for God to give them faith. It will be just another doctrine that they need to have in their head in order to be consistent.

So the biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone has been virtually lost in our day because of a hidden (to the teachers themselves and others) Pelagianism. It is not that a clear and open Pelagianism has come into the external church and has been accepted, but instead it came in the door calling itself Arminianism which has the appearance of more orthodoxy. Because of its appearance of more orthodoxy, it was accepted by many as a form of Christianity. As it went downhill and became more Pelagian, the Reformed people began to accept more deviations in order to be to overly exclusive and to keep their positions of influence in the denominations. So in reality Pelagianism has taken over though it has done so under different names. Reformed teaching is very deadly, even more deadly than open Pelagianism, when it does not interpret justification by faith alone with the background of man’s utter helplessness and inability in sin and in light of the bigger principle of sovereign grace. Until a few begin to see this and fall on their faces in utter helplessness before God, we will continue to be in “the Pelagian Captivity of the Church” in our day.