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)

‘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)

While it is easy to think that all who agree to the words “justification by faith alone” are orthodox in their view of justification, this is simply not the case. Not only is it not the case in the modern day, but it would seem that the vast majority of those who hold to the words seem to deny the true meaning of the phrase as set out by the Reformers. Whatever else we do we must never deviate from a justification that is by grace alone. It must be more than just the words alone, but it must be a true Gospel that sets out the sovereign grace of God alone that saves. It is not that God’s grace saves in a vacuum, but it is God saving sinners apart from any merit or work that they have done, will do, or can do. The biblical justification teaches that sinners are saved by what God does and what they do has nothing to do with their justification. The faith that sinners are said to be saved by really means that sinners are saved through faith and that the faith itself is a gift of God rather than an action of the will of the sinner.

The teaching of Scripture as set out by Luther and the Reformers is that sinners are saved by faith in order that it may be by grace (Rom 4:16). So the biblical reason that sinners are declared justified is changed when people change the concept of faith or grace. The Bible sets out to destroy and hope that man may have in himself and his own merits, works, or will. The Bible leaves man utterly helpless in sin and without the slightest hope that man can do anything to save himself or move God to save him. Man is utterly dependent on grace to save him which is to say that man is utterly dependent on God and His sovereign grace to save if He is pleased to do so.

In the modern day sinners are said to be saved if they have faith, or perhaps to be more accurate they are said to be saved if they make a profession of faith or agree that a sinner is saved by faith alone. If faith is the gift of God so that sinners can be saved by grace alone, then assuredly it is to be like the devil to tell people that they are saved by faith alone and interpret that to mean that man can come up with their own faith and that they can do it as they please. Indeed, to tell men that they are saved by works is dangerous, but to tell them (in accordance with the Bible) that they are saved by faith alone and then change the meaning of the Bible as to the nature of faith and its origin is to be even more dangerous. Perhaps it is to be “Pelagians double-dyed.”

Justification by faith alone is a phrase that needs a lot of interpretation because sinners are so prone to look to themselves for some little something in order to save themselves or at least help in salvation. Any teaching of a true teaching of justification by faith alone must always set out the fact that sinners are saved by grace alone. For that teaching to be taught, sinners must be taught that they have no help in themselves and no ability to come up with faith either. In other words, for the truth of justification by faith alone to be taught it must be seen as fitting with justification by grace alone and the truth of the sovereign grace of God must never be given up so that the truth of justification by faith alone can be taught in truth. On the other hand, the other side of grace alone must be taught and that is the utter helplessness and inability of sinners in sin. So justification by faith alone has two necessary truths that go with it in order for it to be interpreted correctly. When a person does not teach the sovereign grace of God and the utter helplessness and inability of sinners, that person is not teaching the true doctrine of justification by faith alone and so has not interpreted it correctly. Whether the person intends to do so or not, that person is fooling others with lying words and false appearances. Oh how the Gospel of grace alone can be distorted and lost with orthodox words.

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)

To the Reformers, the crucial question was not simply, whether God justifies believers without works of law. It was the broader question, whether sinners are wholly helpless in their sin, and whether God is to be thought of as saving them by free, unconditional, invincible grace, not only justifying them for Christ’s sake when they come to faith, but also raising them from the death of sin by His quickening Spirit in order to bring them to faith. Here was the crucial issue; whether God is the author, not merely of justification, but also of faith; whether, in the last analysis, Christianity is a religion of utter reliance on God for salvation and all things necessary to it, or of self-reliance and self-effort. (“Historical and Theological Introduction” to Bondage of the Will)

According to Packer and Johnson (in their “Historical and Theological Introduction” to Bondage of the Will) it is a crucial issue in Christianity of whether faith is thought to be of self or of God. Without going into all or even many of the issues of faith, a true and living faith can only come from life Himself. A true and living faith cannot come from sinners who are dead in sins and trespasses, but it must come from life. In other words, a dead sinner cannot have a living faith, but instead must be made a living soul that it may be a “faithing” soul. The words of Christ are received by those dead in sin as dead letters, but those with life in their souls receive the words of Christ as life.

There are so many wrong kinds of faith and deceptive things about false faiths that we must be very careful here as well. All people have some kind of faith, and all those who have any sort of belief in God have some form of faith in God. But few of those have true faith because few of those have a faith that came from God. Instead, we have so many who trust in themselves to have faith and so their faith is a fleshly faith and so a fleshly faith has as its real object of faith the flesh. True enough a fleshly faith will use religious words and Christian words, but it is still a faith that came from the flesh and so it can never have in reality a faith that is greater than the flesh. This should show that the origin of faith is vital to a true and living faith.

If God is not the author and sustainer of faith, then the flesh is the author and sustainer of faith. If the “free-will” is the author of faith, then faith comes from a source that is free of grace as well. So we are left once again looking at whether a faith that is free of grace can produce a salvation that is of grace alone. No, it cannot. For a salvation to be by grace alone faith must be by grace alone as well. This is why the issue of whether God is the author of faith or not is indeed crucial and not just something to ignore. To the degree the issue of faith is thought of as unimportant in regards of justification is the degree that justification by grace alone through faith alone is misunderstood or ignored. This issue is so crucial that it is at the very heart of Christianity and the Gospel. The sinner must look to God alone for justification and all that goes with justification and all that is needed to be justified or the sinner must look to himself or a third party for what is lacking. When the sinner does not look to God for faith, the sinner is looking to himself or a third part what something that is essential for salvation and that of necessity means that the sinner is not trusting in Christ alone.

No matter how one slices it or how one plays with words, the sinner is either looking to himself or to God for faith in order to be justified. Even if we ignore this we are teaching people something about faith and its origin. If we do not teach people the origin of faith and their great need to be broken from looking to themselves for faith, they will look to themselves. It is at this point that so many who are Reformed in creed are actually teaching (perhaps by silence) what at the heart of it is Pelagianism. If we teach a justification that is orthodox all the way through except we don’t teach people about the crucial issue of the origin of faith, we are more dangerous than those who teach a false gospel openly. It is that serious. But as Luther says, ‘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.’

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)

To the Reformers, the crucial question was not simply, whether God justifies believers without works of law. It was the broader question, whether sinners are wholly helpless in their sin, and whether God is to be thought of as saving them by free, unconditional, invincible grace, not only justifying them for Christ’s sake when they come to faith, but also raising them from the death of sin by His quickening Spirit in order to bring them to faith. Here was the crucial issue; whether God is the author, not merely of justification, but also of faith; whether, in the last analysis, Christianity is a religion of utter reliance on God for salvation and all things necessary to it, or of self-reliance and self-effort. (“Historical and Theological Introduction” to Bondage of the Will)

In the previous BLOG (The Gospel and Enslaved Will 137) the crucial question from the paragraph just above was looked at. The Reformers, then, thought the crucial question went beyond whether God justifies believers without works of the law. They thought that it was crucial to set out that sinners were wholly helpless in their sin and that God saved them by a free and unconditional grace. Even more, they said that it was a crucial part that God raises sinners from the death of sin to bring sinners to faith. Does God justify sinners without works of law? Many in the theological world today would give a resounding yes, but they will not go as far as the Reformers did in what that meant to the Reformers. To the Reformers for or a sinner to be truly justified without works of law meant that the sinner had to be wholly helpless in sin and that God raised the sinner from spiritual death in order to bring the sinner to faith. Does God justify sinners without works of law? If we mean by that what the Reformers meant, then the theological world responds with a resounding silence. But if we cannot agree with what the Reformers meant by God justifying sinners without works of law, then we do not preach the same Gospel that they did.

We can see the issue at stake by what was and is the crucial issue. That is whether God is not only the author of justification but of faith as well. To put it in different words, the crucial issue is whether “Christianity is a religion of utter reliance on God for salvation and all things necessary to it, or of self-reliance and self-effort” in all or part of it. If God has provided all things necessary for salvation but faith itself, then man is reliant on self and the efforts of self for faith. That means that man does not rely on God for all things and is not wholly helpless in sin. The issue, then, is not just over the words of whether justification is by faith alone, but indeed it goes to the depths of man’s helplessness and the depths of the grace of God in giving faith.

Is this really a crucial issue to the Gospel? If it is crucial to the Gospel as preached by the Reformers, were they wrong about the Gospel or is our modern day wrong? When it is taught that it does not matter where faith comes from or if a person knows whether that is important or not in our day, that runs counter to the Gospel as taught by the Reformers. That is quite counter to what Luther teaches in The Bondage of the Will. Luther did not think that the utter helplessness of man was an unimportant part of teaching, but he thought that his book was at the very heart of the Reformation teaching. He told Erasmus “that you alone, in contrast with all others, have attacked the real thing, that is, the essential issue. You have not wearied me with those extraneous issues about the Papacy, purgatory, indulgences and such like—trifles, rather than issues—in respect of which almost all to date have sought my blood (though without success); you, and you alone, have seen the hinge on which all turns, and aimed for the vital spot.” The crucial issue to the Gospel has to do with the bondage of man’s will in sin and upon the utter helplessness of man in sin. This was far more crucial to Luther than the teaching on the Papacy, purgatory, and even indulgences. This was the crucial issue of the Gospel because it is necessary for the soul to be saved by a sovereign grace alone. To the degree, then, that these things are not taught in our day is the degree that the crucial issue to the Gospel is missed. This also shows how men can be orthodox in words and yet by leaving this out they are leaving out what is crucial to the Gospel and so they are more dangerous than those who openly teach salvation by works. It is not only wrong to withhold this teaching from souls; it is to be worse than the Pelagians who openly teach that it is wrong. Apart from this crucial issue the Gospel is nothing more than words and faith is nothing more than the work of the soul that is free from grace, and that is true even if the person professes to be Reformed. That is true even if the person teaches justification by faith alone. In fact, apart from teaching the utter helplessness of man and sinners coming to the realization of that about themselves, the orthodox teaching of justification by faith alone is not orthodox and is deceptive. The Gospel is hidden with  orthodox words in our day.

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)

To the Reformers, the crucial question was not simply, whether God justifies believers without works of law. It was the broader question, whether sinners are wholly helpless in their sin, and whether God is to be thought of as saving them by free, unconditional, invincible grace, not only justifying them for Christ’s sake when they come to faith, but also raising them from the death of sin by His quickening Spirit in order to bring them to faith. Here was the crucial issue; whether God is the author, not merely of justification, but also of faith; whether, in the last analysis, Christianity is a religion of utter reliance on God for salvation and all things necessary to it, or of self-reliance and self-effort. (“Historical and Theological Introduction” to Bondage of the Will)

Notice that in the paragraph above the word “crucial” is used twice. To the Reformers the crucial question was “whether sinners are wholly helpless in their sin” and therefore whether God saves them by His “free, unconditional, invincible grace” and raises them from the death of sin in order to bring them to faith. Notice the language of the Packer and Johnson in the Introduction of the book. They set out a contrast that they thought (at least at the time) was a crucial issue. Does God justify sinners “for Christ’s sake when they come to faith” or is it that He raises “them from the death of sin by His quickening Spirit in order to bring them to faith”? This paragraph is another paragraph with thoughts of monumental importance in it. In earlier BLOGS this question has been looked at, but not exactly in the same way.

The authors show us how that for the pioneer Reformers the issues of depravity and a free and unconditional (in man) grace are inextricably linked together. It is to the degree that the depravity and helplessness of sinners are set out that the greatness and freeness of grace can be set out. It is only if sinners are entirely helpless in sin can they be entirely saved by grace. In other words, if sinners are not entirely helpless in sin then salvation is not entirely by grace. So to the degree that the entire helplessness of sinners is not set out, it is to that degree that salvation by grace alone cannot be taught. But even more, since this is far more than just an intellectual exercise, to the degree that the sinner is brought to his or her own helplessness is the degree that the sinner can rest in grace alone. To the degree that the sinner does not die to his or her own helplessness, is the degree that the sinner trusts in his or her own ability to help self.

This cannot be emphasized too much. If sinners are not brought to a real sense of their utter inability, they will rely on their ability to some degree. If sinners are not brought to a real and experiential sense of their utter helplessness before God, they will think that they can help themselves in some way even if it is just a little. But as long as sinners think that they can help themselves just a little, that little destroys the teaching of grace alone just as much as a works salvation. In fact, going back to the first paragraph above by Luther, he would say it is worse to teach Arminianism than it is to teach Pelagianism. The Arminian is hiding the essence of the doctrine of Pelagianism behind orthodox words and as such is really teaching Pelagianism in reality. To teach sinners that they can do something is worse than teaching them that they can do it all. It is worse because it is hiding the heart of Pelagianism behind a more orthodox language and that means that it is a more subtle deception.

 The heart of man is born Pelagian and the heart of religious man is still Pelagian unless God renews it and gives it life and sight. The heart of man can be Pelagian be hidden in a Reformed pulpit and underneath a Reformed creed. The heart of a Pelagian will blind itself to its own Pelagianism with its adherence to what is close to the truth and even with the words of truth. But the Pelagian heart with a Reformed theological mind is twice as dangerous as the open Pelagian. That is because it is a heart and mind that has deceived itself and with conviction it will deceive others.

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)

The doctrine of justification by faith was important to them because it safeguarded the principle of sovereign grace; but it actually expressed for them only one aspect of this principle, and that not its deepest aspect. The sovereignty of grace found expression in their thinking at a profounder level still, in the doctrine of monergistic regeneration—the doctrine, that is, that the faith which receives Christ for justification is itself the free gift of a sovereign God, bestowing by spiritual regeneration in the act of effectual calling. (“Historical and Theological Introduction” to Bondage of the Will)

Justification by faith alone safeguards the principle of sovereign grace. This cannot be repeated strongly enough and should be repeated over and over. Apart from sovereign grace there is no true teaching of justification by faith alone. Justification by faith alone as it safeguards sovereign grace must then be a safeguard to the doctrine of monergistic (sole worker) regeneration or the Gospel of justification by grace alone through faith alone will not be taught. Justification by faith alone, then, in its proper context of sovereign grace which the two are to safeguard monergistic regeneration so that faith is itself the gift of God. If we boil that down, what we see is that the true doctrine of justification by faith alone will teach where faith comes from so that it will be clearly seen that it is sovereign grace in monergistic regeneration that gives faith to the soul so that faith itself is by grace alone.

Rom 4:16 plainly says that it is by faith so that it may be by grace. If we are not clear about that then we cannot be clear about justification by faith alone despite the fact that people use the words and are not clear. Ephesians 2:8 tells us that “by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.” So we see again that for grace to save through faith the soul must see that the faith is the gift of God too. A true doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone can only stand if faith itself is a free gift of sovereign grace. Those who teach that the will is free to come up with its own faith cannot teach the true doctrine of justification by faith alone, and not only that but those who support such teachings are not supporting the true doctrine of justification by faith alone. Scripture does not give us the warrant to teach anything less than a doctrine of grace alone and it does not give us a warrant to do anything less than be strong for the Gospel. Those who want to be gracious and winsome rather than stand strong are not standing for the Gospel. They may extend their hands and build bridges to forms of Pelagianism in order to retain influence and power in denominations, but they do so at the expense of the Gospel. This shows the state of their hearts when they do so.

The Reformation teaching (and I would argue the biblical teaching) was that justification by grace alone through faith alone must teach that faith itself is a free gift of God who gives it by spiritual regeneration, and that He gives it by grace alone or it is not a true Gospel and is not justification by grace alone through faith alone. If one changes the meaning of justification from what it meant to the Reformers, then the whole doctrine has been changed from what the Reformers taught. If one changes the concept and nature of faith from what the Reformers taught, then one has also changed the whole doctrine from what the Reformers taught. If one changes what the Reformers taught about justification and faith and the Reformers taught what the Bible taught and teaches on those, then one is guilty of being different from what the Bible teaches. But again, as Luther so plainly taught, those who use the words of justification by faith alone and yet do not teach the biblical teaching on those (grace alone), they are worse than those who openly deny the Gospel. While many professing Reformed people today disdain Charles Finney for his open hostility to the Gospel of grace alone, Luther would say they are worse than Finney because Finney was open about it while they hide their dislike or shame of the Gospel of grace alone behind words.

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)

The doctrine of justification by faith was important to them because it safeguarded the principle of sovereign grace; but it actually expressed for them only one aspect of this principle, and that not its deepest aspect. The sovereignty of grace found expression in their thinking at a profounder level still, in the doctrine of monergistic regeneration—the doctrine, that is, that the faith which receives Christ for justification is itself the free gift of a sovereign God, bestowing by spiritual regeneration in the act of effectual calling. (“Historical and Theological Introduction” to Bondage of the Will)

We have seen how justification by faith alone is meant to safeguard the principle of sovereign grace and that any teaching of justification by faith alone that does not safeguard sovereign grace is a different doctrine of justification than what Martin Luther taught the Scripture taught. But the doctrine of justification by faith alone does not just point to something called “sovereign grace” in some abstract way, but is inextricably linked with monergistic (God as the sole worker) regeneration through and by sovereign grace. In other words, the true and biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone, as set out by the Reformers, cannot be separated from monergistic regeneration which can only happen by sovereign grace. In order for grace to be truly grace there must be no works of the sinner involved at all (Rom 11:6). In order for a true faith to be a true faith, it can only be in accordance with grace and grace alone. The only job of faith is to receive grace.

In getting back to Luther and his assertion in the first paragraph above, we must note that he wrote that against Erasmus and Roman Catholicism who condemned Pelagianism but then turned around and taught it with different words. He said that it was worse to teach it under a guise than to teach it openly. So when people today (or any other day) teach that sinners are justified by faith alone and yet teach something other than a sovereign grace and teaching something different than monergistic regeneration, those people are not teaching the truth about justification by faith alone and are using it as a guise to teach a gospel that is less than grace alone.

If justification is to be by faith alone, then the soul must be regenerated by grace alone and faith itself must come to the soul by grace alone. If faith is not a free gift, then salvation as a whole is not a free gift and is God’s response to the work of a will that is free from grace. The Gospel hinges on this issue and it must not be let go of. It will not do to simply say that a person is justified by faith alone and then have no concern with some of the details. The devil is in the details of the Gospel and he will blind, distort, and deceive in order to twist the thinking and the souls of people so that they will not see the truth in the details that the Gospel hinges on.

In reality, however, the issues with monergistic (sole worker) regeneration are far more than mere details. They are at the heart of the Gospel. The sinner is taught to either look to himself for what is lacking or to look to God alone for what needs to be done in the soul. If some part of justification depends on the sinner himself, then the sinner is not looking to God and His grace alone in the matter but is looking to self to do something. If God is waiting on the sinner to respond or do something, then salvation is God responding to the act of the sinner and so salvation in some way depends on what the sinner does. This is one way the devil sneaks his way in the details. He gets people focused on “faith alone” and they forget that salvation is by the work of God alone by grace alone. They use words that say “grace alone” and “glory alone,” but the biblical view of justification by faith alone will not stand with the true views of their hearts. Those who use orthodox words (faith and grace alone, justification by faith alone), but do not tie them together to show the utter necessity of sovereign grace and monergistic regeneration, are teaching a false gospel with orthodox words. They are more dangerous than those who teach a false gospel openly.

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)

The doctrine of justification by faith was important to them because it safeguarded the principle of sovereign grace; but it actually expressed for them only one aspect of this principle, and that not its deepest aspect. The sovereignty of grace found expression in their thinking at a profounder level still, in the doctrine of monergistic regeneration—the doctrine, that is, that the faith which receives Christ for justification is itself the free gift of a sovereign God, bestowing by spiritual regeneration in the act of effectual calling. (“Historical and Theological Introduction” to Bondage of the Will)

The doctrine of justification by faith alone may indeed be the hinge on which the Gospel swings, but to the Reformers there were deeper reasons for teaching justification by faith alone. While these few BLOGS may be repetitive in some ways, there is a great need for this repetition. We have heard for so long that justification by faith alone is important, but we have not heard the real reason why it is important. The most important part of justification by faith alone is that when taught in its biblical context it safeguards the principle of sovereign grace. We need to hear that over and over in light of today’s focus on teaching justification by faith alone apart from the sovereign grace of God. Even more, the quote from Luther himself (top quote above) shows that he thought that those who denied certain truths and yet still taught them in different words were worse than those who actually taught great error openly and plainly.

In modern day teaching we have many people teaching something called “justification by faith alone,” yet they are not defending sovereign grace by that teaching. It is quite simple to see, then, that they are not teaching the same doctrine as the Reformers did though they are using the same words. What they are doing, then, is teaching some form of justification while at the same time denying the very heart of it by either holding to free-will (which is contrary to sovereign grace) or simply saying that the Arminian teaching of justification is still the same Gospel.
If the Gospel of justification by faith alone is meant to safeguard the teaching of sovereign grace, then apart from safeguarding the sovereign grace of God it is a completely different doctrine. Those who claim to be Reformed and yet do not safeguard the principle of sovereign grace by justification by faith alone are not children of the Reformers at all. Those who say that the Arminian view of justification is the same as the Reformed view of justification are simply mislead on what justification really is and what it is meant to do.

Galatians 1:6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! 10 For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.

What Gospel is Paul defending here? He is defending the Gospel of the grace of Christ and the Gospel of Christ. Anything contrary to that Gospel is one that he said people were to be accursed for. Anyone, regardless of theological persuasion, academic qualifications, or of angelic origin was to be accursed if s/he taught a different gospel. A different gospel can be taught using the words “justification by faith alone” and not safeguarding grace alone and Christ alone. Any so-called gospel that is not of grace alone makes grace to be no longer grace at all. “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace” (Rom 11:6). Anyone that teaches a so-called gospel that does not safe-guard sovereign grace (the only kind of grace there really is) does not teach a gospel of grace alone and Christ alone. We must beware as men who teach what sounds orthodox and yet denies the truth by it are worse than those who teach a false gospel openly.

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)

On other points, they [Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bucer] had their differences; but in asserting the helplessness of man in sin, and the sovereignty of God in grace, they were entirely at one. To all of them, these doctrines were the very life-blood of the Christian faith. A modern editor of Luther’s great work underscores this fact: ‘Whoever puts this book down without having realized that evangelical theology stands or falls with the doctrine of the bondage of the will has read it in vain… The doctrine of free justification by faith only, which became the storm-center of so much controversy during the Reformation period, is often regarded as the heart of the Reformer’s theology, but this is hardly accurate. The truth is that their thinking was really centered upon the contention of Paul, echoed with varying degrees of adequacy by Augustine, and Gottschalk, and Bradwardine, and Wycliffe, that the sinner’s entire salvation is by free and sovereign grace only. The doctrine of justification by faith was important to them because it safeguarded the principle of sovereign grace;’ (“Historical and Theological Introduction” to Bondage of the Will)

Can it be true that there are those (perhaps many, and perhaps many professing Reformed) who teach justification by faith alone and that men are saved by grace alone who are worse than those who openly teach salvation by works? According to Luther, that would be the case. In any day one must be careful about the work of deceitful men and the devil who loves to hide and distort the Gospel with some truth. In the modern day it seems that a great deception has been passed off using many things to hide the truth. One, the truth of justification by faith alone has been hidden or obscured by not showing how it is linked with the truths it is meant to protect and set forth. Two, the truth of love has been replaced with niceness and the idea of what it means to be tell the truth in love has been replaced with being gracious and winsome.

Luther is so very clear that it is worse to say you are not teaching something and then teach the same thing though it is hidden underneath the use of words. That is precisely what is going on in the modern day. The truth of the real nature of justification by faith alone is being hidden from people by using orthodox language of justification by faith alone. This requires prayer and the wisdom that will only come from meditation and prayer. The Gospel that thundered forth in the days of the Reformation was a Gospel of the sovereign grace of God and justification by faith alone was intended to preserve that. But in our day we have “Reformed” people who accept words and doctrines of justification that not only do not preserve the sovereign grace of God in justification, but in fact can be held by those who hate it.

The truth of the Gospel was defended and set forth by Luther in his The Bondage of the Will. “The doctrine of justification by faith was important to them because it safeguarded the principle of sovereign grace.” Those who teach justification by faith alone and do not safeguard the principle of sovereign grace are not teaching the same Gospel as Martin Luther and John Calvin did. To put it in different words, those who do not defend the sovereign grace of God in salvation are not defending the heart of the Reformation Gospel. Those who do not defend the sovereign grace of God in salvation are not defending the life-blood of Christianity (according to the Reformation). Those who do not stand and defend the sovereign grace of God as an essential part of the Gospel are part of “Evangelical” theology falling to the ground. In our day where graciousness and niceness have replaced speaking the truth in love, we must be awakened to the great old truths of the Gospel in order that we may speak in love and in the love of truth and in the truth of love. There is no love apart from 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)

On other points, they [Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bucer] had their differences; but in asserting the helplessness of man in sin, and the sovereignty of God in grace, they were entirely at one. To all of them, these doctrines were the very life-blood of the Christian faith. A modern editor of Luther’s great work underscores this fact: ‘Whoever puts this book down without having realized that evangelical theology stands or falls with the doctrine of the bondage of the will has read it in vain… The doctrine of free justification by faith only, which became the storm-center of so much controversy during the Reformation period, is often regarded as the heart of the Reformer’s theology, but this is hardly accurate. The truth is that their thinking was really centered upon the contention of Paul, echoed with varying degrees of adequacy by Augustine, and Gottschalk, and Bradwardine, and Wycliffe, that the sinner’s entire salvation is by free and sovereign grace only. The doctrine of justification by faith was important to them because it safeguarded the principle of sovereign grace;’ (“Historical and Theological Introduction” to Bondage of the Will)

These words should act as bombshells in the minds and souls of those who read them. If those words are true, then much of professing Christianity is nothing more than a form of false religion going under the guise of what is true. If those words are true, then much of what passes as Reformed in our day is also false religion going under the guise of orthodoxy and even operating by Reformed Confessions. Paul was so clear in Galatians 1:6-9 that there is only one Gospel. He is also just as clear that there are those (perhaps many) who want to distort the gospel of Christ. When people leave grace alone in truth and not just in grace alone in words, they are deserting Him for a different gospel.

In this post a little more of the quote (see above) is given. Why is it that the doctrines of man’s entire helplessness in sin and the sovereignty of God in grace the very life-blood of Christianity? It is because of how those things are related to Christ and the Gospel of grace alone. Why is it that Evangelical theology stands or falls with the doctrine of the bondage of the will? It is because of its inextricable link to the sovereignty of grace and justification by faith alone. What has come down to our modern day is that justification by faith alone is the Gospel, but that is not the whole story. One can read modern books on justification and not realize some of the real issues of the Reformation (as they wrestled with the biblical teaching) on the Gospel. The doctrine of faith alone is only important or even saving to the degree that it protects and sets out justification by grace alone. However, it is not just by any type of grace, but of a free and sovereign grace. In other words, if we don’t teach and preach a Gospel that is inextricably linked to a free and sovereign grace, we are not teaching the Gospel of the Reformation or of Scripture. If we don’t teach and preach a Gospel that is inextricably linked to the bondage of man’s will, then there is no real preaching of the Gospel of grace alone.

Romans 4:16 teaches us why it is by faith: “For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace.” Justification is by faith so that it may be in accordance with grace. Romans 11:6 teaches us what it must be grace and grace alone: “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.” A grace that mixes in a human work in reality, though it may not in words, makes grace to be no longer grace. Grace alone is the only kind of grace that will save the soul. A true faith, then, must be delivered from all hope and faith in self and its own will in order to rest and trust in grace alone. Those who use the language of the Reformation to hide and disguise the truth of grace alone, even though they use the lingo, are worse than those who clearly teach a so-called gospel by works.

I am not sure that it can be stated with enough force in a written medium. The Gospel itself cannot be proclaimed in truth apart from teaching man’s utter helplessness in sin and the sovereign grace that alone can save man from sin. It is not the doctrines alone that must be taught, but the reality of these great truths. It is not just the doctrines that man must give intellectual assent to, but it is the reality of the work of God in the human soul by grace alone. Grace is not just a biblical word that we must know some definition of, but it is a spiritual reality and is of the character of God. It is why and how God works in the souls of human beings. There is no Gospel of faith alone that is apart from a Gospel of grace alone, yet there is no Gospel of grace alone apart from the God who operates by grace alone. The Gospel of grace alone encompasses the activity and character of God who will only save to the glory of His grace alone. That is why it must be by grace alone so that it may be to His glory alone. Those who obscure this great truth are in fact obscuring the glory of God. It matters not what a man professes to be and how orthodox a man is on paper or intellectual assent, if a man is set on obscuring the glory of God that man is in great danger. If a man is obscuring the Gospel of grace alone through a professed orthodoxy and the glory of God in that, then that man is at enmity with God and is worse than those who openly profess heresy.

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)

On other points, they [Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bucer] had their differences; but in asserting the helplessness of man in sin, and the sovereignty of God in grace, they were entirely at one. To all of them, these doctrines were the very life-blood of the Christian faith. A modern editor of Luther’s great work underscores this fact: ‘Whoever puts this book down without having realized that evangelical theology stands or falls with the doctrine of the bondage of the will has read it in vain.’ (“Historical and Theological Introduction” to Bondage of the Will)

The very life-blood of Christianity flows through the veins of man’s entire helplessness in sin and the sovereignty of God in grace. As future quotes will show, to the Reformer’s “the doctrine of justification by faith was important to them because it safeguarded the principle of sovereign grace.” In other words, one can be very precise in the language of holding to something called justification by faith alone but if one denies sovereign grace one denies the whole reason for justification by faith alone. In other words, if the Church stands or falls on the doctrine of justification by faith alone, then it also stands or falls by what justification by faith alone was meant to preserve.

The doctrine of the Gospel of grace alone is at stake in these issues and yet those who are supposed to stand firm on these great truths say they personally believe them but that one does not have to believe them to be saved. That is tantamount to saying that one does not have to believe the Gospel to be saved. But if the Reformer’s thought that sovereign grace was preserved by justification by faith alone, yet modern people think that people can believe in justification by faith alone without believing in sovereign grace, then perhaps we don’t believe in the same Gospel as the Reformers did. Perhaps the professing Reformed in our modern day are holding to a form of the Gospel and yet don’t have it.

If indeed “evangelical theology stands or falls with the doctrine of the bondage of the will,” then how many people really hold to evangelical theology today? Apart from the bondage of the will there is no helplessness of man in sin and there is no real sovereignty of grace. Perhaps we should use plainer language than the quote did. Biblical Christianity stands or falls with the doctrine of the bondage of the will. This is very strong language, but that does not mean that it is not true. It does not sound gracious, but it is the only teaching that is consistent with the Gospel of grace alone. The Pelagian has much to do to be saved, which does not allow for a sovereign grace to save by grace alone. The Arminian has one work of the ‘free-will’ to do, at least in theory, which leaves salvation in the hands and choice of the human rather than in the hands of sovereign grace. So Arminianism denies both elements of the life-blood of Christianity. It denies the helplessness of man in sin and it denies the sovereignty of grace.

Where should that leave those who claim to follow the Reformers? It leaves them completely out of step with the Reformers and it leaves them being against the Reformers. “With what right may we call ourselves children of the Reformation? Much modern Protestantism would be neither owned nor even recognized by the pioneer Reformers.” We could go on even farther and say that not only would much of modern Reformed thinking not  be owned nor recognized by the pioneer Reformers, but would be fought against too. Luther would recognize much of what is going on how as something he fought against in his time. He would would have something to say to those who profess to be Reformed and yet are in alliance as brothers to those who deny the helplessness of man in sin and the sovereignty of grace. He would say, as he did centuries ago, “By word and pen they deny it, but really, in their hearts, they establish it, and are worse than the Pelagians.” We need to take that to heart today and in all periods of time until Christ returns.