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)

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)

What is going on with those who call themselves “Reformed” in the modern day? In one sense it does not matter if they say that they believe in the bondage of the will and that man is helpless in sin, but what matters is how they preach and teach men about the Gospel. When a “Reformed” person professes a confession which holds up the bondage of the will, that is not enough at all. These are not just doctrines to be professed with the tongue and signed with a pen, these are doctrines that are important enough to die for. If indeed the twin doctrines of the helplessness of man in sin and the sovereignty of God in grace are the life-blood of the Christian faith, then what are we to say about those who deny them as true? Even more, what are we to say about those who not only deny them but hate them? But again, what are we to say about those who don’t think that they are all that important?

The latter question, I think, would surely point to those who say they deny Pelagianism (or semi-Pelagianism or Arminianism, which is really Pelagianism with more orthodoxy to disguise it) in Reformed clothing but will not stand against Arminianism in reality. Who is more dangerous to the truth of Christianity? Is it those who deny it outright or those who say they hold to the truth and deny error while in fact holding to the error or at least not be willing to expose it in the name of graciousness and orthodoxy? Luther would say that the latter are more dangerous to the truth. This statement and its various applications must ring in our ears and enter our souls. Those who claim to be Reformed but actually teach a strong brand of Arminianism (though it is still Arminianism, and perhaps Pelagianism) using Reformed words are more dangerous than those who openly teach Pelagianism or Arminianism. This must be seen in the light of the two major doctrines which are the life-blood of Christianity.

In putting some rubber to the road on this teaching, then, it has a very hard application. What it tells us is that those who deny the complete helplessness of man or those who do not really teach it are cutting off the life-blood of Christianity. The only hope for a sinner is Christ and there is no hope that a person can have that is within himself. Any teaching that does not strive to do away with all help that man can find within himself and so show man as helpless in his sin is to give false hope and is to teach that which is non-Christian. Pelagianism leaves a lot of hope for man in himself and semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism leave some hope for man in himself. But Scripture knows of no hope for man but grace alone.

Scripture knows of no hope for man but by sovereign grace. If it is taught that there is a grace that is something less than a real sovereign grace, then it is a false grace that is being taught. When a person that professes to be Reformed does not stand strong against Pelagian and Arminian teaching because they do not teach sovereign grace which is not real grace at all, that person is hiding the truth under the guise of orthodoxy or “graciousness” and is perhaps worse than those who clearly teach what is not true. The hard teaching of Scripture on these things is being hidden beneath men who want to be gracious and nice at the expense of truth. When the truth is being hidden by orthodox words and graciousness, then by definition that is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. We must get back to the truth of Scripture as set out by the Reformers or we will be guilty of a greater crime than the openly heretical.

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 point cannot be made often enough (it seems) that we live in a day where people use the words “justification by faith alone” and yet mean something quite different than Luther did when he used the words. It seems that people think that because they use the same words that they are teaching the same thing that Luther did. There are even denominations that are named after Luther but do not mean the same thing (or at least don’t agree with Luther) that Luther did when speaking of justification by faith alone.

Luther wrote in his book The Bondage of the Will that man must deny his ‘free-will’ in order to be saved, yet that is not what is taught in the modern day. In the introduction of The Bondage of the Will it is driven home time after time that the bondage of man’s will is at the heart of the Gospel and is necessary to what Luther taught. Yet today we have people dismissing that very thought and adhering to something called “justification by faith alone” while having taken the very heart of it out. Oh they will say they believe in total depravity and man’s utter helplessness in sin, but they don’t believe it as Luther taught the Bible taught. This may be the result of men not understanding Luther rather than an attempt to simply please people, but the result is more or less the same. The Gospel of grace alone is being hidden from people by the use of orthodox language, which is a greater deception than simply teaching a false gospel in an open way.

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; 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. 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. ‘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? 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 light of the words of Luther about how those who deny a view with their lips and yet still have that view in their hearts are worse than those who deny the truth openly, the long quote from the more modern Introduction to his book should strike us with great force. There are many, many people who think that Arminianism teaches justification by faith alone more or less the same as the Reformed do. In that they are correct if we use the word “Arminian” and “Reformed” in modern terms. But if we use the word “Reformed” as teaching what Luther taught the Bible taught on justification, then it is impossible for an Arminian to teach justification in the same way. If that is correct, then what we have today is a mass departure from the Reformation teaching of the Gospel of justification by faith alone and those who claim to teach justification by faith alone (whether Reformed or not) and yet have departed from it as guided by grace alone and the bondage of the will have betrayed the Reformation and more importantly, the Gospel itself. This is not a minor issue and no denomination is worth saving if it requires denying the Gospel of grace alone. Arminianism is a return to Rome and it cannot teach the Gospel of grace alone as Luther taught it and as the Bible sets it out. This is not a simple matter of two theological parties being in disagreement, but it is about two different views of the gospel while both are using the same language. May those who call themselves Reformed and yet have compromised or are so deceived that they think Arminians can preach the true Gospel wake up and see that they are worse than those who plainly teach a false 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)

There were false prophets in the Old and New Testaments. False prophets also point to true preachers of the Word and call them false prophets, so it is not something that is easy. However, Luther tells us that in the name of fighting Pelagianism some actually were worse than Pelagians. Assuming that is true, and we can point to the Pharisees in the days of Christ where their closeness to the truth in religion made them worse, then we can simply assume that men today who claim not to be Pelagian but actually are Pelagians are worse than those who are unashamed Pelagians.

Many times shepherds in the Old Testament who were called out by God. Jesus warned to beware of false prophets. They will come in sheep’s clothing, but that is not who they are. Those who have the title to be shepherds (elders, pastors) but are not seeking the face of the Lord themselves or intending to lead the people to seek the Lord are indeed false shepherds. It does not matter how nice, gracious, kind or outwardly helpful people are, if they teach the things that are not biblical despite orthodox words they are false teachers. If they pretend to preach and teach the truth and yet end up teaching error, they are wolves in sheep’s clothing.

Jeremiah 10:21 “For the shepherds have become stupid And have not sought the LORD; Therefore they have not prospered, And all their flock is scattered.”

Jere 23:1 “Woe to the shepherds who are destroying & scattering the sheep of My pasture!” declares the LORD.”

Jeremiah 50:6 “My people have become lost sheep; Their shepherds have led them astray. They have made them turn aside on the mountains; They have gone along from mountain to hill And have forgotten their resting place.”

Ezek 34:2 “Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel. Prophesy & say to those shepherds, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD, “Woe, shepherds of Israel who have been feeding themselves! Should not the shepherds feed the flock?”

Mat 7:15 “Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.”
Acts 20:29 “I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock.”

When we take a careful and sober look at the verses above, we should know that in our day of theological confusion there are many wolves in our midst. There are many nice men and women who have taken the mantle of prophet or of shepherd upon them who are actually doing great damage to the souls of people. True mercy and true kindness have to do with real benefit (God in Christ) to the souls of human beings. It is not just making people feel better about themselves or about who God is, but it is the truth of who God is and a person’s truly being made to grow in the faith that is beneficial to the soul and to the glory of God. It is easy to take the name of God on the lips and do nice things, but that is not the same thing as true spiritual benefit. It is easy to get busy with activity in a church and do a lot of evangelism, but a natural man can do those things. It is easy for a person with personality to move people to do a lot of activity and even religious activity, but that is not the same thing as doing it all out of love for God. It is easy to do some external good and say we have done that to the glory of God, but that is not in the power of a human soul to do that. It is easy to be the means of destruction to souls, but it costs a person great pain to be a means of spiritual good to souls. Gracious and nice men in our day are teaching heresy but doing it in the words of orthodoxy. Pelagianism is heresy when it is openly taught and even worse when those who are Pelagians down deep hide it with the cloak of orthodoxy. Luther also thought that Arminianism was little better (if any) than Pelagianism. In fact, he thought it was Pelagianism in disguise. If Armianism is really Pelagianism in disguise, what then of the men professing to be Reformed who say that Arminianism is simply another expression of the Gospel and are happy to work with them?

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)

Luther sets out that some will deny Pelagianism in word or pen and then go on to teach it in a different way or with different words. He says that those who do this are actually worse than the Pelagians because they are teaching the same error but under pretences and false appearances. This should be taken as a great warning to many in the modern day as well. We must look to what is really being taught rather than the words of people in and of themselves. It is utterly foolish to simply take the word of a person or a group of people on who they are simply by what they say about what they deny or what they believe.

Quite frankly, there are many in our day that say they are Arminian but who are actually more in line with the historical Pelagian view. There are many in our day that claim to be Reformed but are more in line with the Arminians or even Pelagians on certain vital issues. For example, you cannot believe in free-will and still believe in justification by faith alone as Martin Luther taught it, but there are many Arminians and Pelagians who say they believe in justification by faith alone. Then there are those who claim to be Reformed and they agree that the Arminians (at least in name) teach and preach the same Gospel that they (the Reformed) do. Okay, that may be true that the Arminians in name preach the same gospel as some of the professing Reformed do. But all that means is that neither of them preach the same justification by faith alone that Luther did.

If what Luther preached and taught was the Gospel of the Bible, and assuredly there was a great revival that went on when that Gospel was preached by him and many others, then anyone who differs with it in reality (even if they say they don’t) is teaching a false gospel and is not Reformed. If justification by faith alone is the article by which the church stands or falls and is also the very hinge on which the church swings, then to deviate from that in fact is a fatal deviation. When people claim to teach what is biblical and Reformed and yet teach what is against it, that is being worse than those who clearly oppose what is biblical and Reformed.

According to Martin Luther and John Owen, if I am reading them correctly, a true Arminian cannot preach and teach the doctrine of justification by faith alone. Scripture tells us that it is “by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God” (Eph 2:8-9). The Arminian cannot assert that faith is the gift of God and that it came from a will that is free at the same time. Scripture declares that “you were dead in your trespasses and sins” (Eph 2:1), yet the Arminian cannot really hold to that and a will that is free at the same time. The professing Calvinist must be very careful at this point if he wants to maintain the view of total depravity while at the same time asserting that the Arminian is preaching the same gospel as he is.

Scripture tells us that this death is that (of v. 1) “in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience” (Eph 2:2). The Arminian says that the will is free and so is not walking according to the course of the world and the prince of the power of the air, but instead is walking according to a ‘free-will.’ The professing Calvinist who is more eager to be gracious than he is to stand for the Gospel simply says that these things can go together, though in reality it is nothing more than Pelagianism.

Scripture tells us that “Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest” (Eph 2:3). The Arminian cannot really believe that and the professing Calvinist does not want to assert that above a whisper as well. The Scripture tells us that “God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us” is the cause of salvation and that it is by grace alone. The Arminian tells us that the sinner must make a choice based on the will that is free so that God will save him. The professing Calvinist disagrees with that theologically but does not want to hurt the feelings of others or do anything to cause some dissension with the Arminian. The Arminian has just effectively done away with the Gospel of grace alone and the professing Calvinist would rather be gracious to the Arminian rather than be faithful to the God who reveals His glory in the Gospel of grace alone. In other words, by adjusting words and meanings the true Arminian distorts and even denies the true Gospel of grace alone. The professing Calvinist is also guilty of distorting the true Gospel when he will not stand up for grace alone but instead allows for people to trust in free-will plus grace. Both can be worse than the plain speaking Pelagian.

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)

Roman Catholicism sets out a form of merit that they call “condign merit.” It refers to a merit that God rewards and must reward with grace if He is just. They insist that this form of merit comes because of the work of the Holy Spirit in and on the sinner and the sinner who does good works by the Spirit will be given condign merit. What this does, then, according to Rome, protects them against Pelagianism while still allowing them a place for good works in their theology of grace. What follows is a quote from the Council of Trent, Canon 32:

“If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema.”

Luther pointed out something very important in his time and is something very important in the modern day as well as any day that is to come. Pelagianism taught that one is saved by the works that he does. One is either declared just on the basis of works or is kept saved by the works that are done. This is thought of in terms of a kind of merit where God rewards works with grace. But of course in Scripture there is in no sense or way that God gives grace based on works. Paul put it this way in Romans 3:28, as well as several other places, “we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.” God justifies sinners apart from works of the Law.

Luther is quite clear and agrees that Rome denies Pelagianism with its mouth and pen, but he is just as clear that Rome teaches it in reality. But even more, Luther says that Rome is worse than Pelagianism. But if they are both teaching the same thing in essence, what makes Rome worse than Pelagianism? It is because they deny teaching it and “try to fool us with lying words and false appearances.” They opposed Pelagianism with their words, but in their hearts they were Pelagians. In other words, they tricked themselves into believing and practicing what they said was wrong by using words to escape the truth. Then they deceived others into the belief and practice of Pelagianism under a guise as well.

Luther is telling us and warning us of the fact that people can and do believe things in their hearts that they deny by their spoken and written words. In our day we have a lot of people who profess to believe things that they really don’t and profess to deny things that they really believe in their hearts. It is not enough to say we believe that Pelagianism is wrong if our hearts are Pelagian. It is not enough to say that we are not Pelagian when our actions are Pelagian. It is not enough to say that we are Arminian if we are in fact Pelagian. It is not enough to say we are Reformed if our hearts are Arminian or Pelagian. It is not enough to say we hold to the Westminster Confession of the London Baptist Confession if our hearts don’t believe the same things those men taught. It is not enough to assert that we believe in justification by faith alone if we only believe it is the truth in our brains. It is not enough to assert that justification by faith alone is true if we deny what the Bible really teaches on the subject. In fact, those who claim to hold to justification by faith alone and yet deny it in their hearts and practices are worse than those who outright deny it. The Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone has been growing in numbers as to those who profess to believe it, but that does not mean that the numbers who profess to believe it are those who really believe it. Could it be that in God’s judgment upon the professing Church that He has given us a blindness to the Gospel in the very name of orthodoxy? God blessed Luther’s generation with the Gospel and then the blessings that attend the Gospel. The modern generation has neither despite its outward profession.

And what will the guardians of ‘free-will’ say to what follows: ‘being justified freely by His grace’? What does ‘freely’ mean? What does ‘be His grace’ mean? How will endeavour, and merit, accord with freely given righteousness? Perhaps they will here say that they assign to ‘free-will’ as little as possible, not by any means condign merit. But there are empty words; for what is being sought by means of ‘free-will’ is that merit may have its place…There is no such thing as merit at all, but all that are justified are justified freely, and this is ascribed to nothing but the grace of God. And when righteousness is given, then the kingdom and eternal life are given with it. Where is your endeavour now? And your effort? And your good works? And the merits of ‘free-will’? What use are they? (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

The above statement gets at the real issue. It is whether salvation is by grace plus just a little bit of a will that is free from sin and grace or the view that salvation is by grace and grace alone from beginning to end. If there is nothing that a will can do to assist in justification, in obtaining the righteousness of God, or even in doing the smallest good work, then what good is it to continue to hold to the teaching of ‘free-will’ at any point in the matter? The will is absolutely and totally unable to obtain anything good or pleasing to God by itself. The Gospel is to the glory of His grace alone. Why do people continue to assert a salvation that depends on ‘free-will’ and why do those who think of themselves as Reformed continue to think of the Arminian view as essentially the same message? The two views are not even close to each other.

People want to adhere to some form of ‘free-will’ in order to have some control over their own salvation. It is nothing more than pride and self-reliance and a refusal to bow to the sovereign hand of God. The assertion of a will that is free, even if it is just a little bit free, from the bondage of sin and from the grace of God (have to assert both to obtain a will that is free) is to assert both sides of a view that is against the plain teaching of Scripture. The Word of God declares that man is in bondage to sin (John 8:34), dead in sins and trespasses (Eph 2:1-3), and that apart from Christ no one can do anything spiritual (John 15:5). This leaves man in a totally helpless state and one that is utter need of grace alone to do it all rather than for grace to do most of the work.

The ‘free-will’ of man is of no use at all in terms of salvation because the will of a person that is dead in sins is not free. The ‘free-will’ of man is of no use because the will of a person under the total dominion of the evil one and of the powers of darkness (Col 1:13) is of no use in terms of obtaining salvation. The ‘free-will’ of man is of no use because the will that is free from Christ can do nothing spiritual or good. So what do we have left? The ‘free-will’ of man is of utterly no benefit, but even more, the ‘free-will’ of man is nothing but the figment of the imagination of man and is exactly what the devil wants man to believe. As long as the sinner does not look to grace but instead to his own will for the slightest help, that sinner is not looking to grace alone and assuredly does not understand the very nature of true grace. The ‘free-will’ of man, therefore, is not only of no use whatsoever, but is actually a great hindrance to the things of salvation and sanctification.

Those who preach to a will that is said to be free cannot preach a Gospel of grace alone. Those who preach to the will that is said to be free are deceiving souls as to the very nature of what it takes to be saved. Souls must be delivered from all hope in self rather than keeping some hope in self and the will of self. Those who say that an Arminian gospel is the same as the Reformed Gospel are simply and deceptively wrong. John Owen wrote about that and has never been answered when he wrote that the Arminian idol was the ‘free-will.’ In other words, the Arminian trusts in his ‘free-will’ at some point rather than trust in grace alone. The Arminian looks to his ‘free-will’ rather than looking to grace alone. The Arminian preaches and teaches people to look to their own ‘free-will’ rather than teach them to look to Christ alone and grace alone. The conclusion is really quite clear. Not only is a ‘free-will’ useless for anything good at all, the teaching of it is teaching a different gospel. That which the soul looks to and depends on for something in salvation rather than grace alone is an idol. Oh how our nation has been given over to a different gospel and what a spiritual famine we are in. When God gives a people over to themselves and their ‘free-will,’ He has given them over to a terrible deception as punishment for sin. How we must flee from our ‘free-wills’ in order to flee to God in total dependence.

And what will the guardians of ‘free-will’ say to what follows: ‘being justified freely by His grace’? What does ‘freely’ mean? What does ‘be His grace’ mean? How will endeavour, and merit, accord with freely given righteousness? Perhaps they will here say that they assign to ‘free-will’ as little as possible, not by any means condign merit. But there are empty words; for what is being sought by means of ‘free-will’ is that merit may have its place…There is no such thing as merit at all, but all that are justified are justified freely, and this is ascribed to nothing but the grace of God. And when righteousness is given, then the kingdom and eternal life are given with it. Where is your endeavour now? And your effort? And your good works? And the merits of ‘free-will’? What use are they? (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

The last five sentences of Luther should haunt the thinking soul and/or a soul that has been or is awakened. When the Scriptures are so clear that God justifies freely by His grace, and that means that there is no cause in the human being for why He justifies but rather all the cause is found in Himself, what good can be assigned to the ‘free-will’ in light of that? No matter what merit, ability, or freedom of act that is assigned to the ‘free-will,’ there is no place for it in the justification that God grants by grace alone. Justification is assigned to the grace of God and the grace of God alone. There is no room or place for the ‘free-will’ in light of grace alone.

In light of that, then what good is the endeavour of the will now? What can a will that is free from grace (by definition, a will that is free must be free from grace) actually do in a salvation that is all of grace? What can the will attempt or make efforts to do in a “system” that has no room for those attempts or efforts? Only those who stop working can receive this salvation that is by grace alone (Rom 4:1-6). So how can the will that is free from grace ever be free from its own efforts in order to receive grace which only comes apart from its efforts? Oh how awful it is to see people defending ‘free-will’ and those who teach it when in fact those who truly hold to it are holding to a form of teaching that is opposite to the Gospel of grace alone. What room is there for the efforts of the will when Christ and Christ alone saves sinners? Will the sinner try to contribute one little thing to his own salvation? What an abomination to God that would be to even try, but that is exactly what ‘free-will’ does.

The Scriptures set out so clearly that is not the efforts of man that matter, but rather the mercy of God. “So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy” (Rom 9:16). The Scripture says so very clearly that it is not the man who wills, but all depends on God who has mercy. Matthew 11:25 gives us another angle on this: “At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.” Is the wise and intelligent person free to yank these hidden things from the power and wisdom to God and reveal them to himself? Is the wise and intelligent person able to just make himself an infant? Well, then what use is ‘free-will’ in terms of seeking or applying salvation to the soul? It is utterly and completely worthless.

Scripture has set out so very clearly that the righteousness of God comes to the soul apart from good works. So what benefit are good works for salvation? Should we tell a person that one good work will help in his or her salvation? Well, then why do we tell a person that salvation depends on that person making one act of the will which must be good or it is nothing but a work of the filthy flesh? What use is an act of the will in terms of justification? What can it benefit the soul? The Word of God takes its stand against ‘free-will’ and all that it supposedly can do when it says that justification is by grace alone. The Word of God leaves the ‘free-will’ with utterly nothing to do when it says that it is not of the man who wills (Rom 9:16). The Word of God does not leave the will anything to do when it tells us that sinners are dead in sins and trespasses and it is God’s grace alone that raises them from the dead (Eph 2:1-10). There is utterly no room for the ‘free-will’ to sneak in and do one little work that helps in any way for salvation.

Luther’s questions are very pointed and get the point home. There is no room for the ‘free-will’ of man and its activities in justification. There is no room for the works or efforts of the will because justification is apart from the willing of man and relies totally on the mercy and grace of God. In other words, people must repent of all that their wills can do when they are free from grace in order that they may rely on the grace of God in Christ alone. The will of man must be repented of in order that he may rest in Christ alone. The teaching of ‘free-will,’ then, is not just a little bit wrong, it is an attack on the Gospel of grace alone and Christ alone.

And what will the guardians of ‘free-will’ say to what follows: ‘being justified freely by His grace’? What does ‘freely’ mean? What does ‘be His grace’ mean? How will endeavour, and merit, accord with freely given righteousness? Perhaps they will here say that they assign to ‘free-will’ as little as possible, not by any means condign merit. But there are empty words; for what is being sought by means of ‘free-will’ is that merit may have its place…There is no such thing as merit at all, but all that are justified are justified freely, and this is ascribed to nothing but the grace of God. And when righteousness is given, then the kingdom and eternal life are given with it. Where is your endeavour now? And your effort? And your good works? And the merits of ‘free-will’? What use are they? (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

This is perhaps an unanswerable point by Luther when he points out what Paul wrote in Romans 3:24. The text of that passage says this: “being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.” Where is there room for merit or the actions of a ‘free-will’ in this passage of Scripture? The older versions used the word “freely” while the newer versions use the word “gift.” Both the old and the new are trying to get at the point of the text, but perhaps both miss the main point just a little in terms of modern ways of thinking. The modern thought of a gift is that it is given because it is a certain time of year. The modern thought of the word “free” is just that it did not cost anything. But the Scripture use is different.

In John 15:25 we have the same language used. There we have Jesus’ recorded saying about what other thought of Him: “’THEY HATED ME WITHOUT A CAUSE.’” What is translated as “freely” or as “gift” in Romans 3:24 is translated “without cause” in John 15:25. This gets at the real issue behind what a true “freely” and a true “gift” really point to. As Jesus was hated free of a true cause and was hated because of no link to merit (gift), so God justifies sinners on the basis of something they are free from. In other words, there is no cause within them to justify them. The cause for justification is found completely and wholly in God and in God alone as He has merited salvation by Jesus Christ and Him alone.

How does the word “freely,” then, fit with the teaching of ‘free-will’ at all? It does not. If God justifies sinners when they of their own ‘free-will’ choose Him, then He is justifying them based on something they have done or something in them rather than by grace and grace alone. If His justification of sinners is based on something that the sinner has done, even if in the slightest way, then sinners are not justified apart from anything in them or apart from any merit or cause other than Christ alone. If righteousness comes to the soul as a gift based on what Christ has done alone, then salvation can still be as a free (uncaused by the sinner in any way) gift and apart from any merit whatsoever. But if righteousness comes as a result of the smallest act of the sinner that does not come from grace, then the Gospel is not of grace alone and of Christ alone.

What we end up with, then, is a justification that is either sought by grace alone because of Christ alone or a justification that has been purchased by Christ and is up to the so-called ‘free-will’ alone to do something. It is a justification that in some way depends on the ‘free-will’ of the human soul rather than the free-grace of God in Christ Jesus. Each position says that it is of grace and each says that it is of Christ alone, but the ‘free-will’ position leaves us with a gospel that depends on the efforts and will of human beings rather than Christ alone and grace alone. This should show us quite clearly which position is in line with Scripture.

The teaching of ‘free-will’ is a false teaching concerning the Gospel of Jesus Christ. While it says that a person must trust in Christ alone, underneath that it is saying that a person must trust in self to trust in Christ alone. While it says that the Gospel is by grace alone, underneath that it is saying that an act of the will which is free of the power of grace must enable the soul to rest in grace alone. What the teaching of ‘free-will’ does, then, is destroy the Gospel of Christ alone and of grace alone and move the soul to trust in itself and in something it does. It is a return to a works salvation though in a sneakier way. It is not possible to teach ‘free-will’ and the Gospel of free-grace and Christ alone at the same time. For those who are Reformed, it is not possible to truly preach a Gospel of grace alone while saying that Arminians and Pelagians are preaching the same Gospel. Something is wrong at some point and we must wake up to this.

Another thunderbolt is Paul’s statement that the righteousness of God is manifested and avails ‘unto all and upon all them that believe’ in Christ, and that ‘there is no difference.’ Here again in the plainest words he divides the whole human race into two. To believers he gives the righteousness of God; to unbelievers he denies it. Now, nobody is fool enough to doubt that the power and endeavour of ‘free-will’ is something distinct from faith in Jesus Christ! But Paul denies that anything apart from this faith is righteous before God. And if it is not righteous before God, it must be sin; for with God there remains nothing intermediate between righteousness and sin that is, as it were, neutral, being neither righteousness nor sin. Otherwise, Paul’s entire argument would be wholly ineffective, for its starting-point is just this dichotomy—all that is wrought and done among men is either righteousness or sin in God’s sight; righteousness, if faith is with it; sin, if faith is lacking. With men, indeed, it is the case that actions in which men who owe nothing to each other confer nothing on each other are called ‘intermediate’ and ‘neutral.’ But the ungodly man sins against God, whether he eats, or drinks, or whatever he does, because he abases God’s creation by his ungodliness and persistent ingratitude, and does not from his heart give glory to God for a single moment. (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

The whole human race divided into two, even after all else is boiled down, and we are left with the two major distinctives. Those distinctives are believers (those who love God) and unbelievers (those who are at enmity with God). 1 Corinthians 13 sets this out for us: “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.” Apart from this love there is nothing a person can do that is pleasing or acceptable to God. There is no neutral territory between love for God and enmity to God. The will is not free to be anything less than enmity toward God until it is turned and has love for God.

The will is really the capacity of choice in the human soul, so we can simply say that the human soul is either at enmity to God or loves God. The inclinations and desires of the human soul are either out of love for God or love for self. Again, there is no neutral ground between the two. Being neutral toward God is the same as being against Him and being neutral is certainly not doing all one does out of love for God. Jesus told us that if one does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, “he is to be accursed” (I Cor 16:22). The will is not somewhere between love and non-love, but it is either one or the other. The soul chooses what it chooses each moment out of love for God or out of love for other things which is enmity toward God. The will that is thought to be free in order to choose to love God is not free to choose that which it is at enmity with each moment. The Gospel of Jesus Christ includes the grace of God changing the human heart that it may love God. Love is not a mere choice, but instead it is the inclination and love of the soul. Love reflects the desires and supreme choice of the soul. The will is never free from the supreme loves and choices of the soul as a whole.

Luther says that “the ungodly man sins against God, whether he eats, or drinks, or whatever he does, because he abases God’s creation by his ungodliness and persistent ingratitude, and does not from his heart give glory to God for a single moment.” In other words, the unbeliever sins each moment regardless of what he does. The unbeliever is not in some neutral state, but instead the unbeliever eats and drinks and does whatever he does out of love for self rather than love for God. The unbeliever lives in the presence of God in a constant state of enmity against God, is ungodly in all he does, and has no true gratitude to God each moment of his existence. The unbeliever, though he lives under the Greatest Commandment, violates that command each moment and lives out of love for self. The unbeliever lives under the command to glorify God in all that he does, yet he lives out of love for self and seeks the glory and honor of self. The soul is not free from its chief love and desires and so the will is not free to love God.

Indeed there are many who say that they choose God, but the Pharisees would have said that as well. Many choose God in the sense that they say they do what they do for God, but even in their religious choosing they do not love God and are at enmity with Him. Until the heart is changed religious actions are nothing more than enmity with God as well. While this sounds so negative and hopeless, it actually has true hope at its roots. When a person stops trusting in the so-called ‘free-will’ of self, then the person may look to grace alone. That is the Gospel.

Another thunderbolt is Paul’s statement that the righteousness of God is manifested and avails ‘unto all and upon all them that believe’ in Christ, and that ‘there is no difference.’ Here again in the plainest words he divides the whole human race into two. To believers he gives the righteousness of God; to unbelievers he denies it. Now, nobody is fool enough to doubt that the power and endeavour of ‘free-will’ is something distinct from faith in Jesus Christ! But Paul denies that anything apart from this faith is righteous before God. And if it is not righteous before God, it must be sin; for with God there remains nothing intermediate between righteousness and sin that is, as it were, neutral, being neither righteousness nor sin. Otherwise, Paul’s entire argument would be wholly ineffective, for its starting-point is just this dichotomy—all that is wrought and done among men is either righteousness or sin in God’s sight; righteousness, if faith is with it; sin, if faith is lacking. With men, indeed, it is the case that actions in which men who owe nothing to each other confer nothing on each other are called ‘intermediate’ and ‘neutral.’ But the ungodly man sins against God, whether he eats, or drinks, or whatever he does, because he abases God’s creation by his ungodliness and persistent ingratitude, and does not from his heart give glory to God for a single moment.   (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

A thunderbolt, in Luther’s thinking, or so I would think, is something that kills or obliterates what it hits. Luther was scared of thunderbolts and was knocked to the ground in terror by one earlier in life. So he is not just throwing out loose words, but instead he is speaking of something he thought of as powerful and destructive. In other words, Luther says that the words of this text is a thunderbolt against ‘free-will’ and the “gospel” that relies on the teaching and practice of ‘free-will.’ The context, once again, of the book is that Luther has set out to defend justification by grace alone. The only reason Luther defended faith alone is because he fought for grace alone. The reason that Luther fought against ‘free-will’ so hard is so that he could defend the Gospel of grace alone. When Luther attacks the teaching of ‘free-will,’ he is not just being cranky and mean against those who don’t agree with him, but instead he is defending the Gospel of grace alone. He is not defending against a mere difference of opinion or a philosophical difference at some obtuse level, he is defending the Gospel itself which was, is, and will always be the Gospel of grace alone. The doctrine of ‘free-will’ fights and militates against grace alone and the two cannot stand together. So Luther attacks ‘free-will’ in order to defend the glory of the Gospel of grace alone.

There is nothing apart from faith that can possibly be righteous. Yet, the espousers of ‘free-will’ seem to be asserting that the act of ‘free-will’ is righteous or at least is not unrighteous. A will that is free of true grace cannot be a will that has faith, so how can a will that is free of grace and faith be anything but wholly sinful? Can a ‘free-will’ have enough power and energy to do something that is not unrighteous? No, because those without faith are dead in their sins and trespasses and can do nothing apart from the life of Christ in them. The will that is apart from Christ has no faith and so cannot do anything but what is sinful and unrighteous. For the will to be free it would have to be free enough to be neutral or in the middle state, but Scripture does not leave human beings that middle state. Scripture sets out the fact that man is dead in sins and trespasses or that man is alive in Christ and totally dependant on Christ and His grace alone. So there is no neutral state for man to be in.

As Luther points out, the whole human race is divided into two. There is no room for a third. The human race is divided into believers and unbelievers. Believers are those who have Christ and unbelievers do not have Christ. Unbelievers are dead in sins and trespasses and are in bondage to sin and the devil. Believers are free in Christ, but can do nothing (spiritual or righteous) apart from Christ. There is no middle group of people who have free-will. All people are in bondage to sin and the flesh or they are in slaves of Christ. No unbeliever can please God because those who are in the flesh cannot please God (Rom 8:8). The unbeliever cannot please God “because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so.”

So unbelievers are not free to walk in salvation as they please, but instead they are hostile to God and have no ability to subject themselves to the law of God. If they are hostile to God and have no ability to subject themselves to the law of God, then clearly they are not free to do so. The person who cannot (not able) subject self to the law of God is not one who can come to God freely from his or her own faith. By definition, one would think, true faith that comes from humility demands that the soul submit itself to God. The unbeliever cannot submit self to God and as such does not have a ‘free-will’ in order to come up with faith.