God Loves… Himself

But this word ‘without’ does away with morally good works, and moral righteousness, and preparation for grace. Imagine any power you can think of as belonging to ‘free-will’, and Paul will still stand firm and say: ‘the righteousness of God exists without it!’ And though I should grant that ‘free-will by its endeavours can advance in some direction, namely, in the direction of good works, or the righteousness of the civil or moral law, yet it does not advance towards God’s righteousness, nor does God deem its efforts in any respect worthy to gain His righteousness; for He says that His righteousness stands without the law. And if ‘free-will’ does not advance towards God’s righteousness, what will it gain even it by its works and endeavours it advances towards angelic holiness?—if that were possible. I do not think there are any obscure and ambiguous words here, nor that room is left here for any figures of speech. Paul clearly distinguishes the two righteousnesses, assigning the one to the law and the other to grace; and he declares that the latter is given without the former and without its works, and that the former without the latter does not justify or avail anything. I should like to see how ‘free-will’ can stand and be defended against these texts!   (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

The concept that ‘free-will’ has to do something freely in order for God to save it is simply repugnant to Scripture and to souls that have by grace tasted free-grace. The battle is in many ways always focused on ‘free-will’ versus free-grace and never the twain shall meet. Can the ‘free-will’ make a free step toward God and do something that moves God to save it? What is the will free from? Is the will free of its bondage in sin and of Satan? Well, no, but that is a very major thing not to be free from. Is the will free from the judgment of God in hardening sinners for sin? Well, no and again that is a major something that the will is not free from. Is the will free of grace and the power of love and grace? Well, if the will is free from grace and the power of grace and love then the will can do nothing that is pleasing to God. This shows how futile it is for people to assert ‘free-will’ in the things of the Gospel and for people to stand in union with those who do. The whole concept of ‘free-will’ is not even slightly understood apart from understanding what the will is free from and what it is supposedly free to do.

Luther shows how Paul sets out the terms of righteousness and that there are only two kinds. There is the righteousness that is of the Law and the righteousness that is of grace. Where is the ‘free-will’ in these kinds of righteousness? Is the will free to seek its righteousness by the Law? Well, in one sense it is. The will can seek its own moral and civil righteousness according to the Law, but the Pharisees did that and they were said to be in bondage to sin and Jesus was harsh with them. The will is free to pursue a religious form of righteousness, but again that is according to the Law and the Pharisees did that. The will is free to prepare itself for grace, but only if it does that according to the Law and that would be a contradiction in terms. However, the will is not free to obtain the righteousness that is of grace because that only comes by grace. So if the will is free from grace, which it must be in order to be truly free, then it can never truly pursue grace alone because it is free of grace. But this righteousness that comes by grace is always and only by grace and grace alone. Grace is moved within God and never by man. If man moves God to show grace, then grace is no longer grace. So the will, in one sense, is free to pursue a legal righteousness, but that is simply nothing but sin. But the will is not free to pursue grace in its own power while it is free from grace.

How can anyone defend ‘free-will’ in light of what Paul actually wrote? It appears to be an impossible task to overcome after what Paul has set out in this passage of Scripture. The will cannot do what is required of it to be free and yet a will that is free cannot then and at the same time claim to be of grace. The righteousness of God is apart from the works of the Law and is apart from anything man can do to merit or earn it. God has never set out His righteousness as something that man is to earn or make strides for in order to earn. Man was given nothing but a standard of perfection in order to avoid sin, and after the Fall man was given the Law. But he was given the Law not in order to obtain righteousness, but in order to show may his sin, increase his condemnation, and to be a tutor to train man and bring him to Christ. So ‘free-will’ is a shot at the depravity of human beings, a shot at the Law, and a shot at grace. The teaching of ‘free-will’ is the enemy of the Gospel of Jesus Christ at all points. The will that thinks it is free wants salvation to be in its own power that it may choose when and where it will be saved. The will that thinks it is free wants salvation to be out of the will of God and given to the will of man. This is nothing more than enmity toward God. Assuredly it is an idol when man trusts in his own will to do what which God alone can do and God alone has the right to do. How difficult the pride of man is to overcome and die to.

But this word ‘without’ does away with morally good works, and moral righteousness, and preparation for grace. Imagine any power you can think of as belonging to ‘free-will’, and Paul will still stand firm and say: ‘the righteousness of God exists without it!’ And though I should grant that ‘free-will by its endeavours can advance in some direction, namely, in the direction of good works, or the righteousness of the civil or moral law, yet it does not advance towards God’s righteousness, nor does God deem its efforts in any respect worthy to gain His righteousness; for He says that His righteousness stands without the law. And if ‘free-will’ does not advance towards God’s righteousness, what will it gain even it by its works and endeavours it advances towards angelic holiness?—if that were possible. I do not think there are any obscure and ambiguous words here, nor that room is left here for any figures of speech. Paul clearly distinguishes the two righteousnesses, assigning the one to the law and the other to grace; and he declares that the latter is given without the former and without its works, and that the former without the latter does not justify or avail anything. I should like to see how ‘free-will’ can stand and be defended against these texts! (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

What can ‘free-will’ actually do in the context of salvation? What can ‘free-will’ actually accomplish that is impossible for grace to accomplish? Luther’s point here is on target and reveals something that he did not state in this context. What is it that the soul is trusting in? The soul will either trust in grace alone or it will trust in some degree of self to obtain grace. This is the great danger of those who either believe in ‘free-will’ or see no real difference between a little ‘free-will’ and grace alone in the Gospel. This shows the great danger of simply assuming that Arminians are wrong in certain precise ways but can still believe in justification by faith alone. While Arminians may believe in some form of justification by faith alone, they cannot be an Arminian and believe in justification by faith alone as Luther taught it. The justification that Luther taught and defended as the biblical teaching was by faith alone in order that it may be by grace alone. If the will is not dead in sin and beyond any assistance in salvation, then salvation is not by grace alone.

Every single person that has ever heard of justification by faith alone in some way and believes in it in some way is trusting in something to be saved. Every single person that has ever heard and believed in some way that Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation is trusting in Christ in some way. The question, however, has to do with what is really being trusted in. Does the person trust in his own faith to trust in Christ? If so, the person is not trusting in Christ alone and is not trusting in grace alone. The person is truly looking to and trusting in self to some degree for salvation. This is not just some side issue, it is utterly vital. When God looks upon a saved sinner, is He looking to Himself in order to save the sinner by grace alone or is He looking for the sinner to do something? Once again, is God waiting upon the will of the human to do something so that He can save it? Surely this shows that ‘free-will’ is nothing but an idol and those who trust in it are trusting in themselves rather than God.

The unregenerate person loves self and trusts in self in an ultimate way. The unregenerate person has a high opinion of himself and of his own ability to do something that pleases God. Some try to keep the Law to great degrees, while others try to come up with faith and trust on their own. It is idolatry or a trusting in the idol of self to trust in self to keep the Law for righteousness, but it is also idolatry and trusting in the idol of self to trust in self for faith so that God will move and give salvation. Both are works for righteousness. Scripture is quite clear that the righteousness of God is apart from works. The righteousness of God is apart from the works of the Law for righteousness and the righteousness of God is apart from the works of the will for righteousness. No matter how far the unregenerate soul can pursue some form of righteousness or meet some standard for righteousness, it can never make one step toward the righteousness of God.

The human soul (and that includes the will) has no ability and no power to obtain the righteousness of God or do anything to move God to obtain it. The will, while it is not forced to do what it does by the power of God, is also dead in sins and trespasses. The will is the slave of sin and of Satan. The will has no power or ability to free itself from its slavery and it has no power or ability to take one step toward obtaining the righteousness of God. The will has no power to do one thing toward moving God to show grace because that would no longer be grace. The will has no power and no ability to do anything but sin, and that is as opposite of obtaining grace as can be. Sin cannot earn or merit grace in the slightest. That is why grace is always sovereign and never in the hands of human wills.

But this word ‘without’ does away with morally good works, and moral righteousness, and preparation for grace. Imagine any power you can think of as belonging to ‘free-will’, and Paul will still stand firm and say: ‘the righteousness of God exists without it!’ And though I should grant that ‘free-will by its endeavours can advance in some direction, namely, in the direction of good works, or the righteousness of the civil or moral law, yet it does not advance towards God’s righteousness, nor does God deem its efforts in any respect worthy to gain His righteousness; for He says that His righteousness stands without the law. And if ‘free-will’ does not advance towards God’s righteousness, what will it gain even it by its works and endeavours it advances towards angelic holiness?—if that were possible. I do not think there are any obscure and ambiguous words here, nor that room is left here for any figures of speech. Paul clearly distinguishes the two righteousnesses, assigning the one to the law and the other to grace; and he declares that the latter is given without the former and without its works, and that the former without the latter does not justify or avail anything. I should like to see how ‘free-will’ can stand and be defended against these texts! (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

In this section of Luther’s writings it is seen once again that the Gospel of grace alone is incompatible with ‘free-will.’ One cannot consistently hold to a teaching of ‘free-will’ and yet hold from the depths of the heart that God saves by grace alone. What does the ‘free-will’ do after all? Is it free to do good works that are acceptable to God? No, that cannot be because the righteousness of God is without or apart from our good works. Besides, if it came from the will of the human as free it would not be the righteousness of God. What does the ‘free-will’ do? Can it obtain moral righteousness? Well, the Law was not given so that men may earn righteousness. Instead, it was given to show how sinful man is and perhaps even to incite sin in the heart. But even beyond that, even if man could obtain some form of moral righteousness, it would not be the righteousness of God. What can the ‘free-will’ do? It cannot prepare itself for grace because that would mean grace is no longer grace since God would be giving it based on what man does to prepare him or herself. For grace to be grace it must be shown without cause in the human being or grace would be moved by something in the human soul rather than God Himself.

This should show human beings how dangerous and even deadly ‘free-will’ is to the Gospel. ‘Free-will’ has no power to obtain or prepare the soul for grace. Romans 3 is very clear on this issue: “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.” Justification is a gift by His grace which would be better translated “being justified without cause by His grace.” There is no cause within the human being for which God justifies the person for or moves God to justify the sinner. If there is a cause, even the cause of an act of the ‘free-will’ in anything, then salvation is not by grace alone and there is a righteousness in man that is not of the righteousness of God.

What can the ‘free-will’ do to obtain righteousness? Romans 4:4-5 explains this: “Now to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due. 5 But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.” To the one that works, what he gets according to that work is not grace but what is owed. However, the person who does not work and believes that God justifies the ungodly, that person’s faith is reckoned as righteousness. Notice what is going on here. A will that is free is a will that is free from the inner work of grace. So we have God giving people righteousness if they will make a decision and do an act of faith on their own. That is then God giving righteousness because of what a person did. It would then be God giving a person what is his or her due. But Romans 4 will not let us go down that road. It tells us quite clearly that this righteousness is given to the person that does not work, but rather it is given to the ungodly. It is not given to a person because of a righteous act of faith that a person does, but it is given to the ungodly.

Notice again how dangerous and deadly ‘free-will’ is to the Gospel of grace alone. ‘Free-will’ attacks the Gospel at virtually all fronts. It attacks the Gospel at the issue of the sovereignty of God by asserting the sovereignty of its own will. It attacks the Gospel by asserting that it can do one act by which God responds to it by giving it righteousness. In other words, if the will can come up with faith God must give it righteousness because He has promised. So salvation is no longer by grace alone but by grace plus the act of a will meeting a standard. There is not one little act of ‘free-will’ going on here, it boils down to an act apart from the grace of God that obligates God to show grace. In the issue of ‘free-will,’ the Gospel of grace alone is at stake. Luther saw that ever so clearly.

‘But now the righteousness of God without the law, is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe in Him; for there is no difference, fall all have sinned are without the glory of God; being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood,’ etc. (Rom. 3:21-25). Here Paul utters very thunderbolts against ‘free-will’. First; ‘The righteousness of God without the law,’ he says ‘is manifested.’ He distinguishes the righteousness of God from the righteousness of the law; because the righteousness of faith comes by grace, without the law. His phrase ‘without the law’ can mean only that Christian righteousness exists without the works of the law, the works of the law availing and effecting nothing toward its attainment. So he says, just below; ‘We concluded that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law’ (v. 28). Earlier, he had said: ‘By the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight’ (v. 20). From all this it is very plain that the endeavour and effort of ‘free-will are simply null; for if the righteousness of God exists without the law, and without the works of the law, how shall it not much more exist without ‘free-will’? For the supreme concern of ‘free-will’ is to exercise itself in moral righteousness, the works of that law by which its blindness and impotence are ‘assisted.’ (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

Luther says that in Romans 3:21-25 “Paul utters very thunderbolts against ‘free-will.’” This is not something that is apparent in the first reading, and perhaps not apparent to numerous readings of the text without someone like Luther to point these things out. After seeing what Luther has to say on these verses, it would seem that it is not Luther than is blind but those who read this text and don’t see what it says against ‘free-will.’ The text is quite clear in telling us that the righteousness of God is something that is not the same thing as a righteousness of the Law. Human souls must obtain a righteousness either from the righteousness of God or from the righteousness of the Law. The Scripture is quite clear that by the deeds of the law one will not obtain righteousness. But the same line of thinking, however, a will that is free and a will that is free is free from the work of grace as well. The righteousness of God only comes through faith and so it is by grace alone. As Romans 4:16 sets out, it is by faith in order that it may be of grace. So that only leaves the so-called ‘free-will’ one option. It must obtain what it obtains by the Law, yet the Scripture has already stated that this is impossible.

The soul must be declared righteous by God for a soul to enter heaven. The soul is declared righteous based on what Christ has done, that is, the righteousness of God given to sinners or it is declared righteous based on the works of the Law or what the will does to some degree. The soul must either obtain its righteousness by keeping the Law in some way or by receiving it as a free gift. The soul obtains righteousness by the Law by keeping the Law (in the theory of some) or that God has lowered the standards of the Law (in one sense) to where if a person believes by an act of the will that act of faith is counted as righteousness. Either way, then, it is the will acting apart from grace alone and obtaining righteousness by the Law. But Scripture sets out that by the deeds (acts) of the Law no one will be justified in His sight. While it may not sound so bad to people to think that a will may be free enough to believe, there is more to the story. Why does believing save a soul anyway? Is it an act done by the will or is it a result of grace? One cannot have a Gospel of grace alone that includes an act of the will that is free of grace. This is also why Luther says things like “this wretched ‘free-will.’ He saw this as an enemy of the Gospel.

 If it is true that (as Scripture says) man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law and that by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in His sight, then what can a ‘free-will’ do to obtain righteousness? Can the will strive to obtain something that is not according to the Law? Can a will strive to obtain something that is righteous and be free enough to obtain that righteousness when in fact the righteousness of God is apart from the Law? The whole duty of man is to love God and his neighbor, yet is the will free to love God when it is in bondage to sin and at enmity to God? Is the will free from its bondage to sin and enmity of God at any point so that it can make a choice that is truly free? The will is either bound in sin or bound in love for God, but the will has to be transferred from the dominion of darkness into the kingdom of the Beloved Son. The will is not free to break its bondage of sin and it is not free to love righteousness and choose it apart from grace. Yet a will that is in bondage to sin and is free from grace is in fact not free at all. The righteousness of God is something apart from the Law in terms of man’s attaining it. It is also something that is apart from the will of man to obtain it and so the will of man is not free to obtain it at his own pleasure. The righteousness of God is given by grace and grace alone.

Moreover, if Paul were not understood to affirm lack of potency, his argument would be without force; for Paul’s whole aim is to make grace necessary to all men, and if they could initiate something by themselves, they would not need grace. As it is, however, they need grace, just because they cannot do this….’Because of transgressions,’ he says; not, indeed, to restrain them, as Jerome dreams, for Paul is arguing that the removing and restraining of sins by the gift of righteousness was promised to the seed that was to come; but to increase transgressions, as he says in Rom. 5: ‘The law entered, that sin might abound’ (v. 20). But that sins were not committed in abundance without the law; but then they were not known to be transgressions and sins of such awful import, and the most and greatest of them were held to be righteousness! As long as sins are unknown, there is no room for a cure, and no hope of one; for sins that think they betoken health and need no physician will not endure the healer’s hand. The law is therefore necessary to give knowledge of sin, so that proud man, who thought he was whole, may be humbled by the discovery of his own great wickedness, and sigh and pant after the grace that is set forth in Christ.   (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

Jesus Christ is the Physician of souls and He tells us that those who don’t think they are sick will not come to Him. Christ came for sinners and not the righteous. It is so easy for people to smile to themselves because they know that they are sinners and so they think they are fine. They know that they cannot save themselves and so they ask Jesus to save them. The problem, however, is that they ask Jesus to save them from wrath and not from sin. Oh, perhaps some want to be saved from some bad habits or inconvenient sins, but they only want to be saved from the sins they want to be saved from. But Jesus saves sinners who want to be saved from the guilt of sin and from sin itself. He saves sinners who see that they are the worst of sinners and need new hearts. Jesus saves sinners who have become so sick of sin that they are ready to suffer whatever it takes to be rid of that vile thing that lives in their hearts. Jesus saves sinners who are like little children and know that they need to be turned by Him. Jesus saves sinners who are tired of their own pride and pitiful works. Jesus saves sinners who are tired of trusting in their own righteousness and see that their best of works is as filthy rags. Jesus saves sinners who are contrite and broken in heart. Jesus saves sinners who are so tired of their own hearts that they stop defending themselves. Jesus saves sinners who pant after the grace of God in Christ. Jesus saves sinners who want nothing but grace alone.

So many today think that a prayer or a tear is enough. They think that as long as they have admitted that they are sinners that they have confessed enough. They think that as long as they have shed a tear or prayed a prayer that they have done enough. What they don’t see is that God requires a heart that is His in all ways. What they don’t see is that Christ will save from all sin or none at all. A sinner that truly wants to be saved by grace is one that gives up all rights to self and all rights to sin. A sinner that truly wants indwelling grace desires for grace to deliver from the bondage and power of sin.

Wanting to be saved from the sins we want to be saved from is not an honest way to deal with the heart and is not a desire to be saved from sin. In fact, if the heart of sin is self and pride, wanting to be saved from some sin and not all sin is simply self wanting to be rid of some inconveniences for self. Jesus as Physician is not satisfied to just deal with things that are comfortable, He will deal with the real issues and the real sins of the heart. Jesus will deal with the things of self and work a true repentance in the heart of the sinner that is dead in sin. As long as sinners don’t want to be delivered from sins and transgressions, they don’t really want to be delivered from sin into the kingdom of grace. The Law reveals what is sin from God’s viewpoint which is precisely what man needs. As long as human beings are without the Law and without the Spirit’s work using the Law, they will not understand the true nature of sin and therefore of repentance and grace.

When sinners see parts of themselves that are not sinful or are whole, they will resist the hand of the Healer in those areas. This shows the utter paucity of evangelism today in that people think of Jesus as One who helps them some, but not as One who must utterly start with less than nothing. A sinner needing some help is not the same as a sinner who is dead in sins and trespasses and who sees that s/he has no ability to come to Christ or believe in Christ. Christ as Healer must make the sinner alive and He must bring the sinner to Himself in order that the sinner can come to the Father. When the sinfulness of sin is not made clear to the sinner, the sinner will not see the utter need and power of grace. When the sinfulness of sin and its power over the soul is not preached so that the sinner does not see his or her inability, the Law is not been preached and the power of Christ is not either.

Moreover, if Paul were not understood to affirm lack of potency, his argument would be without force; for Paul’s whole aim is to make grace necessary to all men, and if they could initiate something by themselves, they would not need grace. As it is, however, they need grace, just because they cannot do this….’Because of transgressions,’ he says; not, indeed, to restrain them, as Jerome dreams, for Paul is arguing that the removing and restraining of sins by the gift of righteousness was promised to the seed that was to come; but to increase transgressions, as he says in Rom. 5: ‘The law entered, that sin might abound’ (v. 20). But that sins were not committed in abundance without the law; but then they were not known to be transgressions and sins of such awful import, and the most and greatest of them were held to be righteousness! As long as sins are unknown, there is no room for a cure, and no hope of one; for sins that think they betoken health and need no physician will not endure the healer’s hand. The law is therefore necessary to give knowledge of sin, so that proud man, who thought he was whole, may be humbled by the discovery of his own great wickedness, and sigh and pant after the grace that is set forth in Christ.   (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

The first part of the quote above was to give some context as to why Luther is operating as he does. Luther is out to shred any hope or confidence that a sinner has in self, the righteousness of self, or the will of self in order to show sinners their need of grace, and not just some grace but all of grace. Sinners need to know that they cannot do something of themselves and that they are in utter need of grace. The reason for the way Luther is arguing, then, is to increase the gravity of sin (in the mind of the sinner, not in reality) and the helplessness of man so that sinners will see the utter necessity of grace and of the glory and power of grace. In the modern day it is almost universal that God is thought to respond to what man does, but that destroys (not in reality) the biblical teaching of God as sovereign and therefore of true grace. As long as man is thought to be the one that initiates, man does not need grace (biblical grace). Human beings need grace precisely because they cannot do something. It is grace that comes to man who hates true grace and does not want it. It is grace that begins to work on that heart so that man will see his great need of it and desire the benefits of it even though he still hates grace in truth.

The law, then, came to increase transgressions. It did not come to increase sin because sin is good, but in order that sinners would see and feel their helplessness and then their need of grace. As Luther points out, it was not that people were not committing the sins already, but apart from the Law they did not see them in terms of the number of sins nor the greatness of each sin. The Law, though it stands against sinners and all who sin against the Law are cursed by the Law, is actually a great benefit to those who come to bow before the dictates of the Law and see their helplessness and utter need of grace. Apart from the Law no one would see the true depths of his or her sin. Though it is true that nature alone renders human souls without excuse, but apart from the Law no one will be broken and be helpless before God, which is to say, they will not be led by this tutor to Christ. Apart from the Law no one will see the need to be saved from beginning to end by grace alone.

Instead of showing that God commands and therefore men must have ability to obey the Law, this line of thinking actually goes in the other direction. The Law shows that men don’t have the ability to obey the Law and therefore need Christ alone. The Law shows man that he needs grace alone rather than grace plus something man can give. Until the Law has slain man in his own eyes and he sees his own helplessness, he is like the sick person that thinks he is healthy. He will not want anything to do with the physician and will not listen to the words of the physician until he accepts the fact that he is sick. As long as the person thinks that he has enough health to do what it takes to remain healthy that person will not seek out a true physician. As long as the person thinks that he has enough health to take care of himself (such as an act of the healthy will) he will not seek the physician and will remain proud and secure in his own eyes. But once the light of the Law is let in and the sinner sees his dire condition and utter need of the great Physician, that sinner will seek Christ and will not trust in his own diseased will.

The Law, in one sense, can be compared to a machine that looks inside the person (so to speak). The person can see his or her own diseased organs and with horror know that must befall him. That is the person that will then give up all hope in self and the efforts of self. Woe to those who have ministers who will not preach the Law in order that sinners may see their great deadness of heart. Woe to those who will not behold their own hearts in the mirror of the Law. They will continue on with a dreadful and terminal disease without knowing about it. They will continue on thinking that they have enough health to just make a decision and all will be well. How deceived they really are as they continue to look to themselves to look to Christ rather than looking to Christ alone.

Here is the solution of the question with the Diatribe repeats so often all though the book: ‘if we can do nothing, what is the purpose of all the laws, precepts, threats, and promises?’ Paul here gives the answer; ‘by the law is the knowledge of sin.’ His answer to the question is far different from the ideas of man, or of ‘free-will.’ He does not say that ‘free-will’ is proved by the law, nor that it co-operates unto righteousness; for by the law comes, not righteousness, but knowledge of sin. This is the fruit, the work, the office of the law; it is a light to the ignorant and blind, but one that displays disease, sin, evil, death, hell and the wrath of God. It does not help nor set them free from these things; it is content merely to point them out. When a man discovers the sickness of sin, he is cast down and afflicted; nay, he despairs. The law does not help him; much less can he heal himself. Another light is needed to reveal a remedy. This is the voice of the gospel, which displays Christ as the deliverer from all these evil things. But neither reason nor ‘free-will’ points to Him; how could reason point to Him, when it is itself darkness and needs the light of the law to show it its own sickness, which by its own light it fails to see, and thinks is sound health? (Luther, Bondage of the Will).

The Law does not provide the sinner any help or any hope of help. The Law does not give a person one hint of a way s/he can help him or herself. The Law is to provide light, but it is a light that shines on dark hearts and souls. It is a light that shows the soul its sin, its lack of righteousness, and the judgment of God upon it. The Law offers no help to the sinner and does not give any way for the sinner to heal himself or to help heal himself. The Law does not point to an ability or power of the ‘free-will’ in the sinner because the Law offers nothing but condemnation to the sinner. That is what Paul teaches.

The purpose of the Law is to point to sin and to show sin and perhaps even to provoke sin in order that human beings can see the nature of sin and of their own inability. When the Law brings the sinner to an end of all hope in self, the Law shows the great need of a true Savior. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is what saves the sinner. The Gospel is the power of God to save (Rom 1:16) and that is what the sinner must have if the Law has done its work to show that the sinner has no power of self to save at all. The soul that thinks it can be saved by one or by many works is not a soul that is saved by grace alone (Rom 11:6). One drop of poison will spoil a glass of water and it is no longer a glass of pure water. One work of the will (‘free-will’) spoils a pure grace and makes pure grace to be something less than grace alone which makes it no grace at all.

The Law is not given at any point or for any purpose to show man that his will is free and that he has some ability to obey the Law. Rather, it is to show man that he has no ability to obey the Law and thus his will is not free to obey it. This shows man that the Gospel is what he really needs. This shows man that Christ alone can set man free from the bondage of sin and Christ alone can live in the soul to give it true life. If the Law shows man that he has the ability to do something that is righteous, “then Christ died needlessly” (Gal 2:21). The ramifications of teaching ‘free-will’ are actually quite enormous. If it is taught that man has some little ability (as Erasmus did and the teaching of ‘free-will’ cannot escape), then one must assert that there is one thing man can do that is righteous and can obtain righteousness. If it is taught that God gives sinners commands to keep and that means that they must have the power to keep them, then that also teaches that man can obtain some righteousness by the Law. It is inescapable.

The Law clearly teaches that there is nothing that a sinner can do that is righteous and the Gospel of grace teaches that sinners are saved by grace alone. Both the Law and the Gospel (team up so to speak) teach that sinners have no hope in themselves which includes their so-called ‘free-will.’ As long as a soul trusts in its own will, it has not realized the purpose of the Law and does not understand the true nature of the Gospel of grace alone. The purpose of the Law is meant to drive a person to the very end of self and all hope in self so that the soul despairs of self. The purpose of the Gospel of grace alone is to shine forth the beauty of the grace of God so that the soul will hope only in grace. In other words, God saves to the glory of His grace and those who try to depend on their own ‘free-will’ are not depending on grace alone but instead are looking to self to some degree. That looking to self is not in accordance with the Gospel of Christ alone.

Here is the solution of the question with the Diatribe repeats so often all though the book: ‘if we can do nothing, what is the purpose of all the laws, precepts, threats, and promises?’ Paul here gives the answer; ‘by the law is the knowledge of sin.’ His answer to the question is far different from the ideas of man, or of ‘free-will.’ He does not say that ‘free-will’ is proved by the law, nor that it co-operates unto righteousness; for by the law comes, not righteousness, but knowledge of sin. This is the fruit, the work, the office of the law; it is a light to the ignorant and blind, but one that displays disease, sin, evil, death, hell and the wrath of God. It does not help nor set them free from these things; it is content merely to point them out. When a man discovers the sickness of sin, he is cast down and afflicted; nay, he despairs. The law does not help him; much less can he heal himself. Another light is needed to reveal a remedy. This is the voice of the gospel, which displays Christ as the deliverer from all these evil things. But neither reason nor ‘free-will’ points to Him; how could reason point to Him, when it is itself darkness and needs the light of the law to show it its own sickness, which by its own light it fails to see, and thinks is sound health? (Luther, Bondage of the Will).

The reason that God gives the law is to give the knowledge of sin. It is not to show people how to obtain salvation in any way, and it is not to show people their ability to keep the Law or to make a choice. Those who depend on ‘free-will’ made a deduction, but it is not a deduction that is taught in Scripture. The Scriptures teach us with a great deal of clarity why the Law was given. Galatians 3:19-24 is very clear and specific on this issue:

Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. 20 Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one. 21 Is the Law then contrary to the promises of God? May it never be! For if a law had been given which was able to impart life, then righteousness would indeed have been based on law. 22 But the Scripture has shut up everyone under sin, so that the promise by faith in Jesus Christ might be given to those who believe. 23 But before faith came, we were kept in custody under the law, being shut up to the faith which was later to be revealed. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.

The question flows from the context of how salvation is based on the promise of God. Scripture gives us the question of why the Law and then tells us why it was given: “It was added because of transgressions” or “for the reason” of transgressions. What is the reason for transgressions? The Law was added to show what sin is and to shut people up under sin. The Law is the handmaiden of the promises of the Gospel of grace. We see that the Law is not contrary to the promises that God has given (v. 21). We see that the Law cannot give life (v. 22). The Law shuts up everyone under sin (v. 22). The Law shuts up everyone under sin so that the promise by faith in Jesus might be given to those who believe (v. 22). The Law shuts souls up to faith (v. 23). The Law is a tutor to lead people to Christ so that they may be justified by faith.

There is nothing in these verses that would indicate that the Law was given because people have ‘free-will’ or because they have any power at all to do what it takes to be saved. The promises of God come by grace alone, and yet the Law that was given by God is not contrary to grace in the final analysis. The Law is contrary to grace alone if the soul has the ability to keep it, but it is not contrary to grace alone if the Law shows people that they cannot keep the Law and drives them to see that they must be saved apart from their ability and strength. Since the Law cannot give life, it points to Christ who is Life and can give life. But the Law does not point to the ‘free-will’ as having any power to obtain Christ so that it may have life. The Law shuts people up under sin, but it does not just partially shut them up leaving room for a ‘free-will.” The Law does not shut people up to mostly Christ and a little bit of ‘free-will’ that can do one thing to help in salvation, but it leaves people totally helpless and teaches them that Christ must do it all. The Law teaches people that they can do nothing so that they can be led to Christ alone to be justified by grace alone through faith alone.

These passages of Scripture are very clear. There is no room for ‘free-will’ in these passages. The Law was given to show people the utter necessity of Christ alone and not for the necessity of the ‘free-will’ to do something that Christ did not and does not do. In fact, rather than the Law demanding that we must have ‘free-will,’ it demands that we don’t have it. It leaves us totally in the hands of Christ and His grace, not in the hands of ‘free-will.’

Here is the solution of the question with the Diatribe repeats so often all though the book: ‘if we can do nothing, what is the purpose of all the laws, precepts, threats, and promises?’ Paul here gives the answer; ‘by the law is the knowledge of sin.’ His answer to the question is far different from the ideas of man, or of ‘free-will.’ He does not say that ‘free-will’ is proved by the law, nor that it co-operates unto righteousness; for by the law comes, not righteousness, but knowledge of sin. This is the fruit, the work, the office of the law; it is a light to the ignorant and blind, but one that displays disease, sin, evil, death, hell and the wrath of God. It does not help nor set them free from these things; it is content merely to point them out. When a man discovers the sickness of sin, he is cast down and afflicted; nay, he despairs. The law does not help him; much less can he heal himself. Another light is needed to reveal a remedy. This is the voice of the gospel, which displays Christ as the deliverer from all these evil things. But neither reason nor ‘free-will’ points to Him; how could reason point to Him, when it is itself darkness and needs the light of the law to show it its own sickness, which by its own light it fails to see, and thinks is sound health? (Luther, Bondage of the Will).

At the risk of sounding redundant, this is another passage of Scripture that Luther opens up and sets before our eyes in a way that is so powerful. It is hard to imagine how anyone could possibly argue for ‘free-will’ after reading even this section by Luther, and it is also quite hard to see how anyone could not see the great danger of not standing against those who teach the pernicious doctrine of ‘free-will.’ It is so common for people to say that God would not command those who cannot do what He commands. They ask why He commands people to do things that they cannot do. So they convince themselves that since God commands them to do certain things that they must have the power of ‘free-will’ in order to obey.

Luther simply explodes that idea. In the words of a more modern writer (B.B Warfield), God commands us to show us what we ought to do and not what we can do. Paul tells us that ‘by the law is the knowledge of sin.’ In other words, God commands us to do certain things in order that we could come to know our sin. If God commanded human beings to do certain things in order that they could do them from their own ability, then that would contradict the words of Paul in Scripture. The purpose of the law is not to show men that they have the ability to do what is commanded, but to show them their sin and that they cannot do what is commanded. The commands of God do not prove ‘free-will’ in the slightest, but in fact condemns it quite clearly.

Once again we can see the great danger to souls that the teaching of ‘free-will’ brings. In effect it teaches men the opposite of what the law teaches and so it teaches them the exact opposite of what Paul teaches about the purpose of the law. The soul that listens to human reason rather than the Word of God on this matter will be brought low and it will be seen that it is trusting in a false gospel. If the law teaches ‘free-will’ in the sense that it teaches men what they can do, then the law does not teach men the full nature of their sin. But if men do not see the real nature of their sin and their bondage to it, they will not see the nature of the Gospel of free and sovereign grace that is found in Jesus Christ alone. If we teach in such a way where the law is seen to teach men that they have ‘free-will,’ then we cannot teach the pure doctrines of the helpless of man in utter need of grace and grace alone to save.

If the law teaches men in such a way that they see that they have ‘free-will,’ then instead of “by the law is the knowledge of sin,” we would have “by the law is the knowledge of some righteousness in man.” The teaching of ‘free-will’ leaves a man with some righteousness in his soul or his soul could not be free at some point and in some way. We cannot have it both ways. Either the law is given to give the knowledge of sin or it is given to reveal some sin and yet the ‘free-will’ of human souls. But since the law is quite clearly given to give the knowledge of sin, teaching the ‘free-will’ of human beings is not just a little wrong, but it is at best dangerously wrong. The law comes in to show sinners their desperate state and then the glory of grace in the Gospel. But when free-willers deny that the law shows sinners their truly desperate state and instead that it shows them that they have a little island of righteousness (‘free-will), this is a denial of the Scripture, what the Scripture teaches about depravity, but also what the Scripture teaches about the Gospel of grace alone. While so many “Reformed” men in the modern day think that it is gracious to call Pelagians and Arminians “brothers” and say that they teach the same Gospel as the Reformed do, this simply cannot be. The Gospel of grace alone cannot at the same time be of grace and ‘free-will.’ They may speak of the same Jesus in a sense, but this is not the same Gospel. We must be awakened!