God Loves… Himself

When Christ says in John 6; ‘No man can come to me, except My Father which hath sent me draw him’ (v. 44), what does he leave to ‘free-will’? He says man needs to hear and learn of the Father Himself, and that all must be taught of God. Here, indeed, he declares, not only that the works and efforts of ‘free-will’ are unavailing, but that even the very word of the gospel (of which He is here speaking) is heard in vain, unless the Father Himself speaks within, and teaches, and draws. ‘No man, no man can come,’ he says, and what he is talking about is your ‘power whereby man can make some endeavour towards Christ’. In things that pertain to salvation, He asserts that power to be null…But the ungodly does not ‘come’, even when he hears the word, unless the Father draws and teaches him inwardly; which He does by shedding abroad His Spirit. When that happens, there follows a ‘drawing’ other than that which is outward; Christ is then displayed by the enlightening of the Spirit, and by it man is rapt to Christ with the sweetest rapture, he being passive while God speaks, teaches and draws, rather than seeking or running himself. (Luther, The Bondage of the Will)

When Jesus said that in John 6 that ‘No man can come to me, except My Father which hath sent me draw him’ (v. 44), He made a very powerful statement that deals a death blow to modern methods of evangelism. No man has the ability to come to Christ apart from the drawing work of the Father. In other words, this is a complete slam on the ability of man to come to Christ and it throws man to the ground in utter despair of self leaving all souls totally helpless and in the hands of God to show grace as He pleases. How often in the modern day do we hear “preachers” telling men that they must go to Christ, but they don’t tell them the only way that can happen. Indeed men must go to Christ, but do they go in their own understanding and in their own power? According to Jesus, the only way sinners can come to Him is on the basis of the Father teaching them and drawing them.

This is an utterly vital point. While men try to tell other men to listen to their teaching and then come on the power of the outward man, Jesus is pointing us to something inward and something quite beyond the power and ability of the natural man to do. This is the real hope of the Gospel. Oh how Jesus delivers a lethal stab to the heart of human ability and the heart of human efforts in salvation. In the words of Luther again, “Here, indeed, he declares, not only that the works and efforts of ‘free-will’ are unavailing, but that even the very word of the gospel (of which He is here speaking) is heard in vain, unless the Father Himself speaks within, and teaches, and draws.” Man is not only told that the works and efforts of ‘freewill’ will and can do nothing, but he is also told that he cannot even hear the Gospel in truth unless it is the Father who speaks within to teach and to draw.

Again, this is a major and vital point and cannot be stressed beyond the level of its importance. The will is not free to act on the Gospel and the will is not free to even hear and learn the Gospel. There is a sense in which the natural man can hear the external fact of the Gospel and even give his assent to those truths, but no man can learn the Gospel in the inward man apart from the inward teaching of the Father. No will is free to come to Christ part from this teaching of the inward man. No will is free to give itself ears to hear and understanding. As Christ prayed to the Father in Matthew 11, “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 26 “Yes, Father, for this way was well-pleasing in Your sight. 27 “All things have been handed over to Me by My Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.” (Mat 11:25).

The Father is the One who hides or reveals. The very same words can be preached to one congregation and yet those same words will be hidden from one and revealed to another. The will is not free to reveal the words to self and the will is not free to hide the eyes to what God has revealed. We can see this same principle in Peter’s confession of Christ as well in Matthew 16: “He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven” (vv. 15-17).

Peter was not said to be blessed because he made this confession, but because it was not flesh and blood that had revealed that to him, but rather it was the Father in heaven who had revealed that. The will is not even free to hear or understand the Gospel, but that is left to the Father to reveal that. “A natural man does not accept the things of God” (I Cor 2:14), but only the spiritual man. A spiritual man is made by God and not by the will of man. A spiritual man is one that sees, understands, and so lives by spiritual things. The natural man is one that sees, understands, and so lives by natural things. However, the natural man can still be very religious, but he never gets beyond the natural man though he thinks of them as spiritual. But that which is spiritual is by the Spirit and it is not by the ‘free-will’ of man. The Gospel of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ will not and cannot be understood by the natural man. It must be taught in the inward man by the Father. The will is not free to teach itself the Gospel, give understanding to itself of the Gospel, nor is it free to take itself to Christ.

When Christ says in John 6; ‘No man can come to me, except My Father which hath sent me draw him’ (v. 44), what does he leave to ‘free-will’? He says man needs to hear and learn of the Father Himself, and that all must be taught of God. Here, indeed, he declares, not only that the works and efforts of ‘free-will’ are unavailing, but that even the very word of the gospel (of which He is here speaking) is heard in vain, unless the Father Himself speaks within, and teaches, and draws. ‘No man, no man can come,’ he says, and what he is talking about is your ‘power whereby man can make some endeavour towards Christ’. In things that pertain to salvation, He asserts that power to be null…But the ungodly does not ‘come’, even when he hears the word, unless the Father draws and teaches him inwardly; which He does by shedding abroad His Spirit. When that happens, there follows a ‘drawing’ other than that which is outward; Christ is then displayed by the enlightening of the Spirit, and by it man is rapt to Christ with the sweetest rapture, he being passive while God speaks, teaches and draws, rather than seeking or running himself. (Luther, The Bondage of the Will)

The words of Scripture are so powerful and one would think irrefutable on this issue at this point. When the text of Scripture says that “No man can come to me,” it means that no man has the ability to come to Christ apart from the exception that Christ gives. The word “can” is a word of ability. To put it clearly, the text could easily and accurately be translated as to say that “no man has the ability to come to me, except my Father which hath sent me draw him.” A will that could be free and yet had no ability would not be really free. Yet Christ is so clear that no man has the ability to go to the Father apart from the Father’s drawing that man. As Luther puts it, “what does he leave to ‘free-will’?”

John 6:43 Jesus answered and said to them, “Do not grumble among yourselves. 44 “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day. 45 “It is written in the prophets, ‘AND THEY SHALL ALL BE TAUGHT OF GOD.’ Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father, comes to Me. 46 “Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. 47 “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes has eternal life.

The text in modern English (NAS) is given just above. In this text the argument for ‘free-will’ is simply destroyed and the dust is wiped off from the place the argument was set forth. The Word of God gives us the words of Jesus Christ and what He taught on the subject. When Jesus says that no man can come or no man has the ability to come except that man is drawn by the Father, then the case is simply closed. The will is not free to come to the Father unless the Father brings the soul to Himself in His own way and in His own time.

The soul and will of man is not free to understand the things of God unless God Himself teaches that soul. The soul of man is not free to hear (spiritual hearing) the Father apart from the grace of the Father in giving this hearing. The Gospel of Jesus Christ, then, will not savingly benefit any soul apart from the Father teaching that soul and drawing that soul to Himself. In other words, the aspect of the soul which chooses (will) is not free to understand the things of God and is not free to hear the things of God in and of itself. Only those that are taught by the Father will hear and learn from the Father and go to Christ.

Luther’s words can hardly be put any better. “Here, indeed, he declares, not only that the works and efforts of ‘free-will’ are unavailing, but that even the very word of the gospel (of which He is here speaking) is heard in vain, unless the Father Himself speaks within, and teaches, and draws.” All the works and efforts of ‘free-will’ are to no avail in bringing the sinner to Christ. Even the very words of the Gospel are heard with no saving benefit or effect unless the Father speaks, teaches, and draws in the inner man. No human will is free to do these things to self or to another human. The scary part of this is that this is precisely what the vast majority of people in our day do. They try to tell people that they are free to make a choice for Christ when they want to do so. But when preachers tell people this, they are preaching a false gospel of the power of self rather than the power of God. When preachers try to talk people into making a decision, they are not teaching people of the inward teaching that must take place. To say this clearly, when preachers try to talk people into making a decision for Christ they are ignoring the real way that people are to come to Christ. Not only that, but they are telling people a way to be saved that Christ has said will not and cannot work for salvation. The teaching of ‘free-will’ is a dangerous teaching that contradicts Jesus.

But our question is this: whether he has ‘free-will’ God-ward, that God should obey man and what man wills, or whether God has nor rather a free will with respect to man, that man should will and do what God wills, and be able to do nothing but what He wills and does. The Baptist [John the Baptist] says here that man ‘can receive nothing, except it be given him from above’, which means that ‘free-will’ must be nothing! (Luther, The Bondage of the Will)

While it may seem rather ridiculous to some that the assertion of ‘free-will’ means that God must obey man what man wills, a little thought makes this obvious. God alone upholds the breath and life of man (In whose hand is the life of every living thing, And the breath of all mankind? Job 12:10) It is God who is sovereignly superintends the world. But if ‘free-will’ is true, then it is God who while upholding the world and giving men their every breath must do so in order that man could do as he pleased. Ephesians 1:11 tells us that believers are predestined according to His purpose: “having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.” What is God’s purpose? He works all things (not just some) after the counsel of His will. The text does not say that He works some things after the counsel of His will and leaves man free to do some other things. The text does not say that God works some things after the counsel of man’s will. This means that all things that happen are in accordance with the counsel of His will.

The doctrine of ‘free-will’ would have God at the service of the whims and sin of human beings. It would have God protect the person and give that person breath while that person carried out his or her own desires for sin at his or her own pleasure. It would have God to carry out this sinful person’s desires in that He has to concur with the person in order for that person’s desires to be carried out. The difference between that view and that of the Bible is that God “allows” or “permits” or concurs with sin as it fits in with His own divine wisdom and will. In other words, He does not make the person sin, but He concurs with it in accordance with His own will. If He wants to restrain sin, He does so as He pleases. In other words, the sinner does not use God to serve self when the sinner sins, but instead when God concurs and so the sinner sins it is in accordance with His own will. Even when sinners are in pursuit of their sin, they are fulfilling the sovereign will of God in accordance with His good pleasure.

Despite the fact that this may be hard for some to swallow, the Bible is quite clear that God hardens hearts and turns people over to sin as He pleases (cf., Pharaoh in Exodus and then Romans 1:18-31). When those God hardens and turns over to sin, they are sinning according to their bound will and are not using God to carry out their purposes. But instead, when those sinners sin under the just punishment of God, they are carrying out His will and they are being judged. This is not to say that God puts sin in the hearts of men and makes them carry out His desires, but instead He hardens their hearts and then withdraws His sovereign hand and they carry out the desires of their hearts under His judicial punishment and only to the degree He concurs with.

The doctrine of ‘free-will’ is, once again, an attack on the sovereignty of God and on the kingly rule of Jesus Christ. All authority in heaven and earth has been given to Him (Mat 28:18) and there is nothing left for this valued idol of ‘free-will’ to claim or practice. The freedom of God is absolute and man is only free to operate within the absolute freedom of God. Satan is more powerful than man by far and yet he can only go as far as God allows him to go. Who is man to think that he can do as he pleases in all ways and yet Satan who is far more powerful than man is ruled over by God at every turn? If God did give man ‘free-will’ out of concern for man’s freedom, then surely He would give Satan the same freedom as well. But if God gave Satan his freedom, then he would completely overwhelm all of mankind in an instance. The doctrine of ‘free-will’ is said to be an essential part of a moral being, but Satan is a moral being as well. If we really think we have ‘free-will’ and that it is an essential part and right of a moral being, then we should pray that God would take back that right immediately.

If we would but think for a moment we would realize how ludicrous it is to think we have ‘free-will’ or anything like it. It is really man’s attempt to be a god of some type just like Satan tried to do and then tried to convince Eve of. It is man’s attempt to be guided by his own wisdom and follow his own desires rather than to follow God. It is man’s attempt at being sovereign and self-sufficient rather than trust and rest in God alone. If what preceded this is true, then it is really man’s attempt at being god to himself. All of this shows the horrible nature of ‘free-will’ in man trying to participate in the work of Father in choosing who will be saved and when, trying to participate in the finished work of Christ in salvation, and then in the work of the Holy Spirit in applying salvation. The doctrine of ‘free-will’ is not just a small error, it is man trying to be god to himself. It is idolatry and nothing less.

But our question is this: whether he has ‘free-will’ God-ward, that God should obey man and what man wills, or whether God has nor rather a free will with respect to man, that man should will and do what God wills, and be able to do nothing but what He wills and does. The Baptist [John the Baptist] says here that man ‘can receive nothing, except it be given him from above’, which means that ‘free-will’ must be nothing! (Luther, The Bondage of the Will)

Here is another gem of an argument from Luther that human beings who live in the presence of an omnipotent and omniscient God must deal with. What exactly can it mean for human beings to be free to do as they please if God is free in His sovereignty to decree what He in accordance with His good pleasure wants to have happen? Does God just set His sovereignty to the side in order to enable sinners to be free? Would that be in accordance with His omniscience and His wisdom?

The battle over ‘free-will’ is really over who will run each person’s life. The heart of the argument for ‘free-will’ is really what happened in the Garden of Eden when Satan tempted Eve and she sinned. “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate” (Gen 3:5-6). The word for “knowing” in Genesis 3:5 is the same word used for “God knows” earlier in the verse and in Genesis 4:1 where the text says (NAS) that “Adam had relations with Eve and she conceived.” The KJV rendered this as “Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived.”

As one looks at the above text it becomes obvious that the Hebrew word translated as “know” has more meaning that just know about something. The promise from Satan was that the woman would be able to decide or will what was right and wrong for themselves and in that way would be like God. This was a promise, then, of ‘free-will’ in a way that would make them able to decide the path of right and wrong or of self-determination for themselves. In reality, this is precisely what the teaching of ‘free-will’ does. In concept it sets people on the path of deciding for themselves or of being self-determined in many ways. In theory, once examined, it is the promise that man can decide for himself and then carry that out.

Some of the insidious nature of ‘free-will’ can be seen for what it is. John Owen thought of ‘free-will’ as being an idol raised up in the house of God because human beings trusted in their own wills to decide or do religious activities rather than God. If we look at the nature of God can it even be a possibility? Can the God who is free to do as He pleases and will always do according to His own wisdom allow foolish human beings to do as they please in accordance with the desires of their wicked hearts? Human beings want to be free of restraints in order to do as they please, but that is not Theism and that cannot take into account the sovereign Lord of this universe. Even in such things as traveling on business James tells us to say “If the Lord wills, we will live and also do this or that” (James 4:15). While we think we are making decisions with a self-determining power, it is actually the Lord who is determining all things. The degree of freedom we may think we have is just an illusion of a rebellious heart.

King Nebuchadnezzar thought very highly of himself and thought of himself as free. But God saw his pride over the extent of his kingdom and Nebuchadnezzar lost his reason and ate grass with the animals for a few years. “But at the end of that period, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High and praised and honored Him who lives forever; For His dominion is an everlasting dominion, And His kingdom endures from generation to generation. 35 “All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, But He does according to His will in the host of heaven And among the inhabitants of earth; And no one can ward off His hand Or say to Him, ‘What have You done?’” (Daniel 4:34-35). There is no one among the inhabitants of the earth who are free from God. He hardens hearts and softens hearts as He pleases. The supposed freedom that some think they have is really an illusion, but with some their supposed freedom is the illusion of a hardened heart. God is God and will always be God. No man has the right to a self-determining will because that is to be like God. The teaching of ‘free-will’ in its essence is really man wanting God to be his own servant. This is ludicrous and wicked.

For if the power of ‘free-will’ is not wholly and damnably astray, but sees and wills what is good and upright and pertains to salvation, then it is in sound health, it does not need Christ the physician, nor did Christ redeem that part of man; for what need is there of light and life, where life and light exist already? And if that power is not redeemed by Christ, then the best part in man is not redeemed, but is of itself good and sound. And then God is unjust if He damns any man, for He damns that in man which is very good and sound; that is, innocent!…It remains, therefore, that God is unjust to damn this good, righteous, holy power in man, which even in a bad man does not need Christ! (Luther, The Bondage of the Will)

The argument of Luther (just above) is quite powerful once it is thought about and dealt with. The orthodox position has been that man is totally depraved which is to say that man is depraved in all aspects of his being. But for there to be ‘free-will’ in any real sense, there must be something of man that is not wholly and damnably astray. That part of man must not only be something less than wholly and damnably astray, but it must be something that is able to see and will what is good if it is able to choose what is good and that for salvation.

If the will is indeed free, then there is something in the soul that is free from depravity and that something is able to see and choose what is good. If the will is free to do that, Luther says, then that part of the will does not need Christ as physician and does not need redemption. As the Scripture so powerfully says, “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick” (Mat 9:12). The aspect of the human soul that is healthy does not need a physician. In a different context, that same saying is expanded: “It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners” (Mark 2:17). In this context we see that Jesus says that He did not even come to call the righteous. The only people that Jesus came to call are sinners. Yet those who adhere to or do not denounce ‘free-will’ have to believe something about the will is not sick and is in fact righteous. That leaves human beings with part of the soul that does not need redeemed.

If there is part of the man that is good and is not sinful, as Luther points out, then God is unjust to damn that part of man. While this could be dismissed quite easily, perhaps it should be thought through. If the mind is not sinful, then the mind itself would not be worthy of wrath and it would be unjust of God to cast the mind without sin into eternal torment. Again, this may sound like an odd way to look at things, but this forces us to look at this issue in a different light. The soul is usually thought to be united in a sense, that is, that each aspect of the soul must be tainted with sin and so the soul as a whole is sinful in all of its parts and as such needs to be redeemed. But the claim of a ‘free-will’ leaves the soul with an aspect of it that is not wholly helpless in sin. How can the soul be sinful in parts and not in others? It is not that the soul truly has different parts that operate apart from each other, but the soul has capacities that work in union with each other. The mind is the soul’s capacity for thought and the will is the soul’s capacity to choose. So how is the soul to be divided into parts so that it is just of God to damn all the soul? The will does not choose apart from the mind and the mind does not think apart from the will. You cannot have one aspect of the will that is not guilty of sin and the other parts wholly and damnably astray.

A very important point in this matter is that if one part of the soul is not guilty of sin or so far gone that it needs to be redeemed, then that part of the soul (or aspect) is not worthy to be damned by God. This one aspect of the soul has enough goodness in it to choose Christ and to decide to be saved, so there is something in this soul that is not worthy to be damned. If God will not destroy a whole city for ten righteous men, will He cast a whole person in hell when the best part of that person is still good? Another way of looking at this would be to note that if ‘free-will’ is true then those in heaven are not completely saved by Christ. Still another way to look at it would be that if ‘free-will’ is true then saved sinners do not need the life of Christ in them in terms of the will.

This alone is enough to show us that there are major problems with ‘free-will’ and the ramifications that fall from it. William Cunningham has shown that the will is where the sinfulness of man and the grace of the Gospel meet. Part of the sinfulness of man cannot be thrown out without having some effect on the grace of the Gospel. It is not just that people have to adjust the sinfulness of man to fit with ‘free-will’ which overthrows the whole biblical doctrine of man’s sinfulness, but that also overthrows the biblical doctrine of grace alone. The doctrine of man’s depravity which includes his will must be left alone because it is biblical, but also because when it is not left alone it is an attack on the sovereign grace of God which is the only kind of grace. If we uphold the teaching of ‘free-will’ in man, then to that degree we dismiss sovereign grace and really change the idea of grace. If man’s will is free, then what we have is man’s will that is free from depravity and free from grace responding to God and then God responding to that free act of man’s will and saving him. This is such a clear departure from the biblical doctrine of grace alone that one would think that it would be glaringly obvious.

Moreover, since Christ is said to be ‘the way, the truth, and the life’ (John 14:6), and that categorically, so that whatever is not Christ is not the way, but error, not truth, but untruth, not life, but death, it follows of necessity that ‘free-will’, inasmuch as it neither is Christ, not is in Christ, is bound in error, and untruth, and death. Where and whence, then, comes your intermediate, neutral entity (I mean, the power of ‘free-will’) which, though it is not Christ (that is, the way, the truth and the life), should not be error, or untruth or death? If all the things that are said of Christ and of grace were not said categorically, so that they may be contrasted with their opposites…what, I ask you, would be the use of all the apostolic discourses and, indeed, of the entire Scriptures? (Luther, The Bondage of the Will)

Luther’s point about the ‘free-will’ being an intermediate, neutral entity is a powerful shot against the doctrine of ‘free-will’. The will that is free is somewhere between (logically) being dead in sin and having life. The will that is free (logically) is not totally depraved but not totally free. The will that is free (logically) is not bound by sin or by grace. It is in some neutral area and can choose anything it wants at any point. This is basically a denial of total depravity and of a free and sovereign grace.

For the will to be free to be able to choose Christ or sin before regeneration (at least) the will has to be able to be neutral at some point and in some way. This is quite contrary to Scripture. Passage after passage of Scripture teaches us that men are slaves of sin and are in bondage to sin. The will is not in some mythical category of neutrality, if the person has not been born again that person cannot see the kingdom of God and that person “enslaved to various lusts and pleasures”. God Himself blinds people to spiritual truth and also hardens their hearts and turns them over to sin. A hardened heart that has been turned over to sin is not a heart that is neutral.

John 8:34 Jesus answered them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, everyone who commits sin is the slave of sin.

John 3:3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Proverbs 5:22 His own iniquities will capture the wicked, And he will be held with the cords of his sin.

Acts 8:23 “For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bondage of iniquity.”

Romans 6:6 knowing this, that our old self was crucified with Him, in order that our body of sin might be done away with, so that we would no longer be slaves to sin;

Romans 6:20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.

Titus 3:3 For we also once were foolish ourselves, disobedient, deceived, enslaved to various lusts and pleasures, spending our life in malice and envy, hateful, hating one another.

The Gospel of Jesus Christ comes to sinners who are dead, blind, and in bondage to sin and the devil and it will only deliver helpless sinners who are beyond their own help and will not trust in anything or anyone but Christ alone. Sinners must not look to their own so-called neutral will to help them do something so that God will save them, but they must die to their own ability and look to Christ who will save by grace and grace alone. The doctrine of free-will basically teaches people to look to themselves and trust in themselves to do something. Jesus told His disciples that with men salvation was impossible (Matthew 19:26), yet those who espouse or even tolerate ‘free-will’ must deny that to be consistent.

Scripture teaches that God makes sinners who are dead in sin alive by grace alone. Scripture teaches that God must deliver sinners from the dominion of the evil one and He does that by grace alone. Scripture teaches that God must deliver sinners from their bondage to sin and He does that by grace alone. The proponents of ‘free-will’ are adding what must be a neutral entity into the mix and having men look to their own will for something. But when that is done, they make grace no longer to be grace (Rom 11:6). Adding something to grace is a denial of grace alone.

Moreover, since Christ is said to be ‘the way, the truth, and the life’ (John 14:6), and that categorically, so that whatever is not Christ is not the way, but error, not truth, but untruth, not life, but death, it follows of necessity that ‘free-will’, inasmuch as it neither is Christ, not is in Christ, is bound in error, and untruth, and death. Where and whence, then, comes your intermediate, neutral entity (I mean, the power of ‘free-will’) which, though it is not Christ (that is, the way, the truth and the life), should not be error, or untruth or death? If all the things that are said of Christ and of grace were not said categorically, so that they may be contrasted with their opposites…what, I ask you, would be the use of all the apostolic discourses and, indeed, of the entire Scriptures? (Luther, The Bondage of the Will)

It may appear that Luther is grasping at straws or is really reaching if this is not read carefully and just glanced over. On the other hand, if one reads this carefully and deeply, it will be seen that this is quite a powerful argument for Christ and His grace as opposed to a will that is free of grace and in theory free of Christ as well. If those who argue for ‘free-will” truly argue for a will that is free, then those who oppose ‘free-will’ need to strive to be consistent in showing what a truly ‘free-will’ is. That should be repulsive to all who have even a modicum of love for Christ and His grace.

If Christ Himself is the way, then whatever claim one might make that would intrude on Christ being the complete and effectual way would be false and obviously so. In other words, the way must be Christ and Christ alone rather than a way that has mostly Christ and to some degree something else. The way to the Father is either all of Christ or some of Christ and something else. The text before us (John 14:6) specifically and clearly sets out Christ as “the” way and it does not list any other way at all. This same text in the very next words says that Christ is “the truth” and then “the life.” Christ Himself is either the whole truth or He is but partial truth and something else is partial truth as well. Christ Himself is either the whole life or He is but partial life and something else is partial life as well. We cannot have it both ways.

If Scripture speaks in categorical terms, then there is nothing left for ‘free-will’ to be a partial way to the Father, a partial truth, or a partial life. The Scripture speaks of Christ as the only way, the only Truth, and the only life. In other words, the Scriptures leave nothing for the ‘free-will’ to do as it is Christ alone. As Luther so rightly says, “Where and whence, then, comes your intermediate, neutral entity (I mean, the power of ‘free-will’) which, though it is not Christ (that is, the way, the truth and the life), should not be error, or untruth or death?” Once again Luther in the plainest of terms has set out for all to see the great error of ‘free-will.’ It is not some intermediate entity that comes along side of Christ and helps Him out. ‘Free-will’ is not some neutral entity that does not share in error, untruth, or death and so it can help Christ out. But instead, human beings need to be saved from their wills because they are not free but are in bondage to lusts and sin. In other words, part of what it means to be saved is to be saved from the so-called ‘free-will’ because it is not free but is instead in bondage to sin.

The will that is “free” of Christ is a will that is not in the kingdom of Christ but is under the dominion of darkness. If Christ is completely and totally the way, then the ‘free-will’ is completely and totally not the way. If Christ is completely and totally the truth, then the ‘free-will’ is completely and totally in error. If Christ is completely and totally the life, then the ‘free-will’ is completely and totally in death. We cannot have Christ alone and yet leave some part of the will free to share in being a little bit of  the way, the truth, and the life. The Gospel is all of Christ and nothing is in man but what man needs to be saved from.

The will cannot be some intermediate, neutral entity if the Gospel is of Christ alone and by grace alone. It simply cannot be. The teaching of ‘free-will’ is nothing more and nothing less than a vicious attack on the Gospel of Christ alone and grace alone. ‘Free-will’ wants to have something to do but for it to have something to do it must not only be an intermediate, neutral entity, but it must also encroach on the work of Christ. The Gospel is all of Christ or some of Christ and some of the will. This must be stressed so sinners and believers can see that ‘free-will’ is an encroachment on the Gospel of grace alone. It cannot be anything else. It is that important.

Now let us hear of a case of ‘free-will’. Nicodemus is surely a man in whom you can find no lack of anything for which ‘free-will’ avails. What in the way of effort and endeavour does he leave undone? He confesses Christ to be true, and to have come from God, he refers to his signs, he comes by night to hear and discuss further. Does he not seem to have sought by the power of ‘free-will’ all that pertains to godliness and salvation? But see what shipwreck he makes. When he hears Christ teach the true way of salvation, by new birth, does he acknowledge it and confess that in time past he sought it? No; he starts back, and is confounded; and not only says that he does not understand it, but turns from it as an impossibility. (Luther, The Bondage of the Will)

As people think of the case for or against ‘free-will’ it may not occur to them to think of Jesus and His encounter with Nicodemus. Yet when one looks at this passage (John 3) it is actually very strong against ‘free-will’ and its contribution to salvation in any way. Nicodemus was born a Jew and was evidently (being a leader among the Pharisees) very trained in the law. But those who practice the law apart from the Holy Spirit practice the law according to the power and choice of their own will. Apart from the Gospel of Jesus Christ and His indwelling Spirit, all keeping of the law has to be by the will that is free of His power and life in the inner man.

So Nicodemus was a man who had lived by the power of his own will in keeping the law and his whole life as a Pharisee was based on his own efforts and endeavors. One could argue that the whole concept of the Pharisees, at least in the time of Jesus, was based on the power of their own wills to be holy and keep the law. When Jesus attacked their interpretation of the law and what it meant to keep the law, He was attacking the very heart of the Pharisees and their ability to keep the true law and its true interpretation. When the true interpretation is seen and understood, the ability of the will to keep it is destroyed. The heart of the law is spiritual and that is beyond the flesh of human beings to keep it apart from the Spirit.

Nicodemus heard the teachings of Jesus and saw the signs that He was doing. The signs were undeniable to Nicodemus and so he went at night to speak with Jesus. He confessed what would have gotten him in big trouble with his friends, which was that Jesus was a teacher sent from God. The power and ability of the will, however, had reached its end. It is almost as if Jesus looked at this leader and man of high position and went right after this man’s profession of Him as a teacher sent from God. It seems that as soon as the man’s confession of Christ as a teacher from God escaped his lips, Jesus wanted to see how deep that profession was and said this: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God” (John 3:3).

This simple but profound statement would have rocked the world of Nicodemus. His being born a Jew was just dashed to the ground as a basis for hope in being in the kingdom of God. The idea of keeping the law as a basis for thinking he was in the kingdom was dashed to the ground. All hope in his ability to keep the law or to do something that he may enter the kingdom was dashed to the ground. Jesus also went a short step more in this: “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” (John 3:5). He then went on to show that the power of the new birth was the Spirit and not the power of the will of man: 6 “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 “Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ 8 “The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit” (John 3:6-8).

What power of the will did this leave Nicodemus? He is told that he must be born from above (again) to even see the kingdom and then enter the kingdom. He is then told that only that which is born of the Spirit is spirit and that this new birth is a work of the Spirit who does that work as He wishes. This had to have been like a bomb going off in the mind of Nicodemus and exploded his hopes for salvation by his own will (the way of the Pharisees). Nicodemus was left with no hope in anything he could do. All the power of the will is stripped and left as useless when it is the sovereign Spirit regenerates lost and dead sinners as He pleases. Even if Scripture did not state in the clearest of terms that human beings are born dead in sins and trespasses, that teaching would be a necessary doctrine in light of this teaching of the new birth. The freedom of the will for salvation is cast down and trod in the dust by the teachings of Jesus in the new birth. Nicodemus and all his efforts and works are cast down and the glory of God’s power and ability stand. The ‘free-will’ has no power to work any part of the new birth and so it has no choice. The new birth is by the power and choice of the Holy Spirit who alone is free to do as He pleases.

That the protectors of ‘free-will’ deny Christ is proved, not by this Scripture only, but by their own lives. By this doctrine they have made Christ to be, no longer a sweet Mediator, but a dreadful Judge, whom they strive to placate by the intercessions of the Mother and the Saints, and by devising many works, rites, observances and vows, by which they aim to appease Christ so that He may give them grace. They do not believe that He intercedes before God and obtains grace for them by His blood, and ‘grace’ (as is here said) ‘for grace’. And as they believe, so it is unto them. Christ is in truth an inexorable judge to them, and deservedly so; for they abandon Him in His office as a Mediator and kindest Saviour, and account His blood and grace as of less worth than the efforts and endeavours ‘free-will’! (Luther, The Bondage of the Will)

This paragraph of Luther’s is quite chilling as it sets out the reality of what ‘free-will’ is despite the masks that are put on ‘free-will’ by those who claim it and the Reformed who will not take a stand against it. The unmasking of ‘free-will’ shows how ugly and horrid it is as opposed to the glory of free grace in Christ Jesus. Paul was very, very clear in Galatians chapter one.

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

Those who adhere to ‘free-will’ in terms of the Gospel need to see what this ‘free-will’ must do in order for it to be free and in order for it to be part of salvation. The adherents of ‘free-will’ say that God will not force Himself on the soul and so the soul must make a free choice and then God saves the soul. The preaching of the so-called Gospel that earnestly pleads with man to pray a prayer or make a choice is depending on the will to do something in order for God to save that soul. However, what is that but the effort to get the soul to make a choice apart from grace in order to receive grace? It is teaching that the soul must rely on itself to obtain faith or make a choice in order that God would give grace to that soul. That is contrary to the Gospel of grace alone which teaches that God finds nothing in man to move Him to show grace and that He saves sinners to the praise of the glory of His grace. God does not respond to the faith that man came up with on his own apart from grace and then gives saving grace, but instead God gives grace when sinners cannot do one thing to help themselves. Teaching sinners to depend on themselves to believe or come up with an act of faith is to teach that which is contrary to the Gospel of grace alone.

Sinners who look to themselves for the ability to come up with faith rather than for grace to give them faith (what ‘free-will’ must be able to do if things are as the adherents say they are) cannot believe in any consistent way that all spiritual blessings are in Christ and from Christ (Eph 1:3-14). Sinners who look to themselves for faith are not looking to Christ alone for all things needed for salvation. This, one would think, is self-evident. Ephesians chapter one has a prayer of Paul in which he gives the real origin and source of faith. The source of faith is “the surpassing greatness of His power toward” those “who believe in accordance with the working of the strength of His might.” This shows us that it takes a great power to have true faith and true faith comes from the “working of the strength of His might.” Not only that, but it takes “the surpassing greatness of His power” for sinners to believe. The person that believes in ‘free-will’ for faith is trusting in his own strength and power to do what the power of God alone can do. It is almost beyond belief that anyone could trust in self for faith rather than the power of God.

18 I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe in accordance with the working of the strength of His might 20 which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenlies.

The true Gospel of Jesus Christ teaches sinners to rest in grace alone for all things rather than any so-called ‘free-will’ or any other power of man. The gospel that teaches men to look to themselves for faith is one that is relying on the broken twig of man instead of the grace of God. The true Gospel of Jesus Christ teaches sinners to look to the almighty power of God to raise sinners from the spiritual dead and give them true faith, but the false gospel of men tells them to trust in their own power to come up with the ability to be a believing soul. When sinners do this, they abandon the triune God in order to trust in themselves. They abandon the electing grace of the Father for what they can do, but also they abandon the true nature of free grace in order to trust in themselves to obtain grace. They abandon the work of the Spirit in regeneration and producing faith in the soul for their own work. They abandon Christ as Mediator and trust in their own power of prayer or choice, but also they do not count the blood of Christ and His work as being quite enough. Rather than trust in Him alone, they look to what their own wills and efforts can produce. Those who trust in the ‘free-will’ have completely overthrown the Gospel of grace alone in their efforts to maintain the ‘free-will.’ It is a false gospel and all should turn from it with abhorrence. Those who claim to be Reformed and will not renounce ‘free-will’ as a false gospel should realize that they are not standing against the teaching of a false gospel and we know what Galatians 1 says about that. It is that serious.

That the protectors of ‘free-will’ deny Christ is proved, not by this Scripture only, but by their own lives. By this doctrine they have made Christ to be, no longer a sweet Mediator, but a dreadful Judge, whom they strive to placate by the intercessions of the Mother and the Saints, and by devising many works, rites, observances and vows, by which they aim to appease Christ so that He may give them grace. They do not believe that He intercedes before God and obtains grace for them by His blood, and ‘grace’ (as is here said) ‘for grace’. And as they believe, so it is unto them. Christ is in truth an inexorable judge to them, and deservedly so; for they abandon Him in His office as a Mediator and kindest Saviour, and account His blood and grace as of less worth than the efforts and endeavours ‘free-will’! (Luther, The Bondage of the Will)

This is a very, very important paragraph in Luther’s book that gets at one of the most important points in the battle of the Gospel of grace alone versus that of ‘free-will’ and its fight to obtain grace by its own work. Three statements in this paragraph go right to the jugular vein of ‘free-will’. 1) “By devising many works, rites, observances and vows, by which they aim to appease Christ so that He may give them grace.” 2) “They do not believe that He intercedes before God and obtains grace for them by His blood, and ‘grace’ (as is here said) ‘for grace.’” 3) “They abandon Him in His office as a Mediator and kindest Saviour, and account His blood and grace as of less worth than the efforts and endeavours ‘free-will’!” The heart of the statements give us the following points: 1) They aim to do something so Christ will give them grace. 2) They do not look to Christ alone to obtain grace by His blood and grace. 3) They count the blood and grace of Christ as of less worth than the efforts and work of ‘free-will’.

The previous paragraph should be seen as exposing ‘free-will’ for what it really is and what it really tries to do in terms of obtaining salvation before God. Most likely those who defend ‘free-will’ will not defend the statements above, yet that is precisely what ‘free-will’ has to do in order for men to be saved through the will. 1) The ‘free-will’ must be exercised, according to those who advocate it, to be saved because God will not force a person to be saved but rather leaves the choice up to them. Therefore, the ‘free-will’ does aim to do something in order to receive grace. 2) The ‘free-will’ looks to itself to obtain grace by its own free action and as such does not look to Christ alone to obtain grace. Therefore, the ‘free-will’ does not look to Christ alone and His blood and grace to obtain grace, but instead to itself and its own action to obtain grace. 3) The ‘free-will’ does not believe that the blood and grace of Christ has enough value to obtain grace without the effort of the ‘free-will’ doing what it can. Therefore, at the point of obtaining faith which grace comes through in order to believe in ‘free-will’ one has to count the blood and grace of Christ as of less worth than the efforts and work of ‘free-will’.

This is truly ‘free-will’ unmasked and set out for what it is. “Free-will’ is nothing less than an idol and a false idol and yet it is thought to be crazy in our world today to deny it a legitimate place at the bar of the Gospel of grace alone. If we think of an idol as that which we supremely trust in, rely on, and love at some point rather than God; then it is glaringly obvious that the ‘free-will’ is an idol for all believe that it must be exercised to obtain salvation. How can one value grace and yet value that which cheapens grace at best and in reality denies grace alone which is true grace? How can one truly believe in grace alone and love grace alone while holding to that which denies grace alone in reality? How can this be possible? It is quite unclear how lovers of grace alone can defend those whose position logically requires them to defend the three statements above, which is clearly a strong denial of grace alone. Perhaps there are many adherents of grace alone who adhere to the words and not to the true position.

What saves the soul apart from Christ, His death and blood, His righteousness, His resurrection, and His continuing offices? While Luther did not mention the Holy Spirit in the paragraph above, yet part of the work of Christ was to obtain the Holy Spirit who would apply the works of Christ to the soul. So the Father chose by grace, The Son purchased the grace, and the Holy Spirit applies the grace to the soul. The Holy Spirit either applies grace to the soul on the basis of the Father’s choice or the soul’s ‘free-will’ choice. The Spirit either applies grace to the soul on the basis of the blood of Christ and purchased grace or according to the ‘free-will’ and its efforts. The Spirit either applies grace to the soul freely by grace or by something the ‘free-will’ does to obtain it. Once again, it can be seen that ‘free-will’ overthrows the work of the Trinity in the Gospel in saving sinners to the glory of God and changes the Gospel to one that is man doing a critical and necessary work for himself. It simply cannot be.
Man must give up all hope in himself and his own will in order to be saved, though indeed that in and of itself must not be viewed as a work to obtain salvation. This is more than something that man must know about, but it is simply what true repentance is. It is man being turned from any and all hope in self to obtain any aspect of grace based on himself or any work that he can do. This is necessary to have a grace that is truly grace rather than one work that enters in to make it grace that is no longer grace (Rom 11:6).