God Loves… Himself

I here pass by arguments of great strength drawn from the purpose of grace, from the promise, from the power of the law, from original sin, and from God’s election; every one of which by itself could utterly overthrow ‘free-will’, thus: If the source of grace is the predestinating purpose of God, then it comes by necessity, and not by any effort or endeavour on our part. (Luther, The Bondage of the Will)

In these few words Luther points to something which actually does overthrow the doctrine of ‘free-will’ and any hope that those who place in their ‘free-will’ may think they have. In other words, this is not just about some metaphysical teaching which has little to do with anything if anything at all. This is at the heart of the Gospel of grace alone. The doctrine of ‘free-will’ cannot be maintained in face of the covenant of grace, the promises of grace, and from the doctrine of election which shows that men are saved by the choice of God and not their own choice. These things show that men are saved entirely by the grace of God and not by anything they are, have done, are doing, or could possibly do. Salvation is by grace alone and God alone can show grace as He pleases for grace to be grace.

Ephesians 1: 4 just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love 5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. 11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will,

Ephesians 2:7 so that in the ages to come He might show the surpassing riches of His grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;

Romans 9:23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,

1 Timothy 1:14 and the grace of our Lord was more than abundant, with the faith and love which are found in Christ Jesus. 15 It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all. 16 Yet for this reason I found mercy, so that in me as the foremost, Jesus Christ might demonstrate His perfect patience as an example for those who would believe in Him for eternal life.

Luther takes us back to the source of grace and the reason for grace, which is precisely what the Bible does over and over again though it may not use that exact language. The source of grace is either in God and His purposes or from man and his purposes. This is utterly vital in terms of the nature of grace and the Gospel. Sinners must not just know about Christ; they must actually and really have Christ. Sinners must not just know that Christ is life; they must actually have Christ as their life. The source of this life is either Christ or the will of self. The source of this life either comes as a result of God’s choice or of man’s choice. I Corinthians 1:30 states that “it is by His doing you are in Christ Jesus”, which shows that it is the work and will of God that puts man in Christ rather than the work and will of man that does so. The source of grace is God Himself and cannot be by the choice of man.

The reason for grace is either God showing grace to the praise of His glory or of man choosing grace to save himself. The reason for grace in the life of those who profess to be saved is either the grace of God in a person moving that person to share in the life and love of God and so that person desires grace that God may be glorified or a person choosing grace from selfish (includes selfish religious purposes or reasons too) reasons. The doctrine of ‘free-will’ is an attack on both the source of grace and the reason for grace. A will that is truly free is free from sin and from grace and so does not need grace and as such will never choose true grace for the glory of God. A will that could be truly free (hypothetical) would never have the same purposes for grace that God does and so the ‘free-will’ would overthrow God’s purposes of grace. This is precisely what happens in churches where the doctrines of grace are not loved and the doctrine of ‘free-will’ is set forth. Though the name of God is used along with the names of Jesus and the Spirit, they are just there to help the ‘free-will’ along. But true grace shows us that the triune God does not just help people, but true grace is the triune God working in people by grace to make them lovers of His grace and glory. Grace comes to human souls because of God and His purposes rather than because of the human will and human purposes. It is the difference between a God-centered universe and one in which all things are contingent on the arbitrariness of the human will free of God.

Free will, after the fall, exists in name only, and as long as it does what it is able to do it commits mortal sin (Thesis 13 of the Heidelberg Disputation)

Once again the opening salvo is a categorical rejection of what the theologian of glory must maintain if there is to be room “to do our best.” There must be some free will, no matter how miniscule. But the very claim is itself evidence of bondage over against the electing God. The fallen will cannot accept such a God. That is its bondage. The theologian of the cross, however, sees that that is exactly the problem, and therefore recognizes and confesses that, since the fall, free will does not exist in reality. It is an empty name. Perhaps it once existed, but no longer. Since this is the case, furthermore, when the fallen will sets out “to do its best,” it commits deadly sin. This proposition is, of course, a mighty offense. We would normally admit that in doing our best we fall short of the goals we try to reach. But to say that even in trying we commit deadly or mortal sin seems outrageous. This thesis was perhaps the most offensive of all to the papal party in Luther’s day. That is indicated by the fact that it was the only one from this Disputation actually attacked in the bull “Exsurge Domine” threatening Luther with excommunication. Luther’s reply to the bull indicates how important he considered this thesis to be. He said it was “the highest and most important issue of our cause.” (Gerhard Forde, On Being A Theologian of the Cross, comments on Thesis 13)

The will that is free of grace and the influence of God’s grace is completely powerless to do what is morally good in the sight of God. Not only that, but the will that is free of grace has no other option but to be in bondage to sin and so everything that the soul does that does not have grace is sin. Even the best of the works of those who are free of grace are sin. Even the most religious actions of those who are free of grace are sin. This line of thinking, which Luther found in Scripture and Augustine, brought the wrath of Rome upon him. In our day  it will also bring the wrath of all those who are religious and trust in a ‘free-will’ rather than grace alone.

When Jesus taught the sovereignty of grace, though not in those words, people became angry. When Paul taught that God was sovereign in giving grace, people became angry. Today, there are very few around who still teach a clear form of grace alone and oppose ‘free-will.’ It still makes people angry from staunch Pelagians to those who consider themselves quite Reformed. It is not a comfortable and easy thing to be taught that all you do and all that you are capable of doing is sin. All that you do in your good works and even if you become the most religious person in the world all you are doing is vile and reprehensible in the sight of God. A person can become Pope or the head of a denomination and be considered quite holy in the eyes of men, but if that person trusts in his or her own will rather than grace alone all that person does is filthy rags in the eyes of God.

What did Paul brag about? Did he brag about his own works and his own religiosity? No, instead he saw those things as detestable and to be repented of. He despised all the things of his very zeal in religion and wanted Christ and Christ alone. He saw himself as the chief of sinners rather than a holy man. He said that men should boast of nothing but the cross of Christ. He said that men should only boast of what God had done through them. No, Paul was no friend of ‘free-will’ which is to say he opposed all that came from sinners themselves and did not come from the grace of God. Paul saw that sinners were by nature children of wrath as such were dead in sins and trespasses. Paul saw that anything that came from people whose very nature was of wrath and were dead in sins and trespasses would be nothing but sin. They could not just choose to have God show grace on them and they could not just choose to be saved. Grace must raise them from the dead and grace must bring life into their souls so that they would be able to come to Christ by grace alone.

Luther, then, was right on track with Jesus and Paul when he saw this as “the highest and most important issue of our cause.” If it is a person’s ‘free-will’ that brings that person to Christ, then grace is no longer the sovereign choice of God. If it is a person’s ‘free-will’ that brings that person to Christ, then it is not grace that brings the person to Christ. We cannot have it both ways. This is why this was so vital to Luther as he looked at Scripture. All things spiritual and good come from grace alone or they do not. If something does not come from grace alone, then how can that please God and where does it come from? Oh how wicked it is for men to assert that some act of man apart from grace alone can please God and even cause a person to be saved. We must not only strongly reject and refuse to  teach that great error, but part of rejecting it means that we  must also oppose it as a false gospel.

Free will, after the fall, exists in name only, and as long as it does what it is able to do it commits mortal sin (Thesis 13 of the Heidelberg Disputation)

Once again the opening salvo is a categorical rejection of what the theologian of glory must maintain if there is to be room “to do our best.” There must be some free will, no matter how miniscule. But the very claim is itself evidence of bondage over against the electing God. The fallen will cannot accept such a God. That is its bondage. The theologian of the cross, however, sees that that is exactly the problem, and therefore recognizes and confesses that, since the fall, free will does not exist in reality. It is an empty name. Perhaps it once existed, but no longer. Since this is the case, furthermore, when the fallen will sets out “to do its best,” it commits deadly sin. This proposition is, of course, a mighty offense. We would normally admit that in doing our best we fall short of the goals we try to reach. But to say that even in trying we commit deadly or mortal sin seems outrageous. This thesis was perhaps the most offensive of all to the papal party in Luther’s day. That is indicated by the fact that it was the only one from this Disputation actually attacked in the bull “Exsurge Domine” threatening Luther with excommunication. Luther’s reply to the bull indicates how important he considered this thesis to be. He said it was “the highest and most important issue of our cause. (Gerhard Forde, On Being A Theologian of the Cross, comments on Thesis 13)

Roman Catholicism, in defending its position that was at best semi-Pelagianism, took issue with Luther’s position against ‘free-will” and did so strongly. Luther thought of those who advanced a theology which included ‘free-will’ as those who stood for a theology which glorified human nature and human beings, but the theologian of the cross was one that stood for the glory of God and His grace as opposed to human ability and human goodness. In order to maintain the theology of glory, there must be a ‘free-will.’ On the other hand, to truly maintain the theology of the cross there can be no ‘free-will” of the human being. Those who stand for ‘free-will’ do at some point oppose the electing grace of God in reality. True enough the words can be used, but a true theology of the electing grace of God cannot be maintained beyond just the words if one asserts ‘free-will.’

As Forde asserts, “The fallen will cannot accept such a God” and “the very claim is itself evidence of bondage over against the electing God.” What is it that the human is in bondage to in fighting the electing grace of God? The human is in bondage to the will of self rather than having been delivered by grace. It is one or the other and cannot be both. Romans 11:6 shows how acute the problem is: “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.” Whatever is of grace is wholly and totally of grace. Whatever a will that is said to be free can add to grace makes grace no longer to be pure grace which is to say it is not grace at all. The cross of Christ is where all grace that a sinner receives was purchased. The sinner must never look to self for anything to purchase or in any way obtain grace by, but instead is to look to Christ alone as the only way grace is to be obtained. The sinner must never think that grace can be obtained by a choice of his or her will, but instead grace can only be obtained by grace alone.

The human will that asserts and fights for ‘free-will’ is in reality fighting against the grace of God and in particular the electing grace of God. When people fight against the electing grace of God, what they are doing is fighting against the only kind of grace there really is. The grace of God can only be obtained by a sovereign God who alone can give grace and can never be brought under obligation or be moved to show grace in a way that is not out of love for Himself and His own glory. The desire to fight for the ‘free-will’ is nothing more than a demonstration of the bondage of sin and the opposition of the natural man to grace alone and to the electing grace of God which is the only kind of grace there is.

It matters not what theological stripe a person claims to be or what creed of confession a person claims to hold. In many important ways it does not matter what the theology of the mouth is either. What matters is the theology of the heart since that alone gets at what a person really is. A true lover of the free grace of God cannot stand for ‘free-will’ at the same time as the two cannot exist together. So many confessing Reformed people in the modern day think that they can have a theology which upholds Reformed theology while they can work with those who strongly deny free grace while upholding ‘free-will.’ This simply cannot be in reality. Those who think they can work with those who deny free grace by holding to ‘free-will’ in reality are in reality denying free grace in their own hearts. The two positions cannot be held in the same heart that the Christ of grace alone lives in. This is seen by the professing Reformed who would rather break with those who deny ‘free-will’ both in theory and in words rather than those who deny free grace in reality. Oh how far the Gospel of grace alone has fallen in the eyes and hearts of those who are supposed to be willing to die for it. Oh how far the Gospel of grace alone is denied in reality by those who prefer the honor of men in religion to the reality of grace.

If the source of grace is the predestinating purpose of God, then it comes by necessity, and not by any effort or endeavour on our part, as I showed above. Again: If God promised grace before the law, as Paul argues here and in Galatians, then it does not come by works or by law, else the promise would come to nothing; and faith also (by which Abraham was justified before the law was given) would come to nothing, should works prevail. Again: since the law is the strength of sin, displaying it without removing it, it makes the conscience guilty before God and threatens wrath. This is Paul’s meaning when he says; ‘the law worketh wrath’ (Rom 4:15). How then could righteousness be procured by the law? And if we get no help from the law, how can we get help from the power of our will alone? (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

Thesis 13 of Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation sets out that “Free will, after the fall, exists in name only, and as long as it does what it is able to do it commits mortal sin.” Gerhard Forde, in his writing about Luther One Being A Theologian of the Cross, has some powerful things to note on this Thesis:

Once again the opening salvo is a categorical rejection of what the theologian of glory must maintain if there is to be room “to do our best.” There must be some free will, no matter how miniscule. But the very claim is itself evidence of bondage over against the electing God. The fallen will cannot accept such a God. That is its bondage. The theologian of the cross, however, sees that that is exactly the problem, and therefore recognizes and confesses that, since the fall, free will does not exist in reality. It is an empty name. Perhaps it once existed, but no longer. Since this is the case, furthermore, when the fallen will sets out “to do its best,” it commits deadly sin. This proposition is, of course, a mighty offense. We would normally admit that in doing our best we fall short of the goals we try to reach. But to say that even in trying we commit deadly or mortal sin seems outrageous. This thesis was perhaps the most offensive of all to the papal party in Luther’s day. That is indicated by the fact that it was the only one from this Disputation actually attacked in the bull “Exsurge Domine” threatening Luther with excommunication. Luther’s reply to the bull indicates how important he considered this thesis to be. He said it was “the highest and most important issue of our cause.”

What Luther is saying in Bondage of the Will and in the Heidelberg Disputation is that after the fall the will has no power and no ability to do anything but sin. Even if the will tries to do its very best and actually attains the very best that it can do, it has done nothing but sin. In another place Luther calls this “splendid sins.” If that is true, and it is the historical position of the Reformed as to what Scripture teaches, then once again the case is closed. Arminianism and any form of Pelagianism are based on the teaching that ‘free-will’ can do something and at the point of doing that something (act of faith, choice) the will is free enough from grace and depravity to make that act that leads to salvation.

When a person makes the assertion that the will is free and that it is the act of the free will that enables grace to save that soul, at least two things must be true for that to be true. One, the will is not totally depraved and is not totally unable to do what is good. When the ‘free-will’ is asserted there is no way to escape the point that for the will to be free that will must be free enough from depravity at the point of making the choice for Christ to make a truly free choice. The second point, which has been made several times in former posts, is that the will must be free from grace enough to make a free choice.

The previous paragraph shows us, and hopefully quite clearly, why Luther thought that this was “the highest and most important issue of our cause.” The assertion of ‘free-will’ in a consistent manner demands the denial of total depravity and of grace alone. This shows, once again, where the bondage of the human will is the point of contact or intersection between the depravity of the human soul and the grace of God in saving human souls. If the soul is not truly in the grips of the bondage of sin and beyond any hope of any power and hope in itself then salvation is not by grace and grace alone. If salvation is by Christ and His works alone, then the will is helpless in the matter and can contribute nothing to what Christ has accomplished. True faith, therefore, cannot look to itself for any help or any choice or any action to contribute to salvation. True faith, since it has its origin in God and His work of grace in the soul, must always look to grace alone. If indeed all these things are true, and they have been the position of the Reformed in history, then the teaching of ‘free-will’ is another gospel. What Luther thought was “the highest and most important issue of our cause” because of its link with the Gospel of sovereign grace, has now been relegated to the non-essential category. That is the same thing as saying that the Gospel is no longer all that essential. We live in a day where deception has brought a deep darkness into the professing Church and what is taught as the Gospel in our day even by many professing Reformed is simply another gospel. Once one work is allowed back in the Gospel, it becomes another gospel which is very close to what Rome taught at that time.

If the source of grace is the predestinating purpose of God, then it comes by necessity, and not by any effort or endeavour on our part, as I showed above. Again: If God promised grace before the law, as Paul argues here and in Galatians, then it does not come by works or by law, else the promise would come to nothing; and faith also (by which Abraham was justified before the law was given) would come to nothing, should works prevail. Again: since the law is the strength of sin, displaying it without removing it, it makes the conscience guilty before God and threatens wrath. This is Paul’s meaning when he says; ‘the law worketh wrath’ (Rom 4:15). How then could righteousness be procured by the law? And if we get no help from the law, how can we get help from the power of our will alone? (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

Now if the purpose of the Law is to increase sin in order to drive human souls to see their utter helplessness in sin, then the Law must be taught and preached in order for man to see his utter helplessness in sin and his absolute need of Christ to do all for him. “The law worketh wrath” (Rom 4:15) and “The Law came in so that the transgression would increase” (Rom 5:20). Most men don’t mind hearing that God loves them and sent His Son to die for their sins and leaves it up to them to be saved or not, but they don’t want to and usually will not hear of a God that has sovereign rights over them and that all they do is sin and so they are helpless in sin.

Thesis 13 of Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation puts it this way: “Free will, after the fall, exists in name only, and as long as it does what it is able to do it commits mortal sin.” Gerhard Forde, in his writing about Luther One Being A Theologian of the Cross, has some powerful things to note on this Thesis:

Once again the opening salvo is a categorical rejection of what the theologian of glory must maintain if there is to be room “to do our best.” There must be some free will, no matter how miniscule. But the very claim is itself evidence of bondage over against the electing God. The fallen will cannot accept such a God. That is its bondage. The theologian of the cross, however, sees that that is exactly the problem, and therefore recognizes and confesses that, since the fall, free will does not exist in reality. It is an empty name. Perhaps it once existed, but no longer. Since this is the case, furthermore, when the fallen will sets out “to do its best,” it commits deadly sin. This proposition is, of course, a mighty offense. We would normally admit that in doing our best we fall short of the goals we try to reach. But to say that even in trying we commit deadly or mortal sin seems outrageous. This thesis was perhaps the most offensive of all to the papal party in Luther’s day. That is indicated by the fact that it was the only one from this Disputation actually attacked in the bull “Exsurge Domine” threatening Luther with excommunication. Luther’s reply to the bull indicates how important he considered this thesis to be. He said it was “the highest and most important issue of our cause.”

These points must be driven home in each heart, both those who teach and preach so that it can be driven home to the people of God and those being evangelized. In what Luther considered his most important book (Bondage of the Will) he makes this point in several ways, but it is so clear at this point. The doctrine of man’s total depravity which is to say that man can do nothing but sin was at least at the heart of “the highest and most important issue” to Luther. It is not some little issue that can be brushed to the side as if it is no bearing on vital issues. Yet, in our day that is precisely what has been done. For some reason over the years the doctrine of justification by faith alone has had the vital nerve cut from it. To Luther the bondage of the will was vital to the doctrine of justification by grace alone and without it there was no justification by grace alone. The doctrine of justification by faith alone was meant to guard what justification by grace alone really meant. But in our day the doctrine of ‘free-will’ is thought to be of little importance and that people can believe in justification by faith alone and still hold to a ‘free-will.’

The doctrine of election is also thought to be a secondary doctrine of little importance in many circles, though indeed no one wants to admit that. But the doctrine of election is necessary if grace is to be in the hands of a sovereign God who dispenses grace at His mere pleasure and who can not possibly be moved to show grace to anyone apart from being moved by Himself. But Luther shows that if grace is indeed sovereign, then it cannot come by “any effort or endeavour on our part.” The act of a ‘free-will’ is an effort and an endeavor. This shows with great clarity that a person cannot consistently hold to sovereign grace and ‘free-will’ at the same time. In fact, one cannot hold to any true form of grace at all unless it is sovereign grace. There is only one kind of grace in the universe and in reality and that is sovereign grace. ‘Free-will,’ on the other hand, at the heart of it is man trying to keep one last little island of control and power for himself to distribute grace to himself. The battle over ‘free-will’ is not about some little thing, but it is over the very nature of depravity, the nature of grace, and the Gospel itself.

If the source of grace is the predestinating purpose of God, then it comes by necessity, and not by any effort or endeavour on our part, as I showed above. Again: If God promised grace before the law, as Paul argues here and in Galatians, then it does not come by works or by law, else the promise would come to nothing; and faith also (by which Abraham was justified before the law was given) would come to nothing, should works prevail. Again: since the law is the strength of sin, displaying it without removing it, it makes the conscience guilty before God and threatens wrath. This is Paul’s meaning when he says; ‘the law worketh wrath’ (Rom 4:15). How then could righteousness be procured by the law? And if we get no help from the law, how can we get help from the power of our will alone? (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

Luther makes another devastating point. The source of grace is either the sovereign God or ourselves. Clearly, the law has no way of bringing grace since the purpose of the law was not to bring grace or give grace but to show people their sin and their helplessness in sin. Now if the source of grace is from God, then God must determine what the conditions are for it to be received and not man. If grace is from man, then man determines the conditions that he is able to obtain grace. But there is no question that Scripture teaches that the source of grace is all from God and man can do nothing as a source to obtain it.

This next question is whether God gave man one thing to do in order to obtain grace. Did God, as the source of grace, give man something to do apart from grace so man could obtain grace for himself? Did God purchase grace through Christ and leave man one thing to do to obtain grace for himself? The question reveals the absurdity of ‘free-will.’ God promised grace before the law was given and He gave no condition for His grace. Grace, in order to be grace, must always be without cause or worth in the individual that receives it. Any work makes grace no longer to be grace (Rom 11:6). The promise of grace did not depend on the law and it did not depend on the fallen human will to do something in order to obtain it. Grace depends on nothing and not one but the sovereign character of God who gives grace at He mere pleasure to the praise of the glory of His grace (Eph 1:5-7).

The promise was based on the character of God and before the law was given. The promise was not based on any act of man. Abraham was declared just before the law was given and before arguments for ‘free-will.’ God told Abraham what He was going to do and Abraham believed it. Abraham either believed by grace or he believed on the basis of a ‘free-will.’ If we say that the faith of Abraham was by grace, then we can be consistent when we assert that Abraham was declared just on the basis of grace alone. But if we assert that Abraham was declared just on the basis of God’s promise plus Abraham’s ‘free-will’ in choosing to believe that promise, then salvation is conditioned on something apart from grace alone and in effect Abraham would have been declared just on the basis of grace plus one work of the will of Abraham. If grace is contingent on the will of man that is free from grace rather than the grace of God, then grace comes by something other than grace and so is no longer grace at all.

Romans 4:15 tells us that “the Law brings about wrath.” That is in line with Romans 3:19 which tells us that “we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, so that every mouth may be closed and all the world may become accountable to God; 20 because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.” Even more, Romans 5:20 sets out that “The Law came in so that the transgression would increase.” The Law brings wrath, it is meant to shut every mouth so all the world will become accountable to God, and to give the knowledge of sin and even so that transgression would increase. There is no intent and no power in the Law to help the sinner in the slightest. All that the Law does is to show sinners their utter inability instead of their ability. The Law declares that there is no hope from man.

If we look through the haze of all the things that have been thrown up and simply look at what Scripture teaches and of the nature of grace, there is no doubt that grace has no rivals and will have not help from the human will. The human will depends on grace to do one thing right and to have the freedom to do one right act rather than grace depending on the human will to do one act by itself in order to receive grace. The human will has utterly no help from the Law and so it must receive grace by an act of God or by an act of its ‘free-will.’ But if the grace of God must wait on the human will to act, that is a grace that is no longer grace. That also leaves the will operating apart from grace for one choice in order to obtain grace. So the Law reveals the helplessness of the will to obey the Law and grace reveals that it is always from the sovereign hand of God. In a very real sense, the case is closed.

In short, Paul sets ‘him that worketh’ and ‘him that worketh not’ side by side and leaves none in the middle between them. He declares that righteousness is not reckoned to him that worketh, but is reckoned to him that worketh not, if only he believes. There is no way by which ‘free-will,’ with its effort and endeavour, can dodge or escape; it must either be numbered with ‘him that worketh’ or with ‘him that worketh not.’ If with ‘him that worketh’, you have heard Paul say that righteousness is not reckoned to it, If with ‘him that worketh not, but believeth’ on God, righteousness is reckoned to it. But then it will not be the power of ‘free-will’, but a new creation by faith, and if righteousness is not reckoned to ‘him that worketh’, it becomes clear that his works are nothing but sins, evil and ungodly in God’s sight. (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

The Gospel is so glorious and precious because it is all about the glory and preciousness of God in and through Christ. God has revealed that the Gospel is all about His glory and it is to the praise of the glory of His grace (Eph 1:5-12). We are told with great clarity and precision that it is “by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9 not as a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph 2:8-9). When a teaching is set forth that has one work left for human souls to do, even thought that part is denied in words, it must be rejected with great horror because it is even more dangerous than a teaching of many works for salvation. When faith is set out in a way that it depends on man or on a will that is free from grace and total depravity, then we can know that this is a teaching that must be avoided and even fought against.

It is the case that God has completely satisfied His own wrath upon Christ at the cross or He did not. It is the case that Christ earned a perfect righteousness for His people or He did not. But if the work of Christ was and is sufficient, then nothing is left for the sinner to do. Sure enough the sinner must believe, but was that purchased by Christ or is it left up to the sinner to do his or her own part? Paul set it out in simple and plain words, but those words are in the context of the book of Romans and Romans is in the context of the whole Bible. According to Romans 11:6, one work makes grace no longer to be grace. In other words, we must fight as hard against one work in the context of the Gospel as against many. In fact, this one work is harder to fight against because it is more subtle and deceptive. Even people who call themselves Reformed in our day are not fighting against this one work. But if this one work is such that it makes grace to no longer be grace, then it also makes the Gospel to be no longer to the glory of His grace.

It is true that the previous paragraphs may be disagreeable to many people, even among the Reformed in name. It would appear that the truth of the Gospel of grace alone is no longer popular among those who would prefer the honor of men over the glory of God. But in Scripture we are told that God will not share His glory with another, and this is precisely what happens in a gospel of works. It is human beings trying to share the glory of salvation with God rather than leaving it all up to God. That is why Ephesians 2:9 is so clear that if salvation is of works then men can boast. It should be clear that to the degree that we have works mixed in with the Gospel (which makes it another gospel), we leave room for men to boast.

If we simply look at the general scene among evangelicals, it should be quite clear what has happened. What we see in evangelism are appeals to me based on what they can do rather than on what God can do. We see that the focus is now on human beings rather than on God. We see so-called worship services designed to make men happy and elevate their feelings rather than to seek God. We see people in open sin and yet are said to be Christians because we have placed men at the center of all things rather than God. When God is at the center of all things then grace is seen as sovereign and man must seek God for grace rather than God seek man to believe something about Him. When God is at the center of all things then men must worship God as He pleases out of a desire to love Him and glorify Him rather than as an effort to please men or self as men think they are doing something for God so that He will do what they want. It is nothing more than an attempt at Divine manipulation. But that is precisely what the doctrine of ‘free-will’ leads to. It leaves on work of the will to attain a grace that God has provided and now waits on man to do. Well, if that one work is of the ‘free-will,’ then all the other works must be of that will that is free as well. Since faith is seen as that one thing we must do in order for God to give grace, then we must continue to strive to have faith so that God will give us other things. How utterly dangerous it is to try to insert the ‘free-will’ into the true Gospel and any part of Christianity. It is like leaven and will penetrate the whole loaf.

In short, Paul sets ‘him that worketh’ and ‘him that worketh not’ side by side and leaves none in the middle between them. He declares that righteousness is not reckoned to him that worketh, but is reckoned to him that worketh not, if only he believes. There is no way by which ‘free-will,’ with its effort and endeavour, can dodge or escape; it must either be numbered with ‘him that worketh’ or with ‘him that worketh not.’ If with ‘him that worketh’, you have heard Paul say that righteousness is not reckoned to it, If with ‘him that worketh not, but believeth’ on God, righteousness is reckoned to it. But then it will not be the power of ‘free-will’, but a new creation by faith, and if righteousness is not reckoned to ‘him that worketh’, it becomes clear that his works are nothing but sins, evil and ungodly in God’s sight. (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

As set out in the last few posts, Paul put the whole human world into two categories. One category is those who do work and the second category is those who do not work. In category one are those that do a lot of works and those who claim to do just one work and all those in between. In the second category are those that don’t work at all. Instead of working, they believe in God who justifies the ungodly. Now this does not make sense to the worldly person or to the very religious person, but despite that it is biblical and is fitting with the Gospel of Christ alone and grace alone. Those who make faith out to be by a ‘free-will’ and therefore by a work of the flesh, may not realize it but they are at odds with and actually are opposed to the Gospel of Christ alone and grace alone.

Ephesians 1:5 He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, 6 to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. 7 In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace 8 which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight 9 He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him 10 with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him 11 also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, 12 to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory.

The text above (Ephesians 1:5-12) shows why God saves and the purposes that He saves for. Those who believe in ‘free-will’ think of God as providing salvation for sinners and the sinner obtains or receives that salvation when the sinner exercises faith or choice of the ‘free-will’. But that demands that salvation is contingent on the will and choice of the sinner and that demands that salvation is contingent on something other than God which makes salvation to be something less than grace alone, but instead it is grace plus something the sinner provides.

Instead of that, however, God saves sinners because He loves Himself and His own glory. The last part of Ephesians 1:5, when literally translated, is “according to the good pleasure of His will.” In other words, it is the pleasure of God’s will that determines salvation and not the will of the sinner. This is utterly vital to the Gospel of grace alone which demands that salvation is by Christ alone. The Gospel is also “to the praise of the glory of His grace” (1:6). To the degree that the will of the sinner’s so-called ‘free-will’ (and to be free it must be free from grace at least at one point in part of salvation) is involved in salvation, that is the degree that salvation is not to the praise of the glory of His grace. But the text tells us that God predestines and adopts sinners in accordance with His good pleasure and to the praise of the glory of His grace. So the doctrine of ‘free-will’ is opposed to the pleasure of God and the glory of His grace. It is opposed to the ultimate reasons that God saves sinners.

While it may sound crazy to say that, let the texts speak for themselves. If sinners are those who work up faith apart from grace (what ‘free-will’ does), then the Gospel is not by grace alone and so it is not to the praise of the glory of His grace. Let the glory of the grace of God be proclaimed and exalted until the end of time, and then let it be adored and worshipped in a fuller way for all eternity. But nothing must get in the way either theoretically or practically in a way that diminishes the grace and glory of God. That is precisely what ‘free-will’ does. God saves because it is according to the good pleasure of His will and not according to the will of the sinner. God saves to the praise of the glory of His grace and not to the praise of the choice of the sinner. It is only when a sinner stops any and all works, including the one of the ‘free-will’, and looks to God alone, that salvation is truly by grace alone.

In short, Paul sets ‘him that worketh’ and ‘him that worketh not’ side by side and leaves none in the middle between them. He declares that righteousness is not reckoned to him that worketh, but is reckoned to him that worketh not, if only he believes. There is no way by which ‘free-will,’ with its effort and endeavour, can dodge or escape; it must either be numbered with ‘him that worketh’ or with ‘him that worketh not.’ If with ‘him that worketh’, you have heard Paul say that righteousness is not reckoned to it, If with ‘him that worketh not, but believeth’ on God, righteousness is reckoned to it. But then it will not be the power of ‘free-will’, but a new creation by faith, and if righteousness is not reckoned to ‘him that worketh’, it becomes clear that his works are nothing but sins, evil and ungodly in God’s sight. (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

In a very real sense when Scripture sets out that there are those that work and those that work not, the words of God are telling us what man can do by nature and what must be done by grace alone. This is so vital that is bears repeating and repeating and repeating over and over again. The soul that works includes all those that trust in their many works or those that trust in themselves for one work. The only soul that does not work does not trust in any work or works. While it may seem that those who trust in one work of the will (all who really believe in ‘free-will’) are closer to grace than those who believe in many works, they are not. We can think of this as all humanity or all time divided into two sets of categories and there are no linking points between the two at all. One category is those who do not work at all. The only other possible category is those who work. Again, there are two categories and two only. Every human being belongs in one category or the other. For a person to be in the category that does not work, that person has to stop all working. That leaves the other category of those who do work as those who look to one work or for more than one work.

Romans 4:3 For what does the Scripture say? “ABRAHAM BELIEVED GOD, AND IT WAS CREDITED TO HIM AS RIGHTEOUSNESS.” 4 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, 6 just as David also speaks of the blessing on the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works: 7 “BLESSED ARE THOSE WHOSE LAWLESS DEEDS HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN, AND WHOSE SINS HAVE BEEN COVERED.

Another vital point in this is to notice what the person does that does not work. This person is the one who believes in God who justifies the ungodly. In other words, instead of trusting in anything that s/he has done, will do, or is capable of doing; this person has faith in God who justifies. It is the person who has faith who is credited with righteousness, but the only ones who have faith are those who do not work. If a person does one work of many and God promises salvation to those who do one work or many, then salvation is not credited as favor but as what is due. The person has fulfilled what God requires and so salvation is granted as a wage.

It should be clearly seen, then, how opposed to grace alone that the so-called ‘free-will’ is. The will that is free of grace is never free from its fleshly desires and nature and can never do an act other than a fleshly act. God will not grant salvation on the basis of many works or even one work of the flesh. God saves sinners on the basis of Christ alone and grace alone. Despite the words of those who adhere to ‘free-will,’ their position denies the Gospel of grace alone and Christ alone. The will that is said to be free is not free from sin and is only free from grace and as such it cannot do one good thing, and especially it cannot do one thing that God will give the wage of salvation to.

It bears repeating that a person must be in the category of non-works to be one that believes in Him who justifies the ungodly. God does not look upon that any work(s) of the human will that is free of grace as a work that He will justify the person for doing that one act. As verse 7 of Romans 4 shows, God credits righteousness to those who do not work. Those are the only people that God credits righteousness to. As long as a person believes that s/he has ‘free-will’ that person will trust in his own power or ability to choose and to control salvation according to his or her own desires. To rest in grace alone a person must be one that does not trust in his or her own works in any way, shape, form, or fashion. For the Gospel to truly be by grace alone it must be that no one justified by grace alone and Christ alone would trust in works or in any work of his or her own. Until a person is brought to the point of being broken from all hope in his or her own will or ability, that person will not rest in grace alone.

In short, Paul sets ‘him that worketh’ and ‘him that worketh not’ side by side and leaves none in the middle between them. He declares that righteousness is not reckoned to him that worketh, but is reckoned to him that worketh not, if only he believes. There is no way by which ‘free-will,’ with its effort and endeavour, can dodge or escape; it must either be numbered with ‘him that worketh’ or with ‘him that worketh not.’ If with ‘him that worketh’, you have heard Paul say that righteousness is not reckoned to it, If with ‘him that worketh not, but believeth’ on God, righteousness is reckoned to it. But then it will not be the power of ‘free-will’, but a new creation by faith, and if righteousness is not reckoned to ‘him that worketh’, it becomes clear that his works are nothing but sins, evil and ungodly in God’s sight. (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

One way to look at this issue is to see what comes from a will that is called “free” by its adherents and defenders. Against them, Luther tells us that all the works of the ‘free-will’ are “nothing but sins, evil and ungodly in God’s sight.” What can the power of ‘free-will’ actually do that pleases God? What can a will do that is free from grace (required of a ‘free-will’)? On the other hand, is the will really free from depravity and even total depravity? But even if the will could be free from total depravity, even just a tiny little bit, could it actually do something to obtain righteousness? What righteousness could and would that obtain before a holy God?

Paul set out in Romans four (and Luther built on that foundation) that there are only two types of people. Every person in the whole universe fits into one of those two camps. One is either with those who work or with those who don’t work. In the group of those who work there are those who trust in many works and then all the way down to those who trust in the one work of the will that is free. But those who trust in that one work of their own (‘free-will’) and that choice are those in the group that works. So even if the will that is free (according to those who claim that) could do one tiny work, it is still in the group of those who work. Paul said that those with faith were those who did not work. So that leaves the ‘free-will’ camp in the group of those that work and not in the group of those that have faith. True faith does not look to any work of self but looks, receives, and trusts in grace alone from beginning to end.

But even though many think the ‘free-will’ is capable of one tiny work and that enough to move God to save the soul, the Bible teaches quite the contrary. The soul that still trusts in its ability to choose or to make some little choice is a soul that still trusts in itself. It is not a soul that has quit trusting in itself and has been broken of its pride, but it is a soul that is still proud enough to trust in something of itself. It is not a soul like Paul in Romans 7 where the Law aroused coveting in him so much that he died to his ability and strength to keep the Law, but instead it is a soul that has many things hidden to it. The Law did such a work in Paul that he died to his own ability to keep the Law. The ability to keep the Law at least includes the will in any conception of the will, so if a will is free it is free to keep the Law. But Paul died to his ability to keep the Law. It was only then that he could rest in grace alone and live by grace alone.

What comes from the soul that thinks it has ‘free-will’ or any soul that has not died to self? The only thing that can come from that soul is sin. The works of that soul, since they do not come from Christ the Vine, “are nothing but sins, evil and ungodly in God’s sight.” There is nothing that a will can do apart from the Vine that is anything but a work of the flesh and as such it is evil and ungodly. The will is not free enough to make one choice or do one thing apart from or free from Christ that is not a fleshly act and as such it is evil and ungodly. Until the will is renewed and Christ is living in the soul, there is nothing that the will can do that is pleasing to God. But in that case the will is not free from the flesh and is not free to do something good apart from Christ. All of the works of the human soul and its will are sin and nothing but sin as long as that soul is apart from Christ and no amount of vaunted freedom can change that. For the will to be truly free it must be free from Christ and yet there is nothing that the soul can do apart from Christ that is acceptable to God. Anything a soul does apart from Christ is wickedness. It is easy to conclude, then, that to trust in the freedom of the will or to set out a theology that requires people to trust in an act of the ‘free-will’ is to set out a gospel that is not of grace alone and is not of Christ alone. The will can never be free from its utter helplessness to do anything but evil apart from Christ and it can never be free from its utter need of Christ to do anything good. Since that is true, the Gospel of grace alone and of Christ alone stands firmly and decidedly against the teaching of ‘free-will’ at any and all points in relation to the Gospel and holiness.