God Loves… Himself

Then, in the second place, this hypocrisy of theirs results in their valuing and seeking to purchase the grace of God at a much cheaper rate than the Pelagians. The latter assert that it is not by a feeble something within us that we obtain grace, but by efforts and works that are complete, entire, perfect, many and mighty; but our friends here tell us that it is by something very small, almost nothing, that we merit grace [act of a ‘free-will’]…For if we are justified without works, all works are condemned, whether small or great; Paul exempts none, but thunders impartially against all. (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

Luther was very opposed to ‘free-will’ because of its attack on the heart of Christianity and the Gospel of grace alone. The ‘free-will’ seems like such a small thing, but the reality of the matter is that it is at the heart of the Gospel of grace alone. He was also opposed to it because it seemed to be so small and yet it was a vicious attack on the Gospel in reality. It was insidious because it was so well hidden and yet did so much damage. The doctrine of the bondage of the will strikes at the heart of human pride in many ways. It strikes at the pride of self-sufficiency and the pride of man in wanting to determine his own destiny as he pleases. This small, little, even tiny act of the ‘free-will’ (when its darkness is exposed by the light) is that which fallen man loves more than anything else. It shows a love for self and is a very man-centered teaching that is opposed to a God-centered teaching.

The will is not a sovereign but is always ruled over by another. The will is part of the soul and so the soul is sovereign over it (in a manner of speaking) or God is sovereign over the will. Faith either comes from the soul as a self-sovereign or it comes from God as sovereign over the soul. If faith comes from the self, then that is a work of the flesh and so how can that faith be any more an acceptable work to God than the righteous deeds of the Pharisees? True and acceptable faith to God must be the handiwork of the Spirit because of the work of Christ or it is not acceptable to God at all. Again, faith is either a work of the soul or something purchased by Christ and applied by the Spirit. The faith that is from the so-called ‘free-will’ is a work of the flesh and as such could never move God to anything but wrath. Nothing good can come from the flesh and that includes the choice of the flesh.

Those who promote the teaching of ‘free-will’ need to be asked what happens after free-wills make their choices for salvation. Does Christ reign in His temple or does self reign in the temple? It would appear, if one follows the thought consistently, that the one that makes that momentous choice is the one that rules in the temple. If the will is free enough to make that final choice for salvation, then that will continues to be free with each choice after that. This means that the ‘free-will’ that chooses salvation is lord of itself and the captain of its own salvation, but not only that it is the captain of its own soul in sanctification as well. The ‘free-will,’ then, overthrows the lordship of Christ and sets itself up as ruler of the soul.

Since the ‘free-will’ is captain of its own sanctification, then holiness must come from the choices of ‘free-will’ rather than be from God. While Scripture tells us that Christ is our sanctification (I Cor 1:30) and that true holiness is for the soul to share in His holiness (Heb 12:10), the teaching of ‘free-will’ overthrows that as well. If salvation begins with an act of the ‘free-will,’ then surely it must continue by the acts of the will as well. So if justification is by faith plus one act of the will, sanctification can only come to the soul by many acts of the will. Yet Scripture is quite clear that salvation from beginning to end is by grace alone through faith.

The salvation that starts with one act of the ‘free-will’ must have its life (of the soul) from the ‘free-will’ and its continuing acts as well. While Scripture teaches that the self must die so that Christ is the life of the soul, ‘free-will’ teaches that salvation begins with one act of the will and as such it must continue with repeated acts as well. This would include love as well since love is either an act of a ‘free-will’ or it comes by the work of the Spirit of love in the soul. The Scripture teaches that God is the only source of love since He is the origin of love since He is the God who lives in perfect love within His triune being. But ‘free-will’ must assign love as possible for it to work up as well. So the will is set up as a source of holiness, life, and love and be what moves God to give grace. This, surely, is clear that when this is thought to be true the human soul has bowed to self and not God. Oh how deceptive a teaching this is when it creeps into the professing Church and sets itself up and is then bowed down to and trusted in rather than God. It leads to human beings trusting in themselves by their ‘free-will’ rather than the very nature of God. If the soul is justified by grace apart from works, then ‘free-will’ is an idol and it should be treated as such.

Then, in the second place, this hypocrisy of theirs results in their valuing and seeking to purchase the grace of God at a much cheaper rate than the Pelagians. The latter assert that it is not by a feeble something within us that we obtain grace, but by efforts and works that are complete, entire, perfect, many and mighty; but our friends here tell us that it is by something very small, almost nothing, that we merit grace [act of a ‘free-will’]…For if we are justified without works, all works are condemned, whether small or great; Paul exempts none, but thunders impartially against all. (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

One of the great battles of the Reformation was over the issue of ‘free-will’ or bondage of the will in terms of the Gospel. At times it might not have used that language, but the whole issue of the sinfulness of man and his inability was over this issue. While many understand one of the main issues of the Reformation was justification by faith alone, yet that doctrine also had bigger principles that it was being used to defend. This issue of the bondage of the will is at the very heart of the Gospel and as such at the heart of the Reformation. When the heart of the Gospel of grace alone is attacked, one must rise to defend it. As people during and just after the New Testament times were willing to be put to death rather than offer one pinch of incense to Caesar, so the lovers of the Gospel of grace alone must be willing to suffer ridicule in the stand for the true Gospel of grace alone.

Luther saw the great dangers of the leaven involved in that one little choice of the ‘free-will’ to the Gospel and the heart of the Reformation. He saw it as a great danger and how deceptive it was. The problem today is that we don’t. It has become far more important to be thought of as gracious and nice and as willing to work with people who differ on some minor issues. It may be important to work with people who differ on minor issues, but this is not a minor issue. Paul declared without any equivocation that sinners are saved by grace apart from works. Yet the teaching of ‘free-will’ tries to disguise what it really is and sneak one work into the Gospel. But as Paul also declared, anything but grace alone makes grace to be less than grace.

As noted in the last BLOG, while ‘free-will’ is brought into the camp at the point of choosing salvation, it goes farther than that. If the will is free at the point of conversion, then it is also free if not even more free after conversion. Instead of great truth taught by Jesus that apart from Him we can do nothing (John 15:4-5), those who teach ‘free-will’ do teach that we can do something apart from Him. If the will is indeed free, then for it to be free it has to be free at some point from Christ and His work as the Vine. This leaves the deadly problem of works in sanctification and the problem of free choices in all aspects of Christianity. Grace is cast out in truth while it retains the helper of the will rather than the sovereign ruler of the will. Indeed it is just one small thing at the beginning, but like a virus it takes over and begins to run things.

That virus leads us in our day to hear people teach that God cannot violate the ‘free-will’ but instead must wait on the human to do something. Who is sovereign in that case? It makes grace to be at the beck and call of the human being rather than grace as the sovereign act of God. It makes man and his will out to be sovereign in the matter. It makes the choice of man as sovereign rather than the grace of God. But to be clear on the matter, it also makes grace to be less than grace because it means that God gives grace because a human being made a choice. In other words, the act of the ‘free-will’ is something that moves God to give grace, but that means that grace is given because of something the human does. That something, call it what you will, is a work. That means that this choice of man is now the focus rather than grace. It is a different gospel.

So while it is taught that the act of the will is so weak and so nothing it is really not a work, that is nothing more than words hiding reality. This so-called little act of the will, in reality and as it is seen for what it is, actually destroys the heart of Christianity and sets up an idol in its place. It sets up the idol of man and his will in the place of grace and then that idol gains strength as time goes on so that all is now bowing at the idol of ‘free-will’ in the professing Church. The great idol must be entertained and wooed so that men will choose Christ. That great idol must be given campaigns in order to get enough money so that this great idol can be bowed to in the methods of evangelism and missions. That great idol must be coddled so that it will want to attend and tithe so that great buildings erected to the idol of ‘free-will’ can be paid for and attract others who follow this great idol. The doctrine of ‘free-will’ is indeed nothing but a doctrine of idolatry and defending the throne of the idol that tries to set itself up in the temple of the living God. It may appear small, but it is a huge and consuming idol.

Then, in the second place, this hypocrisy of theirs results in their valuing and seeking to purchase the grace of God at a much cheaper rate than the Pelagians. The latter assert that it is not by a feeble something within us that we obtain grace, but by efforts and works that are complete, entire, perfect, many and mighty; but our friends here tell us that it is by something very small, almost nothing, that we merit grace [act of a ‘free-will’]…For if we are justified without works, all works are condemned, whether small or great; Paul exempts none, but thunders impartially against all. (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

Luther has set out to show that the Arminian (semi-Pelagian) teaching of one work of the ‘free-will’ was actually worse than the Pelagian teaching that people should work hard and merit salvation. On the surface something seems wrong with that thought, but the more one looks at it the more sense it makes. In some ways Arminianism (semi-Pelagianism) is worse than the full form of Pelagianism. Once a person sees what an act of a ‘free-will’ really is, then that person can see something of what Luther wrote about and preached about. His opposition to ‘free-will’ might seem like a person making a mountain out of a mole-hill, but Luther looked past the words and the appearances to see where this act of the ‘free-will’ came from and what it led to.

The Reformation was planted firmly in the biblical teaching of grace alone, but that means sovereign grace alone. In earlier BLOGS it was pointed out that there were twin teachings at the heart of the Reformation Gospel and those were the utter helplessness of man and the sovereign grace of God. Both of those teachings meet at the doctrine of the bondage of the will which Luther considered utterly vital to the Gospel of the Reformation. The Gospel is known in the modern day as justification by faith alone, but that is largely truncated in the modern day. The Gospel of justification by faith alone does not stand alone and apart from the twin teachings at the heart of the Reformation Gospel. In fact, they stand or fall together. So when a person asserts that man has ‘free-will’ and can choose salvation on his own and even that he must choose to be saved from his own will, that is an attack on the Gospel of grace alone to those who are utterly helpless in their sin. The doctrine or concept of ‘free-will’ in terms of how it fits with the Gospel is an attack on the Gospel when it is seen in this context.

Pelagianism teaches that a person must work hard to merit salvation, but Arminianism teaches that all a person must do is one act of the ‘free-will” and then that person will be saved. Again, that one act of the ‘free-will’ demands that the will be free enough from its own depravity and deadness to be something less than totally helpless and to have just a little ability rather than total inability. On the other hands, for the will to be free in its acts it cannot be moved in the final choice by grace alone or the will would not be free. So it can be easily seen that the teaching of ‘free-will’ is an assault on the primary teachings of Christianity as it came from the Reformation. Luther saw this but apparently not many see this today. While Luther is lauded as a great Reformer his teaching on this issue is all but ignored. That is much like the Pharisees of New Testament times who would speak highly of and adorn the graves of the prophets while killing the prophets of their own day.

Luther abhorred the fact that people thought that salvation could be had by one small act of the ‘free-will’ while at the same time they denounced Pelagianism. While it may seem that Arminianism is closer to the Gospel of grace alone and just one small act of the will away from grace alone, Luther saw it as valuing the Gospel less. Many if not virtually all the Reformed today think of Arminianism as teaching something just slightly less than a pure Gospel and yet in the family of Christ, but Luther would not have that thought at all. As he said, “if we are justified without works, all works are condemned, whether small or great.” This should provoke us to thought and prayer. Is the Gospel not only compromised by many works, but also by one tiny little work as well? Is the Gospel of grace alone set out by Paul and then any work at all denounced by him?

The teaching of ‘free-will’ in terms of the Gospel is a Trojan horse in the modern professing Church where the professing Church has the blinders on rather than the horse. It has been brought in the walls of the Gospel of grace alone as just one small thing and yet within that one small thing is an attack on the Gospel itself and what makes the Gospel necessary. It is an attack on the utter inability and total helplessness of man in sin which makes grace alone and Christ alone as necessary to the Gospel. It is an attack on the Gospel of Christ alone and grace alone because that one small work of the ‘free-will’ is said to be necessary. If that act of the ‘free-will’ is necessary, then Christ did not do it all and grace is not alone. That one little act then continues on in the realm of sanctification and beyond so that before long it is ‘free-will’ that is on the throne rather than Christ. There used to be a commercial of a hair product which said that “one little dab will do ya.” In the Gospel one little dab of ‘free-will’ will undo ya. The Gospel of grace alone is under full attack today while those who claim to be friends of it are trying to be gracious and winsome to the enemies of it. After all, they say, Arminians believe in justification by faith alone as well. That just shows that the Trojan horse has made massive inroads in our day.

Then, in the second place, this hypocrisy of theirs results in their valuing and seeking to purchase the grace of God at a much cheaper rate than the Pelagians. The latter assert that it is not by a feeble something within us that we obtain grace, but by efforts and works that are complete, entire, perfect, many and mighty; but our friends here tell us that it is by something very small, almost nothing, that we merit grace.
Now, if there must be error, those who say that the grace of God is priced high, and account it dear and costly, err less shamefully and presumptuously than those who teach that its price is a tiny trifle, and account it cheap and contemptible. Paul, however pounds both errors to a single pulp with one word when he says that all are justified freely, without the law, and without the works of the law. The assertion that justification is free to all that are justified leaves none to work, merit or prepare themselves, and leaves no work that can be said to carry either congruent or condign merit. By the one cast of this thunderbolt, Paul shatters both the Pelagians with their total merit and the Sophists with their tiny merit. Free justification does not permit you to set men working for it, for free donation and preparation by working are manifestly incompatible. Furthermore, justification by grace does not permit you to regard the worthiness of any person, as Paul later says in the eleventh chapter: ‘if by grace, then it is no more or works; otherwise, grace is not grace’ (v. 6). So, too, he says in the fourth chapter: ‘Now to him that worketh the reward is reckoned, not of grace, but of debt’ (v. 4). And so my good Paul, the scourge of ‘free-will’, stands undefeated! He lays low two armies with a single word! For if we are justified without works, all works are condemned, whether small or great; Paul exempts none, but thunders impartially against all. (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

It is clear from the quote above that Luther, the one that God primarily used to  rediscover justification by faith alone, was vehemently against ‘free-will’ because he saw it as against the free-grace of God in the Gospel. Not only does the Gospel of justification by grace alone determine what ‘faith alone’ means, it stands opposed to any and all works for salvation. Since justification by grace alone is the larger principle that determines what faith alone means, that shows us that the works (in any way, shape, form, or fashion) that are not consistent with the Gospel of grace alone are not consistent with justification by faith alone. The teaching of ‘free-will’ is that the will is free and (logically) so free of grace and of depravity in the sense that it can make a choice for Christ. However, the will that is free must be free from total depravity and must be free of grace in order to be free, and that shows that salvation is not by grace alone. But if salvation is not by grace alone, it cannot be by faith alone either.

So we are left with Luther’s position that ‘free-will’ is simply a work that is added to the Gospel of grace alone. Luther goes on to use two verses that he has used before, but they are powerful texts in this regard. One, Romans 11:6 sets out that it salvation is by grace then it is no longer of works or grace is no longer grace. In other words, salvation is only grace to the degree it is not of works. So when one sets out that the ‘free-will’ must make a choice and God then moves to save the soul, that one act of the will is a work (because not of grace) and so grace is no longer grace. This simply cannot be stressed too much. One act of a ‘free-will’ in effect destroys the doctrine of grace alone and that one act of what is thought to be a ‘free-will’ by an individual person destroys the soul of that person because that person is trusting in self rather than grace alone.

The second passage Luther uses is Romans 4:4, which says that “to the one who works, his wage is not credited as a favor, but as what is due.” In the context of a ‘free-will’ this teaches us that even if there is only one work for a salvation that is based on that one work would then not be grace but a wage. But again, a ‘free-will’ is a will that is free from grace (at least to a degree) and as such is a work that a human being does that God rewards with salvation. Instead of God being moved by Himself and all causation in salvation being by grace alone and by Christ alone, the teaching of ‘free-will’ leaves the human soul with one little work to do. But that one little work in appearance is a gigantic work in effect because it destroys the person’s hope of looking to grace alone and instead leaves the person trusting in self to trust in Christ and trusting in self to trust in grace. But again, while it appears to be one small or tiny little work, it is gigantic at least in its effects. One little work makes grace to be something other than grace alone and so it is not really grace at all. One little work makes salvation to be contingent on a wage of the human soul and again that makes grace no longer to be grace. The teaching of ‘free-will’ is opposed to the biblical Gospel and it should be fought against at every opportunity as a false gospel.

Then, in the second place, this hypocrisy of theirs results in their valuing and seeking to purchase the grace of God at a much cheaper rate than the Pelagians. The latter assert that it is not by a feeble something within us that we obtain grace, but by efforts and works that are complete, entire, perfect, many and mighty; but our friends here tell us that it is by something very small, almost nothing, that we merit grace.

Now, if there must be error, those who say that the grace of God is priced high, and account it dear and costly, err less shamefully and presumptuously than those who teach that its price is a tiny trifle, and account it cheap and contemptible. Paul, however pounds both errors to a single pulp with one word when he says that all are justified freely, without the law, and without the works of the law. The assertion that justification is free to all that are justified leaves none to work, merit or prepare themselves, and leaves no work that can be said to carry either congruent or condign merit. By the one cast of this thunderbolt, Paul shatters both the Pelagians with their total merit and the Sophists with their tiny merit. Free justification does not permit you to set men working for it, for free donation and preparation by working are manifestly incompatible. Furthermore, justification by grace does not permit you to regard the worthiness of any person, as Paul later says in the eleventh chapter: ‘if by grace, then it is no more or works; otherwise, grace is not grace’ (v. 6). So, too, he says in the fourth chapter: ‘Now to him that worketh the reward is reckoned, not of grace, but of debt’ (v. 4). And so my good Paul, the scourge of ‘free-will’, stands undefeated! He lays low two armies with a single word! For if we are justified without works, all works are condemned, whether small or great; Paul exempts none, but thunders impartially against all. (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

We are still in the broader context of Luther’s assertion that Arminianism (though he did not use that word as Arminius was later) is perhaps worse than Pelagianism. Luther’s points are powerful and very edged. The full Pelagian just admits that you have to do something to merit salvation and so sets out to work for it. However, the Arminian (semi-Pelagian) has just one tiny work to do and that is an act of the will called faith. This is what Erasmus was teaching and it is basically the position of Arminians today. If the will is indeed free, even if not completely free as Erasmus taught, then there is some little something that the will is able to do that merits salvation or moves God to save the soul. It is clear that Erasmus did not want to admit that and it is just as clear that Arminians today don’t want to admit this either. But that one act of the ‘free-will’ regardless of how little the act is and regardless of how much the will is assisted is an act that is needed for salvation and as such makes the salvation of the sinner out to be something less than grace alone.

Luther is convinced that the full Pelagian values salvation more than the Arminian as it works harder to merit it. But the Arminian position thinks that salvation can be had with almost no effort or merit at all. It just needs this one tiny act of the will to accomplish salvation. It is as if God cannot quite accomplish it all and is waiting on man to do this one tiny little thing so that He can finish the work and save the soul. The deception of the Arminian position is quite clear in that the Arminian will still assert that it is grace alone that saves the soul, yet will grow quite angry when it is pointed out that the act of the so-called ‘free-will’ is not consistent with grace alone.

When Paul set out that God justifies sinners freely by His grace (Rom 3:24), he is quite clear that there is no point at which works have merit or a place in the Gospel. Paul goes on to say that men are justified by faith apart from the works of the Law (v. 28), and when he does that he means all works. He did not say that sinners are justified 99.99999999999 percent by faith and that little act of the ‘free-will,’ but that sinners are justified apart from works of the Law. In other words, no work of fallen man has a place in the salvation of the sinner. The Gospel of grace alone comes to the sinner by grace alone and it is to the glory of God alone. The Gospel of grace alone that is to the glory of God alone is received by faith alone and that must be a faith that is by grace or it is a work that contributes something to salvation and destroys the teaching of Scripture of grace alone. If salvation of grace alone is mixed with the work of man then there is some little something that man can boast of and yet Scripture is so clear that man has nothing to boast about (Rom 3:27). All boasting of self is excluded which means that all of salvation is by grace and men are left to boast in nothing but the cross of Christ alone. That one little act of the so-called ‘free-will’ is not so little at all but instead opposes the glory of God in the Gospel of grace alone. It is so tiny and it makes so much sense to the fallen mind, but that is why it is more dangerous than open Pelagianism. Luther points this out and how we should be thankful that the Lord opened his eyes to this.

The guardians of ‘free-will’ have exemplified the saying: ‘out of the frying-pan, into the fire.’ In their zeal to disagree with the Pelagians they start denying condign merit, and by the very form of their denial they set it up more firmly! By word and pen they deny it, but really, in their hearts, they establish it, and are worse than the Pelagians upon two counts. In the first place, the Pelagians confess and assert condign merit straightforwardly, candidly and honestly, calling a spade a spade and teaching what they really hold. But our friends here, who hold and teach the same view, try to fool us with lying words and false appearances, giving out that they disagree with the Pelagians, when there is nothing that they are further from doing! ‘If you regard our pretences, we appear as the Pelagians’ bitterest foes; but if you regard the facts and our hearts, we are Pelagians double-dyed.’ (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

Arminianism was, indeed, in Reformed eyes a renunciation of New Testament Christianity in favor of New Testament Judaism; for to rely on oneself for faith is no different in principle from relying on oneself for works, and the one is as un-Christian and anti-Christian as the other. In the light of what Luther says to Erasmus, there is no doubt that he would have endorsed this judgment. (“Historical and Theological Introduction” to Bondage of the Will)

In order to appear before men as gracious and winsome or perhaps as humble, the Arminian error and effort of inserting works into the Gospel of grace alone is said to be wrong but not wrong enough to make it a false gospel. But of course, if trusting in self for circumcision is enough to cause one to fall from grace (as a way of salvation) as Galatians teaches, then surely trusting in self to come up with faith in order to trust in Christ is even more of an egregious error. This is not just a small error, but it is a monumental error at its very heart. It leaves sinners looking to themselves for faith rather than looking to God to give them faith by giving them a new heart to believe. This goes at the very heart of what used to be Reformed evangelism which was to have sinners seek God to give them a new heart. But now we have sinners looking to themselves for faith and evidently they don’t really need a new heart to believe as it was once taught by Jesus in John 3:3-8 and by John in John 1:12-13.

Again, the insertion of a ‘free-will’ into the faith issue is a monumental error that attacks so many of the primary teachings of Scripture. We have seen how it attacks the Gospel of grace alone by inserting the work of faith. It attacks the Gospel of Christ alone because now there is one work left for man to do and so Christ did not complete all the work. It attacks the sufficiency of God as it says that man is sufficient to come up with one work that God cannot do for man. It attacks the background of the total depravity of man which implies that man don’t need salvation by grace alone since there is one little part in man that does not need to be redeemed and that one little part plays a large part in salvation. It destroys the true concept of faith which is to behold the glory of Christ and to receive Christ alone by grace alone, but now it is look to self alone for faith in order for God to respond and save that soul.

Another important point is to look again at the picture that Paul gives of circumcision and of grace in Galatians 5. He tells us that if a person received circumcision, Christ was of no benefit to that person. He went on to say that if a person received circumcision, that person was then obligated to keep the whole Law. The one act of circumcision added to the Gospel of grace alone meant that Christ was of no benefit to that person and that the person was obligated to keep the whole Law. What does Arminianism say but that a person must come up with faith from his or her own ‘free-will’ in order to be saved? What is that but adding a work to the Gospel? Can we say anything less of Arminianism than of the Judaizers? I don’t think that we can. If a person is looking to and trusting in self for faith, then Christ is of no benefit to that person. If a person is looking to and trusting in self for faith, then for that person to be saved that person must keep the whole Law to do so.

In other words, to rely on self for faith is in principle a return to works as said in the Introduction above, but it is even more than that. It is a return to works for salvation to that person. God will accept no work for salvation as the Gospel is a Gospel of grace alone. Salvation is by grace alone from beginning to end and that includes faith. To add one work to that is to make Christ of on benefit to that person and so that leaves them in their system of works. The Gospel is of grace alone and the only other choice is a gospel of works alone. It is one or the other and cannot be of any mixture at all. The person who trusts in self for faith is also obligated to trust in self to keep the Law. The person that rests in Christ alone and grace alone looks to God for a new heart which is able to believe and so the faith itself is a gift by His free grace. Those who will not stand against the so-called gospel of faith by self and the rest by grace are not really standing for the Gospel of grace alone, but instead are actually standing with those who teach the gospel of self-faith and so are standing with Pelagianism in its false gospel. But of course they deny that they are Pelagian and in their words and creeds they are not. But their deeds declare that their Reformed words are covering over a Pelagian heart.

The guardians of ‘free-will’ have exemplified the saying: ‘out of the frying-pan, into the fire.’ In their zeal to disagree with the Pelagians they start denying condign merit, and by the very form of their denial they set it up more firmly! By word and pen they deny it, but really, in their hearts, they establish it, and are worse than the Pelagians upon two counts. In the first place, the Pelagians confess and assert condign merit straightforwardly, candidly and honestly, calling a spade a spade and teaching what they really hold. But our friends here, who hold and teach the same view, try to fool us with lying words and false appearances, giving out that they disagree with the Pelagians, when there is nothing that they are further from doing! ‘If you regard our pretences, we appear as the Pelagians’ bitterest foes; but if you regard the facts and our hearts, we are Pelagians double-dyed.’ (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

Arminianism was, indeed, in Reformed eyes a renunciation of New Testament Christianity in favor of New Testament Judaism; for to rely on oneself for faith is no different in principle from relying on oneself for works, and the one is as un-Christian and anti-Christian as the other. In the light of what Luther says to Erasmus, there is no doubt that he would have endorsed this judgment. (“Historical and Theological Introduction” to Bondage of the Will)

Where are the Reformed people today who will stand up and state what Arminianism really is? This is not to say that just because a person professes to be an Arminian means that the person is necessarily unconverted, but the doctrines and teachings of Arminianism were clearly and strongly denied by Luther to be Christian. According to the writers (Packer and Johnson) of the Introduction to Luther’s Bondage of the Will, it was also that way to Reformed eyes as a whole at one point. While this may be repetition, it is important enough to be repetitive. It has everything to do what the doctrines of total depravity, sovereign grace, and justification by faith alone really mean.

The Scripture is quite clear that sinners are saved by faith apart from works (Rom 3:28), or in other words it is justification by faith alone. But the reason it is by faith alone is in order that it may be by grace alone (Rom 4:16). This is a vital point that is, perhaps, a real dividing point. The whole purpose that salvation is by faith apart from works is because that is the way that it is by grace alone. If salvation is by faith alone for the purpose that it may be by grace alone, then any work that worms its way into faith has some impact on the bigger principle of grace alone. If at any point salvation comes by faith and that faith is a work of the human will apart from grace, then salvation by grace alone is destroyed. As Romans 11:6 teaches, “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.” Grace is no longer grace is one work enters in. So if faith is a work of the human will, salvation by grace alone has been destroyed.

New Testament Judaism said that it relied on grace but still looked to one work that was needed. Paul said that one work was a different Gospel (Galatians 1:6-10 in context of the book). In Galatians Paul was fighting against the Judaizers and he said that they had fallen from grace (Gal 5:1-4). It is not that the Judaizers were teaching that salvation was by works, but that one needed Christ and the one work of circumcision. They taught that one must be circumcised in order to be saved. But what did that do? Circumcision was something you relied on yourself to do. It was not Christ who had accomplished it and it was not applied by the Holy Spirit. So instead of relying on Christ alone and grace alone to be saved, the Judaizers taught that there was one work that you had to do to be saved. That was a contradiction of the Gospel of grace alone and Paul stood strongly against it.

The Arminian (semi-Pelagian) says that the will is free and is free enough that man must make a choice for God in his own power. The will may be aided by grace to some point by not enough for grace to be the decisive factor between one sinner and another. For a will to be free it must be free to some degree of depravity and also free from grace to some degree. In other words, it is a work of the human flesh and as such it is a work that man does and God is said to respond to that and save the one with faith. But that destroys any real concept of grace alone and the purpose of faith. It leaves human beings in their own hands relying on their own strength and power to come up with faith. But that is precisely the problem. It leaves human beings looking to themselves for faith in order to be saved rather than looking to Christ alone for grace alone which is what true faith really does. It becomes a faith in my ability to have faith and then faith in my own faith rather than a true resting in grace alone. Reformed people need to stand firmly against this type of teaching because it is a renunciation of the Gospel of grace alone. When Reformed people do not stand against this teaching, they show themselves to be less than Reformed but also as those who use true creeds and true words to stand with error rather than oppose it. They are also using Reformed truth to hide Pelagian hearts.

The guardians of ‘free-will’ have exemplified the saying: ‘out of the frying-pan, into the fire.’ In their zeal to disagree with the Pelagians they start denying condign merit, and by the very form of their denial they set it up more firmly! By word and pen they deny it, but really, in their hearts, they establish it, and are worse than the Pelagians upon two counts. In the first place, the Pelagians confess and assert condign merit straightforwardly, candidly and honestly, calling a spade a spade and teaching what they really hold. But our friends here, who hold and teach the same view, try to fool us with lying words and false appearances, giving out that they disagree with the Pelagians, when there is nothing that they are further from doing! ‘If you regard our pretences, we appear as the Pelagians’ bitterest foes; but if you regard the facts and our hearts, we are Pelagians double-dyed.’ (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

Is our salvation wholly of God, or does it ultimately depend on something that we do for ourselves? Those who say the latter (as the Arminians later did) thereby deny man’s utter helplessness in sin, and affirm that a form of semi-Pelagianism is true after all. It is no wonder, then, that later Reformed theology condemned Arminianism as being in principle a return to Rome (because in effect it turned faith into a meritorious work) and a betrayal of the Reformation (because it denied the sovereignty of God in saving sinners, which was the deepest religious and theological principle of the Reformer’s thought). Arminianism was, indeed, in Reformed eyes a renunciation of New Testament Christianity in favor of New Testament Judaism; for to rely on oneself for faith is no different in principle from relying on oneself for works, and the one is as un-Christian and anti-Christian as the other. In the light of what Luther says to Erasmus, there is no doubt that he would have endorsed this judgment. (“Historical and Theological Introduction” to Bondage of the Will)

In earlier BLOGS from the same section of Luther’s Bondage of the Will it is clear that justification by faith alone must be interpreted in the context of the bigger principle of grace alone. This is very important for many reasons, but the issue of grace which is always and only sovereign grace is at the forefront. If salvation is wholly of God, then salvation depends on grace alone. If salvation depends on the ‘free-will’ of man for the slightest thing, then grace is something less than grace alone and that means grace is no longer grace (Rom 11:6). If a person actually believes the so-called ‘free-will’ is able to come up with faith on its own and as its own act, then that person denies the utter helplessness of man in sin and denies the sovereign grace of God because salvation now rests in the choice of man. What this does is make that work of faith out to be something that God responds to and saves the sinner, which despite the protestations and denials actually makes faith to be a meritorious work.

This clearly shows that all that believe and rest upon their own act of the will for faith are Arminians at best which is to be semi-Pelagian. That is to deny in reality the doctrine of salvation by grace alone regardless if the person claims to believe in justification by faith alone and even grace alone. As long as a person rests in or trusts in a ‘free-will’ that person cannot believe in justification by grace alone. A ‘free-will denies grace alone on three counts. One, it ultimately depends on the ‘free-will’ for faith rather than grace. Two, it trusts in the person for faith rather than God who alone can give grace. Three, it denies the utter helplessness of man and so the need of sovereign grace in salvation. This is a strong denial of the heart of the Reformation in terms of the Gospel.

If it is true that “Arminianism was, indeed, in Reformed eyes a renunciation of New Testament Christianity in favor of New Testament Judaism; for to rely on oneself for faith is no different in principle from relying on oneself for works,” then even our professing Reformed folks today need to wake up. If indeed Luther would have agreed with that, and indeed he would have, then what is being taught today in most places is not the Gospel of grace alone that Luther preached in the Reformation. If what is being taught today is not the Gospel that God blessed in the Reformation, then either the Gospel has changed or the Gospel has virtually been lost in our day.

This thought is not comfortable and it is not thought to be winsome or gracious in our day, but that does not mean it is false. The Pharisees hated the truth of the Gospel as it cut to the root of their legalism and their Pelagianism (not called that then). The Judaizers of the New Testament were better than the Pharisees in appearance as they just wanted Christ plus just one thing (circumcision). They wanted just one thing other than grace alone. But that one thing meant that they preached a different Gospel. What is the difference between the one thing of circumcision and the one thing of faith? Both are works of the flesh that extend beyond grace alone. Both are looked to as not that much more. But both destroy the Gospel of grace alone since grace will have no rivals because God saves to the glory of His grace and not because of anything found in or done by sinful men. That one thing, according to Luther, made them worse than the Pelagians. Perhaps being gracious and winsome requires one to say something different, but Luther was more concerned about the Gospel and the truth of God than to be considered gracious and winsome before men.

The guardians of ‘free-will’ have exemplified the saying: ‘out of the frying-pan, into the fire.’ In their zeal to disagree with the Pelagians they start denying condign merit, and by the very form of their denial they set it up more firmly! By word and pen they deny it, but really, in their hearts, they establish it, and are worse than the Pelagians upon two counts. In the first place, the Pelagians confess and assert condign merit straightforwardly, candidly and honestly, calling a spade a spade and teaching what they really hold. But our friends here, who hold and teach the same view, try to fool us with lying words and false appearances, giving out that they disagree with the Pelagians, when there is nothing that they are further from doing! ‘If you regard our pretences, we appear as the Pelagians’ bitterest foes; but if you regard the facts and our hearts, we are Pelagians double-dyed.’ (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

Is our salvation wholly of God, or does it ultimately depend on something that we do for ourselves? Those who say the latter (as the Arminians later did) thereby deny man’s utter helplessness in sin, and affirm that a form of semi-Pelagianism is true after all. It is no wonder, then, that later Reformed theology condemned Arminianism as being in principle a return to Rome (because in effect it turned faith into a meritorious work) and a betrayal of the Reformation (because it denied the sovereignty of God in saving sinners, which was the deepest religious and theological principle of the Reformer’s thought). Arminianism was, indeed, in Reformed eyes a renunciation of New Testament Christianity in favor of New Testament Judaism; for to rely on oneself for faith is no different in principle from relying on oneself for works, and the one is as un-Christian and anti-Christian as the other. In the light of what Luther says to Erasmus, there is no doubt that he would have endorsed this judgment. (“Historical and Theological Introduction” to Bondage of the Will)

The context of the statement just above has to do with where faith comes from. This is not a secondary issue, but instead is at the heart of the doctrines of depravity and of justification. If sinners are dead in sins and trespasses and the will is bound to sin, then the will is not free to make a spiritual choice out of love for Christ. When the inability of man was taught, it had to do with the utter helplessness of man in sin. If the sinner can do one thing for himself, including and especially a work of the will to come up with faith so that God will save him, then that is a clear denial of man’s depravity and utter helplessness in sin. While there are most likely many who assert that man is dead in sin, if our preaching and evangelism do not teach that and build on that we are like those that Luther spoke of in the first quote from above. It is to deny one thing in terms of doctrine and yet teach it in practice.

We must note very carefully that a denial of man’s utter helplessness in sin, whether by doctrine or by practice, is to be a semi-Pelagian which is what Arminianism really is. Arminianism is not semi-Reformed, it is semi-Pelagian. Arminianism (by definition) must deny the utter helplessness of man in sin because it affirms and champions a ‘free-will.’ A will that is free is free from the bondage of sin at that point and is also free of the power of efficacious grace. Clearly, then, Arminianism is in principle a return to Rome. It does this in at least two ways. One, in effect it turns faith into a work. Two, it denies the sovereignty of God in saving sinners. When a person denies the sovereignty of God in saving sinners, that person cannot uphold salvation by grace alone at the same time. When God’s sovereignty is dismissed at any point, it is also at that point that biblical grace is dismissed as well. What Arminianism does is replace biblical grace at the point of faith and replace it with the work of the human will. That is an error that denies the Gospel of grace alone.

In the modern theological world men are expected to be gracious and winsome. For some reason humility is now thought of as always thinking that other views could be right and I could be wrong, so discussion must always be kept at a very civil level and to actually say that another is wrong is to be proud. Yet the statements above (quote from the Introduction of Bondage of the Will) are vitally important to the Church or all ages if they are even close to being correct. If Arminianism is “a renunciation of New Testament Christianity in favor of New Testament Judaism” because “to rely on oneself for faith is no different in principle from relying on oneself for works,” then there is a lot of New Testament Judaism going on in our day under the guise of Christianity. If it is true that “the one is as un-Christian and anti-Christian as the other,” then there is a lot of un-Christian and anti-Christian teaching going on today in Evangelical circles and in Reformed circles as well. If Arminianism is as un-Christian and anti-Christian as Pelagianism, then the professing Church is literally filled with anti-Christians today.

But again, the issue pointed out is that it has to do with relying on oneself for faith rather than grace for faith. A reliance on self for faith is not only un-Christian, it is anti-Christian. One can teach a lot about justification by faith alone and miss the bigger principle of grace alone and so miss the real point of justification by faith alone. But it is also true that if we miss the point that faith must come by grace alone, salvation is then by works. Those who teach that are more dangerous than the full Pelagians because their error is more disguised by truth.

The guardians of ‘free-will’ have exemplified the saying: ‘out of the frying-pan, into the fire.’ In their zeal to disagree with the Pelagians they start denying condign merit, and by the very form of their denial they set it up more firmly! By word and pen they deny it, but really, in their hearts, they establish it, and are worse than the Pelagians upon two counts. In the first place, the Pelagians confess and assert condign merit straightforwardly, candidly and honestly, calling a spade a spade and teaching what they really hold. But our friends here, who hold and teach the same view, try to fool us with lying words and false appearances, giving out that they disagree with the Pelagians, when there is nothing that they are further from doing! ‘If you regard our pretences, we appear as the Pelagians’ bitterest foes; but if you regard the facts and our hearts, we are Pelagians double-dyed.’ (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

‘Justification by faith only’ is a truth that needs interpretation. The principle of sola fide is not rightly understood till it is seen as anchored in the broader principle of sola gratia. What is the source and status of faith? Is it the God-given means whereby the God-given justification is received, or is it a condition of justification which it is left to man to fulfill? Is it a part of God’s gift of salvation, or is it man’s own contribution to salvation? Is our salvation wholly of God, or does it ultimately depend on something that we do for ourselves? (“Historical and Theological Introduction” to Bondage of the Will)

If a person teaches another that s/he needs to come up with faith and does not teach them about what faith is and where it comes from, then that person is in reality teaching a person to look to self and trust in self for salvation. It may be that the person is taught to look to Christ alone in words, but if the soul looks to itself to look to Christ then it is trusting in itself to trust in Christ and that is a work. That is nothing different than teaching a person that s/he has a condition for salvation to fulfill and that if that condition is fulfilled God will justify that soul. Since human beings are born Pelagians and all Pelagians look to self for all things, every soul will look to self first for what is needed. If the soul is not taught that faith is a gift of God, it will simply assume that it can have faith on its own. It will naturally (what is according to its Pelagian nature) assume that faith is what it must do.

The Gospel of Scripture is that of grace alone (Rom 3:24-4:9; 11:6; Eph 2:4-10). There is no work that Christ did not do and as such leave it for men to obtain or work up on their own. Instead of looking to themselves for faith, men should look to God for a new heart so that they can believe. In this way and in this way alone is salvation wholly of God and does not depend on the human will for many or one work for salvation. The work of salvation has been accomplished by Christ and only the Holy Spirit alone can apply it to the soul. There is nothing the human soul can do to obtain salvation or even to obtain faith by which Christ is received. This is wholly the work of God and it is by grace alone apart from all works of human beings.

If the heart of sin is unbelief, then to be rescued from the bondage of evil and of sin includes the rescue from a heart that is dead in its unbelief and made alive in faith and unity with Christ. A heart of belief cannot be the work of unbelief and a heart of faith cannot come from non-faith. A work of life cannot be by the work of death and a work of the Spirit cannot come from the heart of the flesh. A work that pleases God cannot come from a heart that is at enmity with Him and a work of love for God cannot come from a heart that hates God. A work of grace cannot come from an unregenerate heart and a work through Christ cannot come from one who is not in Christ. The salvation of God cannot depend on the work of man and a new heart by the work of the Spirit cannot depend on the act of the old heart. This all shows how absurd it is to depend on the work of faith from the human soul.

This should also show the danger of not teaching people where faith comes from. We can be very orthodox in teaching what God does in order to justify sinners, but if we don’t tell sinners all the works of God in salvation and how justification is applied we are ultimately leaving the sinner in their own hands to come up with faith. If we teach sinners that they must believe and yet do not teach them that they must be born again to believe and how true faith really comes, then how are we telling them the whole story of the Gospel? How are we being anything worse than Pelagians if we ultimately give sinners part of the Gospel of grace alone and then leave them in their own hands (practically speaking) to come up with faith and a believing heart?