God Loves… Himself

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

The doctrine of justification by faith was important to them because it safeguarded the principle of sovereign grace; but it actually expressed for them only one aspect of this principle, and that not its deepest aspect. The sovereignty of grace found expression in their thinking at a profounder level still, in the doctrine of monergistic regeneration—the doctrine, that is, that the faith which receives Christ for justification is itself the free gift of a sovereign God, bestowing by spiritual regeneration in the act of effectual calling. (“Historical and Theological Introduction” to Bondage of the Will)

Justification by faith alone safeguards the principle of sovereign grace. This cannot be repeated strongly enough and should be repeated over and over. Apart from sovereign grace there is no true teaching of justification by faith alone. Justification by faith alone as it safeguards sovereign grace must then be a safeguard to the doctrine of monergistic (sole worker) regeneration or the Gospel of justification by grace alone through faith alone will not be taught. Justification by faith alone, then, in its proper context of sovereign grace which the two are to safeguard monergistic regeneration so that faith is itself the gift of God. If we boil that down, what we see is that the true doctrine of justification by faith alone will teach where faith comes from so that it will be clearly seen that it is sovereign grace in monergistic regeneration that gives faith to the soul so that faith itself is by grace alone.

Rom 4:16 plainly says that it is by faith so that it may be by grace. If we are not clear about that then we cannot be clear about justification by faith alone despite the fact that people use the words and are not clear. Ephesians 2:8 tells us that “by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God.” So we see again that for grace to save through faith the soul must see that the faith is the gift of God too. A true doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone can only stand if faith itself is a free gift of sovereign grace. Those who teach that the will is free to come up with its own faith cannot teach the true doctrine of justification by faith alone, and not only that but those who support such teachings are not supporting the true doctrine of justification by faith alone. Scripture does not give us the warrant to teach anything less than a doctrine of grace alone and it does not give us a warrant to do anything less than be strong for the Gospel. Those who want to be gracious and winsome rather than stand strong are not standing for the Gospel. They may extend their hands and build bridges to forms of Pelagianism in order to retain influence and power in denominations, but they do so at the expense of the Gospel. This shows the state of their hearts when they do so.

The Reformation teaching (and I would argue the biblical teaching) was that justification by grace alone through faith alone must teach that faith itself is a free gift of God who gives it by spiritual regeneration, and that He gives it by grace alone or it is not a true Gospel and is not justification by grace alone through faith alone. If one changes the meaning of justification from what it meant to the Reformers, then the whole doctrine has been changed from what the Reformers taught. If one changes the concept and nature of faith from what the Reformers taught, then one has also changed the whole doctrine from what the Reformers taught. If one changes what the Reformers taught about justification and faith and the Reformers taught what the Bible taught and teaches on those, then one is guilty of being different from what the Bible teaches. But again, as Luther so plainly taught, those who use the words of justification by faith alone and yet do not teach the biblical teaching on those (grace alone), they are worse than those who openly deny the Gospel. While many professing Reformed people today disdain Charles Finney for his open hostility to the Gospel of grace alone, Luther would say they are worse than Finney because Finney was open about it while they hide their dislike or shame of the Gospel of grace alone behind words.

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

The doctrine of justification by faith was important to them because it safeguarded the principle of sovereign grace; but it actually expressed for them only one aspect of this principle, and that not its deepest aspect. The sovereignty of grace found expression in their thinking at a profounder level still, in the doctrine of monergistic regeneration—the doctrine, that is, that the faith which receives Christ for justification is itself the free gift of a sovereign God, bestowing by spiritual regeneration in the act of effectual calling. (“Historical and Theological Introduction” to Bondage of the Will)

We have seen how justification by faith alone is meant to safeguard the principle of sovereign grace and that any teaching of justification by faith alone that does not safeguard sovereign grace is a different doctrine of justification than what Martin Luther taught the Scripture taught. But the doctrine of justification by faith alone does not just point to something called “sovereign grace” in some abstract way, but is inextricably linked with monergistic (God as the sole worker) regeneration through and by sovereign grace. In other words, the true and biblical doctrine of justification by faith alone, as set out by the Reformers, cannot be separated from monergistic regeneration which can only happen by sovereign grace. In order for grace to be truly grace there must be no works of the sinner involved at all (Rom 11:6). In order for a true faith to be a true faith, it can only be in accordance with grace and grace alone. The only job of faith is to receive grace.

In getting back to Luther and his assertion in the first paragraph above, we must note that he wrote that against Erasmus and Roman Catholicism who condemned Pelagianism but then turned around and taught it with different words. He said that it was worse to teach it under a guise than to teach it openly. So when people today (or any other day) teach that sinners are justified by faith alone and yet teach something other than a sovereign grace and teaching something different than monergistic regeneration, those people are not teaching the truth about justification by faith alone and are using it as a guise to teach a gospel that is less than grace alone.

If justification is to be by faith alone, then the soul must be regenerated by grace alone and faith itself must come to the soul by grace alone. If faith is not a free gift, then salvation as a whole is not a free gift and is God’s response to the work of a will that is free from grace. The Gospel hinges on this issue and it must not be let go of. It will not do to simply say that a person is justified by faith alone and then have no concern with some of the details. The devil is in the details of the Gospel and he will blind, distort, and deceive in order to twist the thinking and the souls of people so that they will not see the truth in the details that the Gospel hinges on.

In reality, however, the issues with monergistic (sole worker) regeneration are far more than mere details. They are at the heart of the Gospel. The sinner is taught to either look to himself for what is lacking or to look to God alone for what needs to be done in the soul. If some part of justification depends on the sinner himself, then the sinner is not looking to God and His grace alone in the matter but is looking to self to do something. If God is waiting on the sinner to respond or do something, then salvation is God responding to the act of the sinner and so salvation in some way depends on what the sinner does. This is one way the devil sneaks his way in the details. He gets people focused on “faith alone” and they forget that salvation is by the work of God alone by grace alone. They use words that say “grace alone” and “glory alone,” but the biblical view of justification by faith alone will not stand with the true views of their hearts. Those who use orthodox words (faith and grace alone, justification by faith alone), but do not tie them together to show the utter necessity of sovereign grace and monergistic regeneration, are teaching a false gospel with orthodox words. They are more dangerous than those who teach a false gospel openly.

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

The doctrine of justification by faith was important to them because it safeguarded the principle of sovereign grace; but it actually expressed for them only one aspect of this principle, and that not its deepest aspect. The sovereignty of grace found expression in their thinking at a profounder level still, in the doctrine of monergistic regeneration—the doctrine, that is, that the faith which receives Christ for justification is itself the free gift of a sovereign God, bestowing by spiritual regeneration in the act of effectual calling. (“Historical and Theological Introduction” to Bondage of the Will)

The doctrine of justification by faith alone may indeed be the hinge on which the Gospel swings, but to the Reformers there were deeper reasons for teaching justification by faith alone. While these few BLOGS may be repetitive in some ways, there is a great need for this repetition. We have heard for so long that justification by faith alone is important, but we have not heard the real reason why it is important. The most important part of justification by faith alone is that when taught in its biblical context it safeguards the principle of sovereign grace. We need to hear that over and over in light of today’s focus on teaching justification by faith alone apart from the sovereign grace of God. Even more, the quote from Luther himself (top quote above) shows that he thought that those who denied certain truths and yet still taught them in different words were worse than those who actually taught great error openly and plainly.

In modern day teaching we have many people teaching something called “justification by faith alone,” yet they are not defending sovereign grace by that teaching. It is quite simple to see, then, that they are not teaching the same doctrine as the Reformers did though they are using the same words. What they are doing, then, is teaching some form of justification while at the same time denying the very heart of it by either holding to free-will (which is contrary to sovereign grace) or simply saying that the Arminian teaching of justification is still the same Gospel.
If the Gospel of justification by faith alone is meant to safeguard the teaching of sovereign grace, then apart from safeguarding the sovereign grace of God it is a completely different doctrine. Those who claim to be Reformed and yet do not safeguard the principle of sovereign grace by justification by faith alone are not children of the Reformers at all. Those who say that the Arminian view of justification is the same as the Reformed view of justification are simply mislead on what justification really is and what it is meant to do.

Galatians 1:6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! 9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed! 10 For am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bond-servant of Christ.

What Gospel is Paul defending here? He is defending the Gospel of the grace of Christ and the Gospel of Christ. Anything contrary to that Gospel is one that he said people were to be accursed for. Anyone, regardless of theological persuasion, academic qualifications, or of angelic origin was to be accursed if s/he taught a different gospel. A different gospel can be taught using the words “justification by faith alone” and not safeguarding grace alone and Christ alone. Any so-called gospel that is not of grace alone makes grace to be no longer grace at all. “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace” (Rom 11:6). Anyone that teaches a so-called gospel that does not safe-guard sovereign grace (the only kind of grace there really is) does not teach a gospel of grace alone and Christ alone. We must beware as men who teach what sounds orthodox and yet denies the truth by it are worse than those who teach a false gospel openly.

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

On other points, they [Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bucer] had their differences; but in asserting the helplessness of man in sin, and the sovereignty of God in grace, they were entirely at one. To all of them, these doctrines were the very life-blood of the Christian faith. A modern editor of Luther’s great work underscores this fact: ‘Whoever puts this book down without having realized that evangelical theology stands or falls with the doctrine of the bondage of the will has read it in vain… The doctrine of free justification by faith only, which became the storm-center of so much controversy during the Reformation period, is often regarded as the heart of the Reformer’s theology, but this is hardly accurate. The truth is that their thinking was really centered upon the contention of Paul, echoed with varying degrees of adequacy by Augustine, and Gottschalk, and Bradwardine, and Wycliffe, that the sinner’s entire salvation is by free and sovereign grace only. The doctrine of justification by faith was important to them because it safeguarded the principle of sovereign grace;’ (“Historical and Theological Introduction” to Bondage of the Will)

Can it be true that there are those (perhaps many, and perhaps many professing Reformed) who teach justification by faith alone and that men are saved by grace alone who are worse than those who openly teach salvation by works? According to Luther, that would be the case. In any day one must be careful about the work of deceitful men and the devil who loves to hide and distort the Gospel with some truth. In the modern day it seems that a great deception has been passed off using many things to hide the truth. One, the truth of justification by faith alone has been hidden or obscured by not showing how it is linked with the truths it is meant to protect and set forth. Two, the truth of love has been replaced with niceness and the idea of what it means to be tell the truth in love has been replaced with being gracious and winsome.

Luther is so very clear that it is worse to say you are not teaching something and then teach the same thing though it is hidden underneath the use of words. That is precisely what is going on in the modern day. The truth of the real nature of justification by faith alone is being hidden from people by using orthodox language of justification by faith alone. This requires prayer and the wisdom that will only come from meditation and prayer. The Gospel that thundered forth in the days of the Reformation was a Gospel of the sovereign grace of God and justification by faith alone was intended to preserve that. But in our day we have “Reformed” people who accept words and doctrines of justification that not only do not preserve the sovereign grace of God in justification, but in fact can be held by those who hate it.

The truth of the Gospel was defended and set forth by Luther in his The Bondage of the Will. “The doctrine of justification by faith was important to them because it safeguarded the principle of sovereign grace.” Those who teach justification by faith alone and do not safeguard the principle of sovereign grace are not teaching the same Gospel as Martin Luther and John Calvin did. To put it in different words, those who do not defend the sovereign grace of God in salvation are not defending the heart of the Reformation Gospel. Those who do not defend the sovereign grace of God in salvation are not defending the life-blood of Christianity (according to the Reformation). Those who do not stand and defend the sovereign grace of God as an essential part of the Gospel are part of “Evangelical” theology falling to the ground. In our day where graciousness and niceness have replaced speaking the truth in love, we must be awakened to the great old truths of the Gospel in order that we may speak in love and in the love of truth and in the truth of love. There is no love apart from 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)

On other points, they [Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bucer] had their differences; but in asserting the helplessness of man in sin, and the sovereignty of God in grace, they were entirely at one. To all of them, these doctrines were the very life-blood of the Christian faith. A modern editor of Luther’s great work underscores this fact: ‘Whoever puts this book down without having realized that evangelical theology stands or falls with the doctrine of the bondage of the will has read it in vain… The doctrine of free justification by faith only, which became the storm-center of so much controversy during the Reformation period, is often regarded as the heart of the Reformer’s theology, but this is hardly accurate. The truth is that their thinking was really centered upon the contention of Paul, echoed with varying degrees of adequacy by Augustine, and Gottschalk, and Bradwardine, and Wycliffe, that the sinner’s entire salvation is by free and sovereign grace only. The doctrine of justification by faith was important to them because it safeguarded the principle of sovereign grace;’ (“Historical and Theological Introduction” to Bondage of the Will)

These words should act as bombshells in the minds and souls of those who read them. If those words are true, then much of professing Christianity is nothing more than a form of false religion going under the guise of what is true. If those words are true, then much of what passes as Reformed in our day is also false religion going under the guise of orthodoxy and even operating by Reformed Confessions. Paul was so clear in Galatians 1:6-9 that there is only one Gospel. He is also just as clear that there are those (perhaps many) who want to distort the gospel of Christ. When people leave grace alone in truth and not just in grace alone in words, they are deserting Him for a different gospel.

In this post a little more of the quote (see above) is given. Why is it that the doctrines of man’s entire helplessness in sin and the sovereignty of God in grace the very life-blood of Christianity? It is because of how those things are related to Christ and the Gospel of grace alone. Why is it that Evangelical theology stands or falls with the doctrine of the bondage of the will? It is because of its inextricable link to the sovereignty of grace and justification by faith alone. What has come down to our modern day is that justification by faith alone is the Gospel, but that is not the whole story. One can read modern books on justification and not realize some of the real issues of the Reformation (as they wrestled with the biblical teaching) on the Gospel. The doctrine of faith alone is only important or even saving to the degree that it protects and sets out justification by grace alone. However, it is not just by any type of grace, but of a free and sovereign grace. In other words, if we don’t teach and preach a Gospel that is inextricably linked to a free and sovereign grace, we are not teaching the Gospel of the Reformation or of Scripture. If we don’t teach and preach a Gospel that is inextricably linked to the bondage of man’s will, then there is no real preaching of the Gospel of grace alone.

Romans 4:16 teaches us why it is by faith: “For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace.” Justification is by faith so that it may be in accordance with grace. Romans 11:6 teaches us what it must be grace and grace alone: “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.” A grace that mixes in a human work in reality, though it may not in words, makes grace to be no longer grace. Grace alone is the only kind of grace that will save the soul. A true faith, then, must be delivered from all hope and faith in self and its own will in order to rest and trust in grace alone. Those who use the language of the Reformation to hide and disguise the truth of grace alone, even though they use the lingo, are worse than those who clearly teach a so-called gospel by works.

I am not sure that it can be stated with enough force in a written medium. The Gospel itself cannot be proclaimed in truth apart from teaching man’s utter helplessness in sin and the sovereign grace that alone can save man from sin. It is not the doctrines alone that must be taught, but the reality of these great truths. It is not just the doctrines that man must give intellectual assent to, but it is the reality of the work of God in the human soul by grace alone. Grace is not just a biblical word that we must know some definition of, but it is a spiritual reality and is of the character of God. It is why and how God works in the souls of human beings. There is no Gospel of faith alone that is apart from a Gospel of grace alone, yet there is no Gospel of grace alone apart from the God who operates by grace alone. The Gospel of grace alone encompasses the activity and character of God who will only save to the glory of His grace alone. That is why it must be by grace alone so that it may be to His glory alone. Those who obscure this great truth are in fact obscuring the glory of God. It matters not what a man professes to be and how orthodox a man is on paper or intellectual assent, if a man is set on obscuring the glory of God that man is in great danger. If a man is obscuring the Gospel of grace alone through a professed orthodoxy and the glory of God in that, then that man is at enmity with God and is worse than those who openly profess heresy.

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

On other points, they [Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bucer] had their differences; but in asserting the helplessness of man in sin, and the sovereignty of God in grace, they were entirely at one. To all of them, these doctrines were the very life-blood of the Christian faith. A modern editor of Luther’s great work underscores this fact: ‘Whoever puts this book down without having realized that evangelical theology stands or falls with the doctrine of the bondage of the will has read it in vain.’ (“Historical and Theological Introduction” to Bondage of the Will)

The very life-blood of Christianity flows through the veins of man’s entire helplessness in sin and the sovereignty of God in grace. As future quotes will show, to the Reformer’s “the doctrine of justification by faith was important to them because it safeguarded the principle of sovereign grace.” In other words, one can be very precise in the language of holding to something called justification by faith alone but if one denies sovereign grace one denies the whole reason for justification by faith alone. In other words, if the Church stands or falls on the doctrine of justification by faith alone, then it also stands or falls by what justification by faith alone was meant to preserve.

The doctrine of the Gospel of grace alone is at stake in these issues and yet those who are supposed to stand firm on these great truths say they personally believe them but that one does not have to believe them to be saved. That is tantamount to saying that one does not have to believe the Gospel to be saved. But if the Reformer’s thought that sovereign grace was preserved by justification by faith alone, yet modern people think that people can believe in justification by faith alone without believing in sovereign grace, then perhaps we don’t believe in the same Gospel as the Reformers did. Perhaps the professing Reformed in our modern day are holding to a form of the Gospel and yet don’t have it.

If indeed “evangelical theology stands or falls with the doctrine of the bondage of the will,” then how many people really hold to evangelical theology today? Apart from the bondage of the will there is no helplessness of man in sin and there is no real sovereignty of grace. Perhaps we should use plainer language than the quote did. Biblical Christianity stands or falls with the doctrine of the bondage of the will. This is very strong language, but that does not mean that it is not true. It does not sound gracious, but it is the only teaching that is consistent with the Gospel of grace alone. The Pelagian has much to do to be saved, which does not allow for a sovereign grace to save by grace alone. The Arminian has one work of the ‘free-will’ to do, at least in theory, which leaves salvation in the hands and choice of the human rather than in the hands of sovereign grace. So Arminianism denies both elements of the life-blood of Christianity. It denies the helplessness of man in sin and it denies the sovereignty of grace.

Where should that leave those who claim to follow the Reformers? It leaves them completely out of step with the Reformers and it leaves them being against the Reformers. “With what right may we call ourselves children of the Reformation? Much modern Protestantism would be neither owned nor even recognized by the pioneer Reformers.” We could go on even farther and say that not only would much of modern Reformed thinking not  be owned nor recognized by the pioneer Reformers, but would be fought against too. Luther would recognize much of what is going on how as something he fought against in his time. He would would have something to say to those who profess to be Reformed and yet are in alliance as brothers to those who deny the helplessness of man in sin and the sovereignty of grace. He would say, as he did centuries ago, “By word and pen they deny it, but really, in their hearts, they establish it, and are worse than the Pelagians.” We need to take that to heart today and in all periods of time until Christ returns.

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

On other points, they [Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bucer] had their differences; but in asserting the helplessness of man in sin, and the sovereignty of God in grace, they were entirely at one. To all of them, these doctrines were the very life-blood of the Christian faith. A modern editor of Luther’s great work underscores this fact: ‘Whoever puts this book down without having realized that evangelical theology stands or falls with the doctrine of the bondage of the will has read it in vain.’ (“Historical and Theological Introduction” to Bondage of the Will)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On other points, they [Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Bucer] had their differences; but in asserting the helplessness of man in sin, and the sovereignty of God in grace, they were entirely at one. To all of them, these doctrines were the very life-blood of the Christian faith. A modern editor of Luther’s great work underscores this fact: ‘Whoever puts this book down without having realized that evangelical theology stands or falls with the doctrine of the bondage of the will has read it in vain.’ The doctrine of free justification by faith only, which became the storm-center of so much controversy during the Reformation period, is often regarded as the heart of the Reformer’s theology, but this is hardly accurate. The truth is that their thinking was really centered upon the contention of Paul, echoed with varying degrees of adequacy by Augustine, and Gottschalk, and Bradwardine, and Wycliffe, that the sinner’s entire salvation is by free and sovereign grace only. The doctrine of justification by faith was important to them because it safeguarded the principle of sovereign grace; but it actually expressed for them only one aspect of this principle, and that not its deepest aspect. The sovereignty of grace found expression in their thinking at a profounder level still, in the doctrine of monergistic regeneration—the doctrine, that is, that the faith which receives Christ for justification is itself the free gift of a sovereign God, bestowing by spiritual regeneration in the act of effectual calling. To the Reformers, the crucial question was not simply, whether God justifies believers without works of law. It was the broader question, whether sinners are wholly helpless in their sin, and whether God is to be thought of as saving them by free, unconditional, invincible grace, not only justifying them for Christ’s sake when they come to faith, but also raising them from the death of sin by His quickening Spirit in order to bring them to faith. Here was the crucial issue; whether God is the author, not merely of justification, but also of faith; whether, in the last analysis, Christianity is a religion of utter reliance on God for salvation and all things necessary to it, or of self-reliance and self-effort. ‘Justification by faith only’ is a truth that needs interpretation. The principle of sola fide is not rightly understood till it is seen as anchored in the broader principle of sola gratia. What is the source and status of faith? Is it the God-given means whereby the God-given justification is received, or is it a condition of justification which it is left to man to fulfill? Is it a part of God’s gift of salvation, or is it man’s own contribution to salvation? is our salvation wholly of God, or does it ultimately depend on something that we do for ourselves? Those who say the latter (as the Arminians later did) thereby deny man’s utter helplessness in sin, and affirm that a form of semi-Pelagianism is true after all. It is no wonder, then, that later Reformed theology condemned Arminianism as being in principle a return to Rome (because in effect it turned faith into a meritorious work) and a betrayal of the Reformation (because it denied the sovereignty of God in saving sinners, which was the deepest religious and theological principle of the Reformer’s thought). Arminianism was, indeed, in Reformed eyes a renunciation of New Testament Christianity in favor of New Testament Judaism; for to rely on oneself for faith is no different in principle from relying on oneself for works, and the one is as un-Christian and anti-Christian as the other. In the light of what Luther says to Erasmus, there is no doubt that he would have endorsed this judgment. (“Historical and Theological Introduction” to Bondage of the Will)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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