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)

Roman Catholicism sets out a form of merit that they call “condign merit.” It refers to a merit that God rewards and must reward with grace if He is just. They insist that this form of merit comes because of the work of the Holy Spirit in and on the sinner and the sinner who does good works by the Spirit will be given condign merit. What this does, then, according to Rome, protects them against Pelagianism while still allowing them a place for good works in their theology of grace. What follows is a quote from the Council of Trent, Canon 32:

“If anyone says that the good works of the one justified are in such manner the gifts of God that they are not also the good merits of him justified; or that the one justified by the good works that he performs by the grace of God and the merit of Jesus Christ, whose living member he is, does not truly merit an increase of grace, eternal life, and in case he dies in grace, the attainment of eternal life itself and also an increase of glory, let him be anathema.”

Luther pointed out something very important in his time and is something very important in the modern day as well as any day that is to come. Pelagianism taught that one is saved by the works that he does. One is either declared just on the basis of works or is kept saved by the works that are done. This is thought of in terms of a kind of merit where God rewards works with grace. But of course in Scripture there is in no sense or way that God gives grace based on works. Paul put it this way in Romans 3:28, as well as several other places, “we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.” God justifies sinners apart from works of the Law.

Luther is quite clear and agrees that Rome denies Pelagianism with its mouth and pen, but he is just as clear that Rome teaches it in reality. But even more, Luther says that Rome is worse than Pelagianism. But if they are both teaching the same thing in essence, what makes Rome worse than Pelagianism? It is because they deny teaching it and “try to fool us with lying words and false appearances.” They opposed Pelagianism with their words, but in their hearts they were Pelagians. In other words, they tricked themselves into believing and practicing what they said was wrong by using words to escape the truth. Then they deceived others into the belief and practice of Pelagianism under a guise as well.

Luther is telling us and warning us of the fact that people can and do believe things in their hearts that they deny by their spoken and written words. In our day we have a lot of people who profess to believe things that they really don’t and profess to deny things that they really believe in their hearts. It is not enough to say we believe that Pelagianism is wrong if our hearts are Pelagian. It is not enough to say that we are not Pelagian when our actions are Pelagian. It is not enough to say that we are Arminian if we are in fact Pelagian. It is not enough to say we are Reformed if our hearts are Arminian or Pelagian. It is not enough to say we hold to the Westminster Confession of the London Baptist Confession if our hearts don’t believe the same things those men taught. It is not enough to assert that we believe in justification by faith alone if we only believe it is the truth in our brains. It is not enough to assert that justification by faith alone is true if we deny what the Bible really teaches on the subject. In fact, those who claim to hold to justification by faith alone and yet deny it in their hearts and practices are worse than those who outright deny it. The Reformed doctrine of justification by faith alone has been growing in numbers as to those who profess to believe it, but that does not mean that the numbers who profess to believe it are those who really believe it. Could it be that in God’s judgment upon the professing Church that He has given us a blindness to the Gospel in the very name of orthodoxy? God blessed Luther’s generation with the Gospel and then the blessings that attend the Gospel. The modern generation has neither despite its outward profession.

And what will the guardians of ‘free-will’ say to what follows: ‘being justified freely by His grace’? What does ‘freely’ mean? What does ‘be His grace’ mean? How will endeavour, and merit, accord with freely given righteousness? Perhaps they will here say that they assign to ‘free-will’ as little as possible, not by any means condign merit. But there are empty words; for what is being sought by means of ‘free-will’ is that merit may have its place…There is no such thing as merit at all, but all that are justified are justified freely, and this is ascribed to nothing but the grace of God. And when righteousness is given, then the kingdom and eternal life are given with it. Where is your endeavour now? And your effort? And your good works? And the merits of ‘free-will’? What use are they? (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

The above statement gets at the real issue. It is whether salvation is by grace plus just a little bit of a will that is free from sin and grace or the view that salvation is by grace and grace alone from beginning to end. If there is nothing that a will can do to assist in justification, in obtaining the righteousness of God, or even in doing the smallest good work, then what good is it to continue to hold to the teaching of ‘free-will’ at any point in the matter? The will is absolutely and totally unable to obtain anything good or pleasing to God by itself. The Gospel is to the glory of His grace alone. Why do people continue to assert a salvation that depends on ‘free-will’ and why do those who think of themselves as Reformed continue to think of the Arminian view as essentially the same message? The two views are not even close to each other.

People want to adhere to some form of ‘free-will’ in order to have some control over their own salvation. It is nothing more than pride and self-reliance and a refusal to bow to the sovereign hand of God. The assertion of a will that is free, even if it is just a little bit free, from the bondage of sin and from the grace of God (have to assert both to obtain a will that is free) is to assert both sides of a view that is against the plain teaching of Scripture. The Word of God declares that man is in bondage to sin (John 8:34), dead in sins and trespasses (Eph 2:1-3), and that apart from Christ no one can do anything spiritual (John 15:5). This leaves man in a totally helpless state and one that is utter need of grace alone to do it all rather than for grace to do most of the work.

The ‘free-will’ of man is of no use at all in terms of salvation because the will of a person that is dead in sins is not free. The ‘free-will’ of man is of no use because the will of a person under the total dominion of the evil one and of the powers of darkness (Col 1:13) is of no use in terms of obtaining salvation. The ‘free-will’ of man is of no use because the will that is free from Christ can do nothing spiritual or good. So what do we have left? The ‘free-will’ of man is of utterly no benefit, but even more, the ‘free-will’ of man is nothing but the figment of the imagination of man and is exactly what the devil wants man to believe. As long as the sinner does not look to grace but instead to his own will for the slightest help, that sinner is not looking to grace alone and assuredly does not understand the very nature of true grace. The ‘free-will’ of man, therefore, is not only of no use whatsoever, but is actually a great hindrance to the things of salvation and sanctification.

Those who preach to a will that is said to be free cannot preach a Gospel of grace alone. Those who preach to the will that is said to be free are deceiving souls as to the very nature of what it takes to be saved. Souls must be delivered from all hope in self rather than keeping some hope in self and the will of self. Those who say that an Arminian gospel is the same as the Reformed Gospel are simply and deceptively wrong. John Owen wrote about that and has never been answered when he wrote that the Arminian idol was the ‘free-will.’ In other words, the Arminian trusts in his ‘free-will’ at some point rather than trust in grace alone. The Arminian looks to his ‘free-will’ rather than looking to grace alone. The Arminian preaches and teaches people to look to their own ‘free-will’ rather than teach them to look to Christ alone and grace alone. The conclusion is really quite clear. Not only is a ‘free-will’ useless for anything good at all, the teaching of it is teaching a different gospel. That which the soul looks to and depends on for something in salvation rather than grace alone is an idol. Oh how our nation has been given over to a different gospel and what a spiritual famine we are in. When God gives a people over to themselves and their ‘free-will,’ He has given them over to a terrible deception as punishment for sin. How we must flee from our ‘free-wills’ in order to flee to God in total dependence.

And what will the guardians of ‘free-will’ say to what follows: ‘being justified freely by His grace’? What does ‘freely’ mean? What does ‘be His grace’ mean? How will endeavour, and merit, accord with freely given righteousness? Perhaps they will here say that they assign to ‘free-will’ as little as possible, not by any means condign merit. But there are empty words; for what is being sought by means of ‘free-will’ is that merit may have its place…There is no such thing as merit at all, but all that are justified are justified freely, and this is ascribed to nothing but the grace of God. And when righteousness is given, then the kingdom and eternal life are given with it. Where is your endeavour now? And your effort? And your good works? And the merits of ‘free-will’? What use are they? (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

The last five sentences of Luther should haunt the thinking soul and/or a soul that has been or is awakened. When the Scriptures are so clear that God justifies freely by His grace, and that means that there is no cause in the human being for why He justifies but rather all the cause is found in Himself, what good can be assigned to the ‘free-will’ in light of that? No matter what merit, ability, or freedom of act that is assigned to the ‘free-will,’ there is no place for it in the justification that God grants by grace alone. Justification is assigned to the grace of God and the grace of God alone. There is no room or place for the ‘free-will’ in light of grace alone.

In light of that, then what good is the endeavour of the will now? What can a will that is free from grace (by definition, a will that is free must be free from grace) actually do in a salvation that is all of grace? What can the will attempt or make efforts to do in a “system” that has no room for those attempts or efforts? Only those who stop working can receive this salvation that is by grace alone (Rom 4:1-6). So how can the will that is free from grace ever be free from its own efforts in order to receive grace which only comes apart from its efforts? Oh how awful it is to see people defending ‘free-will’ and those who teach it when in fact those who truly hold to it are holding to a form of teaching that is opposite to the Gospel of grace alone. What room is there for the efforts of the will when Christ and Christ alone saves sinners? Will the sinner try to contribute one little thing to his own salvation? What an abomination to God that would be to even try, but that is exactly what ‘free-will’ does.

The Scriptures set out so clearly that is not the efforts of man that matter, but rather the mercy of God. “So then it does not depend on the man who wills or the man who runs, but on God who has mercy” (Rom 9:16). The Scripture says so very clearly that it is not the man who wills, but all depends on God who has mercy. Matthew 11:25 gives us another angle on this: “At that time Jesus said, “I praise You, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that You have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent and have revealed them to infants.” Is the wise and intelligent person free to yank these hidden things from the power and wisdom to God and reveal them to himself? Is the wise and intelligent person able to just make himself an infant? Well, then what use is ‘free-will’ in terms of seeking or applying salvation to the soul? It is utterly and completely worthless.

Scripture has set out so very clearly that the righteousness of God comes to the soul apart from good works. So what benefit are good works for salvation? Should we tell a person that one good work will help in his or her salvation? Well, then why do we tell a person that salvation depends on that person making one act of the will which must be good or it is nothing but a work of the filthy flesh? What use is an act of the will in terms of justification? What can it benefit the soul? The Word of God takes its stand against ‘free-will’ and all that it supposedly can do when it says that justification is by grace alone. The Word of God leaves the ‘free-will’ with utterly nothing to do when it says that it is not of the man who wills (Rom 9:16). The Word of God does not leave the will anything to do when it tells us that sinners are dead in sins and trespasses and it is God’s grace alone that raises them from the dead (Eph 2:1-10). There is utterly no room for the ‘free-will’ to sneak in and do one little work that helps in any way for salvation.

Luther’s questions are very pointed and get the point home. There is no room for the ‘free-will’ of man and its activities in justification. There is no room for the works or efforts of the will because justification is apart from the willing of man and relies totally on the mercy and grace of God. In other words, people must repent of all that their wills can do when they are free from grace in order that they may rely on the grace of God in Christ alone. The will of man must be repented of in order that he may rest in Christ alone. The teaching of ‘free-will,’ then, is not just a little bit wrong, it is an attack on the Gospel of grace alone and Christ alone.

And what will the guardians of ‘free-will’ say to what follows: ‘being justified freely by His grace’? What does ‘freely’ mean? What does ‘be His grace’ mean? How will endeavour, and merit, accord with freely given righteousness? Perhaps they will here say that they assign to ‘free-will’ as little as possible, not by any means condign merit. But there are empty words; for what is being sought by means of ‘free-will’ is that merit may have its place…There is no such thing as merit at all, but all that are justified are justified freely, and this is ascribed to nothing but the grace of God. And when righteousness is given, then the kingdom and eternal life are given with it. Where is your endeavour now? And your effort? And your good works? And the merits of ‘free-will’? What use are they? (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

This is perhaps an unanswerable point by Luther when he points out what Paul wrote in Romans 3:24. The text of that passage says this: “being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus.” Where is there room for merit or the actions of a ‘free-will’ in this passage of Scripture? The older versions used the word “freely” while the newer versions use the word “gift.” Both the old and the new are trying to get at the point of the text, but perhaps both miss the main point just a little in terms of modern ways of thinking. The modern thought of a gift is that it is given because it is a certain time of year. The modern thought of the word “free” is just that it did not cost anything. But the Scripture use is different.

In John 15:25 we have the same language used. There we have Jesus’ recorded saying about what other thought of Him: “’THEY HATED ME WITHOUT A CAUSE.’” What is translated as “freely” or as “gift” in Romans 3:24 is translated “without cause” in John 15:25. This gets at the real issue behind what a true “freely” and a true “gift” really point to. As Jesus was hated free of a true cause and was hated because of no link to merit (gift), so God justifies sinners on the basis of something they are free from. In other words, there is no cause within them to justify them. The cause for justification is found completely and wholly in God and in God alone as He has merited salvation by Jesus Christ and Him alone.

How does the word “freely,” then, fit with the teaching of ‘free-will’ at all? It does not. If God justifies sinners when they of their own ‘free-will’ choose Him, then He is justifying them based on something they have done or something in them rather than by grace and grace alone. If His justification of sinners is based on something that the sinner has done, even if in the slightest way, then sinners are not justified apart from anything in them or apart from any merit or cause other than Christ alone. If righteousness comes to the soul as a gift based on what Christ has done alone, then salvation can still be as a free (uncaused by the sinner in any way) gift and apart from any merit whatsoever. But if righteousness comes as a result of the smallest act of the sinner that does not come from grace, then the Gospel is not of grace alone and of Christ alone.

What we end up with, then, is a justification that is either sought by grace alone because of Christ alone or a justification that has been purchased by Christ and is up to the so-called ‘free-will’ alone to do something. It is a justification that in some way depends on the ‘free-will’ of the human soul rather than the free-grace of God in Christ Jesus. Each position says that it is of grace and each says that it is of Christ alone, but the ‘free-will’ position leaves us with a gospel that depends on the efforts and will of human beings rather than Christ alone and grace alone. This should show us quite clearly which position is in line with Scripture.

The teaching of ‘free-will’ is a false teaching concerning the Gospel of Jesus Christ. While it says that a person must trust in Christ alone, underneath that it is saying that a person must trust in self to trust in Christ alone. While it says that the Gospel is by grace alone, underneath that it is saying that an act of the will which is free of the power of grace must enable the soul to rest in grace alone. What the teaching of ‘free-will’ does, then, is destroy the Gospel of Christ alone and of grace alone and move the soul to trust in itself and in something it does. It is a return to a works salvation though in a sneakier way. It is not possible to teach ‘free-will’ and the Gospel of free-grace and Christ alone at the same time. For those who are Reformed, it is not possible to truly preach a Gospel of grace alone while saying that Arminians and Pelagians are preaching the same Gospel. Something is wrong at some point and we must wake up to this.

Another thunderbolt is Paul’s statement that the righteousness of God is manifested and avails ‘unto all and upon all them that believe’ in Christ, and that ‘there is no difference.’ Here again in the plainest words he divides the whole human race into two. To believers he gives the righteousness of God; to unbelievers he denies it. Now, nobody is fool enough to doubt that the power and endeavour of ‘free-will’ is something distinct from faith in Jesus Christ! But Paul denies that anything apart from this faith is righteous before God. And if it is not righteous before God, it must be sin; for with God there remains nothing intermediate between righteousness and sin that is, as it were, neutral, being neither righteousness nor sin. Otherwise, Paul’s entire argument would be wholly ineffective, for its starting-point is just this dichotomy—all that is wrought and done among men is either righteousness or sin in God’s sight; righteousness, if faith is with it; sin, if faith is lacking. With men, indeed, it is the case that actions in which men who owe nothing to each other confer nothing on each other are called ‘intermediate’ and ‘neutral.’ But the ungodly man sins against God, whether he eats, or drinks, or whatever he does, because he abases God’s creation by his ungodliness and persistent ingratitude, and does not from his heart give glory to God for a single moment. (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

The whole human race divided into two, even after all else is boiled down, and we are left with the two major distinctives. Those distinctives are believers (those who love God) and unbelievers (those who are at enmity with God). 1 Corinthians 13 sets this out for us: “If I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but do not have love, I have become a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge; and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 And if I give all my possessions to feed the poor, and if I surrender my body to be burned, but do not have love, it profits me nothing.” Apart from this love there is nothing a person can do that is pleasing or acceptable to God. There is no neutral territory between love for God and enmity to God. The will is not free to be anything less than enmity toward God until it is turned and has love for God.

The will is really the capacity of choice in the human soul, so we can simply say that the human soul is either at enmity to God or loves God. The inclinations and desires of the human soul are either out of love for God or love for self. Again, there is no neutral ground between the two. Being neutral toward God is the same as being against Him and being neutral is certainly not doing all one does out of love for God. Jesus told us that if one does not love the Lord Jesus Christ, “he is to be accursed” (I Cor 16:22). The will is not somewhere between love and non-love, but it is either one or the other. The soul chooses what it chooses each moment out of love for God or out of love for other things which is enmity toward God. The will that is thought to be free in order to choose to love God is not free to choose that which it is at enmity with each moment. The Gospel of Jesus Christ includes the grace of God changing the human heart that it may love God. Love is not a mere choice, but instead it is the inclination and love of the soul. Love reflects the desires and supreme choice of the soul. The will is never free from the supreme loves and choices of the soul as a whole.

Luther says that “the ungodly man sins against God, whether he eats, or drinks, or whatever he does, because he abases God’s creation by his ungodliness and persistent ingratitude, and does not from his heart give glory to God for a single moment.” In other words, the unbeliever sins each moment regardless of what he does. The unbeliever is not in some neutral state, but instead the unbeliever eats and drinks and does whatever he does out of love for self rather than love for God. The unbeliever lives in the presence of God in a constant state of enmity against God, is ungodly in all he does, and has no true gratitude to God each moment of his existence. The unbeliever, though he lives under the Greatest Commandment, violates that command each moment and lives out of love for self. The unbeliever lives under the command to glorify God in all that he does, yet he lives out of love for self and seeks the glory and honor of self. The soul is not free from its chief love and desires and so the will is not free to love God.

Indeed there are many who say that they choose God, but the Pharisees would have said that as well. Many choose God in the sense that they say they do what they do for God, but even in their religious choosing they do not love God and are at enmity with Him. Until the heart is changed religious actions are nothing more than enmity with God as well. While this sounds so negative and hopeless, it actually has true hope at its roots. When a person stops trusting in the so-called ‘free-will’ of self, then the person may look to grace alone. That is the Gospel.

Another thunderbolt is Paul’s statement that the righteousness of God is manifested and avails ‘unto all and upon all them that believe’ in Christ, and that ‘there is no difference.’ Here again in the plainest words he divides the whole human race into two. To believers he gives the righteousness of God; to unbelievers he denies it. Now, nobody is fool enough to doubt that the power and endeavour of ‘free-will’ is something distinct from faith in Jesus Christ! But Paul denies that anything apart from this faith is righteous before God. And if it is not righteous before God, it must be sin; for with God there remains nothing intermediate between righteousness and sin that is, as it were, neutral, being neither righteousness nor sin. Otherwise, Paul’s entire argument would be wholly ineffective, for its starting-point is just this dichotomy—all that is wrought and done among men is either righteousness or sin in God’s sight; righteousness, if faith is with it; sin, if faith is lacking. With men, indeed, it is the case that actions in which men who owe nothing to each other confer nothing on each other are called ‘intermediate’ and ‘neutral.’ But the ungodly man sins against God, whether he eats, or drinks, or whatever he does, because he abases God’s creation by his ungodliness and persistent ingratitude, and does not from his heart give glory to God for a single moment.   (Luther, Bondage of the Will)

A thunderbolt, in Luther’s thinking, or so I would think, is something that kills or obliterates what it hits. Luther was scared of thunderbolts and was knocked to the ground in terror by one earlier in life. So he is not just throwing out loose words, but instead he is speaking of something he thought of as powerful and destructive. In other words, Luther says that the words of this text is a thunderbolt against ‘free-will’ and the “gospel” that relies on the teaching and practice of ‘free-will.’ The context, once again, of the book is that Luther has set out to defend justification by grace alone. The only reason Luther defended faith alone is because he fought for grace alone. The reason that Luther fought against ‘free-will’ so hard is so that he could defend the Gospel of grace alone. When Luther attacks the teaching of ‘free-will,’ he is not just being cranky and mean against those who don’t agree with him, but instead he is defending the Gospel of grace alone. He is not defending against a mere difference of opinion or a philosophical difference at some obtuse level, he is defending the Gospel itself which was, is, and will always be the Gospel of grace alone. The doctrine of ‘free-will’ fights and militates against grace alone and the two cannot stand together. So Luther attacks ‘free-will’ in order to defend the glory of the Gospel of grace alone.

There is nothing apart from faith that can possibly be righteous. Yet, the espousers of ‘free-will’ seem to be asserting that the act of ‘free-will’ is righteous or at least is not unrighteous. A will that is free of true grace cannot be a will that has faith, so how can a will that is free of grace and faith be anything but wholly sinful? Can a ‘free-will’ have enough power and energy to do something that is not unrighteous? No, because those without faith are dead in their sins and trespasses and can do nothing apart from the life of Christ in them. The will that is apart from Christ has no faith and so cannot do anything but what is sinful and unrighteous. For the will to be free it would have to be free enough to be neutral or in the middle state, but Scripture does not leave human beings that middle state. Scripture sets out the fact that man is dead in sins and trespasses or that man is alive in Christ and totally dependant on Christ and His grace alone. So there is no neutral state for man to be in.

As Luther points out, the whole human race is divided into two. There is no room for a third. The human race is divided into believers and unbelievers. Believers are those who have Christ and unbelievers do not have Christ. Unbelievers are dead in sins and trespasses and are in bondage to sin and the devil. Believers are free in Christ, but can do nothing (spiritual or righteous) apart from Christ. There is no middle group of people who have free-will. All people are in bondage to sin and the flesh or they are in slaves of Christ. No unbeliever can please God because those who are in the flesh cannot please God (Rom 8:8). The unbeliever cannot please God “because the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so.”

So unbelievers are not free to walk in salvation as they please, but instead they are hostile to God and have no ability to subject themselves to the law of God. If they are hostile to God and have no ability to subject themselves to the law of God, then clearly they are not free to do so. The person who cannot (not able) subject self to the law of God is not one who can come to God freely from his or her own faith. By definition, one would think, true faith that comes from humility demands that the soul submit itself to God. The unbeliever cannot submit self to God and as such does not have a ‘free-will’ in order to come up with faith.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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