God Loves… Himself

What is excluded from that which is ascribed to ‘free-will’? What need is there of the Spirit, or Christ, or God if ‘free-will’ can overcome the motions of the mind to evil? Again, where is that ‘probable view’ which says that ‘free-will’ cannot even will good? Victory over evil is here ascribed to that which neither wills nor desires good! Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will

Luther, who earlier in this work on the enslaved will, has set out why this teaching is so important. It is necessary to teach the enslavement of the will so that men can see the depths of their sin and of the necessity of sovereign grace. The Arminians and the Pelagians have to ascribe some freedom to the will, but when they do so they are left in the uncomfortable position of being forced to the position that to the degree the will is free is the degree that there is no need of the Spirit and of Christ. This so-called freedom leaves them in the position of saying that their ‘free-will’ can overcome the power of evil in the mind and heart. This refusal of men to give up their ‘free-will’ is a resisting of the humiliation of soul that is necessary to be saved according to Luther.

So these truths are published for the sake of the elect, that they may be humbled and brought down to nothing, and so saved. The rest of men resist this humiliation; indeed, they condemn the teaching of self-despair; they want a little something left that they can do for themselves. Secretly they continue proud, and enemies of the grace of God. This, I repeat, is one reason—that those who fear God might in humility comprehend, claim and receive His gracious promise.

The teaching of the enslaved will gets to the heart of man’s depravity and why he needs a sovereign grace to do it all rather than just a supply of grace he can get the hands of his own will on. Part of the work of grace in the elect is to bring them to a deep sense of their sinfulness and helplessness and then to look to grace alone. As long as men and women leave themselves a ‘free-will’ they are leaving themselves some little something that they can do for themselves. This is nothing less than idolatry because it puts the dispensing of grace in the hands of weak and fallible men rather than the hands of the one and only sovereign God.

God saves to the glory of His grace and that glory He will not share with another. When men reserve any little piece of the will to themselves they are asserting, whether they intend to or not, that grace is not enough and that they must do something to save themselves. Imagine the arrogance and pride of man that things s/he can overcome the power of the evil one by himself and apply grace to himself. While the vast majority of people adhere to ‘free-will’ today, and would perhaps deny the previous assertion as to what it does, nevertheless that is what the position entails. So we have Luther going after the heart of the Arminian and Pelagian position because that position is so opposed to grace alone which is a sovereign grace. After all, there is no other kind of grace in reality other than sovereign grace. When people leave room for their own supposed ‘free-will’ they are actually denying the truth of the only kind of grace there is (sovereign grace).

The adherence to ‘free-will’ is, then, an act of hostility to God. In the words of John Owen, it is the idol of the Arminian. The Arminian and the Pelagian do not want God to be sovereign and so they leave a little room for their own ‘free-will.’ This is hostility and enmity to God. God saves sinners by grace alone according to His good pleasure and sinners want to apply grace to themselves according to their good pleasure. Surely this is an abomination and is a false Gospel. If people are not willing to stand up and call the teaching of ‘free-will’ for what it really is, then they are not contending for the true faith of Scripture. There are so many today who are like Erasmus and want peace within the ranks and denominations at all costs. But we are to stand for the Gospel at all costs even if the world would burn around us as a result. We are to contend for the glory of God and not bow to the honor of men. When we preach and teach the Gospel we are to be more concerned with the glory of God than talking some human being into making a decision that comes from their vaunted ‘free-will.’ If we will not tell men and women that they are totally dependent on the grace of God to save them, we are not preaching the Gospel that Paul preached. There is only one Gospel and it is the Gospel of the grace of God. He is sovereign and all grace is sovereign. If we are ashamed of that and will not preach that, then we are ashamed of God and of the Gospel. We would then be ascribing to ‘free-will’ what grace alone can do. That is idolatry in any court.

For although the first man was not impotent, inasmuch grace assisted him, yet God by this commandment shows him clearly enough how impotent he would be without grace. And if he, who had the Spirit, could not with his new will will a good newly proposed (that is, obedience), because the Spirit did not add that to him, what can we, without the Spirit, do about the good that we have lost? By this dreadful example of that first man, it was shown us, with a view to breaking down our pride, what our ‘free-will’ can do if it is left to itself, and is not continually moved and increased more and more by the Spirit of God…that this passage, and others like it (‘if though art willing’. ‘if thou do’) declare, not man’s ability, but his duty.                Martin Luther, Bondage of the Will

The soul must be shown how impotent it is without grace. We must also dig a little deeper into what that means. A soul that is impotent is not just impotent or powerless for the most part. It is not 90% powerless, not 80% powerless, not 10% powerless, and it is not even 99.99999% powerless. It is completely and totally powerless to do good. The soul does not just need a little grace and not even a lot of grace, it needs grace to do the work in it.

The Gospel of justification by faith alone had the intent of shining forth the glory of God’s grace in salvation alone. Salvation is by grace alone, not by the power of the human will to a small degree and God’s grace making up the rest. With that in mind, it is clear what the intent of the Law and the commands of God are. It is not that God gives His commands with the expectation that human beings can keep them in accordance with the true intent of the commands. God commands that all of His commandments be kept out of perfect love to Him and to human beings. In one sense all of the commands that God gives are commandments that show His perfections and how human beings are to reflect His glory in the world.

Paul teaches in Galatians 2:19 “For through the Law I died to the Law, so that I might live to God.” Sinners must die to the Law in order that they may live to God. But it is through the Law that a person dies to the Law. It is only when the Law is set out in such a way that a person sees that s/he has no ability to keep that Law that the person dies to the Law and to the strength of the self and will to keep that Law. It is not that the Law dies, but that something in the person dies to the Law. The problem is not the Law, but instead it has to do with our proud hearts thinking we can keep the Law in our own strength or perhaps with a little help from grace. No, we are not made sick by the Law to show us that we need some help, but instead we die to the Law. The Law was given in order to show us something about ourselves. We cannot keep it and so we must look to grace alone.

Galatians 3:11 tells us “that no one is justified by the Law before God is evident; for, “THE RIGHTEOUS MAN SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.” No one can be justified by the Law nor can they be justified partially by the Law. The Law tells us that man has no ability to be justified by the Law in any way and in no parts at all. Again, the Law is given in order to teach us that we must have Christ in order to save us from the penalty of the Law as well as be the One in the soul who works in the soul by grace that it may fulfill the Law. Christ fulfilled the Law in one sense while on earth, but He now fulfills the Law in and through His people by keeping it in them. After all, that is at least part of the New Covenant.

Galatians 3:19 and then v. 24 tells us the purpose of the Law. “Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions, having been ordained through angels by the agency of a mediator, until the seed would come to whom the promise had been made. 24 Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.” The Law was not given because human beings have the ability to keep the Law, but to show them their sin and their inability to do so. When the Law shows us the depth of our sin and our inability, it shows us our need for Christ as a sacrifice and Christ as our life. The commands of God, therefore, do not show us what we have the ability to do but what is our duty to do. They do not teach us that we are to do the best we can and grace will make up for what we lack, but that we have no ability at all to keep them in any degree as commanded. It teaches the sinner to die to self and the power of self and to look to Christ alone. It is only when the sinner has died to self and its ability to keep the Law that it can look to Christ alone for grace alone. In other words, the Gospel is not preached or heard until sinners see that they must keep the Law but have no ability to do so. This is at the very heart of the Gospel of Christ alone and grace alone to the glory of God alone.  Man’s ability is the hallmark of Pelagianism while man’s inability and the ability of Christ by grace are dual hallmarks of Christianity. Other than a little lip-service here and there to these things, we have little of true Christianity in our day.

For although the first man was not impotent, inasmuch grace assisted him, yet God by this commandment shows him clearly enough how impotent he would be without grace. And if he, who had the Spirit, could not with his new will will a good newly proposed (that is, obedience), because the Spirit did not add that to him, what can we, without the Spirit, do about the good that we have lost? By this dreadful example of that first man, it was shown us, with a view to breaking down our pride, what our ‘free-will’ can do if it is left to itself, and is not continually moved and increased more and more by the Spirit of God…that this passage, and others like it (‘if though art willing’. ‘if thou do’) declare, not man’s ability, but his duty.                         Martin Luther, Bondage of the Will

Here is another real issue. Was the first man (Adam) really left to his own devices and in his own strength to do what God had commanded him? When God blew into the nostrils of Adam did He sustain him by the Spirit or simply leave him alone? We know from the New Testament (I John 4:7-8) that God is the only origin and source of love and that love is needed for any true obedience. Yet love is the fruit of the Spirit. So it is safe to think of Adam as having the Spirit, though certainly not in the same way as those who come after Christ purchased the Spirit for His people, and needing the Spirit to commune with God and walk in true obedience. But we also see what happened to Adam when he followed his own ways and heart. He fell. Adam was free in his obedience as long as he was upheld by the Spirit. But once he went his own way, he was no longer free in the things of God. It takes the Holy Spirit working in human beings by grace to give them the freedom of obedience. No human being has ever been free to do good apart from the grace of God.

When we look at Adam we should loose all hope and confidence in self. Adam fell into sin and that without being born a sinner. Involved in his sin, if we can look at Satan’s promise to Eve, was that he could be god to himself which was to choose good and evil for himself. That was part of what the devil promised Eve and part and parcel of that is what is promised by those who hold to a free-will. The teaching of free-will is that the soul can choose good or evil for itself. Genesis 3:5 gives us this awful picture: “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” This is the promise of free-will as well. The promise to know in Genesis 3:5 is not just to know about, but an experiential knowing and the ability that goes along with it.

Luther teaches us that the command to Adam and his failure to obey does not teach us ‘free-will’ but instead should teach us how much we need the Spirit in order to obey and to keep from falling. So again, if Adam who was not born into sin did sin when he stepped out on his own what does that teach us about his so-called ‘free-will’ and then of our own? It teaches us that we will slide freely into sin and yet are not free to be holy apart from grace. “Apart from Me, you can do nothing” (John 15:4-5).

From Adam, then, we get a clear picture of a vitally important truth. The will is not free to do good because it has no power to do good apart from grace. The commands of God, then, do not declare to us anything about our ability to keep them but simply set out to us our duty. In one sense, however, the commands of God rightly understood do declare to us something about our ability in the sense they show us our utter inability to obey by the power of our own wills. The commands of God should teach us our utter need of grace to be saved from our breaking the law, but also our utter need of grace to give us strength to keep the law.

Luther’s points here are clear and to the point. The will is not free to do good apart from grace. The will that is free from grace operates in a free (in a sense) bondage in the realm of evil. The will that is apart from grace has no ability to do good and all it does is evil. It has no power to do anything else. The will apart from grace will always do evil and nothing but evil even when it is doing outwardly good things and when it is religious. The will apart from grace (perhaps) is doing its greatest evil when it is the most religious. In that it is more like God than in anything else. May God by His grace deliver us from our efforts to be like Him by doing good in our own strength and make us truly holy which can only come from Him.

Luther gives Erasmus’ definition of ‘free-will” in the following quote: “‘Moreover, I conceive of “free-will” in this context as a power of the human will by which a man may apply himself to those things that lead to eternal salvation or turn away from the same.’” Luther then responds to that definition with words that applied to Erasmus but should also make people wake up today. The definition that Erasmus gave was what so many think is true today and is the root of so many so-called “gospel appeals.” Luther’s reply is a shot across the bow of practically every denomination today as well.

Luther’s reply to Erasmus (see The Gospel and the Enslaved Will 82 for another part) was devastating and virtually unanswerable. If the power of the human will is such that man may (and therefore can) apply to himself the things that lead to eternal salvation, then grace is no longer in the hands of God to give as He pleases and the sovereignty of grace is in the will of human beings. However, regardless of the fine points of various groups that hold to the teaching of ‘free-will,’ that is still true. As long as anyone holds to the so-called ‘free-will’ of man, that person has wrested grace from the hands of God and bestows it on the will of human beings. This is certainly something that the devil is quite proud of and is his work because it is nothing less than human beings wanting to be like God. That was his original promise to Eve.

Genesis 3:5 gives the heart of the original promise of Satan to the woman and tells us quite a bit about what the original sin looked like. “For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” It is the promise to be like God, but also knowing good and evil. In other words, one part of the attractiveness of this lie was that true freedom was to be able to choose for yourself what good and evil is. It at least includes the power of ‘free-will’ which is to do as the person pleases as s/he sets his or her own standard of good. So the person is able to choose what s/he chooses and think of it as good as s/he pleases. The ‘free-will,’ then, is at the heart of the fall. It is still at the heart of human souls wanting to be like God.

It is because of the so-called ‘free-will’ that human beings still trust in themselves to be able to choose grace and to choose to apply grace when they please. The freedom to apply grace is certainly an attempt to usurp the rights of God as God alone can give grace as He pleases. Luther saw this so clearly and, while his work on The Bondage of the Will remains a classic, it does not appear to be read carefully or at least agreed with much at all. While it is the document of the Reformation that sets out the heart of the biblical Gospel better than any other, it does not seem to be agreed with too much in our day. A ‘free-will’ is that which is to be at war with God over who can give grace and when it can be given. For a human being to assert that his will is free is to assume the role of Divinity and to say and believe that the will can do that which God alone is free to do.

The Scripture tells us that man is dead in sins and trespasses and must be make alive by God. The Scripture tells us that man is completely helpless. The Scripture tells us that apart from Christ man can do nothing spiritual and can bear nothing regarding spiritual fruit. Yet so many today tell us that man can apply grace to himself. That is what the teaching of ‘free-will’ means. It is true that many may not say that they believe that, but what do they think a ‘free-will’ does with its freedom? What is it free to do? Is the will free from grace (so a ‘free-will’ must be to be free) and yet applies grace to itself at the same time? The will is never free from its utter inability and insufficiency before God. It is always utterly dependent on God and so it is not free at all in the spiritual realm.

Luther was blunt and straight to the point on this one. He saw this as something less than Christianity and thought that it was Pelagian. “Which means that nobody since the Pelagians has written of ‘free-will’ more correctly than Erasmus! For I said above that ‘free-will’ is a divine term, and signifies a divine power. But no one to date, except the Pelagians, has ever assigned to it such power.” While Luther says that this view is Pelagian and perhaps even beyond what the early Pelagians had stated, that is what is being taught today (either explicitly or implicitly) about the will. While people do not call themselves Pelagians when they assert their own power of the will, they are in fact precisely Pelagian in the area of the will. While many think of this as a minor area, Luther thought of it as going to the heart of the Reformation and the Gospel. We need to think, study, and pray through these areas once again. We cannot hope to see a true revival apart from the true Gospel, though many false fires may erupt from false gospels. No true Gospel can be preached that relies on the Pelagian view of the will even if it is called Reformed. While that sounds harsh, we must be clear that the true Gospel is all of grace and grace alone. Period.

Luther gives Erasmus’ definition of ‘free-will” in the following quote: “‘Moreover, I conceive of “free-will” in this context as a power of the human will by which a man may apply himself to those things that lead to eternal salvation or turn away from the same.’” Luther then responds to that definition with words that applied to Erasmus but should also make people wake up today. The definition that Erasmus gave was what so many think is true today and is the root of so many so-called “gospel appeals.” Luther’s reply is a shot across the bow of practically every denomination today as well.

What shocking language Erasmus writes here. It is shocking in light of Scripture which teaches us that the human soul can do nothing apart from Christ. It is shocking in light of God who is absolutely sovereign in all matters and in all places. It is shocking in light of the nature of grace which does not and cannot respond to anyone or anything but God alone. God only saves to the praise of the glory of His grace (Eph 1:5-7). When a soul is saved by grace, it is not saved because of a decision it makes or what it does. It is saved because of the choice of God and His choice is always because of Himself.

Luther, in response to Erasmus, says this: “Erasmus informs us, then, that ‘free-will’ is a power of the human will which can of itself will and not will the word and work of God.” This is also what people today assert when they stand up for ‘free-will.’ Luther gets at the heart of the situation and what the real issue is. For a will to be able to do what Erasmus says it can (and all others who assert ‘free-will’) that is a will that can will the work of God. If the will can will the work of God, then “what is here left to grace and the Holy Ghost? This is plainly to ascribe divinity to ‘free-will’! For to will the law and the gospel, not to will sin, and to will death, is possible to divine power alone.”

While Luther would be hated today by many who think of themselves as Reformed he had a knack for getting to the heart of the situation and laying it bare for all eyes to see. When the real teaching of ‘free-will’ is set out, it can be seen that for a will to be free in the sense of being able to apply to self the things of God that means that the will is able to do what God alone can do. God alone is free to give grace as He pleases. While Scripture sets out so clearly that it is God alone who is able to be gracious to whom He will be gracious, at the heart of the ‘free-will’ teaching is the idea that man can apply grace to himself or not or at least make a decision that God responds to and so gives grace. In Exodus 33:18 Moses prayed this: “I pray You, show me Your glory!” The Lord responded with this in verse19: “And He said, “I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of the LORD before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion.””

So Scripture shows that the glory of God is bound up with His showing grace to whom He will show grace to. Yet the teaching of ‘free-will’ is that man is able to apply grace to himself. Despite the protestations of others regarding this plain way of putting it, Luther was right. The teaching of ‘free-will’ is not only opposed to the Gospel of grace alone, it is also opposed to the sovereignty and glory of God. In a very real way ‘free-will’ is man trying to share in the glory and works of God. Yet Scripture tells us that God will not share His glory with another and that He saves to the glory of His grace. ‘Free-will’ is an attempt of man to be sovereign over himself and wrest that from God. ‘Free-will’ is the attempt of man to share in the glory of salvation. ‘Free-will’ is the attempt of man to apply grace to himself rather than look to the Lord to apply grace to him.

The Gospel of grace alone is under attack today from many places. One of those places is from those who assert ‘free-will’ and then those who will not stand up and declare what the teaching of ‘free-will’ really is. John Owen and many Puritans referred to ‘free-will’ as the idolatry of man. They were right. Yet today there are many in Reformed circles that think of ‘free-will’ as something that may not be quite right but does not effect the Gospel. It may not effect the gospel they preach, but the biblical Gospel of Christ alone and grace alone stands in opposition to ‘free-will” and its desire to ascend to the throne of the living God. The refusal to fight the teaching of ‘free-will’ and to join hands with those who teach it is a decision to stand against the Gospel of grace alone. You cannot have free grace and free-will at the same time unless it is God who has both of them. You cannot defend ‘free-will’ or those who teach it and free grace at the same time either. We live in a day where free grace is not truly defended much at all.

Luther gives Erasmus’ definition of ‘free-will” in the following quote: “‘Moreover, I conceive of “free-will” in this context as a power of the human will by which a man may apply himself to those things that lead to eternal salvation or turn away from the same.’” Luther then responds to that definition with words that applied to Erasmus but should also make people wake up today. The definition that Erasmus gave was what so many think is true today and is the root of so many so-called “gospel appeals.” Luther’s reply is a shot across the bow of practically every denomination today as well. Perhaps the creed of a particular church or denomination denies that, but what is the real belief in the depths of the heart? Even if the creed denies that, does the teaching of the church follow along the lines of Erasmus in the minds of the people? Do denominations and churches take the time to carefully explain that a person does not have the power to apply to self the things of eternal salvation? If we do not carefully explain to people that they cannot apply to themselves the things that lead to salvation, they will assume they can even if we teach through the creeds. The depraved heart is blind to spiritual things and it hates the idea that it cannot do for itself what needs to be done.

A church that claims to be Reformed can indeed proclaim the basic truths about Christ and what He has done and call people to believe or to trust in those. But is that anything different than a Pelagian could do? The Pelagian calls upon people to believe and assumes that people don’t need to be taught that they can believe if they want to. The Pelagian will call upon people to believe in the facts and assume that people know that they can make the choice if they please. But when professing Reformed people say the same words and do not tell people that it is not in their power to do so, they are doing nothing different and nothing better than the Pelagian. The Reformed person is at that point a practical Pelagian regardless of what his or her creed says. If you command a person to do something, that person will simply assume that s/he has the power to do it unless it is explained otherwise. So in the preaching and teaching of Reformed people across the land what we have is a practical Pelagianism. The Gospel of grace alone has been deeply hidden in and by the creeds of orthodoxy and Pelagianism is alive and “well” across our land and across the world. Anyone who stands up and says that we should teach these things is considered to be a hyper-Calvinist. While hyper-Calvinism is a problem, the fear of it as it is feared today actually drives people to being Pelagian in practice. Most of what people fear about hyper-Calvinism is really just the plain teachings of the doctrines of grace.

Luther responded to Erasmus with strong words, and in so doing indicted the modern generation as well. “I showed above that ‘free-will’ belongs to none but God only. You are no doubt right in assigning to man a will of some sort, but to credit him with a will that is free in the things of God is too much. For all who hear mention of ‘free-will’ take it to mean, in its proper sense, a will than can and does do, God-ward, all that it pleases, restrained by no law and no command; for you would not call a slave, who acts at the beck of his lord, free. But in that case how much less are we right to call men or angels free; for they live under the complete mastery of God (not to mention sin and death), and cannot continue by their own strength for a minute.”

If we would but spend a few hours on the previous paragraph it would change a lot about the way we view things. What do people think when we say that they have a ‘free-will” or even let them go on thinking that they are free in that sense? Can a will apply salvation to itself by its own choice and act when salvation is of grace from beginning to end? Can a person that clearly states that s/he has a free-will actually believe in the Gospel of grace alone? Can a person that believes that s/he has a free-will actually rest and trust in grace alone? Can a person that has never been taught the truth about the will rest in grace alone? The truth of the matter is that Luther was right. A belief about the nature of free-will is assumed by those who have not been taught what the Bible says about it. Salvation must be applied by someone. Either each person applies it to himself by an act of the will or the person is dead in sin and God applies it by grace. The Gospel of Scripture which is the Gospel of grace alone demands that we teach people that they cannot apply to themselves grace or we don’t truly teach the Gospel of grace alone. The will that chooses God and so God does something is a will that is choosing a gospel that is of works at the very heart of it. A will that is able to apply grace to itself is a will that can co what God alone can do. The Pelagian that teaches free-will is teaching that men can do what God alone can do and it is a gospel of works. The professing Reformed person that urges men to repent and believe and does not teach men about their deadness in sin and the truth of grace which alone can save men is doing nothing more than the Pelagian. What, then, is the real difference? This is one way that bridges are built between Pelagians and the professing Reformed in our day.

Since, therefore, we have lost the meaning and the real reference of this glorious term, or, rather, have never grasped them (as was claimed by the Pelagians, who themselves mistook the phrase) why do we cling so tenaciously to an empty word, and endanger and delude faithful people in consequence?… But this false idea of ‘free-will’ is a real threat to salvation, and a delusion fraught with the most perilous consequences…If we do not want to drop this term altogether—which would really be the safest and most Christian thing to do—we may still in good faith teach people to use it to credit man with ‘free-will’ in respect, not of what is above him, but of what is below him. That is to say, man should realize that in regard to his money and possessions he has a right to use them, to do or to leave undone, according to his own ‘free-will’—though that very ‘free-will’ is overruled by the free-will of God alone, according to His own pleasure. However, with regard to God, and in all that bears on salvation or damnation, he has no ‘free-will’, but is a captive, prisoner and bondslave, either to the will of God, or to the will of Satan.
Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will

Martin Luther thought that his book The Bondage of the Will was his most important work. This is the book that set out his thinking on what was the most important issue or a necessary teaching in what was vital to the Reformation. He was so clear that the denial of ‘free-will’ was vital for the Gospel. The denial of ‘free-will’ was vital to understand the nature and ability of human beings and then of the sovereignty of God. Yet in our day this great and glorious truth, along with the corresponding truths of the utter inability of human souls and of the absolute sovereignty of God, are being denied. They are being denied by those who clearly and without equivocation deny them as true and they are being denied by those who give lip-service to the words of the teaching as true but deny them in reality.

In the quote from Luther above it is crystal clear that Luther thought of the teaching and application of ‘free-will’ as dangerous to everyone and contrary to the Gospel itself. He considered the doctrine of the enslaved will as vital to the Gospel itself. Galatians 1 is clear that there is no other Gospel and anyone who teaches a Gospel contrary to what Paul taught was to be anathema (eternally cursed). So we can be quite confident and state that what Luther taught was either in accordance with the teaching of Paul and Scripture or it was not. It seems clear that Luther put such a stress on the issue of the enslaved will that he thought it was vital to the Gospel. In fact, he thought that a person must deny his or her ‘free-will’ in order to be saved. A person cannot trust in his or her will and in Christ alone at the same time. A person cannot trust in the power (even if it is just a little) of his or her will and trust in the power of God in Christ alone at the same time. A person cannot trust in his own ability and the ability of God alone at the same time. A person cannot trust in his own work of the will and in grace alone at the same time. A person cannot trust in his own ability to believe and in the work of grace to give faith at the same time.

In the modern day it is thought that to be gracious is more important than to hold to grace alone. It is thought that we must work with all who hold to some basic teachings of Jesus Christ rather than be like Luther who believed that the ‘free-will’ must be denied in order to hold to Christ alone. In the modern day it is thought that we must work together with people who differ with us in the areas of the will and sovereign grace in order to have unity and see the kingdom progress. Yet with Luther he thought it was important to deny ‘free-will’ and assert sovereign grace in order that the Gospel would be preached. Luther thought that we must not work with those who deny the Gospel. Yet we must continue to face the question of whether Luther taught what Paul taught and the fact that the modern day does not teach what Luther taught.

So we must continue to face the question of whether the Gospel in its purity was set forth by God in the Reformation or not. If the pure Gospel was preached by Luther and Calvin in the Reformation, then it was the same Gospel that Paul preached. If Luther did not preach the Gospel that Paul preached, then he preached another gospel which is no Gospel at all. If Luther preached that the enslaved will was necessary to the teaching of sovereign grace (which is the only kind of grace there is), then if we don’t preach and teach it then we are not teaching the Gospel of grace alone. Paul preached a Gospel of grace alone. Did Luther? Modern people should realize that they have to think of Luther as preaching the pure Gospel or a false one. We cannot have it both ways. Yet if we want to hold that the Reformation was true, then what if we don’t preach what Luther did? The conclusion should be obvious, even if we don’t like it. The Gospel is rarely preached in our day.

Since, therefore, we have lost the meaning and the real reference of this glorious term, or, rather, have never grasped them (as was claimed by the Pelagians, who themselves mistook the phrase) why do we cling so tenaciously to an empty word, and endanger and delude faithful people in consequence?… But this false idea of ‘free-will’ is a real threat to salvation, and a delusion fraught with the most perilous consequences…If we do not want to drop this term altogether—which would really be the safest and most Christian thing to do—we may still in good faith teach people to use it to credit man with ‘free-will’ in respect, not of what is above him, but of what is below him. That is to say, man should realize that in regard to his money and possessions he has a right to use them, to do or to leave undone, according to his own ‘free-will’—though that very ‘free-will’ is overruled by the free-will of God alone, according to His own pleasure. However, with regard to God, and in all that bears on salvation or damnation, he has no ‘free-will’, but is a captive, prisoner and bondslave, either to the will of God, or to the will of Satan.
Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will

These words of Luther, once again, get at the very heart of Christianity. Language and words are so misleading and can lead to such danger that we must be very careful. Luther tells us that the term ‘free-will’ deludes faithful people and is a real threat to salvation and is a delusion fraught with the most perilous consequences. It is so easy to read over those words and go on. But if those things are true, then why do ministers just throw out these words with ease and not explain them? If the very idea of ‘free-will’ is so dangerous, then why don’t ministers labor to show how false, threatening, and even delusional that the idea is? Perhaps it is true that almost no one really believes what Luther taught in his day (the foundation of the Reformation) was and is true. Perhaps we do nothing but give lip-service to this great work on The Bondage of the Will and give it no real heed at all. To do so, however, is to ignore at our great peril what Luther said about the real Gospel.

In the modern day it appears that ministers are afraid to take on this issue of the will. If we teach people the truth about it, that will run them out of the churches. But if we don’t teach on this issue, it will put their souls and our own in great peril. For Luther there was no preaching of the Gospel of justification by grace alone through faith alone apart from teaching on the bondage of the will. For Luther, then, souls are put in great peril when this is not taught because there is no Gospel apart from it. This should be pounded on over and over from the pulpits across the land but now we are told that it is not important to the Gospel. Perhaps it is not important to the so-called gospel that is preached across America today, but it is utterly vital to the biblical Gospel of grace alone.

The blunt truth of the matter is that souls have no ‘free-will’ in terms of true salvation and are in the hands of the one and only sovereign God who can do with them as He pleases. Each and every soul is either a slave of Christ or a slave of the devil. Each and every soul is under the dominion of either Christ or the devil. Each and every soul is either in the kingdom of God or of the devil. There is no third option. There is not an option that a soul is under the dominion of his or her own free-will. No soul is a slave to his or her own will in terms of ultimate reality, though that is what it appears to be like. Slavery to the self is really slavery to the devil who is the ultimate in sinful self.

If we do not teach the truth about the inability of the soul, we will not teach a Gospel of grace alone. If we do not teach people their utter peril of trusting in their own ‘free-will,’ then we will not teach people the utter necessity of resting in Christ alone for all things and that includes faith. If we call people to Christ without instructing them of the peril of coming to Christ in their own strength, they will be deluded. It appears that the “shepherds” in our land are so afraid of teaching this that the Gospel is virtually lost in our land and we are given over to the children of libertines and Pharisees. But these things are part of the perils of souls who do not teach the truth about the will. In America the Gospel of grace alone has virtually been lost, and that is true among those who think they are the theological sons and daughters of the Reformation. Part of the problem is that we no longer think it is important stress the fact that human souls are not free but are in bondage. Perhaps that is one aspect of human souls being in bondage.

Since, therefore, we have lost the meaning and the real reference of this glorious term, or, rather, have never grasped them (as was claimed by the Pelagians, who themselves mistook the phrase) why do we cling so tenaciously to an empty word, and endanger and delude faithful people in consequence? There is no more wisdom in so doing than there is in the modern foible of kings and potentates, who retain, or lay claim to, empty titles of kingdoms and countries, and flaunt them, while all the time they are really paupers, and anything but the possessors of those kingdoms and countries. We can tolerate their antics, for they fool nobody, but just feed themselves up—unprofitably enough—on their own vainglory. But this false idea of ‘free-will’ is a real threat to salvation, and a delusion fraught with the most perilous consequences.    (Martin Luther,  The Bondage of the Will)

Luther, quite clearly, was against even the use of ‘free-will’ in preaching and theology. He was not just against the phrase, but was against using the idea itself. This is a loud exclamation to his teaching on the subject. No only did Luther believe that the teaching of the bondage of the will was necessary to the Gospel, but he saw that even the words ‘free-will’ were dangerous. As he demonstrated earlier, the term is really an empty word which conveys no truth and reality. So why do people continue to use it?

So many wish to think of themselves as Reformed in the modern day and still hold to the phrase ‘free-will’ and not be ashamed to join together with those who hate the teaching of the bound will. Luther is held up as one who “re-discovered” justification by faith alone, yet so few realize what he really meant by it. They show this when they refuse to hold with Luther his fear and utter disdain of the concept and words ‘free-will.” To Luther, who was ready to lose his life over justification by faith alone, the denial of ‘free-will’ and adherence to bondage of the will was necessary to believe in justification by faith alone. One the one hand he said that it endangered and deluded faithful people. On the other, and perhaps more strongly, he said that “this false idea of ‘free-will’ is a real threat to salvation, and a delusion fraught with the most perilous consequences.” One again, he wrote this book to show what justification by faith alone really meant. To put it simply and bluntly, Luther would deny in clear terms anyone who said that s/he believed in justification by faith alone if they denied the bondage of the will. He would ask how a person can deny the heart of the gospel and yet hold to the outside of it.

Why is it that people in the modern day refuse to denounce ‘free-will’ as something which threatens the Gospel? On a theological level it is because they don’t understand what Luther taught that the Bible taught about justification by faith alone. On a personal level, they don’t want to deal with the loss of positions, honor, and the esteem of others. This is nothing different than the Pharisees who loved the approval of men more than the approval of God. While the Pharisees prayed, fasted, and gave alms for the approval of men, modern day folks preach, teach, and hold denominational positions for the approval of men. They hold to the thought of being Reformed or biblical on one side of the issue but their hearts are still in the grips of the approval of others. Yes, it is hard for people to come out of the Reformed closet and state the clear truth about justification by faith alone. But when they don’t, perhaps they are demonstrating the bondage of the will even though they will not teach it.

Jesus said that “whoever is ashamed of Me and My words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when He comes in His glory, and the glory of the Father and of the holy angels” (Luke 9:26). Well, some will say, “I certainly believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ and in salvation in His name alone. But if I denounce free-will and hold to the bondage of the will and its importance to the gospel, then I will lose my position, my church, and respect of all I know.” Jesus also said that “No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day” (John 6:44). Those are His words as well. There is no following Christ and being unashamed to follow Him apart from teaching what He taught. He did not teach the ‘free-will’ of man, but instead taught the bondage of the will over and over. There is no Gospel but a Gospel of grace alone. Unless we teach the bondage of the will and apply it to our own souls and the souls of others, we do not teach the Gospel of grace alone which means we cannot teach justification by faith alone as well. Why do people continue to use the term ‘free-will’ in our day? It is because they will not follow Jesus Christ in proclaiming the Gospel regardless of what men said about Him or did to Him. John Owen said that ‘free-will’ was an idol. We must repent of our idols.

Since, therefore, we have lost the meaning and the real reference of this glorious term, or, rather, have never grasped them (as was claimed by the Pelagians, who themselves mistook the phrase) why do we cling so tenaciously to an empty word, and endanger and delude faithful people in consequence? There is no more wisdom in so doing than there is in the modern foible of kings and potentates, who retain, or lay claim to, empty titles of kingdoms and countries, and flaunt them, while all the time they are really paupers, and anything but the possessors of those kingdoms and countries. We can tolerate their antics, for they fool nobody, but just feed themselves up—unprofitably enough—on their own vainglory. But this false idea of ‘free-will’ is a real threat to salvation, and a delusion fraught with the most perilous consequences.                    Martin Luther, The Bondage of the Will

Luther was a lot different than modern people who want to join hands with those who hold to ‘free-will’ for the purposes of getting the “gospel” to the world. The problem with that, however, is that Luther thought of ‘free-will’ as being a real threat to salvation. How can those who hold to the Gospel of grace alone hold hands with those who say they believe it but their theology demands that they cannot believe it? In the words of the Southern Presbyterian John L. Girardeau, the anthropology of the Arminian “is not essentially different from the Socinian and Pelagian.” He goes on to say this: “the distinctive doctrines of Arminianism not only make salvation impossible by denying that it is by grace, but also implying that it is by works. Not that it is intended to say that Arminians in so many words affirm this.” But even more, according to Girardeau, “The question is, do the peculiar tenets of the Arminian scheme necessitate the inference that salvation is by works? I shall attempt to show that they do.”

It is no wonder that the state of true religion (Christianity) is at such low ebb today. It is not just that the vast majority of people hold to a scheme of salvation that holds to works in some way for salvation or at least implies it, but those who claim to be Reformed and hold to sovereign grace alone for salvation are holding hands with those who clearly do not hold that. They are building bridges and working together, yet they are holding hands with those that hold views that are clearly contradictory to the Gospel of grace alone. Luther is so clear that the teaching of ‘free-will’ in the arena of salvation is “a delusion fraught with the most perilous consequences.” Yet today we have people who think of themselves as Reformed who see no difference in the gospel they preach than that of Arminians and Pelagians. When we don’t see a real difference, perhaps there is no real difference.

A.W. Tozer said that our creeds can be used to hide our real theology from us. So when a person with a Reformed creed evangelizes and has the same gospel as that of Arminians and Pelagians, we can assume that the creed has hidden an Arminian or Pelagian heart from that person. If those who evangelize and preach the same gospel as Arminians and Pelagians do, then we can assume that those people in the depths of their souls are Arminians and Pelagians. In the old days men who were Reformed stood against the Arminian and Pelagian distortions of the Gospel of grace alone. Today we are more tolerant and gracious. It seems that men would rather be tolerant of that which is a threat to real salvation and a delusion with perilous consequences than they are with those who hold to the true doctrines of grace alone.

So in our day denominations are attempting to join those who say they believe in grace alone and those who don’t in some form of unity. How can a person who really believes in the Gospel of grace alone join hands with those who truly don’t? I would submit that a person who loves the Gospel of grace alone cannot support the preaching of those who don’t preach grace alone even by inference. The teaching of ‘free-will’ in the area of the Gospel of grace alone is dangerous and the lovers of the Gospel should not hold hands with them. It is that dangerous and we should not tolerate this even if it means that we are outcasts. Self-denial is not about denying ourselves various luxuries, but it is also about denying error at the cost of friendships and of denominations. Those who hold the true Gospel of grace alone must not give in to anything less and should be willing to lose the whole world and all besides in order to stand for the true Gospel. When we don’t, what we see in the Unites States will happen and continue to spiral down at a rapid pace. May God give us grace in our intestinal fortitude to stand for the Gospel of grace alone and turn from all that is not.