God Loves… Himself

Have we not grown used to an Erasmian brand of reaching from our pulpits—a message that rests on the same shallow synergistic conceptions which Luther refuted, picturing God and man approaching each other almost on equal terms, each having his own contribution to make to man’s salvation and each depending on the dutiful co-operation of the other for the attainment of that end?—as if God exists for man’s convenience, rather than man for God’s glory? Is it not true, conversely, that it is rare to-day to hear proclaimed the diagnosis of our predicament which Luther—and Scripture—put forward: that man is hopeless and helpless in sin, fast bound in Satan’s slavery, at enmity with God, blind and dead to the things of the Spirit? And hence, how rarely do we hear faith spoken of as Scripture depicts it—as it is expressed in the cry of self-committal with which the contrite heart, humbled to see its need and made conscious of its own utter helplessness even to trust, casts itself in the God-given confidence of self-despair upon the mercy of Jesus Christ—‘Lord, I believe; help Thou my unbelief!’ Can we deny the essential rightness of Luther’s exegesis of the texts? And if not, dare we ignore the implications of his exposition? (Johnson and Packer’s introduction to Luther’s Bondage of the Will).

The vast majority of pulpits in modern America appear to be Erasmian rather than Lutheran. The deepest question, however, has to do with what Scripture really teaches. This gets to the last two sentences from the quote above. Was and is Luther’s exegesis correct or not? If his exegesis was and is correct, then Luther taught the Bible accurately on this subject and his teaching on it is still the biblical teaching. If it was and is wrong, then let us deny the heart of the Reformation because that is what the teaching concerning The Bondage of the Will really was and is. Let us not give lip service to Luther as a great man if he was and is wrong about the heart of the Gospel. The Erasmian brand of preaching that seems to be virtually the exclusive message today is in direct conflict with the heart of the Gospel proclaimed in the Reformation as set out by Luther in The Bondage of the Will.

The message proclaimed today is that God has done all He could do and the issue now rests with man. Whether a person says that or not that is what people hear. If the preacher is not clear that God is not on equal terms with and is not waiting on man to do something so that He (God) can save men, fallen man will always think it depends on himself. The Gospel is not dependent on the cooperation of man because it is the Gospel of grace alone. If a human soul is to be saved, it must be saved in total dependence on God or salvation is not by grace and Christ alone. God is not standing by at the convenience of man just waiting to save man. The Erasmian position is that God is just waiting on man to believe or make a choice of the will so that God can save the man. But that is utterly unbiblical and even blasphemous. Man should see the Lord and wait on the Lord to save him. There is simply no other way of salvation other than God saving man at His own pleasure rather than waiting on the pleasure of man to do so.

We are told that man is a responsible being and we are to treat him as such. It is true that man is responsible before God, but we must ask what that means. We must know that to have responsibility is not the same thing as to have ability. We must also search out what we are responsible to do and not do. We are not responsible to do in the sense that we have ability to do anything to contribute to salvation in the least. We are not responsible to come up with anything that puts God under some obligation or for man to obtain merit before God. But until we repent of our synergistic preaching or implications of our preaching we are not preaching the Gospel of grace alone with clarity. We can tell people that they are dead in their sins, but unless we explain what that means those who are dead will not understand it in the least. We can proclaim to people that they are totally depraved, but they will not understand that either unless we say what it means and what it don’t mean. Neither will they understand those things without specific application to their own hearts.

Erasmian preaching can be nice and gracious and treat man as if he had a free will even if we deny it in our theory. While Erasmus believed those things, unless we state with clarity and conviction with specific application to the soul the opposite we will still be Erasmian in our practice. We will be practical Erasmians. There are so many who claim to believe Reformed theology and yet they are truly Erasmian in practice. There is no real difference between those who agree with Erasmus in theology and those who don’t refute those beliefs with clarity. The fallen nature of man will always hear with fallen ears and until we declare his fallen nature in this area we have not declared his fallen nature at all. In other words, we will have no position to preach the Gospel of grace alone.

These things need to be pondered by Protestants to-day. With what right may we call ourselves children of the Reformation? Much modern Protestantism would be neither owned nor even recognized by the pioneer Reformers. The Bondage of the Will fairly sets before us what they believed about the salvation of last mankind. In the light of it, we are forced to ask whether Protestant Christendom has not tragically sold its birthright between Luther’s day and our own. Has not Protestantism to-day become more Erasmian than Lutheran? Do we not too often try to minimize and gloss over doctrinal differences for the sake of inter-party peace? Are we innocent of the doctrinal indifferentism with which Luther charged Erasmus? Do we still believe that doctrine matters? Or do we now, with Erasmus, rate a deceptive appearance of unity as of more importance than truth? (Johnson and Packer’s introduction to Luther’s Bondage of the Will).

In our modern day we think we are modern and know how to treat others better. However, we must also remember how Jesus spoke to the Pharisees. He who was love incarnate spoke out of love for God and for the people of God. But He thought that truth was important enough to speak forcefully and clearly. When the Gospel is at stake we must not be more “nice” and “gracious” than Jesus was of the Pharisees. In history when the Gospel was at stake, God used men who spoke the truth of the Gospel forcefully. Not all of them were successful by the standards of our day, but they spoke for God. Men like Erasmus who courted the favor of others and spoke so graciously as to water the truth down were popular in their day but were seen for what they really were later on. Luther saw then that the minimizing and glossing over of theological differences in order to keep party peace was simply doctrinal indifferentism which was really a denial of the Gospel. Yet the spirit and attitude of Erasmus is widespread today.

The man-centeredness of Erasmus was the real problem and is still the problem today. Luther accused Erasmus of being too man-centered and he was correct. Luther was bound to the principle of Soli Deo Gloria or to God alone be the glory. To this end Philip Watson spoke about Luther’s theology in Let God Be God:

Hence the possibility is given, broadly speaking, of two main types of religion, according as one or the other of these two factors predominates and becomes the centre of gravity, so to speak, in the relationship. If the religious relationship centres in man—if my relation to God depends essentially upon me—then it can be described as anthropocentric or egocentric; if it centres in the eternal and the divine, then it is theocentric. Now it might well seem as if all religion must, in the nature of the case, be theocentric; for if the word ‘God’ is to have any meaning at all, it cannot but signify the dominant centre of live and of all existence. And it is true that no religion is entirely lacking in awareness of this fact. All religions display at least some traces of theocentricity. Such traces, however, do not generally suffice to form what may be termed the leitmotif of the religion; they are not determinative of its character as a whole, but in one way and another are subordinated to the egocentric tendency…Similarly in religion, although I do not as readily perceive or accept all that this implies; and it is the most natural thing for me still to live and think as if I myself were the centre around which all else, including God, moved. If find it exceedingly difficult to rid myself of this illusion and allow God really to be the centre, that is, really to be God.

Within the previous quote we see the real problem of trying for unity apart from a pursuit of truth and of solid doctrine. Of course not all would admit that is what they are trying to do. However, a true theocentricity is at the heart of true Christianity. The Lord Jesus Christ was focused and centered upon God and His glory in all He did. He would not refuse to speak the truth to people even when they did not want to hear it. While many excuse doctrinal indifference because they insist on being nice and gracious to others, when they do so it is likely that they are guilty of being man-centered. As Watson says above, all religions have some traces of theocentricity. However, that does not mean that they are truly centered upon God in all ways. But even more, man can pretend to be God-centered as long as he thinks God is centered upon him. A real and robust God-centeredness is when God is understood to be God-centered as well.

Doctrine matters in regards to the Gospel because there is only one Gospel (Gal 1). Without a robust doctrine we have no true Gospel. Without a center upon a God-centered God we have no true Gospel but instead have a man-centered pottage which the birthright of the Reformation has been traded for. We must not mistake what is offered up as Arminianism or Reformed in our day as what came from the Reformation. It is a massive mistake to do so.

These things need to be pondered by Protestants to-day. With what right may we call ourselves children of the Reformation? Much modern Protestantism would be neither owned nor even recognized by the pioneer Reformers. The Bondage of the Will fairly sets before us what they believed about the salvation of last mankind. In the light of it, we are forced to ask whether Protestant Christendom has not tragically sold its birthright between Luther’s day and our own. Has not Protestantism to-day become more Erasmian than Lutheran? Do we not too often try to minimize and gloss over doctrinal differences for the sake of inter-party peace? Are we innocent of the doctrinal indifferentism with which Luther charged Erasmus? Do we still believe that doctrine matters? Or do we now, with Erasmus, rate a deceptive appearance of unity as of more importance than truth? (Johnson and Packer’s introduction to Luther’s Bondage of the Will).

When Johnson and Packer wrote these things in the late 1950’s things were not as bad as they are now. Of course there has been a small resurgence of sorts in Reformed thinking, but one could question just how deep that resurgence has actually went. It is one thing to adhere to a Reformed creed or confession, but it is quite another to go with the pioneer Reformers to the places they went regarding the sovereignty of grace and the utter helplessness of man in sin. Just how much of modern Christendom really follows the Reformers and the Gospel they preached? How many Protestants still protest against the gospel as preached by Rome? How many Protestants have been swallowed up by the same basic gospel that Rome teaches while they protest against less important things?

The Bondage of the Will is not a metaphysical book that stimulates the intellect with nothing else important to say. Instead, this book gets at the heart of the Gospel itself. It must be made clear that if we do not follow Luther at this point we are not really following him at all in terms of the Gospel which was the most important part of the Reformation. If we do not follow Luther at this point, then we do not follow the pioneer Reformers at this point either. This shows that we are not really the children of the Reformation in our day because almost nobody follows Luther and the pioneer Reformers at this point. The Bondage of the Will, as Packer and Johnson point out, sets before us what the pioneer Reformers believed about the Gospel or about how men and women are to be saved.

The birthright of Protestantism is inextricably linked to the Gospel as set out by the pioneer Reformers. That Gospel is not popular today at all, though some hold to the same terminology. The term “hyper-Calvinist” is now thrown around a lot and addressed to those who hold to the bondage of the will as Luther did. We are told that we are to be gracious and winsome which is to be like Erasmus rather than Luther or Calvin. We are told that we must join hands with those who do Christian things but do not hold to the same Gospel as Luther did. We are told that there are major things and minor things and that the Trinity and justification by faith alone are the major things. Indeed justification by faith alone is a major thing, but only if the terms and doctrines within it are stated as the Bible does. We have more men who are like Erasmus running around than those who are like Luther and Calvin.

Indeed there are many who try to say that we are not to be unkind (state the real issue of differences) with those who differ from us and we are to be quiet for the sake of peace within groups and within denominations. So we end up (as Johnson and Packer state) minimizing and glossing over differences even regarding the Gospel in order to attain to some type of unity. This is to desire an appearance of unity, even though it is nothing more than an appearance, more than the truth and more than Gospel truth. Men claim that it is for the sake of the Gospel that they minimize certain truths, but in fact it is more likely that they minimize the Gospel for the sake of their own positions within groups and denominations. When they do this they deceive themselves and others.

Paul set out the fact that there is only one Gospel. In fact, he was very ungracious and non-winsome when he said that. In Galatians one he was clear: “I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel; 7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ” (vv. 6-7). He then proceeds to say that if anyone preaches a different Gospel that person is to be accursed. Being gracious and winsome can lead us to the deceptive practice of selling the Gospel for denominational influences and getting along with others. However, as Galatians 1:6 tells us, we are “quickly deserting Him.” If Luther and the pioneer Reformers were right about the Gospel, then when we depart from their teachings we are departing from God Himself. Leaving the Gospel is leaving God Himself.

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

While it is not thought to be politically correct to make stark and confrontational statements about Arminianism or other theologies, it is nevertheless required if one wants to be faithful to Scripture. The heart of Roman Catholic doctrine is that man is not helpless in sin and can do things to obtain grace for himself. The heart of Arminian theology is that man has some part of the will that is free enough to make a choice which ends up in salvation. This is in truth turning faith into a work of some sort and it is to make those who hold that to have at the heart of their theology a gospel more like that of Rome than of the Reformation. That is why the study of the will is so vital. Without a solid understanding of what it means to be in bondage to sin and utterly helpless apart from the sovereign grace of God a person’s creedal theology will not take them that far from Rome at its most important point. It is a return to Rome in terms of what it means at the heart of salvation.

At the heart of Arminianism is the denial of the sovereignty of God in saving sinners. The final verdict is not up to the grace of God, but it is up to the free-will of the sinner. Johnson and Packer think of the sovereignty of God in saving sinners as “the deepest religious and theological principle of the Reformer’s thought.” A denial of that, then, is to deny the theology of the Reformation at its deepest religious and theological principle. Yet, there are many who think of themselves as Reformed because they hold to an older creed and yet deny the very heart of the Reformation. It is a rejection of New Testament Christianity and in many ways a return to the basic principle of Rome and also of the Pharisees. It is a rejection of the grace of God for the will of man.

There is no room in New Testament Christianity for anything but grace alone. While it is true that many use the words of grace alone, but they don’t hold to the heart or substance of what the words meant in the New Testament nor the Reformation. Romans 4:16 sets out the reason that justification is by faith alone: “For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace.” The degree that faith is not in accordance with grace is the degree that faith is a work. If faith depends on a free-will that in order to be free it is free from the internal works of God in the soul, then faith is a work and salvation is not by grace alone. When we point men to faith and do not teach them that their faith can be in themselves to trust in Christ, we are not teaching them that they must trust in Christ alone. If we trust in our own wills, even if it is just a small part, then we are not trusting in Christ alone and we are not looking to grace alone.

Romans 11:6 sets out the great danger of grace plus one work: “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace.” If one adds a work to grace, then grace is no longer grace. If a person adds circumcision to grace, then that person has fallen from grace as a way of justification (Gal 5:4). This is not a minor issue, but is rather at the very heart of the Gospel itself. If the will is not in bondage to sin completely, then it does not take grace alone to save the soul. But if it does not take grace alone to save the soul, then how many works does it take? Just one little work leavens the whole lump of grace. It permeates grace and makes it to be something less than what it is. One little drop of poison will bring impurity to a lot of water. One little act of the will does not seem like much, but it overthrows the Gospel of grace alone as the Reformers saw so clearly. One little act of a free-will is a denial of justification by faith alone as taught by the Reformers. One little act of a free-will is a denial of the teaching of the utter helplessness of man in sin. One little act of a free-will is a denial of the sovereignty of God over the whole of salvation. Our day is rampant with men who are gracious and winsome, but like Erasmus they deny the Gospel of grace alone and do so while saying that they hold to the old creeds. We live in dark times in terms of spiritual power. Maybe God is bringing Christendom down so that grace alone may rise.

What is the source and status of faith? Is it the God-given means whereby the God-given justification is received, or is it the condition of justification which it is left to man to fulfill? Is it a part of God’s gift of salvation, or is it man’s own contribution to salvation? Is our salvation wholly of God, or does it ultimately depend on something that we do for ourselves? Those who deny the latter (as the Arminians later did) thereby deny man’s utter helplessness in sin, and affirm that a form of semi-Pelagianism is true after all. It is no wonder, then, that later Reformed theology condemned Arminianism as being in principle a return to Rome (because in effect it turned faith into a meritorious work) and a betrayal of the Reformation (because it denied the sovereignty of God in saving sinners, which was the deepest religious and theological principle of the Reformer’s thought). Arminianism was, indeed, in Reformed eyes a renunciation of New Testament Christianity in favour of New Testament Judaism; for to rely on oneself for faith is no different in principle from relying on oneself for works, and the one is as un-Christian and anti-Christian as the other (Johnson and Packer’s introduction to Luther’s Bondage of the Will).

If the only source of true faith is the grace of God, then if we teach that faith comes from the free-will of man or remain silent on the source we are not telling the truth about the Gospel. It is thought by many that God gives faith but we must not tell men that and simply tell them to repent and believe. But if we don’t tell them that part of their repentance is to repent of any hope in themselves and that includes a belief that they can choose at any time to be saved, we have not told them about true repentance. If we don’t tell them that part of true faith is not to have any faith in their own faith or belief, then we have not told them about true belief or faith.

One of the divinely predicted characteristics of the “perilous times” in which we are not living is that “evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving and being deceived” (II Tim 3:13). The deeper reference of these words is to spiritual seducers and deceivers. Men with captivating personalities, men who occupy prominent places in Christendom, men with an apparently deep reverence for Holy Writ, are beguiling souls with fatal error. Not only are evolutionists, higher critics, and modernists deluding multitudes of our young people with their sugar-coated lies, but some who pose as the champions of orthodoxy and boast of their ability to “rightly divide the Word of Truth,” are poisoning the minds of many to their eternal destruction (Arthur W. Pink from The Doctrine of Salvation).

The source of faith is a vitally important topic to deal with in evangelism. It is either man’s contribution to salvation or it is God’s. If man thinks that it is his contribution, and he thinks that he can do this of his own free-will at any moment, then he is utterly wrong about the nature of salvation and of his own sin. If man thinks that salvation depends on his act of free-will and all that he needs to do is to pray a prayer or make a choice, them man will never look to Christ alone and grace alone for salvation. If man is not looking to Christ alone and grace alone for salvation, then he does not have faith alone either. The Gospel that depends on the slightest effort of the so-called free will is a false Gospel altogether because it cannot be by Christ alone and grace alone.

The closer a person is to truth and yet does not teach the purity of truth on issues like this the truth is used to blind sinners to reality. There are so many spiritual seducers and deceivers in the world who are very orthodox and yet at what they think is a minor point their orthodoxy is used to hide or blind their own eyes and the eyes of others from the whole truth. In the book of Galatians we see this in several places. The Judaizers just wanted to add one thing to Christ. They had a lot of truth, but they wanted to add circumcision. But Paul told them that adding that one thing was to bring the whole Gospel crashing down in their cases. That one thing meant that “Christ will be of no benefit to you” (Gal 5:2). It meant that they were “under obligation to keep the whole Law” (5:3). It meant that they “were severed from Christ” and “have fallen from grace” (5:4). They had so much right and only went astray at one point. That one point led to eternal destruction.

In the modern day the point that the Reformers thought so vital to the Gospel is brushed away as something not so important. But if we add one act of will or one choice of a free-will to the Gospel as so many do today, we have added that one thing. It is no longer grace alone and that means that justification by faith alone has been destroyed. The Gospel of grace alone means that nothing can come from the human will that does not come from God Himself. A free-will by definition is a will that is free from the internal work of God. One little act of the will brings the whole Gospel crashing down for that soul. If we depend on our own free-will, Christ will be of no benefit to us. If we depend on one act of our own free-will, then we are under obligation to keep the whole Law. If we depend on one act of our own free will, then we are severed from Christ and have fallen from grace. It may be only one point, but a whole lot depends on that one point. It is not a minor point at all, but leads to eternal destruction.

What is the source and status of faith? Is it the God-given means whereby the God-given justification is received, or is it the condition of justification which it is left to man to fulfil? Is it a part of God’s gift of salvation, or is it man’s own contribution to salvation? Is our salvation wholly of God, or does it ultimately depend on something that we do for ourselves? Those who deny the latter (as the Arminians later did) thereby deny man’s utter helplessness in sin, and affirm that a form of semi-Pelagianism is true after all. It is no wonder, then, that later Reformed theology condemned Arminianism as being in principle a return to Rome (because in effect it turned faith into a meritorious work) and a betrayal of the Reformation (because it denied the sovereignty of God in saving sinners, which was the deepest religious and theological principle of the Reformer’s thought). Arminianism was, indeed, in Reformed eyes a renunciation of New Testament Christianity in favour of New Testament Judaism; for to rely on oneself for faith is no different in principle from relying on oneself for works, and the one is as un-Christian and anti-Christian as the other (Johnson and Packer’s introduction to Luther’s Bondage of the Will).

What follows are some thoughts on faith from Theodore Beza’s Confession (1560). His thoughts show the same basic thought as Luther. Faith does not originate and come from the sinner, but instead it comes from God. Faith does not come from a will that is free from God (a free-will), but from a will that has been renewed and made alive by God and so it is now spiritually capable to receive Christ alone for its righteousness and its all. It is not just an intellectual faith which one has of the facts, but it is a renewed soul actually receiving Christ as his or her life. IN this we can see grace in salvation from beginning to end. It is grace that chooses the sinner and it is grace that gives faith in the renewal of the soul and in uniting it to Christ. That was Luther, Calvin, and Beza. That is Bible.

The Holy Ghost then is the same by whom the Father puts and keeps His elect in possession of Jesus Christ His Son, and consequently of all the graces which are necessary to salvation. But first it was necessary that the same Holy Spirit make us capable and fit to receive (Eph 1:17) the same Jesus Christ, which He does in creating within us by His mere divine goodness and mercy what we call faith, the only instrument of taking hold of Jesus Christ (John 3:1-13, 33-36) when He is offered to us, and the only vessel to receive Him…

He created in us likewise this means of faith which He requires of us. Now the faith of which we speak is not to believe only that God is God and that the contents of His Word are true (for the devils have this faith and cannot but tremble at it, James 2:19), but we call faith a certain knowledge (I Cor 2:6-8) which the Holy Ghost by His grace alone and goodness engraves more and more in the hearts of the elect of God, by which each one of them being assured in his heart of his election, applies and appropriates to himself the promise of his salvation in Jesus Christ. Faith, I say, believes not only that Jesus Christ is dead and risen for sinners (Rom 8:16, 39), but proceeds to embrace Jesus Christ in whom alone he trusts and so assures himself of his salvation that he doubts not (Eph 3:12). For that reason St. Bernard said, according to all the Scriptures that follow, “If you believe that your sins may not be put away, but by Him whom you offended, and also who is not subject to sin, you do well; but yet join thereunto another point, that is to say that you believe also that by Him your sins are forgiven…

How this is to be understood, which we say as St. Paul says, that we are justified by faith alone. The reason is because faith is the instrument which receives Jesus Christ and as a consequence receives His righteousness, i.e., all perfection. When we say then as St. Paul said that we are justified by faith alone, it is not to say that faith is a virtue which makes us righteous in ourselves before God (for that would be to set ourselves in the place of Jesus Christ, who alone is our perfect and entire righteousness); but we understand that we are justified by faith because it embraces Him who justifies us, i.e., Jesus Christ, in such a way that it unites and knits us together with Him to be partakers of all the goodness which He has—He, who being granted and imputed to us, is fully sufficient to make us perfect and accepted as righteous before God…

But this it appears that to be assured of our salvation by faith is not any arrogance or presumption; but on the contrary, it is the only means for taking all pride from ourselves and to give all glory to God. For faith alone teaches us to go out of our own selves and to know that in us there is nothing but the matter of damnation, and sends us to one alone—Jesus Christ, by whose righteousness alone it teaches and assures us that we will find salvation before God…

What is the source and status of faith? Is it the God-given means whereby the God-given justification is received, or is it the condition of justification which it is left to man to fulfil? Is it a part of God’s gift of salvation, or is it man’s own contribution to salvation? Is our salvation wholly of God, or does it ultimately depend on something that we do for ourselves? Those who deny the latter (as the Arminians later did) thereby deny man’s utter helplessness in sin, and affirm that a form of semi-Pelagianism is true after all. It is no wonder, then, that later Reformed theology condemned Arminianism as being in principle a return to Rome (because in effect it turned faith into a meritorious work) and a betrayal of the Reformation (because it denied the sovereignty of God in saving sinners, which was the deepest religious and theological principle of the Reformer’s thought). Arminianism was, indeed, in Reformed eyes a renunciation of New Testament Christianity in favour of New Testament Judaism; for to rely on oneself for faith is no different in principle from relying on oneself for works, and the one is as un-Christian and anti-Christian as the other (Johnson and Packer’s introduction to Luther’s Bondage of the Will).

The free act of the will apart from God (even just a little bit) is a flat out denial of the sovereignty of God (wholly) in saving sinners. While some may give it lip service and say they believe in both a free-will and a sovereign God, that is like believing in a pan of frozen boiling water. It simply cannot be. The human will cannot be free from God in a choice and yet have God be sovereign over it at the same time. The human will cannot be free from God to choose salvation for itself and have a salvation that is by grace alone at the same time. A free-will choice for salvation is a denial of biblical faith. It is a different conception of faith than the Reformers taught. If justification is “by” faith alone in the sense that it is because of faith, then that is a work. But the Reformers taught that “by” in the phrase ‘justification by faith alone’ meant that faith was the instrument that received Christ or grace alone. Faith is not rewarded, but instead is an instrument that receives. The instrument itself is a work of grace as well.

In the modern climate where it is demanded that a person be gracious to all, it is hard to state the so-called bald facts of the Gospel and its exclusive nature in the gracious and winsome manner that moderns expect and call for. However, Paul stated in the context of the exclusivity of the Gospel that if he strove to please men he would not be a bond-servant of Christ (Gal 1:10). It is entirely possible (and probable) that the desire to be gracious to all is simply a way of pleasing men. When wrestling with the issues of the Gospel, it is not gracious (according to grace and truth) to try to please men when they are not in line with the Gospel. Arminianism, though in reality it is a form of semi-Pelagianism, was found to be a betrayal of the Reformation. Has Arminianism changed? Have the doctrines of the Reformation changed? Has the Gospel of grace alone changed? Maybe we need to wonder if the modern day way of looking at the Gospel has departed from both Scripture and the Reformation. The Gospel of grace alone is offensive to Pelagians even if they call themselves Arminians and even perhaps Reformed.

Martin Luther and the Reformers fought all forms of Pelagianism in the Reformation and were willing to die for the Gospel of grace alone. Later Reformed thinkers thought that Arminianism was in principle a return to Rome for the following reasons: 1) It turned faith from an instrument that received grace to one of a meritorious work. 2) It denied the absolute sovereignty of God in salvation. 3) It relied on self for faith which was in reality to rely on self for a work. Logically speaking, Arminianism is a flat-out denial of the Gospel of grace alone. That sounds ungracious, but the real issue has to do with how true it is. It is not unbiblical to tell a person that s/he does not believe in the true Gospel of grace alone. In fact, it is to be a man-pleaser to accept a person who denies the Gospel rather than offend the person. True love will offend with the true Gospel and the true Gospel is offensive.

There is no way around the issue. Our broad tent may allow us to have more folks in the tent, but it also drives out the living God who only dwells where the true Gospel is. Could it be that in our land today that we deny the true Gospel of grace alone because we have so focused on justification by faith alone that we have forgotten the broader principles that it fits within? If we yank justification by faith alone out of its corresponding principles of the utter helplessness of man in sin and the sovereignty of God in giving grace, we have a different doctrine than the Reformers did. The doctrine of the will is not just some mysterious teaching on the will, it is vital to the teaching of grace alone and Christ alone. That means that it is vital to justification by faith alone as well. We live in a day that holds to something called justification by faith alone while denying what the Reformers meant by it. As the country is swirling down to the pit, surely it is obvious that the Gospel the majority preaches is dead wrong.

‘Justification by faith only’ is a truth that needs interpretation. The principle of sola fide is not rightly understood till it is seen as anchored in the broader principle of sola gratia (Johnson and Packer’s introduction to Luther’s Bondage of the Will).

If the above statement is true, and if the teaching during the Reformation was true, the teaching of sola fide or justification by faith alone needs to be visited again in our day. This is not just some extraneous principle; it has to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. While it is not thought to be gracious or winsome to go around saying that those who hold to differing theologies have compromised the teaching of the Reformation, it is still something that needs to be preached across our land. While it may be thought that to be against unity to say that those with a different theology have compromised the Reformation, yet if there is no unity in the Gospel there is no true unity. The following quote immediately precedes the quote above in the original book.

What is the source and status of faith? Is it the God-given means whereby the God-given justification is received, or is it the condition of justification which it is left to man to fulfil? Is it a part of God’s gift of salvation, or is it man’s own contribution to salvation? Is our salvation wholly of God, or does it ultimately depend on something that we do for ourselves? Those who deny the latter (as the Arminians later did) thereby deny man’s utter helplessness in sin, and affirm that a form of semi-Pelagianism is true after all. It is no wonder, then, that later Reformed theology condemned Arminianism as being in principle a return to Rome (because in effect it turned faith into a meritorious work) and a betrayal of the Reformation (because it denied the sovereignty of God in saving sinners, which was the deepest religious and theological principle of the Reformer’s thought). Arminianism was, indeed, in Reformed eyes a renunciation of New Testament Christianity in favour of New Testament Judaism; for to rely on oneself for faith is no different in principle from relying on oneself for works, and the one is as un-Christian and anti-Christian as the other (Johnson and Packer’s introduction to Luther’s Bondage of the Will).

If the above quote is accurate about the beliefs of the Reformers, then we live in a day that teaches virtually the opposite of the truths taught in the Reformation. Indeed it uses the same words in many places, but it does not teach the same content. The justification or Gospel that the Reformers taught was that the source of faith was God Himself and there was no other source. If faith is simply a condition that is left up to a man to fulfill apart from God, which a free-will has to be if it is truly free, then that is man’s contribution to salvation and it is that on which salvation turns. This is not a salvation or justification that depends wholly on God. The classical and biblical teaching on justification is that God declares just those who have their sins cleansed and have a perfect righteousness. Of course that can only happen by grace alone and Christ alone. But if all of that depends on one act of man’s free will then that one act of faith is a meritorious act in some way and justification is not on the basis of Christ alone and grace alone. That is removing faith from the broader principles of Scripture and of the Reformation. That leaves a justification and salvation which depends on one choice or act of the will rather than grace alone. It is not a salvation that is wholly of God that depends on nothing in man and nothing man can do.

The Arminian position denies the utter helplessness of man in sin. If those who hold that position at any point affirm the utter helplessness of man in sin, then they are no longer Arminians. The Arminian position, even if it takes the name of Arminius, is inescapably part of the Pelagian system in some way. There is no semi-Reformed position. A person believes in grace alone from the depths of his or her soul or s/he does not. But all other positions that are not Reformed are on a sliding scale of Pelagianism. So Arminian thinking is inevitably a form of Pelagianism and so it is semi-Pelagianism in some way. But even if the Arminian denies that faith is meritorious in some way, those are just words that deny the logical and inevitable conclusion of his or her position. If justification depends on the act of a free-will and by definition the will to be free has to be free from the internal acts of the irresistible grace of God, that act that God responds to with salvation has merit in it. That position, despite the protestations of the professing Protestants who hold to it or stand by those who do, is a betrayal of the Reformation. More importantly, it is to fall from grace in the sense that it is a fall from grace alone. If there is only one Gospel and that Gospel is the Gospel of grace alone, we must not turn a blind eye to this vital issue. One drop of poison is enough to spoil a pure glass of water. The smallest work, even if verbally denied to be meritorious, is enough to make grace to be no longer grace (Romans 11:6). This is a matter of eternal importance.

If the will can come up with it own faith, then faith is the work of something other than grace. Yet all things come to the soul through faith. So if free-will is that which by definition means that the will is free from the internal work of God in the soul and He always works good in the soul by faith, that means that God gives grace when man comes up with his own faith. Surely we can see that something is very wrong with that picture. But even more, for the whole of the Christian life that leaves man dependent on his own will rather than completely reliant on the grace of God. But Scripture is so clear that man is not dependent on his own will but is totally dependent on the will of God for all good. Apart from Christ man can do nothing (John 15:4-5).

The doctrine of justification by faith alone does not exist apart from its connection with other truths. It must be in accordance with the character and nature of God and the character and nature of the sinner. The nature of the sinner is that s/he is dead in sins and trespasses and has no spiritual ability at all. The nature of God is that He is under no obligation to anyone at all and cannot be brought into their obligation in any way other than Himself. He operates in the spiritual realm saving sinners by grace and grace alone to the glory of His name alone. Any view of justification that takes away from His grace and glory is not of God. The enslaved soul is the teaching of Scripture of the spiritual nature of human beings and a God who does all by grace alone to His glory alone is foundational to any teaching about God. Justification by grace alone through faith alone starts with sinners who are helpless and dead and have no way to help themselves other than crying out to God to save them. Justification by grace alone through faith alone has a God who saves sinners by grace alone and all the glory is His. A view of justification by faith alone that does not leave room for grace alone and to His glory alone is at best a deficient view of the Gospel of Scripture and to the Gospel that God spoke through the Reformers and changed the world with.

‘Justification by faith only’ is a truth that needs interpretation. The principle of sola fide is not rightly understood till it is seen as anchored in the broader principle of sola gratia (Johnson and Packer’s introduction to Luther’s Bondage of the Will).

The above statement should have a book written about it. We are in a nation and perhaps world today that has virtually lost its view of the truth of justification because it does not think that justification by faith only needs interpretation and needs to be seen in the broader principle of grace alone. When we do not interpret justification by faith alone in its broader principle, we are not left with the Gospel of the Reformation but we are left with an easy believism, a rational teaching, or perhaps some form of Pelagianism. But justification by faith alone is not rightly understood till it is seen as anchored in grace alone. In other words, the Gospel itself is not understood until it is seen in light of grace alone. But it is not just seen in light of grace alone, it must be anchored in grace alone. When the words “justification by faith alone” are used with the words “grace alone” and justification is not understood or anchored in grace alone, the Gospel is virtually lost if not absolutely lost. The devil loves to hide the truth in the folds of other truths. Justification by faith alone is a teaching that is heresy apart from understanding it as anchored in grace alone. It is not simply a scholastic teaching that if the brain can comprehend the teachings of it and say they are true then a soul is saved. That is salvation by a rational understanding alone.

The grace that saves a soul is the grace of an active God who really acts in the soul. It is not just believing a few facts about Jesus and about grace, but instead it is the living God who really and actively works in the soul and gives the soul true spiritual life and Christ Himself is that life. A justification that comes to the sinner by believing a few facts is not the same justification that comes to the soul by the work of grace in the soul. It is true that justification is a legal declaration whereby the righteousness of Christ is imputed to the sinner, but this is not apart from the work of grace in giving the soul life and uniting the soul to Christ. Justification cannot be separated from the glorious teaching of the fact that all of salvation is the work of God’s sovereign work of grace and that grace is not just to be believed in by an act of the mind but it is a work in the soul as well. The work in the soul by God cannot be done by the sinner in the least of its acts. The soul must be regenerated and become spiritual before it can be a soul that does anything spiritual. Faith must be an act of the spiritual man since a work of the flesh is still the work of the unregenerate flesh. The soul must be united to Christ before it can bear spiritual fruit which can only come from the vine through the branches. The will that is free of the grace of God acting in it is a will that is free from any spiritual good at all. We must abide in Christ to bear fruit. If we are to abide in Christ to bear fruit, then we must be united to Him. Faith is a fruit of the Spirit and not of the flesh. The will can never do that work.