God Loves… Himself

We will continue thinking through a statement by Andrew Fuller:

“This doctrine, it will be said, must drive sinners to despair. Be it so; it is such despair as I wish to see prevail. Until a sinner despair of any help from himself, he will never fall into the arms of sovereign mercy; but if once we are convinced that there is no help in us, and that this, so far from excusing us, is a proof of the greatest wickedness, we shall then begin to pray as lost sinners; and such prayer, offered in the name of Jesus, will be heard” (Works of Fuller, Volume II, p. 382).

Until man sees that there is no hope in and no help from himself at all, he will never pray as a totally lost sinner. Until then he prays for some help in order to gain assistance for himself rather than being totally in the hands of sovereign mercy. This is huge. If a person never sees that he has no hope in himself, he has not begun to see himself in biblical terms. Does that person really see the Gospel that exalts the grace of God and that is set out to exalt God primarily? Does that person see him or herself as one that is truly dead in sins and trespasses as Ephesians 2:1-3 sets out? Does this person really understand that s/he must be born from above to even see or enter the kingdom? The above statement by Fuller is truly a biblical statement that is informed by many texts.

Do we teach men that they are sinners just to make them lose some faith in themselves? Perhaps we are to teach them about sin so that they can see they need a Savior. But if we never teach them that they are so sinful that they have no hope in themselves, have we shown them their need of a SOVEREIGN SAVIOR from all sin? Can there be a Savior in any real sense other than one that is sovereign? So if we leave men with some hope in themselves of some help, have we really taught them what they really need to know? Jesus taught men that it was impossible for them to be saved of themselves (Luke 19:26) and that men could (“can” or could is a word of ability) not come to Him unless the Father taught and drew them (John 6:44-45). We will not go wrong in teaching what Jesus taught.

Fuller teaches us another biblical truth as well. Until a person is convinced that there is no help in himself he will not see the fullest extent of his sin. It is only when this is recognized that the depths of sin and our personal wickedness will be seen. This is seen in Romans 7:7-9:

“What shall we say then? Is the Law sin? May it never be! On the contrary, I would not have come to know sin except through the Law; for I would not have known about coveting if the Law had not said, “YOU SHALL NOT COVET.” 8 But sin, taking opportunity through the commandment, produced in me coveting of every kind; for apart from the Law sin is dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the Law; but when the commandment came, sin became alive and I died.” At the point Paul died, did he have any hope in himself at all? Did the publican have any hope in himself when he cried out “‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!'” (Luke 18:13).

Scripture teaches us with these verses (and many more) that the soul must be broken from its own strength in order to trust in Christ alone. Man must die to his own strength and power and not just part of it, but all of it in order to rest in Christ alone.

The doctrine of man’s inability is surely seen to be important in evangelism. If we simply tell people to repent and believe without working with them and instructing them of their sin and their inability to do so, we have not properly instructed them. They will trust in something of themselves instead of trusting in Christ and grace alone. The sinner will never rest in the mercy and grace of God alone until s/he has reached the point where s/he despairs of any and all hope in self. Yet the doctrine of inability must never be taught in such a way that men will think that they are not culpable. Instead, the doctrine of inability must be taught were it is seen to actually heighten men’s sin and wickedness before God.

The words that Scripture repeats over and over should teach us that we have no ability, no worth, and no strength of our own. These are the words that Fuller gave us too: “in the name of Jesus.” Perhaps we think that this is some sort of magical incantation or that it is just something we are to repeat after a prayer, but the reality is that these are powerful words when they are uttered from a heart that believes them. To pray, believe and trust in something in the name of Christ means that we trust in His name alone and not our own. We never see Scripture teaching us by example or instruction to pray mostly in the name of Jesus. No, we come to the Father resting entirely on the name of Christ. We come resting entirely in His work on the cross and His righteousness. No one will ever come to Christ based on anything but His name and His name entirely. Surely that teaches us our inability. Surely that also means that if we teach people to go to God only in the name of Christ we must teach them of the inability of self.

Andrew Fuller said this:

“This doctrine, it will be said, must drive sinners to despair. Be it so; it is such despair as I wish to see prevail. Until a sinner despair of any help from himself, he will never fall into the arms of sovereign mercy; but if once we are convinced that there is no help in us, and that this, so far from excusing us, is a proof of the greatest wickedness, we shall then begin to pray as lost sinners; and such prayer, offered in the name of Jesus, will be heard” (Works of Fuller, Volume II, p. 382).

The doctrine of man’s inability is an important part of understanding the Gospel. If we think of man having responsibility in terms of his ability to respond or him being able to respond with ability, then we are not driving man to this despair that Fuller talks about. If we tell men that they can do something that is good or something that God will respond to and save them, we are not being faithful to the Gospel of grace alone. Men must be driven to total despair of themselves or they will not leave off trusting in themselves.

Faith is meant to destroy all works for salvation so that we are saved by grace alone, but man changes the idea of faith and uses it as a way to save himself without hard work. God saves by faith in order to destroy any hope of man adding to salvation, yet man uses the idea of faith to bolster himself into believing that there is one little thing he can do in terms of control for salvation. Any addition to grace alone by any work no matter how small does not leave us a Gospel that is of grace alone. Romans 11:6 is clear that works make grace to be no grace at all. This is so vital to any conception of the Gospel that it must be stressed.

We say we are saved by faith, but what we really mean is that we are saved through faith. Salvation comes to us in the main sense and “by” refers to how it is received versus what we do to be saved. God saves us by faith, that is, through the gift of faith He gives us. We are saved by faith in the sense that faith is the instrument (in a manner of speaking) that receives salvation. In another sense faith is that which unites a person to Christ and so one is united to Christ by faith and it is Christ alone that saves. If at any point a person means with the words “saved by faith” that a person needs to work up a belief in order to be saved, that destroys salvation by Christ alone. If we mean that in the OT many works were needed but now we just need one work and that of faith, we still believe in some scheme of works for salvation. One work for salvation is not any better than many. It is still not grace alone.

A person that still clings to his own ability in the realm of faith and looks to himself for faith has not been driven to the despair that Fuller spoke of. Hear his words again: “until a sinner despair of any help from himself, he will never fall into the arms of sovereign mercy.” It is not until a sinner despairs of any help from himself, that is, of any help at all, he will never (not may not, but never) fall into the arms of sovereign mercy. As long as we have any hope in ourselves, we do not trust in mercy alone. As long as we look for any help in ourselves, we do not see mercy as sovereign. If this is true, then the doctrine of inability is really at the very heart of the Gospel and of Reformed theology. No matter what a person believes about other things, if he does not attempt to drive sinners to complete despair of the ability and strength of self he is not teaching the depravity of man in truth and is not teaching the Gospel of grace alone in truth.

We must begin to wake up in our day and see that while there is a rise in Reformed theology in many ways, the truth of the Gospel of Christ alone and grace alone will not be seen until we drive men to utter despair of any help from themselves. If one would read the writings of men like Martin Luther, Thomas Hooker, Thomas Shepard, Anthony Burgess, Solomon Stoddard and Jonathan Edwards they would see that this is really at the heart of the Gospel as taught in history. Fuller was not stepping out of line with the historical teachings; he was simply teaching what he had learned from the writings of Jonathan Edwards and Scripture. Human beings must be brought to despair of themselves or they will never trust in Christ and grace alone. A prayer in the name of Jesus means for His sake and by His power and grace. One will never pray that until one is delivered from all hope in self.

The teaching of Scripture on faith teaches us the same issue. If we are to believe in Christ alone then that means we trust Christ alone and all that He did in His life, on the cross, in the resurrection, and then even now while at the right hand of the Father. To believe in Christ alone means that we cannot believe in ourselves, our goodness and power even the slightest. We must despair of any and all help from ourselves in order to trust in Christ alone.

As we have seen from Turretin and Owen and just a bit from Luther, the shining lights from the history of Reformed theology and Christianity saw that the doctrine of free-will was virtually if not in reality a different view of Christianity than that of free grace. It taught a different Gospel and it taught a different view of God and man. Let us look at one passage of Scripture to show this difference.

“Being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; 25 whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation in His blood through faith. This was to demonstrate His righteousness, because in the forbearance of God He passed over the sins previously committed; 26 for the demonstration, I say, of His righteousness at the present time, so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. 27 Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith 28 For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law” (Romans 3:24-28).

Justification is of God and God alone. It comes “as a gift by His grace.” What do those words really mean? In his book The Reign of Grace Abraham Booth sets this out in a most beautiful way. That book is highly recommended in most parts. The word “gift” in the NAS demonstrates the effort to define a concept of Scripture. The KJV uses the word “freely.” The Greek word here is dorea which is used in these ways: freely(1), gift(12), needlessly(1), without a cause(1), without charge(1), without cost(2), without paying(1). John 15:25 translates the word as “without cause.” This is the passage which speaks of people hating Jesus without cause. Something that is truly free is without a cause in the person receiving it. Justification, then, shows us that sinners are saved without cause in themselves. The only cause of justification is the grace of God.

Without cause or reason in the sinner God redeems them by Christ. God displays Christ as a propitiation to demonstrate His own righteousness. God demonstrates His own righteousness so that He would be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. Where does all of that leave any room for boasting? It does not leave any room for boasting at any point and at any way. Why is there no room for boasting? It is because there is no cause within the human being which moved God to save them. Salvation is all of grace toward the human being (and I do mean all of grace in each and every aspect) because all of the causes and works involved in salvation are from within and come out from God. There is nothing about the Gospel that is not caused and moved by God. There is nothing to boast about because it is all of the grace of God. Not only does free grace point to man not being the cause of salvation, but grace points to how undeserving and ill-deserving human beings really are. Grace does not know of any cause within man or it would not be grace at all (Romans 11:6).

The doctrine of free-will, however, sets out that there is something in man that is self-determined. It teaches that until man exercises his will in some way (and a free-will means that the determining factor has to be self-determined in order to be free and not from another) that person is not saved. Many teach a form of grace that prepares man and gives man some strength but that the last movement is up to man. Whatever the case, they teach that last little bit is left to the self-determining power of human beings. But Romans 3:24ff does not show that distinction at all. It says that salvation is caused by God alone and it is by grace alone. It shows with utter clarity that there is nothing that man can do to help save himself.

Justification is by grace alone and uncaused in any way by human beings and so is the whole work of Christ in the text given above in Romans. Notice what happens, however, when we slip in a little bit of free-will. The whole text in its context will have to be changed. Justification is no longer by grace alone but by grace and just a bit by free-will. No longer is man justified freely (without cause in himself) by grace, but he now is able to contribute a cause for why God justifies him. The redemption that was all of grace is now mostly by grace. Propitiation used to be without cause to man and only so that God could demonstrate His righteousness is now caused in some way by man. God is no longer the sole justifier but man has contributed just a little bit by the act of his self-determining will. We are then left with man as being able to boast some in that he chose of himself when others did not. Indeed it is man that distinguishes himself in that scheme. As you can see once again if we throw a little free-will into the mix it leavens the Gospel into something a lot different. But it does not stop there, that leaven even goes to the throne of God and changes what Scripture teaches about God. It is a deadly serious error. We must beware.

We are now looking at how John Owen deals with these issues. In his treatise on Arminianism he goes on to say this:

“As a desire of self-sufficiency was the first cause of this infirmity [depravity], so a conceit thereof is that wherewith he still languisheth; nothing doth he contend for than an independency of any supreme power, which might either help, hinder, or control him in his actions. This is that bitter root from whence have sprung all those heresies and wretched contentions which have troubled the church, concerning the power of man in working his own happiness, and his exemption from the over-ruling providence of Almighty God. All which wrangling disputes of carnal reason against the word of God come at last to this head, Whether the first and chiefest part, in disposing of things in this world, ought to be ascribed to God or man…Never did any men…more eagerly endeavour the erecting of this Babel than the Arminians, the modern blinded patrons of human self-sufficiency” (Works of Owen, Volume 10, p. 13).

Owen goes on to say that the Arminians desire and pursue self-sufficiency in order to exempt themselves from God’s jurisdiction. They do this when:

1. They deny the eternity and unchangeableness of God’s decrees.
2. They question the foreknowledge of God.
3. They depose the all-governing providence of this King of nations, denying its energetical, effectual power, in turning the hearts, ruling the thoughts, determining the wills, and disposing the actions of men, by granting unto it but a general power and influence, to be limited and used according to the inclination and will of every particular agent.
4. They deny the irresistibility and uncontrollable power of God’s will, affirming that oftentimes he seriously willeth and intendeth what he cannot accomplish, and so is deceived of his aim; nay, whereas he desireth and really intendeth, to save every man, it is wholly in their own power whether he shall save any one or no; otherwise their idol free-will should have but a poor deity, if God could, how and when he would, cross and resist him in his dominion.

What Owen sets out for us is simply breathtaking. The desire for free will is the desire to overthrow the rule of God over us and to pursue self-sufficiency. This is the same thing that Eve was promised by Satan and sought in the garden. She was told that she could be as God or like God if she took of the fruit (Genesis 3:5-6). The desire of the fallen heart is to be like God in all ways. Here is where the desire of man to be self-sufficient comes from. Here is where man’s desire to have wisdom in a way that is not from God comes from. Here we see man throwing off the rule and wisdom of God in order to set up his own rule.

But again notice what Owen sets out as the devastating effects of what the tsunami of this theology really is. It is a direct affront to the character and glory of God that Scripture sets out so clearly. The God that Paul preached to the pagans was a supreme and sovereign God:

“The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; 25 nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; 26 and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, 27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children'” (Acts 17:24-28).

Again this is so hard for the mind to grasp, but we must not flee from the ramifications. We must set ourselves to prayer and Scripture. If the Word of God is breathed forth from God (II Timothy 3:16), then it is reality and we must bow to that reality. Whatever is breathed of God is what is true and not what the majority of people say today. This is certainly reminiscent of the Historical Introduction to Luther’s Bondage of the Will in which (the book itself) is said much the same as Owen and Turretin. “To accept the principles which Martin Luther vindicates in The Bondage of the Will would certainly involve a mental and spiritual revolution for many Christians at the present time.” A corresponding thought is that it was said that “whoever puts this book down without realizing that evangelical theology stands or falls with the doctrine of the bondage of the will has read it in vain.” Luther, Turretin, and Owen all fought for the bondage of the will because they fought for a Gospel that was of a sovereign God who could show mercy to whom He pleased and willed. You can’t have one without the other.

We have looked at Francis Turretin the last few BLOGS, but now we will move on to John Owen who was the greatest of the theologians during the time of the Puritans. John Owen wrote his treatise on Arminianism while indeed Reformed theology was under heavy assault from Laud. Perhaps in a day where Reformed theology is not practiced by many of those who claim it, this treatise of his should be at the top of our reading lists. The longer title of his treatise on Arminianism is very instructive and even sets out an outline of his points:

A DISPLAY OF ARMINIANISM
BEING
A DISCOVERY OF THE OLD PELAGIAN IDOL, FREE-WILL, WITH THE
NEW GODDESS CONTINGENCY,

ADVANCING THEMSELVES INTO THE THRONE OF THE GOD OF HEAVEN, TO THE
PREJUDICE OF HIS GRACE, PROVIDENCE, AND SUPREME
DOMINION OVER THE CHILDREN OF MEN.

Notice how he words this and sets things out in opposition to each other. He defines Arminianism as really being a discovery of the same idol as the Pelagian heresy. It looks as if he agrees with Luther who thought that semi-Pelagianism (Arminianism) was even worse than Pelagianism. While they have discovered the old idol of free-will, they have a new goddess of contingency. John Owen sees free-will and contingency as being idolatrous because it advances a person into the throne of God. In other words, free-will is opposed to the freedom of God. One cannot maintain the freedom of God and free-will at the same time. When one asserts free-will one also denigrates God’s grace, providence, and supreme dominion over men. In other words, Owen is showing us that Arminianism is to him such a serious error that it has a different view of God and of grace. This assertion of his will be fought against, but let us all think through these things carefully. Despite the creeds that we have and the words that we use, there are huge differences between the ways we understand the issues.

If free-will is accepted as true, there are necessary things that go along with it. It is like throwing a rock into the water. The rock does not just sink into the water with no side-effects at all, but water is displaced where the rock goes in and it causes ripples across the water for quite a distance. When the rock of free-will is dropped into a theological pond, it causes a lot of ripples because of what it has displaced. Another picture that might help is that of a person’s beliefs all being bound together. When one belief is assaulted or changed, all of the rest have some changing to do because they are all held together. The human mind wants consistency and it strives for consistency with all of its beliefs. When a new belief is brought in, the mind must adjust previous beliefs in order to accept the new teaching. The same thing is true in theology. One belief necessarily impacts all other beliefs in some way and at some point.

If the will is truly free, then indeed the actions of man are contingent on human beings instead of the will of God. This is a huge teaching in Scripture. Once free-will is accepted as fact and contingency is received as true, the ripples into our theological pond become more like tsunamis. At that point the tsunami of free-will will topple the grace of God in all things as the efficacious power in salvation and as the restraining power in sin. No longer does man trust in grace alone, he trusts in grace to help his will. When that happens the tsunami continues pushing on and hits the providence and sovereignty of God which are overthrown as a result. While one may retain a creed or the words of “providence” and “sovereignty,” of necessity those things do not mean the same when free-will and contingency are accepted.

Let us get down to the basic issue. As can be seen the doctrine of free-will versus the doctrine of free-grace have huge differences. They differ on the essence of the Gospel and they differ on the character of God. They differ on the basic issues of who runs the universe in a very practical way. One will say that Christ makes salvation possible while the other says that Christ saves in all ways those whom He saves. I hope that it is clear that while the issues of free-will may appear small at the beginning, if one traces the ripples out far enough one will see that the issues are major and are at the very heart of Christianity. These cannot be ignored except at the peril of the Gospel.

In the last BLOG we looked at a section from Francis Turretin on the deadly error of free will. In this BLOG we will look at another aspect of the teaching on free will and that is irresistible or efficacious grace. In historical Reformed theology people were said to be dead in sin and had to be drawn by the power of grace. Free will by definition says that at least some little part must be man making the move to God apart from that power of grace. This is a direct attack on the teaching of grace alone. If we assert that a person has any power of the will that is self-determined, then that part of the will is not moved by the grace of God. That is contradictory to the biblical teaching of grace alone and Christ alone.

Let me quote Turretin from his Fifth Question in this section: “Whether in the first moment of conversion man is merely passive or whether his will cooperates in some measure with the grace of God. The former we affirm and deny the latter against all Synergists” (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Volume Two, p.542). We will get to some comments he makes on this in a moment. Notice that he is talking about the first moment of conversion. Does man in his will cooperate with God in the slightest or not? In other words, is man drawn by grace alone so that he is saved by grace alone or does he cooperate with his will or not? At any point if free will, and that means any degree of free will, cooperates with God it is in fact synergism. It is a working together with God and so is not all of grace.

Turretin then goes on: “This question lies between us and the Romanists, Socinians, Remonstrants, and other offshoots of the Pelagians and Semipelagians who, not to injure or remove the free will of man in calling, maintain that it has a certain cooperation (synergeian) and concourse with the grace of God. Hence they are called Synergists.” Here we see how synergism was defined by Turretin whose theology was used by Charles Hodge and R.L. Dabney two hundred years or so later. It is any cooperation or concourse with the grace of God. He uses this as a broad definition to cover anyone who believes in free will and even any degree of free will. This is the deadly error that he opposes at any and all points.

“The question does not concern the second stage of conversion in which it is certain that man is not merely passive, but cooperates with God (or rather operates under him)… Rather the question concerns the first moment when he is converted and receives new life by regeneration. We contend that he is merely passive in this, as a receiving subject and not an acting principle.” He goes on to say that the question is not about whether this happens by grace, but whether at this point man is able to cooperate with grace or not. To assert that the will is free and man has ability in this at this point is to assert that man is not dead in sins and trespasses. If man is dead in sin, then man does not need a little help, he needs to be made alive. That is exactly what Scripture teaches in Ephesians 2:1-10. Man is dead and by the sheer mercy and grace of God man is made alive. There is no cooperation at that point with God; it is all of the power and glory of God.

The question must be asked as to how much power a dead man has to actually effect his being raised to life? How much free will does a dead man have? The nature of regeneration is given in Scripture as being by the will and power of God. “But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:12-13). In this text it is explicit that a person is not born of the will of anything to do with man, but it happens because of the will of God. Regeneration is simply impossible for man to do. Man cannot make for himself a new nature and to give himself what is needed to be a new creation (II Cor 5:17). It is God alone who can renew His own image in man in the regeneration of man (Eph 4:24; Col 3:10).

What is it that can take a person that is dead in sin without any ability to respond to God while under the bondage of sin and the dominion of darkness? Surely nothing but an infinite power can do this. Surely only the God who spoke the world and all things in it into being can bring about true regeneration. Surely only the God who created all things can make man into a “new creation” (II Cor 5:17). Surely it is the God who has life in Himself that can breathe life into the soul of men and men become a living creature in Christ. Surely it is only the power of Almighty God that can wrest the souls of men from their bondage to sin and the dominion of darkness. Salvation is not about a choice of man, it is a cosmic battle between God and evil. Man is helpless in the power of the evil one and helpless in the sense that he loves his sin. It took the cross to defeat the evil one and it takes the power of God to apply the cross to sinners. No effort of man has any effect on this at all. It is a deadly error.

We can bring in the giants of the past and stand on their shoulders to show how vital the inability of man is in terms of the Gospel. Francis Turretin:

“Who is ignorant of the gigantic attempts of the Pelagians and semi-Pelagians on this subject? They deny either wholly the impurity of nature or extenuate it most astonishingly to extol the strength of free will… to bring back (either openly or secretly and by burrowing) Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism and to place the old idol of free will in the citadel. This is the Helen whom they so ardently love and for whom they do not hesitate to fight as for their altars and firesides. It is of great importance, therefore, that the disciples of true and genuine grace should oppose themselves strenuously to these deadly errors and so build up the misery of men and the necessity of grace that the entire cause of destruction should be ascribed to man and the whole glory of salvation to God alone”

(Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Volume One, p. 659)

Why does Turretin think of free will as an idol? It is because men assign power to it and trust in it for what God alone can do. When free will is set beside the grace of God as a co-laborer in salvation, it is called synergism in reference to the Gospel and is not grace alone. This point cannot be stressed too strongly. When free will is said to be free enough that it is a co-worker with God for salvation, that is synergism rather than grace alone and Christ alone. When free will is trusted for the final act or last little bit of power for salvation that is not grace alone. To defend the Gospel of grace alone is to defend the Gospel as being of the grace of God at each and every point. It does not matter how strong a man is, if even a small child helps him lift an object at some point no matter how small the point is and no matter how weak the child is, the strong man did not do it alone. Even the weakest action of the will that is self-determined and free is enough to make the Gospel less than grace alone and Christ alone.

Notice that Turretin also spoke of “the strength of free will.” No matter how little power or how small the efficacy is assigned to free will, it is that little power that is set up against the power of God. This is, as he says, the idol that they so ardently love and fight for. Let us not make a mistake in this. The true battle is at this point. It is a battle over free will or free grace. It is a battle over the strength of the will or the strength of God in grace. It is the battle over the power of God for salvation or the power of the will to assist in this. If we trust in the will for salvation at all, then we have trusted in an idol. An idol is something we love and trust in for benefits or help.

Turretin says that the Pelagians and semi-Pelagians fight over this and in light of that “the disciples of true and genuine grace should oppose themselves strenuously to these deadly errors.” These things are not viewed like this in our day. It is no longer thought that Arminian thinking (semi-Pelagian) is a deadly error and that the disciples of genuine grace should oppose their deadly errors. Is this a statement of hatred against Arminians? Did Turretin hate all who did not agree with him? When accusations like that are made they miss the true point. It is out of love for God and others that we should oppose false teaching in order to show the necessity of the Gospel being all of grace so that it would be to the glory of God alone. The battle is not against the flesh and blood of Arminians, but it is against the theology of Arminianism and it is a spiritual battle that is fought over the Gospel and the character of God. We may fight against atheists, but the battle is not out of hatred for atheists but out of love for God and the souls of atheists. The battle is not against the people themselves, but is rather a battle over the truth of God.

If Turretin is correct, the teaching of free will is a deadly error. If it is a deadly error, the battle lines must be drawn there. If this is the heart of Reformed theology, then what passes as Reformed theology today needs to be thought through again. The Gospel of the glory of God is too precious to be watered down and made far too broad. It is the Gospel that is the power of God unto salvation and nothing else. It is not kindness or compassion to others for us to waffle on this issue. It is nothing less than hatred of the souls of others to stand back and for the sake of some kind of unity not to stand firm at all points for the Gospel of the grace of God. As Turretin reminds us, “disciples of true and genuine grace should oppose themselves strenuously to these deadly errors.” This is what Reformed theologians taught in the past. Has theology changed in our day? Has God changed in our day?

Reformed theology and Christianity are names. If what passes as Christian changes, then the name no longer means the same. What goes as a Christian church in our day would never have been called a church in the past. Is the same true of Reformed theology? If the writers of the past offend us by their writing, perhaps it is because we don’t hold to the same theology that they did. This is at the very heart of Reformed theology. Reformed theology in the past thought that free will was a deadly error. If they were right, it is still a deadly error. Let us pray.

As we continue on our journey in thinking about inability, some might think this is an absurd topic to discuss. After all, whether God gives faith or whether man believes of himself all man has to do is believe. If a person believes, then that person is saved. That sounds good on the surface, but once one begins to examine it that begins to unravel. What does it mean to believe? What does one have to disbelieve in to truly believe? What does one have to believe in to savingly believe? Is a person saved by grace and grace alone or does one add to grace in terms of salvation by an act of faith? Can a person trust in himself for faith and believe in grace alone and Christ alone for salvation? Is a trust in self the same as having an idol? These questions at least point to some important issues.

Some of the issues at hand are simply concerning what it means to believe. If belief is nothing more than a cognitive awareness and agreement with some facts, then perhaps that is not so hard. But we know that Jesus said that a person must be born again to even see the kingdom (John 3:3). Faith is seen as a simple thing and without any real power needed to exercise it, but that is simply incorrect. It takes the power of God to produce the power of faith. Ephesians 1:19 sets this out: “and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might.” In the text of Ephesians 1:19 the words “these are” are in italics which means they were added by the translators. However, the verse reads very well without those words being added. It would then read like this: “and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe in accordance with the working of the strength of His might.” With this translation one can see that the greatness of His power is seen in that those who believe actually believe in accordance with the working of the strength of His might. Faith is not a simple and powerless act; it takes the power of almighty God to produce it.

Edward Griffin puts it this way: “The real question lies between the Calvinistic doctrine of divine efficiency and the Arminian self-determining power” (Divine Efficiency, p. 75). We must not think of faith as something simple that takes no power to do. The will has no power to overcome those things which are against it in order to exercise faith. Indeed it takes the power of God to do so. We know that Scripture teaches that human beings are slaves of sin (Romans 6:6; John 8:34-36). Scripture also teaches that when a person is saved that person is delivered from the domain (dominion, power) of darkness (Colossians 1:13). Who can deliver human beings from slavery to the devil and from being under his power? Where does that power come from? It can only come from God as He alone is more powerful than the evil one.

Faith has the devil fighting against it in terms of salvation and in terms of the Christian life. Ephesians 6 sets out the spiritual battle of the believer. “Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might. 11 Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:10-12). In this text we see that it takes the strength of the Lord to stand against the schemes of the devil. It tells us that our very struggle is not against flesh and blood (and we are flesh and blood) but is instead against spiritual forces of wickedness. The battle is not fought in the natural realm as such, despite the appearances of that, but in the spiritual realm. Then we see this: “in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one” (Ephesians 6:16). It takes faith to extinguish the flaming arrows of the evil one. What can faith extinguish? The darts and arrows of doubt that the evil one shoots are what faith extinguishes. If the power of faith comes from human beings, then this shows that it is not the strength of the Lord that we fight with.

It is clear that for a person to exercise faith it must be done in accordance with the strength of His might (Ephesians 1:19). It is clear that a person must have the have the power of God to overcome the dominion of darkness as that cannot be done by a puny human being (Colossians 1:13). It is clear that once a believer a person’s faith is from God as it is being strong in the Lord and in the strength of His might. The believer is protected by the power of God through faith (I Peter 1:5). Faith is not a simple exercise of the mind as in a decision, but is an act of God in the human soul. In one sense faith is a divine act and a divine act of divine power. Indeed it is also the act of the human being at some point, but it is the act of God through the human being. Every human being is born under the dominion of the evil one and in bondage to sin. The human will cannot free itself from its bonds and the devil. It has no ability to do so. It takes the ability of God to free a human soul from those spiritual bonds.