God Loves… Himself

One of the greatest differences between the evangelical Calvinists and those they deride as “Hyper-calvinists,” is the evangelical Calvinists believe Arminians and Pelagians are otherwise sound “Christians,” and refer to them as their brothers and sisters. The Hyper-calvinists believe that as long as one is unconverted from his natural freewill state by the operation of the Spirit of God, and converted to the free grace of God by the Gospel of the grace of God, there is insufficient evidence to consider such as a “Christian,” or a “brother or sister.” This is not to say that they consign them to hell–that is not their desire, for by their own experience they understand that before that gracious divine call out of darkness, they, too, were “vessels of wrath even as others.” Arminians and Pelagians are as much in need for the gospel as any “heathen” or pagan. Calvinists would do well to “evangelize” their Arminian or Pelagian “brothers and sisters.”

So it is not irreligious, idle, or superfluous, but in the highest degree wholesome and necessary, for a Christian to know whether of not his will has anything to do in matters pertaining to salvation. Indeed, let me tell you, this is the hinge on which our discussion turns, the crucial issue between us; our aim is, simply, to investigate what ability ‘free-will’ has, in what respect it is the subject of Divine action and how it stands related to the grace of God. If we know nothing of these things, we shall know nothing whatsoever of Christianity, and shall be in worse case than any people on earth…That God’s mercy works everything, and our will works nothing, but is rather the object of Divine working, else all will not be ascribed to God. (Luther’s Reply to Erasmus)

What follows below is from Ian Murray’s work on conversion in the writing of Thomas Hooker (http://www.the-highway.com/Hooker-on-Conversion_Murray.html)

Hooker saw the above as essential features in evangelistic preaching .and yet these truths alone by no means say everything which needs to be said about conversion. There are profounder elements still to be introduced and to these we now turn.

One, In conversion the human will is unswervingly hostile to Christ until it is renewed by the secret power of God. The will of the unregenerate man can turn in any direction except to Christ and to holiness. Certainly the man willing to believe the promises of God shall be saved but since the Fall such willingness was never found in any natural man:

The will of a natural man is the worst part about him. The worst thing he has, the greatest enemy he has, is his own heart and will. It is the corrupt will of a man that keeps him under the power of his sins, and keeps him off the power of an ordinance that would procure his everlasting good. I speak it the rather to dash that dream of wicked men, when they do ill, and speak ill, yet (say they), ‘my heart is good’. No, truly, if thy life be naught, thy heart is worse. It is the worst thing thou hast about thee … the deceitfulness of the heart is above all; the masterfulness of the heart is beyond all that we can conceive. A man may discern a man’s life, ‘but the heart is desperate deceitful, who can know it?’ The will of man is uncontrollable, it will stand out against all reasons and arguments, and nothing can move the will except God work upon it.

It has often been argued that to preach inability can be no part of evangelism as it must effectually paralyse any endeavour on the part of those who hear the message. But for Hooker anyone who so reasoned was displaying a seriously defective view of what, the gospel is intended to accomplish. If man only needed a change of status in the sight of God only needed to receive forgiveness—then silence about the real condition of the human will might be permissible but this is not all that man needs. To be saved his nature also must be renewed, his heart must be changed, and the sinful state of man’s will is one chief evidence of that necessity. To hide the real condition of man’s will is to ignore the foremost reason why regeneration is indispensable.

Hooker believed that the Scripture is clear in asserting what regeneration does. It is the act of God which, implanting a new principle of spiritual life, produces a new understanding and a new will, so that the person who is the subject of this act may truly be called ‘a new creature’. It is also an act of sovereign and almighty power, ‘wrought irresistibly, not issuing from the liberty of our choice, and therefore it is brought about by the irresistible impression of the work of the Spirit’. In regeneration ‘the soul behaves itself merely passively, and is wrought upon by an over-ruling power’.

One of the greatest differences between the evangelical Calvinists and those they deride as “Hyper-calvinists,” is the evangelical Calvinists believe Arminians and Pelagians are otherwise sound “Christians,” and refer to them as their brothers and sisters. The Hyper-calvinists believe that as long as one is unconverted from his natural freewill state by the operation of the Spirit of God, and converted to the free grace of God by the Gospel of the grace of God, there is insufficient evidence to consider such as a “Christian,” or a “brother or sister.” This is not to say that they consign them to hell–that is not their desire, for by their own experience they understand that before that gracious divine call out of darkness, they, too, were “vessels of wrath even as others.” Arminians and Pelagians are as much in need for the gospel as any “heathen” or pagan. Calvinists would do well to “evangelize” their Arminian or Pelagian “brothers and sisters.”
So it is not irreligious, idle, or superfluous, but in the highest degree wholesome and necessary, for a Christian to know whether of not his will has anything to do in matters pertaining to salvation. Indeed, let me tell you, this is the hinge on which our discussion turns, the crucial issue between us; our aim is, simply, to investigate what ability ‘free-will’ has, in what respect it is the subject of Divine action and how it stands related to the grace of God. If we know nothing of these things, we shall know nothing whatsoever of Christianity, and shall be in worse case than any people on earth…That God’s mercy works everything, and our will works nothing, but is rather the object of Divine working, else all will not be ascribed to God. (Luther’s Reply to Erasmus)

Luther says that it is in the highest degree wholesome and necessary to know about the things of our will in matters pertaining to salvation. Yet in the modern day it is thought to be idle and superfluous to bring up matters of the will. So clearly we have Luther and the magisterial reformers standing strongly for teaching about the will in matters of salvation while those in the modern day think that it is idle or superfluous. The evangelism of our day simply teaches men to know a few things and then to make a decision or pray a prayer. But if we don’t teach people about the nature of the will, then those people will be making decisions and praying prayers from the flesh and there is nothing in the flesh that can please God. That leaves people thinking that they are converted when in fact they are still children of the devil on their way to hell, though just a bit more religious.
Modern evangelism, since it does not instruct people about the bondage of the will, leads people into thinking that salvation has little to do with God’s actions now. It leads people to thinking that God has done all He can or at least all He is going to do and it is up to them now. The way that the Puritan fathers practiced evangelism was to tell people that they could not believe unless God granted it to them by grace. They were instructed to seek the Lord asking Him to give them new hearts which would be hearts that believed. The differences between these ways are enormous, yet one relies on man and his so-called “free-will” and the other relied upon God and His sovereign will and pleasure. To repeat, yet a very necessary emphasis, Luther said that a person that did not know of these things (the ability of God and the inability of man in the matters of the will) knew nothing whatsoever of Christianity. This should be a bomb going off in the “evangelical” and “Reformed” world of today which seemingly refuses to teach people of these things.
Putting the first quote at the top of this page together with the thoughts of Luther, we should be concerned that professing Arminians (who are most likely Pelagians in reality) know nothing of Christianity since they are apparently unconcerned and not taught regarding things of the will. In our day we are far more concerned with being gracious and winsome so we can convince people to make a decision than we are to instruct them in the things that Luther tells us are the “highest degree wholesome and necessary to know about.” Could it be that the modern day Reformed folks have also gotten away from the heart of the biblical teaching of justification by faith alone with has to do with the bondage of the will? Could it be, that despite having more and more people becoming confessional, that more and more people are ignoring what is the “highest degree wholesome and necessary to know about” according to Luther? Can we really believe justification by faith alone as Luther taught it if we ignore what he thought was in the highest degree necessary to knowing true Christianity? I fear we are in a day of great darkness and judgment as indeed books from scholars with great learning in many things pour from the presses.

One of the greatest differences between the evangelical Calvinists and those they deride as “Hyper-calvinists,” is the evangelical Calvinists believe Arminians and Pelagians are otherwise sound “Christians,” and refer to them as their brothers and sisters. The Hyper-calvinists believe that as long as one is unconverted from his natural freewill state by the operation of the Spirit of God, and converted to the free grace of God by the Gospel of the grace of God, there is insufficient evidence to consider such as a “Christian,” or a “brother or sister.” This is not to say that they consign them to hell–that is not their desire, for by their own experience they understand that before that gracious divine call out of darkness, they, too, were “vessels of wrath even as others.” Arminians and Pelagians are as much in need for the gospel as any “heathen” or pagan. Calvinists would do well to “evangelize” their Arminian or Pelagian “brothers and sisters.”
So it is not irreligious, idle, or superfluous, but in the highest degree wholesome and necessary, for a Christian to know whether of not his will has anything to do in matters pertaining to salvation. Indeed, let me tell you, this is the hinge on which our discussion turns, the crucial issue between us; our aim is, simply, to investigate what ability ‘free-will’ has, in what respect it is the subject of Divine action and how it stands related to the grace of God. If we know nothing of these things, we shall know nothing whatsoever of Christianity, and shall be in worse case than any people on earth…That God’s mercy works everything, and our will works nothing, but is rather the object of Divine working, else all will not be ascribed to God. (Luther’s Reply to Erasmus)

How important is it for souls to know about the bondage of the will and whether God works faith in the sinner or waits for the sinner to obtain faith by self? According to Luther, it is in the highest degree necessary. While it appears that the vast majority of “Reformed” people want this great doctrine hidden as if they are ashamed of it, Luther thought it was not only necessary, but necessary in the highest degree. While “Reformed” people just urge people to believe in our day, that is not what Luther would urge people to do. If we just urge people to believe, we are not telling them that if their belief of faith comes from themselves and is worked up by themselves, then that is not true faith. There is nothing that the flesh can do that is acceptable to God and a faith worked up by the flesh is certainly not acceptable to God. The Arminian needs to know that just because s/he believes from his or he supposed free-will is not just a sign that the person is wrong about theology, but is unconverted.
Well, some will say, that is mighty arrogant and judgmental. I would respond that the statement is either true or false regardless of my level of arrogance. As far as arrogance goes, however, when God says that He will have mercy on whom He will have mercy and He will be gracious to whom He will be gracious, it is arrogant to say in word or theology that God will be gracious to me because I have decided that I want grace. The Scriptures are very, very clear that man is born dead in sins and trespasses and by nature is a child of wrath. The Scriptures are also clear that God must draw a person to Himself to be converted rather than a person just deciding to be saved. The Scriptures are quite clear that salvation is only by Christ and as such it is not just a choice of a fleshly will. The Scriptures are clear that regeneration and the new birth are an act of the Holy Spirit which He does as He pleases and not just an act of a fleshly will.
It is to the highest degree necessary for men and women to know that they have no ability to save themselves and their wills have no ability just to make a choice or say a prayer which moves God to save them. But if Luther thought it was to the highest degree necessary for people to know about the nature of their bound will and that it was a necessary teaching to understand justification by faith alone, then why are so many “Reformed” people in our day virtually ashamed of it? Luther said that if a person did not know about these things the person would not know about Christianity. Luther was either right or wrong about this and he was either right or wrong about justification by faith alone as he set it out. His view on justification was that it required men to see their helplessness in sin and of the sovereignty of God in showing grace. It is not enough to know a few doctrinal facts about justification, one must actually repent of trusting in self and actually look to God and His grace alone for faith and all things regarding salvation. We cannot look to self for faith and then to God for other things and say with any degree of consistency that we are justified by grace alone. Perhaps Luther was right about this being necessary to the highest degree. But if so, we are in a day of great darkness.

One of the greatest differences between the evangelical Calvinists and those they deride as “Hyper-calvinists,” is the evangelical Calvinists believe Arminians and Pelagians are otherwise sound “Christians,” and refer to them as their brothers and sisters. The Hyper-calvinists believe that as long as one is unconverted from his natural freewill state by the operation of the Spirit of God, and converted to the free grace of God by the Gospel of the grace of God, there is insufficient evidence to consider such as a “Christian,” or a “brother or sister.” This is not to say that they consign them to hell–that is not their desire, for by their own experience they understand that before that gracious divine call out of darkness, they, too, were “vessels of wrath even as others.” Arminians and Pelagians are as much in need for the gospel as any “heathen” or pagan. Calvinists would do well to “evangelize” their Arminian or Pelagian “brothers and sisters.”

But he who is out of doubt that his destiny depends entirely on the will of God despairs entirely of himself, chooses nothing for himself, but waits for God to work in him; and such a man is very near to grace for his salvation. 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. Luther

It is utterly vital for a soul to realize and come to the conviction that his or her eternal destiny depends entirely on the will of God. This is vital to resting in grace alone since all grace to be grace is sovereign grace. It is not until a soul despairs of all help from self and gives up all contingency plans regarding the works and acts of self that it will look to God entirely and alone. It is in coming to this deep conviction of man’s inability and the need to be utterly reliant upon God that a soul is close to grace for salvation. Why does Luther say that a person is close to the grace of salvation rather than will be saved? It is because God is the One who works in souls to humble them and to teach them that they are utterly helpless to work and earn any part of salvation and that they must look to Him alone. However, even when He brings a soul to that point the soul must not think that God is obligated to save it. True enough that God does not work and bring a lot of souls to this point, but even when He does there is no obligation on His part to save the soul.

The truths of the bondage of the will and sovereign grace are published for the sake of the elect, not for the sake of mega-churches so that they will grow greatly in numbers and offerings. The great doctrines of grace (real and true grace) humble men and bring them down to nothing. But it is in that deep impoverishment of spirit and the realization of their nothingness that God saves sinners. These are the sinners who need a Great Physician and they need for someone to give them faith and to save them for reasons other than the sinners themselves. The teaching of depravity helps men to see that they are sinners in need of a Savior, but it is the teaching of the inability of man and his utter helplessness in bondage to his own sinful nature that drives men to helplessness. Even more, when men see the self-sufficiency and sovereignty of God in giving grace that humbles them even more. When people fight and resist these truths rather than to be humbled by them, they show themselves to be at enmity with God.

Only those that God works this into will bow in humble submission to it. Men prefer to hear the teaching of self-esteem rather than the biblical teaching of self-despair. Oh how men resist this deep humiliation in order to leave themselves a little something to do which is to leave themselves apart from the grace of God. They may think that they are religious and that they are seekers of God, but instead they are full of pride and as such they are real enemies of the true grace of God. This is a crucial issue according to Luther and it is a crucial issue according to Scripture. The Old Testament tells us that God only dwells with the humble and the New Testament tells us that Jesus only calls those who are weary and heavy-laden. We are told in both Testaments that God opposes the proud and gives grace to the humble. It is a very easy conclusion, then, to see that souls must be thoroughly humbled in order to be converted by sovereign grace. This is to say that a person must be converted from the natural free-will state to the supernatural state of grace. The natural state of free-will is a sign of a person being unbroken and having not had the humiliation of the soul that is needed to be converted by grace. We need to consider the teaching of Arminianism and just how dangerous it is once again.

One of the greatest differences between the evangelical Calvinists and those they deride as “Hyper-calvinists,” is the evangelical Calvinists believe Arminians and Pelagians are otherwise sound “Christians,” and refer to them as their brothers and sisters. The Hyper-calvinists believe that as long as one is unconverted from his natural freewill state by the operation of the Spirit of God, and converted to the free grace of God by the Gospel of the grace of God, there is insufficient evidence to consider such as a “Christian,” or a “brother or sister.” This is not to say that they consign them to hell–that is not their desire, for by their own experience they understand that before that gracious divine call out of darkness, they, too, were “vessels of wrath even as others.” Arminians and Pelagians are as much in need for the gospel as any “heathen” or pagan. Calvinists would do well to “evangelize” their Arminian or Pelagian “brothers and sisters.”

There are two considerations which require the preaching of these truths. The first is the humbling of our pride, and the comprehending of the grace of God; the second is the nature of Christian faith. For the first; God has surely promised His grace to the humbled; that is, to those who mourn over and despair of themselves. But a man cannot be thoroughly humbled till he realizes that his salvation is utterly beyond his own powers, counsels, efforts, will and works, and depends absolutely on the will, counsel, pleasure and work of Another—God alone. Luther

Again, it is vital to note the difference in older Calvinism and the modern variety. The statement of Luther (just above) sets out a great truth that older Calvinism operates upon. It is that God humbles the heart of its pride before He gives it faith and grace. It is only the humbled heart that God gives grace to, but we must also be careful to note that dead sinners cannot humble their own hearts in order to get God to give them salvation. But note again, Luther says that these things require the preaching of these truths. This is to say that Luther does not believe that the Gospel of grace alone can be preached apart from preaching which seeks to humble the pride of the heart.

Luther then gives us a few things on what this humbling of the heart entails. One, the humbled heart is a heart that mourns over and despairs of itself. This is an important point and it must be driven home. This was said by the man who rediscovered justification by faith alone by the grace of God and this happened over a several year period which involved much pain and inner agony. Faith and pride cannot stand together, so God works in the soul to deliver it from pride and so He can make it a soul where faith can dwell in. The “job” of faith (which comes by grace) is to receive grace and Christ and as such a proud heart cannot receive grace, so God works the pride out of the heart (though leaving enough to make the soul look to Him at all times) in order that the soul may receive grace. After all, Scripture tells us that God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.

The Arminian position does not need for the soul to be humbled and delivered from its pride, but instead the “free-will” can make a choice at any point. This is the natural freewill state in which the theory has the person who has this “free-will” as having an ability to exercise faith at any point of time. The older Calvinists like Luther, however, would insist that as long as the person with the supposed free-will could trust in his or her own power to come up with faith that person was not truly humbled and so could not have true faith or grace. The older Calvinism said that the person must repent from its trust in the free-will that it may trust in free-grace.

The second thing about humility, according to the quote from Luther above (though indeed it is really part of the first thing about humility), is that “a man cannot be thoroughly humbled till he realizes that his salvation is utterly beyond his own powers, counsels, efforts, will and works, and depends absolutely on the will, counsel, pleasure and work of Another—God alone.” Here is the part that the Arminian theory simply cannot stand with. There can be no real reconciliation between this statement of Luther and the Arminian position. Only one of these positions can possibly be biblical since these two positions are polar opposites of each other, though logically both of them could be wrong. But both cannot be right.

When modern Calvinists try to be winsome and gracious to Arminianism, it is most likely the case that they don’t really understand the absolute contradiction between the two positions. One cannot be a Calvinist that is consistent with Luther and the older positions and still think that the Arminian position is consistent with the Gospel of grace alone. The older position viewed the free-will position (quite accurately I might add) as one where salvation was in the power, counsel, effort, will and work of the human soul. Luther and the old Calvinists said that until a person was thoroughly humbled from all of those things it could not depend absolutely on the will, counsel, pleasure and work of God alone in Christ. It is quite clear to see that one cannot agree with the older Calvinists and with the orthodoxy of modern Arminians at the same time. The Gospel is at state and we must not be quiet about it.

One of the greatest differences between the evangelical Calvinists and those they deride as “Hyper-calvinists,” is the evangelical Calvinists believe Arminians and Pelagians are otherwise sound “Christians,” and refer to them as their brothers and sisters. The Hyper-calvinists believe that as long as one is unconverted from his natural freewill state by the operation of the Spirit of God, and converted to the free grace of God by the Gospel of the grace of God, there is insufficient evidence to consider such as a “Christian,” or a “brother or sister.” This is not to say that they consign them to hell–that is not their desire, for by their own experience they understand that before that gracious divine call out of darkness, they, too, were “vessels of wrath even as others.” Arminians and Pelagians are as much in need for the gospel as any “heathen” or pagan. Calvinists would do well to “evangelize” their Arminian or Pelagian “brothers and sisters.”
To the Reformers, the crucial question was not simply, whether God justifies believers without works of Law. It was the broader question, whether sinners are wholly helpless in their sin, and whether God is to be thought of as saving them by free, unconditional, invincible grace, not only justifying them for Christ’s sake when they come to faith, but also raising them from the death of sin by His quickening Spirit in order to bring them to faith. Here was the crucial issue; whether God is the author, not merely of justification, but also of faith; whether, in the last analysis, Christianity is a religion of utter reliance on God for salvation and all things necessary to it, or of self-reliance and self-effort. ‘Justification by faith only’ is a truth that needs interpretation. The principle of sola fide is not rightly understood till it is seen as anchored in the broader principle of sola gratia (Johnson & Packer’s intro to Luther’s Bondage of the Will).

Part of the reason that the issue of the will is a crucial issue is the relation of faith to grace. As can be seen in a comparison of the two quotes above, there is a huge difference in how people view the will, faith, and then grace. The way one views these three things (the will, faith, and grace) depends on how a person views God and man. A person can think of God as man-centered and yet think of himself as being God-centered, but that is simply another way a person can focus on self and the things of self. The difference, however, is that the person thinks of God as centered upon that person and so the person will view God in relation to self. The person that views God as God-centered will have a totally different view of the will, faith, and grace.

As noted in the first quote above, the older view of the Calvinist was that a person had to be converted from a person’s natural free-will position (relying on, trusting in the free-will) to a free-grace position by the grace of God to be considered a Christian. In the second quote above, we see that the will was considered by the Reformers as a crucial issue. The crucial issue had to do with the author of faith as to whether it was of God or of man. If grace does not give faith, then man cannot be said to be saved by grace alone. This points to a huge difference between the older Calvinistic view (from the Reformation) and the modern Arminian view. It seems that most of the modern Reformed people (in name) do not seem to find a huge issue with the Arminian view.

When the Arminian says that the sinner is justified by faith alone, what is meant is that the sinner has the free-will to come up with faith and then God justifies the sinner. This is to say, then, that the Arminian position (in theory and apparent practice) has the will of man free of depravity and free of grace and so the act of faith comes from the unregenerate person’s will. This is, without any real question, a work/act of the unregenerate soul that God is pleased with and then gives the person Christ and salvation. What the older Calvinistic position said, on the other hand, is that God was free to show grace to whom He pleased and so He looked upon all as dead sinners with absolutely no good in them and no faith in them and He saved them by regenerating them, giving them faith and Christ. On the basis of Christ alone He declared sinners just.

The Arminian view looks to self to come up with faith and then having faith looks to God to save it on the basis of that faith. The Calvinistic view sees self as utterly dead and so looks to God for life and faith that He gives by grace alone based on Himself and His own glory. The two views are diametrically opposed to each other as one looks to self and one looks to God. The one looks to self for what is needed in order for God to save it and the other looks to God for all that is needed in order to save it. While many think that it is mean and a strike at unity to point these things out with clarity, it may be that the Gospel of grace depends upon it. The Reformers thought so.

One of the greatest differences between the evangelical Calvinists and those they deride as “Hyper-calvinists,” is the evangelical Calvinists believe Arminians and Pelagians are otherwise sound “Christians,” and refer to them as their brothers and sisters. The Hyper-calvinists believe that as long as one is unconverted from his natural freewill state by the operation of the Spirit of God, and converted to the free grace of God by the Gospel of the grace of God, there is insufficient evidence to consider such as a “Christian,” or a “brother or sister.” This is not to say that they consign them to hell–that is not their desire, for by their own experience they understand that before that gracious divine call out of darkness, they, too, were “vessels of wrath even as others.” Arminians and Pelagians are as much in need for the gospel as any “heathen” or pagan. Calvinists would do well to “evangelize” their Arminian or Pelagian “brothers and sisters.”

To the Reformers, the crucial question was not simply, whether God justifies believers without works of Law. It was the broader question, whether sinners are wholly helpless in their sin, and whether God is to be thought of as saving them by free, unconditional, invincible grace, not only justifying them for Christ’s sake when they come to faith, but also raising them from the death of sin by His quickening Spirit in order to bring them to faith. Here was the crucial issue; whether God is the author, not merely of justification, but also of faith; whether, in the last analysis, Christianity is a religion of utter reliance on God for salvation and all things necessary to it, or of self-reliance and self-effort. ‘Justification by faith only’ is a truth that needs interpretation. The principle of sola fide is not rightly understood till it is seen as anchored in the broader principle of sola gratia (Johnson & Packer’s intro to Luther’s Bondage of the Will).

It appears hard for modern people attending local churches to think of the bondage of the will or the utter inability of the will as being important for the Gospel. Instead of that, people seem to think that we must have unity to make the Gospel more powerful (in some way) and that our being gracious and winsome is more important than the twin truths of the deadness of man in sin and the sovereign grace of God to make alive those whom He pleases. But once again we must point to how Luther thought of this as a crucial issue.

The doctrine of sovereign grace is at the center of the deadness of the will and also of justification. If man is truly dead in sins and trespasses, then the will is not free and God must will to make man alive and that can only be done by His sovereign grace. The one who is spiritually dead must be made spiritually alive in order to have Christ as a spiritually dead person cannot make a spiritual decision. This shows us that the faith which sinners must have can only come to them by grace alone. A person is not declared just by God because the person comes up with faith, but the sovereign grace of God makes dead sinners alive and gives them faith. A person that has faith has Christ and a person that has Christ is a justified person on the basis of Christ.

The deadness of sinners in sin and the sovereign grace of God are vital issues in justification. We must see this and we must bow in submission to God in this matter instead of trusting in our own reason and our own hearts. The sinner that continues to look to self for a work of any kind (and that includes faith, perhaps especially of faith) is not one that is looking to Christ alone. The sinner that is looking to a free-will for an exercise of faith that God will respond to and save that sinner is not a sinner that is looking to the sovereign grace of God (the only kind of grace there is) in Christ alone.

Did Christ suffer for all of His people’s sins? Did Christ leave one sin that He did not suffer for? Did Christ die for His people’s sin of unbelief or leave it to them to overcome by their own will? Sinners are to look to Christ alone for all things and they are to look to Him for faith that comes by grace as well. Did Christ provide a perfect righteousness for His people or not? Did Christ leave sinners just one righteous act (coming up with faith on their own) to work up? Of course that is absurd as well. There is nothing left for the sinner to do in terms of the Gospel. Christ either purchased faith for sinners or He did not. But if He did not, then sinners not only have to come up with a spiritual faith on their own while dead in sins and trespasses, but their salvation then depends on them.

How vital this issue is when it is looked at and thought about. How vital this issue is seen to be when God opens blind eyes to see the inability of man and the ability of God. How vital this issue is seen to be when we see that God saves by grace and grace alone and that one work of the free-will is a work that attempts to add to grace. How we must learn to behold the glory of a free-grace rather than a free-will! How we must learn to behold the glory of God’s freedom to save the worst of sinners rather than trying to distinguish ourselves! How we must learn to behold the glory of the sovereignty of God rather than our thinking we are sovereign over ourselves! The doctrine of free-will strikes at the sovereignty of God, the finished work of Christ, the applying work of the Spirit; the depravity of man and the glory of His free grace in Christ by the Spirit. This teaching on free-will is an attack on the Gospel of grace alone and men must wake up to this in the modern day and understand that the free-will is what we are saved from.

One of the greatest differences between the evangelical Calvinists and those they deride as “Hyper-calvinists,” is the evangelical Calvinists believe Arminians and Pelagians are otherwise sound “Christians,” and refer to them as their brothers and sisters. The Hyper-calvinists believe that as long as one is unconverted from his natural freewill state by the operation of the Spirit of God, and converted to the free grace of God by the Gospel of the grace of God, there is insufficient evidence to consider such as a “Christian,” or a “brother or sister.” This is not to say that they consign them to hell–that is not their desire, for by their own experience they understand that before that gracious divine call out of darkness, they, too, were “vessels of wrath even as others.” Arminians and Pelagians are as much in need for the gospel as any “heathen” or pagan. Calvinists would do well to “evangelize” their Arminian or Pelagian “brothers and sisters.”
To the Reformers, the crucial question was not simply, whether God justifies believers without works of Law. It was the broader question, whether sinners are wholly helpless in their sin, and whether God is to be thought of as saving them by free, unconditional, invincible grace, not only justifying them for Christ’s sake when they come to faith, but also raising them from the death of sin by His quickening Spirit in order to bring them to faith. Here was the crucial issue; whether God is the author, not merely of justification, but also of faith; whether, in the last analysis, Christianity is a religion of utter reliance on God for salvation and all things necessary to it, or of self-reliance and self-effort. ‘Justification by faith only’ is a truth that needs interpretation. The principle of sola fide is not rightly understood till it is seen as anchored in the broader principle of sola gratia (Johnson & Packer’s intro to Luther’s Bondage of the Will).

The Gospel must be understood in light of God’s supreme purpose in creating the world. The supreme purpose of God is Himself and His own glory, and when one views the Gospel in that light it changes everything. God lives in eternal, infinite, and unbroken love within the Trinity. The Father created the World through the Son and He created the world for the Son. The world, to borrow a phrase, is the theater of the glory of God. The world, however, does not add to the glory of God, but instead it manifests and shines forth the glory of God. The Lord Jesus is said to be the very shining forth of the glory of God (Hebrews 1:3) and so we see how the world was created through the Son, but also see how it is that the world was created for the Son. The world was created as a way for the glory of God to shine out in Christ and for the beauty and glory of God to be put on display. However, the glory of God was to be put on display for God primarily. The Father loves the Son and beholds His own glory and the glory of the Son simultaneously, which is to say that the Father beholds Himself in the Son. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is not just that God thought so highly of sinners that He sent the Son, but instead the Father loved the Son and the Son loved the Father and so they created the world and have a Gospel as a way to behold and love themselves in the Trinity.

The Gospel that the Reformers recovered and declared was a Gospel that was to the glory of God alone. The Gospel that Arminius and the Remonstrants countered with, and indeed the modern Arminians have went farther than Arminius did, was not to the glory of God alone but instead allowed for man to have enough freedom (in theory) that man would share in that glory. The Gospel of God and the Gospel of the grace of God that thundered forth in the Reformation is not the same as that put out by Arminians in the present day. The older Gospel is by a “free, unconditional,” and “invincible grace, not only justifying them for Christ’s sake when they come to faith, but also raising them from the death of sin by His quickening Spirit in order to bring them to faith.”

In this we see the triune nature of God and how salvation manifests His glory. This “free, unconditional,” and “invincible grace is God being motivated within Himself and for His own glory to save sinners quite apart from anything they have done or can do. This grace justifies sinners for the sake of Christ and not for the sake of the faith that the sinner comes up with, but instead the grace that God gives sinners is to quicken them by His Spirit in order to give them Christ and faith. This is the display of triune glory and the triune God beholds this glory that was from Him, and through Him, and to Him and He is pleased.

We must begin to repent of our graciousness and winsomeness and realize that those things can get in the way of grace. We must begin to see the seriousness of trying hard to be ecumenical and seeking a unity that is opposite of the Gospel of grace alone. It is not that God is glorified by our efforts to have unity because that is nothing but our own efforts at trying to get alone. The true nature of the glory of God is that it must come from God first and He will not share His glory with another. The Gospel of grace alone that is truly alone is a Gospel of the glory of God alone because it comes from God alone. It is a glory that shines forth from Him, comes in and through Christ, is applied by His Spirit, and then what His people do is done out of a love for Him that originated with Him. The “gospel” that depends on a “free-will” originates with man and is not from God and as such is not for His glory in the biblical sense. A gospel that depends on a human will is not the Gospel that depends on God alone. The gospel that does not depend on God alone is not the Gospel of the glory of God alone. “Free-will”, then, is not consistent with and in fact opposes the Gospel of grace alone to the glory of God alone.

One of the greatest differences between the evangelical Calvinists and those they deride as “Hyper-calvinists,” is the evangelical Calvinists believe Arminians and Pelagians are otherwise sound “Christians,” and refer to them as their brothers and sisters. The Hyper-calvinists believe that as long as one is unconverted from his natural freewill state by the operation of the Spirit of God, and converted to the free grace of God by the Gospel of the grace of God, there is insufficient evidence to consider such as a “Christian,” or a “brother or sister.” This is not to say that they consign them to hell–that is not their desire, for by their own experience they understand that before that gracious divine call out of darkness, they, too, were “vessels of wrath even as others.” Arminians and Pelagians are as much in need for the gospel as any “heathen” or pagan. Calvinists would do well to “evangelize” their Arminian or Pelagian “brothers and sisters.”
To the Reformers, the crucial question was not simply, whether God justifies believers without works of Law. It was the broader question, whether sinners are wholly helpless in their sin, and whether God is to be thought of as saving them by free, unconditional, invincible grace, not only justifying them for Christ’s sake when they come to faith, but also raising them from the death of sin by His quickening Spirit in order to bring them to faith. Here was the crucial issue; whether God is the author, not merely of justification, but also of faith; whether, in the last analysis, Christianity is a religion of utter reliance on God for salvation and all things necessary to it, or of self-reliance and self-effort. ‘Justification by faith only’ is a truth that needs interpretation. The principle of sola fide is not rightly understood till it is seen as anchored in the broader principle of sola gratia (Johnson & Packer’s intro to Luther’s Bondage of the Will).

Regarding the crucial issue mentioned by Johnson and Packer in their intro to Luther’s Bondage of the Will, that is the same issue that was the contention of Luther at the Reformation with Arminianism (Rome at the time) and what the author of the first quote above is bringing up. This is so easily dismissed in the modern day as something that is not all that important. It is said that what does it matter as long as the Arminians preach Christ. But again, Roman Catholics preached Christ in some way and Luther said that this was the crucial issue in his remarks to Erasmus which is where Johnson and Packer got their information that this was a crucial issue. Can a person truly preach Christ alone where there is some of the will left in the mix? Luther would argue that one cannot. Can a person preach a true Christ alone and grace alone when they preach or allow for a free-will which contradicts Christ alone and grace alone?
Luther said that the bondage of the will must be preached in order to allow for a true and sovereign grace of God, yet people today don’t seem to see that at all. They seem to believe that grace can be sovereign and yet man have a will that is free of depravity and of grace at the same time. But again, this is the crux of the issue or it is the crucial issue. We must not let go of this and we must always be on our guard to fight against all the secret inroads against this doctrine. It is not enough to assert this in a creed or give some form of lip-service to it, this must be held from the depths of the soul and it must be defended.

So it is not irreligious, idle, or superfluous, but in the highest degree wholesome and necessary, for a Christian to know whether of not his will has anything to do in matters pertaining to salvation. Indeed, let me tell you, this is the hinge on which our discussion turns, the crucial issue between us; our aim is, simply, to investigate what ability ‘free-will’ has, in what respect it is the subject of Divine action and how it stands related to the grace of God. If we know nothing of these things, we shall know nothing whatsoever of Christianity, and shall be in worse case than any people on earth…That God’s mercy works everything, and our will works nothing, but is rather the object of Divine working, else all will not be ascribed to God. (Luther’s Reply to Erasmus)

Here are Luther’s words (translated into English) on the matter. This is the hinge on which the discussion turned. This was the crucial issue and that was to investigate what ability “free-will” had and how it was related to the grace of God. When people are ignorant of those things (whether on purpose or not) they know nothing of biblical Christianity. These words should resound in our ears and the weight of them should be upon our consciences. This is at the heart of Christianity and the heart of the Gospel and yet people are ashamed of these things today. What does that teach us about how different we are than those in the days of the Reformation? If we are ashamed of this teaching, does that mean we are ashamed of the Gospel regardless of how much we speak of doctrines having to do with Christ? Could it be that the modern Reformed person, in his anxiousness to be gracious and winsome toward Arminians and to work with them, has actually abandoned the heart of the Gospel? What would Luther say? What does it mean for God to save sinners by grace ALONE?