Grace Motivated

 One of the most sinned-against biblical principles is that of the grace of God in the gospel as the pattern, motive and power for Christian living.

—Graeme Goldsworthy, Prayer and the Knowledge of God, 12

Calvin on Free-will (by Monergism).

 

by John Calvin

Editor’s Introduction

In The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, John Calvin responds to the Roman Catholic theologian Albert Pighius, who had attacked Calvin’s teaching on the bondage of the human will. Calvin’s concern is to show that the necessity of sin does not mean that sinners are externally forced to sin against their will. To make that distinction clear, he identifies four ways the will may be described: free, enslaved, voluntary, or coerced.

---

The following is a fresh translation from Calvin’s original Latin:

But since Pighius continually confuses necessity with coercion, and since it is of the greatest importance for the present question that we understand and carefully retain the distinction between them, we must observe how these four things differ from one another: a will may be free, enslaved, voluntary, or coerced.

By a free will people ordinarily understand—and Pighius likewise defines it in this way—a will that has it within its power to choose either good or evil.

A coerced will, properly speaking, cannot exist, since the two ideas contradict one another. Nevertheless, for the sake of instruction we must explain what is meant, so that it may be understood what coercion is. We therefore call that will coerced which does not incline this way or that of its own accord, or by an inward movement of choice, but is violently driven by an external force.

We call a will voluntary when it moves of its own accord in the direction in which it is carried, and is neither seized by force nor dragged unwillingly.

Finally, an enslaved will is one which, because of its corruption, is held captive under the dominion of evil desires, so that it can choose nothing but evil, even though it does so willingly and gladly, without being driven by any external force.

According to these definitions, we grant that man possesses choice and that his choice is voluntary, so that if he does anything evil, it must be imputed to him and to his own voluntary choice. We exclude coercion and violence, because these are contrary to the nature of the will and cannot coexist with it.

But we deny that the will is free, because through man’s inborn wickedness it is necessarily carried toward evil and can desire nothing but evil.

From this it may be seen how great the difference is between necessity and coercion. For we do not say that man is dragged unwillingly into sinning, but that because his will is corrupt, he is held captive under the yoke of sin and therefore necessarily wills what is evil. For where there is slavery, there is necessity. Yet it makes a very great difference whether that slavery is voluntary or coerced.

We locate the necessity of sinning nowhere else than in the corruption of the will; from this it follows that the will itself acts voluntarily.

Thus it is clear that voluntariness and necessity can exist together at the same time, despite Pighius’s attempt to evade this by supposing that man is free only if he does neither good nor evil necessarily.

Source: John Calvin, Defensio sanae et orthodoxae doctrinae de servitute et liberatione humani arbitrii, adversus calumnias Alberti Pighii Campensis, in Ioannis Calvini Opera quae supersunt omnia, ed. Guilielmus Baum, Eduardus Cunitz, and Eduardus Reuss, vol. 6, Corpus Reformatorum 34 (Brunsvigae: C. A. Schwetschke et Filium, 1867), pp. 279–280, esp. p. 280.

Luther before Calvin

You might also find it strange, @DineshDSouza (many will surely find it ironic here) that Martin Luther—who championed the Reformation’s key idea that salvation is received by faith alone—preached God’s unconditional election of individuals to salvation years before John Calvin was even a Protestant. 

Does this mean that Luther himself attacked the Reformation? That would be strange, wouldn’t it? 

And yet, on August 19, 1527, a little over a month after Calvin’s 18th birthday, during the year by which his friends were acquainting him with Luther’s teachings for the first time, Luther preached the following on 1 Peter 1:1: 

> “St. Peter declares that they are chosen. How? Not by themselves but according to God’s arrangement. For we shall not be able to bring ourselves to heaven or to create faith in ourselves. God will not admit all men to heaven; He will count His own very exactly. Now the human doctrine of free will and of our own powers no longer amounts to anything. Our will is unimportant; God’s will and choosing are decisive.” 

> — *“Sermons on the First Epistle of Peter,” Luther’s Works (LW) 30:6.*

Calvin (1509–1564) was a young humanities student at the University of Paris’s Collège de Montaigu when Luther (1483–1546) preached this. He wouldn’t become a Protestant for another five or six years (late 1532 or 1533). 

Luther, on the other hand, was still serving as Professor of Theology at the University of Wittenberg and as a preacher at the Wittenberg City Church: 

- nearly 10 years after he posted the Ninety-Five Theses, 

- going on 7 years since his clear declaration of justification through faith alone in *The Freedom of a Christian*, 

- nearly 6½ years after his stand at the Diet of Worms, 

- and coming up to 2 years after he published *The Bondage of the Will*, in which he referred to: 

> “…that hidden and awful will of God whereby he ordains by his own counsel which and what sort of persons he wills to be recipients and partakers of his preached and offered mercy. This will is not to be inquired into, but reverently adored, as by far the most awe-inspiring secret of the Divine Majesty, reserved for himself alone and forbidden to us…” 

> — *LW 33:139.*

And, of course, *The Bondage of the Will* was Luther’s contribution to the Luther-Erasmus debate you said you were studying 11 days ago, and as you scored it, “Luther wins on points” (although you said you’d “rather have dinner with Erasmus”). 

Your remark here is interesting since *The Bondage of the Will* is an extended polemic against the notion that the fallen human will can do anything good, which includes having true saving faith, apart from a sovereign act of God’s supernatural grace. In it, Luther wrote: 

> “Now take the saying of Christ in John 6[:44]: ‘No one comes to me unless my Father draws him.’ What does this leave to free choice? For he says that everyone needs to hear and learn from the Father himself, and that all must be taught by God. He plainly teaches here, not only that the works and efforts of free choice are fruitless, but that even the message of the gospel itself (which is what this passage is about) is heard in vain unless the Father himself speaks, teaches, and draws inwardly. ‘No one can come,’ he says, ‘no one’; and thus that power by which a man is able to make some endeavor toward Christ, or in other words, toward the things that pertain to salvation, is asserted to be no power at all.” 

> — *LW 33:285–286.*

Thus, for Luther the only way a sinner can have true faith in Christ is if God gives it to him, and the only sinners He gives it to are those He’s chosen—the elect, or predestined. 

So, is Luther “attacking” his own Reformation? Or is he perhaps just being inconsistent? 

Neither, as far as he was concerned. In fact, he believed he was being eminently consistent because he considered sinful man’s total inability to be the actual heart of the matter concerning salvation, so much so that he was grateful to Erasmus for bringing it into the spotlight by challenging it: 

> “Moreover, I praise and commend you highly for this also, that unlike all the rest you alone have attacked the real issue, the essence of the matter in dispute, and have not wearied me with irrelevancies about the papacy, purgatory, indulgences, and such like trifles (for trifles they are rather than basic issues), with which almost everyone hitherto has gone hunting for me without success.” 

> — *LW 33:294.*

Yes, the same Luther who inspired the adage, “Justification is the article by which the church stands and falls” (though that’s not an exact quote of what he said) also repeatedly declared that the sinner’s inability to believe is an even more fundamental truth: 

> “You and you alone have seen the question on which everything hinges, and have aimed at the vital spot; for which I sincerely thank you, since I am only too glad to give as much attention to this subject as time and leisure permit.” 

> — *Ibid.*

More people probably know that Calvin regarded man’s inability to believe as foundational than know that Luther affirmed the same view. Fewer probably know that Calvin used the same “hinge” metaphor that Luther uses here for that inability, except to declare the importance of the doctrine of justification by faith alone: 

> “The theme of justification… is the main hinge on which religion turns…” 

> — *John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 3.11.1, Battles translation, 1:726.*

This is because Calvin wasn’t “attacking” the Reformation any more than Luther was. He was getting right to the heart of the matter. Justification by faith alone is vital to true religion because it establishes the means of our right standing before God in Christ. The self-induced (and therefore totally culpable) Total Inability that results from our Total Depravity is foundational to understanding why God must give us that faith that justifies us in Christ. 

It’s tragic how few long-time professing Christians today have even the slightest awareness of this.

Outshine

In the spotless robe of Christ, we outshine the angels. 

Thomas Watson

The Word Answers

 When the anxious soul asks: “Is Christ really for me?”

The Word answers: “Thus, he hath spoken.” When the doubting soul asks: “May I really come to him?” The Word answers: “Thus, he hath spoken.” When the guilty soul asks: “Will He really receive a sinner like me?” The Word answers: “Thus, he hath spoken.” When the weak believer asks: “Is my faith too small?” The Word answers: “Thus, he hath spoken.” When the troubled conscience asks: “What if I cannot find enough assurance in myself?” The Word answers: “Thus, he hath spoken.” When the suffering saint asks: “Will Christ really keep me to the end?” The Word answers: “Thus, he hath spoken.” When the church asks: “Will the King really come?” The Word answers: “Thus, he hath spoken.” And when faith can see nothing, feel nothing, and find nothing in itself upon which to rest, it can return again to that same sure ground: “Thus, he hath spoken.”

Spurgeon's Grandfather

 James had the Puritanism.

James had the Calvinism. James had the preaching. James had the wit. James had the illustrations. James had the pastoral heart. And little Charles sat there watching it all. REV. JAMES SPURGEON Rev. James Spurgeon, 1776–1864, was the paternal grandfather of Charles Haddon Spurgeon and one of the strongest early influences on the future “Prince of Preachers.” He served for more than fifty years as an Independent, or Congregational, minister at Stambourne, Essex, firmly representing the Puritan, Calvinistic, Nonconformist tradition. He was known as a serious gospel preacher with strong convictions, pastoral warmth, and a lively sense of humor. Charles was sent to live with his grandparents while still very young and spent several formative years in the Stambourne manse. There he encountered preaching, sermon preparation, Scripture reading, family worship, theological books, prayer, and pastoral ministry firsthand. James was not merely his grandfather but one of his earliest spiritual teachers. Charles remembered his grandfather preparing sermons and spending time in prayer and meditation in a secluded place near the manse. To the young boy, that place seemed sacred because it was associated with James’s communion with God and preparation for preaching. Family worship was central to the household. Charles was allowed to read Scripture aloud and was encouraged to ask difficult questions. When he questioned the meaning of the “bottomless pit” in Revelation, James gave him a serious explanation of everlasting judgment that left a lasting impression. The family lived simply and without luxury, but Charles was surrounded by Scripture, prayer, preaching, books, Christian fellowship, and ministerial example. James’s combination of doctrinal seriousness and humor also left its mark. Charles would later display the same ability to proclaim weighty truths while engaging listeners with wit, illustrations, and familiar expressions. James further taught Charles that strong convictions need not produce bitterness. Though a Nonconformist, he maintained a warm friendship with the local Church of England minister, demonstrating that theological differences could coexist with mutual respect and cooperation in Christian work. After Charles became a prominent preacher, he and James sometimes shared the pulpit. On one occasion, James interrupted to add a few remarks; on another, he encouraged Charles by saying, “Tell them that again, Charles.” The moment reflected their relationship: the grandfather who had preached for decades was now listening with joy as his grandson proclaimed the same gospel. James Spurgeon gave Charles more than a family connection. He gave him an atmosphere, an example, a heritage, and an early vision of pastoral ministry. His Puritanism, Calvinism, preaching, wit, illustrations, pastoral heart, and life of prayer all helped shape Charles’s mind, theology, character, and preaching instincts. John Spurgeon provided Charles’s immediate ministerial heritage, but James Spurgeon helped form the spiritual and pastoral atmosphere in which the future Prince of Preachers was raised. This signature we obtained in our collection of the grandfather of C.H.Spurgeon

God loves you

 When your trial whispers that God does not love you, look at the cross. When your guilt says He cannot forgive you, look at the cross. When your suffering says He has abandoned you, remember the cross where He abandoned His Son so that He would never abandon you.

--found online

Help Me Remember

 Lord,

I worry because I forget your wisdom. I resent because I forget your mercy. I covet because I forget your beauty. I sin because I forget your holiness. I fear because I forget your sovereignty. You always remember me. Help me to remember you. Amen... —Tim Keller

Continual Warfare

"The holiest men have many a blemish and defect when weighed in the balance of the sanctuary. Their life is a continual warfare with sin, the world, and the devil; and sometimes you will see them not overcoming, but overcome."

— J.C. RYLE

His Father's Love Gift

When Jesus looks at you, He doesn't see a disappointment.  He doesn't see a waste of time.  He sees His Father's love gift to Him.  You aren't what you will one day be.  You might not be what you want to be, but God won't stop working in you until the glory of Christ is seen in you, in your own particular personality and beauty and glory.    We're all different, all different sizes and shapes and colors and extroverts and introverts, and that'll not be eradicated.  But the glory that's in you, your individuality, will be lifted to a level far beyond your wildest imagination.

-- Dr. Neil C. Stewart.  

First Presbyterian Church An Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church in Columbia, South Carolina

Pray all the More

Do not allow the fact that you sin repeatedly keep you from prayer. Rather, 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦, since you are in need of forgiveness and strength, so that the grace of God may be glorified all the more. —

Wilhelmus à Brakel, Christian’s Reasonable Service, 3:472