Bondage of the Will

Romans 3 and the Universal Sinfulness of Man

Let's begin by opening our Bibles, and we're going to go to Romans chapter 3. It's a very common passage. If you've been in a Reformed church for any length of time, you will have heard this passage preached quite a few times.

It's very common, but today we're going to try to look at it a little bit more in depth than maybe we have in the past. We're going to look at Paul's use of the Old Testament in Romans chapter 3 as he is expressing the sinful nature of man.

He begins in verse 9, expressing this to us, after having spent chapters 1 and 2 expressing that all men are in sin. He did so by first showing that the pagan person, the person who is not a Jewish person, is under sin.

He did that in Romans 1. He explains that for the wrath of God is being revealed against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth, that's Romans 1 .18.

Then he goes through chapter 1 expressing that sin, and then in chapter 2 he expresses the sinfulness of the Jews, saying, you know, you have the law and yet you still sin. You look at the pagan people and you say, oh, they're such great sinners, but you have the law and you still sin, so you're no better.

That's why he gets to verse 9, and he says,. And the ESV includes the word Jews here, but it is not in the Greek, so I always like to point that out.

It says,.

They have become worthless. No one does good, not even one. Their throat is an open grave. They use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps, and an asp is a type of snake, the venom of asps is under their lips.

Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood. In their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes.

Prayer and the Authority of Scripture

Let's pray. Father, thank you for the opportunity to again open your word together. I pray that as we examine not only this passage of scripture, but also the history surrounding the controversy of this passage, I pray that you would, in your sovereign mercy, give me a wise mind and an ability to understand and teach your word, and that you would keep me from error, as I know that I am capable of teaching error.

And I would pray that you would protect me from that and protect your people from that. And I pray also, Lord, that you would give us all a spirit and a desire to understand, and that your Holy Spirit would ultimately be our teacher this morning.

We praise you and thank you for all that you have done and continue to do in Jesus' name.

Amen.

In Romans chapter 3, the Apostle Paul is culminating his lesson on the sinful nature of man, and he culminates it by appealing to the highest authority that he had. And oftentimes one of the things, this is really hard, I'm used to walking around and I feel very enclosed.

Paul's authority was not himself. Paul's authority was not his own reason. Paul's authority was not the scientific method. Paul's authority was not the learned men of his day. Paul's authority was not the scholars of paganism or even Judaism.

But Paul's authority was the same authority that Jesus appealed to. Jesus would go against the scribes and the Pharisees, and he would say, Have you not read what God said to you when he spoke? And I've always found that a very interesting passage.

Have you not read what God said? See, Jesus is appealing to the very reality that the Word of God is in fact the Word of God. It's God speaking to us. It's the truth. So when he said, Have you not read what God said?

He's appealing to the very fact that the Word of God is the verbally inspired Word of God. The Bible, rather, is the verbally inspired Word of God. So when we come to the Apostle Paul reaching the apex of his argument after two chapters of expressing the reality of the sinfulness of man, he comes to chapter 3 and he says, Now here, you want to know that you're all sinners?

You want the highest authority argument for your sin? It is the Word of God. And so he appeals back into various passages, Isaiah, the Psalms, and he looks at them and he says, Look here, as it is written.

By the way, that little phrase is very important in Scripture. When you hear the term, it is written, it's referring to Scripture. 1 Peter 3 .15 or 2 Peter 3 .16, rather, says that all Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching and for reproof and for training in righteousness.

So when we see the phrase, It is written, it's referring not to just the simple writings of men, but it's referring to the inspired writing of God. In the language, 2 Peter 3 .16, when it says all Scripture is inspired, that word inspired in the Greek, it can be confusing in English because when you think about inspired, you think what?

What do you think when you think inspired? Yeah, you wake up and see a sunrise. Ah, I'm so inspired. It's a good day. I think an inspiration, if I see a good movie or a good play or read a good novel, I might be inspired to do things.

Yesterday, a brother, Steve, from Westminster Press was here and he preached a message on world missions and evangelism. And for me, it was the most inspirational of all because all of the men preached with power, all of the men preached with conviction.

But having had the opportunity now, and some of you don't even know this, I've been given the opportunity to teach at a seminary next year in Columbia. Not Columbia, South Carolina, but Columbia, South America.

There is a South American seminary that has invited me down. It's a reform seminary and they invited me down to teach. So I'm very excited about that. And when he preached about the church at Antioch sending out the missionaries, sending out Paul and Barnabas, it was just like, oh, it was like he was talking right to me.

And it was such a blessing to be encouraged by that. And so that's inspiring. But that's not what it means in 2 Timothy 3 .16 when it says all Scripture is inspired. In fact, I would argue that the King James, at that point, at least gives us only an inkling of what the original authors intended because the word is actually a conjunction of two words that Paul put together.

And it is, as far as we know, it is a singular use. It's not found in other Greek literature. Paul was good at making up words. He would take words that didn't necessarily go together. He would put them together and make a word.

And the word is theonoustos. Theos is God. Theos is Greek. And noustos is breathe or breath. So we get the word spirit. And when he said all Scripture is God-breathed, literally comes from the mouth of God, that's what he's saying.

And so when we say inspired, it would almost be better if he said all Scripture is expired. It comes out of God. It expresses from him. And so when the Apostle Paul wants to make his argument, he says it is written.

I'm going to appeal to the absolute highest authority, which is the Holy Bible. Now, at this time, there was no New Testament. There was no Ephesians when Paul was writing Romans. There was no Second Corinthians, which was his last letter.

These don't exist yet. So he's not appealing to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. He's not appealing to Romans. He's writing Romans. So he's appealing when he says it is written. He's appealing to the Old Testament.

And he appeals to the Old Testament as authoritative. I think one of the biggest problems in the modern church is that we have somewhat abandoned our understanding of the authority of the Old Testament.

Now, I do know and I teach, obviously, what the Bible teaches. And that is that in the New Testament, we see a fulfillment of some of the Old Testament requirements. The ceremonial law, which is why we no longer go out on Yom Kippur and sacrifice a lamb and on Passover paint his blood on the doorposts of our house.

Because that was something that was fulfilled in Christ. And that's no longer necessary for us to do. But it doesn't make that any less true. It doesn't make it any less powerful. It doesn't make it any less typological, what we call typological, meaning that it pointed to something that was later fulfilled.

And so we have an authoritative Old Testament and we have now an authoritative New Testament. The apostle Peter referenced Paul's works as scripture in his writing. He talks about Paul as having written scripture.

So we know that the New Testament is authoritative. But at this time in the history of the writing, when he says it is written, he's referring specifically to the Old Testament. He's saying this is written to us that no one is good.

No, not one.

Human Sin, Self-Deception, and the Need for Grace

Now, that's not popular. And if you are in a witnessing opportunity and you're sharing your faith with someone and you express the idea that no one is good, not even one, you will be met immediately with a rebuttal.

Well, I'm good. Because the Bible says every man will proclaim each one his own righteousness. And they do. If you ask a person, do you think you're a good person? Nine times out of 10, 99 out of 100.

Yeah, I'm a good person.

I don't cheat much.

I don't lie a lot.

I don't curse a little. You know, when I'm in traffic and that guy really deserves it, I don't, you know, whatever. That's how we express ourselves.

We're good.

And we always use the scale of goodness comparing ourselves to what? The most evil thing we know.

Well, I'm no Hitler.

I'm no Charles Manson. And I was like R .C. Sproul's analogy. And he said, he said, if you were to have a scale of goodness and badness and you were to put people on that scale and you were to say over here, we're going to put the most evil person we can think of.

Maybe, I don't know, who you want to say? You say Hitler or Nero or, you know, anyone you want.

Who? Satan.

So, well, obviously Satan is the most evil character in Scripture. He's the most evil person, angelic person in the realm, demonic now, but the most powerful spiritual being of evil. But personally, you know, who has the devil most influence?

You know, you put maybe whoever. And then over here, who would be the best? You have the scale. We'll make it a sliding scale. Who would be over here? The absolute personification of good. Jesus Christ.

You know, the Bible says he made him who knew no sin to become sin for us.

He was without sin.

He's absolutely perfect. So we have this scale. Absolutely good and absolutely just the most despicable. Where would I be on the scale? And a lot of people like to think, well, I'd be somewhere in the middle.

Or, you know, I'd be somewhere. The idea is I'd be shoulder to shoulder with Hitler. And you say, well, that's not good for my self-esteem.

I don't care.

The reality is my sin is grievous and gravest and it is wretched. This is why John Newton understood this. Everybody sings Amazing Grace. Amazing Grace, how sweet the sound that saved a good old boy like me.

No, it doesn't say that.

It says wretch.

And yet we don't we don't think about what that means. We don't think about what wretched is. We don't think about the idea that John Newton understood something about himself that so few people understand about themselves anymore and that there is no one good.

And yet until we understand the depravity of the human soul, we don't understand the necessity of the grace of God. And that's where we're getting around to today, because all of this is simply to set up the idea of what we call Pelagianism.

Pelagius, Augustine, and the Bondage of the Will

Now, I want to ask a question, because I know some of you are people I know very well and some of you I know have different levels of particular biblical education. And some of you probably some of you I don't know at all.

Well, I met you. But let me ask this question. How many of you have no idea who Pelagius is?

OK, good.

All right.

That's good.

How many of you have some idea?

Good. Good.

Well, that's that's excellent. Well, when we talk about Pelagianism, Pelagius is often called arch-heretic Pelagius. We'll leave that out. We'll just call him Pelagius. Pelagius was the one who went up against St. Augustine.

I'll say it the right way. I know, Augustine. St. Augustine, Richard gives me a hard time. Richard is our resident scholar. He is a graduate of Dallas Seminary. He always gives me a hard time about how I pronounce things.

Yeah.

Certain pronunciation.

Yes.

Augustine or Augustine, whatever. Augustine was the bishop of Hippo in Africa. And Augustine's teachings are obviously very influential in the church. How many of you ever heard of Martin Luther? Not Martin Luther King, but the actual, the original.

Martin Luther, 16th century monk. He was called an Augustinian monk.

Why?

Because he was of the Augustinian order. Meaning that the teachings of Augustine had so influenced the church that the monks of the church had become Augustinian monks. They were part of that order. Well, Pelagius opposed Augustine on the nature of the human condition.

On whether or not man is by nature totally depraved or whether he is by nature able to exercise what we would call free will. That was the central part of the argument. Whether or not man is able to exercise free will.

Now, I want to go ahead and kind of say this because I think this is huge. Free will has become, in so much of modern Christianity, the touchstone of modern idolatry. It's almost as if we hold up free will as to be more important than even the sacrifice of Christ.

Because if you talk to anyone about salvation, you'll hear this expression, well, I made the free will choice. I made, I decided, I did this on my own. I was the one who chose to follow Christ. I was this, I made the choice.

And it's always about us. It's always about the personal investment of decision that goes into following Christ. So, the free will aspect is huge today. Often times when people find out that I am a reformed teacher, sometimes referred to as Calvinistic teacher, they'll say, well, Calvinists don't believe in free will.

And that's technically not true. Calvinists or reformed teachers believe in what we call moral agency. And that means that we do believe that men have an ability to make choices. And that those choices are free in the sense that men have the ability to make choices in accordance with their will.

As Jonathan Edwards wrote in The Freedom of the Will, his famous book, he said all men make choices, they just, they choose what they want. And the problem is that what they want is not right. But he always, he did say this though, and I think The Freedom of the Will is an important book because he makes a distinction, and we're going to get to Luther's work in a minute, but in Edwards' work, sort of the balancing act between the bondage of the will of Luther and The Freedom of the Will and Edwards, is Edwards' point is this.

He said, we always make the decision that we want to make at whatever point in time we are at. So, we will always go with our, we'll always do what we want to do. And the first question that every husband ever asks is, what do you mean I always do what I want to do?

I go shopping for shoes, and I don't want to do that. My wife makes me go.

Or the wife will say, I go fishing, but I don't want to go.

And maybe that's the opposite. Maybe the guy wants to go to the shoe shop, maybe the woman wants to go.

I don't know.

I'm just, I'm using a very broad analogy here. But the idea, what's that?

I said not quite.

You were the last person.

Was I?

Okay.

But the idea, though, is we, you know, if somebody comes to me and says, I want you to do this, whether it be my wife, my child, whatever, I may not want to do it, but I may do it because I have a stronger desire not to disappoint that person.

So the strongest desire will always win out. What I want to do, it's kind of like the guy who puts a gun in my chest and says, give me your money.

Well, I could say, I don't want to give you, you're not going to get my money.

And then he shoots me and takes my money anyway. But I made the strongest, I went with the strongest desire at the time. He wasn't going to get my money willingly, so he took it by force. Now, I might want to live more than I want to have my money taken.

So he says, give me your money, puts a gun in my chest, and I take my wallet out and I hand him my money and hope that he doesn't shoot me because I want to live more than I want my money. So I always go with the strongest desire at the time.

So the argument of the Calvinist has always been, or the Augustinian, because we could argue that Calvin's teachings simply were an extension of what had already been taught a thousand years prior by Augustine.

The argument that Calvin created some idea about human will and the depravity of human will is absolutely false. It's absolutely a modern, what we call an anachronistic look at history. It's reading something back into history that's not true.

We go back to Augustine, we see the teachings of Calvin a thousand years prior, and we see the teachings in Paul and even in Christ. It was Jesus who said, no one can come to me unless it is granted to him by my Father.

It's very clear. And that word can speaks of ability. No one has the ability to do this thing until God does a pre-thing. He does something beforehand. So the idea of free will, yes, we believe that man makes choices, but those choices are always influenced by his nature.

Always.

And the problem that we find in Scripture is man is born with a depraved nature. Ephesians chapter 2,. And you were dead in your trespasses and sins in which you once walked, according to this world. And you were by nature, what?

Children of wrath. You're not by nature good. That runs against the grain of every natural man, which is why I tend to know this isn't true. I know it's true because Scripture teaches it, but I also know it's true because the Bible says the natural man cannot accept the things of God.

And you know what the natural man loves? Joel Osteen. The natural man loves these teachers who go out and tell them how great they are and how good you are and how good of a life I can give you. If you just do X, Y, and Z, you'll have your best life now.

And if your best life's now, then you're going to hell because this isn't supposed to be our best life. This life is to prepare us for our best life, which is in the next life.

The whole idea.

Yeah, it's a placation of the soul. Absolute placation of the mind.

Absolutely.

Absolutely.

And I'm not just here beating up on Joel. I could mention other people, but he's just the easiest target. When you have the largest church in America and you're not teaching the gospel, that's an issue.

So he's a little easy to point at.

Because I was flipping through the Weather Channel this morning, and I found out what I needed to wear. And there he was like this, and the first word out of his mouth for the split second I was passing was, PROSPER!

Yeah, well, that's what it is.

And I literally just kept flipping, and that's like the only word I heard. And I'm like, well, there you have it. You know, in one word. I'll leave it out.

If the natural man can listen to what you have to say and be pleased with it in the sense that he accepts it and applies it without conversion, then it is not the gospel. Because the gospel is offensive to the natural man.

According to Romans chapter 8, he cannot accept it. He will not accept it. So if we have thousands of unbelievers, if we have thousands of people who have yet been converted to Christ and yet they are drinking in what we're pouring out, then what we're pouring out is not the gospel.

So, that being said, getting back to this,.

We...

I kind of got off track there for a second. When we talk about Pelagianism and Augustinianism, Pelagius essentially taught that man is by nature not necessarily good, but that man is by nature at least neutral.

The man has the capacity for good or for evil, and that it ultimately is up to his free will. He has the capacity to do right, the capacity to do wrong, and thus it is him and his innate ability that allows him to do good or to do evil.

And the responsibility of man, of course, according to Pelagius,.

Is that he do good.

And that if he does not exercise his free will to do good, he will essentially be doing evil and not be acceptable to God. So, in the grand scheme of teaching in Pelagianism, it is if you are willing to do what is good, God will save you.

If you're not willing, God will not save you. So it all comes down to human free will. Augustine came along and said no. Augustine said no one is willing. No one by nature will. So, as a result of no one being willing, there must be an action on behalf of God which precedes our action of being willing that will cause us to do the work.

Do you know what caused the issue between Augustine and Pelagius? It was a prayer. Augustine prayed a prayer in the midst of an assembly. Pelagius heard the prayer and was so offended by the prayer that it sparked the outrage in the ultimate underlying debate.

The prayer was simply this. God, command what thou wilt and, how did he say it? Give what thou commandest. Command what thou wilt and give what thou commandest. Essentially, give the ability to do what you are commanding us to do.

And Pelagius said no, that's wrong. If God commands it, we already have the ability to do it.

He said if God says do it,.

Then we must already be able to do it.

Because God would not command us to do.

That which we're not able to do.

And I've often said that's wrong.

God commands us all through Scripture to do things we're not able to do which makes us rely on grace. For instance, are you able to go through your whole life and obey the Ten Commandments? By your own nature, well, I just go through one or two of them.

Love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength. That's the first four commandments distilled down into one. Jesus said all the commandments rely on two.

Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. Love your neighbors as yourself. And if you take the Ten Commandments and distill them down, that's it. The first four are love your God.

The last six, love your neighbor.

So, do we do that?

How many of us have never made an idol? You say, well, I've never carved an idol out of metal or wood. Have you never had an idol? Have you never worshipped something other than the true God?

We all have.

We have all created idols. If not in wood, hay, or stone, we've created idols in our mind. I love it when I talk to people about Jesus and we're talking and the person says, well, my God wouldn't send someone to hell.

And I said, you're right. Because your God doesn't exist. You believe in an idol. You've created a God in your mind who is like you because that's the God that makes you happy. And because you're an idolater, he doesn't, it was actually a girl who told me that.

She said, my goddess wouldn't send someone to hell. And I said, you're right.

Because she doesn't exist.

You're right.

You're absolutely right. I agree with you.

Because you've created an idol. And she couldn't send anyone to hell because she doesn't exist.

Yes, go ahead.

Philippians 2, Grace, and the Early Church Divide

Augustine's prayer foreshadowed all in Philippians.

It says,.

Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling for it is God who works in you both to will and to do.

Absolutely.

It is God who works within us both to will and to do his good pleasure. That is such an important passage because when we do wrong, when we do evil, it is a part of our nature that we are expressing. But when we do good toward God, it is God who is working within us to will and to do that good.

And so when I do evil, I am responsible. But when I do good, I am grateful because I thank God for giving me the ability to do that which is good. So when we see Augustine, keep looking at it like that.

Is that spelled right?

I guess it doesn't matter.

But I keep looking at it like I spelled it wrong. That's what it is. I spelled it Augustine.

For Richard's sake.

Okay.

So Pelagianism and Augustinianism was a divide in the early church. It continues into the Reformation time as a divide. And it continues today as a divide. Often times you'll hear people say that the real divide in the church today is between Calvinists and Arminians.

And that's not true. Most people don't even know what that means. And even those who do know what it means,.

They think that...

Just to make the point that historians have used have made the distinction that Arminianism was semi-Pelagian. I was getting there.

You're right though.

That's where I was going. Because the argument that we are... that it's Calvinism versus Arminianism.

Is really wrong.

The reality is.

We have something called semi-Pelagianism. Semi-Pelagianism is not Arminianism really. You could make the case that Arminius was a semi-Pelagian. But semi-Pelagianism even further goes than Arminius.

Arminius argued that man is totally depraved. He argued that man is by nature sinful. But that God gives prevenient grace which allows all men to basically become neutral. So he basically said yes we're all sinful.

But we all get this grace.

That's supplied to everyone and everybody then is made neutral. So by God's grace we're neutral. See. Pelagius argued that it wasn't grace. Grace is unnecessary. We're by nature neutral. So there was a difference.

There's a slight difference but it is worth commenting on the fact that Arminius at least recognized the nature of sin and that there had to be grace to solve the problem. Pelagius didn't even believe in grace as a necessity.

Oh, well that...

Well, yes.

It actually... In the writings of Arminius Arminius never himself argued for the ability to fall completely from the faith but it was his followers who ultimately came to that conclusion. So you could argue that it's the Remonstrants who made that argument.

Most Arminians today... I want to say there's a divide because if we talk about Wesleyan Arminianism which is found mostly in the Methodist Church typically there's a belief in the fact that you can fall away.

But in Baptistic Arminianism which is often found in the Southern Baptist Church they believe that you can't fall away but they're still Arminians.

So there's a...

It really is a sort of a two-fold thing there. It's getting a little nuanced. And sometimes it's who you talk to.

Depending...

You talk to some Methodists and they believe you can. Some Methodists believe you can't. But typically Wesley's perspective was that you could fall away. And Wesley was the consummate Arminian. His teaching is very Arminian.

Luther, Erasmus, and the Bondage of the Will

All right.

Let's finally get to the book I gave you because we're only what? Five minutes from the end of class. Now? How long have I been talking? Thirty minutes.

Wow.

I'm a big mouth.

Yeah.

This class ends in about seven minutes.

All right.

The reason why I did all this kind of preliminary work is I want you to read this. Not because we're going to have a test on it. Not because I'm going to come back and teach next week because I'm sure Byron will be back with your normally scheduled programming.

But I have this book.

We are now members...

Not members but we're recipients rather of Chapel Library's materials. Chapel Library is terrific biblical material. We have a whole table out there. It's filled with free stuff that comes from Chapel Library.

And I've just kind of made it my new plan that I'm going to be teaching through some of the stuff that they give us. On Wednesday nights, after I finish my series, right now I'm teaching on worship, I'm going to start looking at some of this material and we're just going to go through it.

Like one of the things is Ten Indictments Against the Modern Church by Paul Washer. How many of you know who Paul Washer is?

Yeah, buddy.

Listen to Paul Washer. He is the man. And his Ten Indictments Against the Modern Church.

Is a great little book.

It's just like this, about this size. And I want to teach through it because it's such great material. But this is one chapter from the bondage of the will. Now, as I said earlier, Jonathan Edwards wrote on the freedom of the will.

But a couple hundred years before Edwards, Luther wrote on the bondage of the will. Now, Luther was having his own Pelagian debate with another man named Desiderius Erasmus.

By the way,.

Erasmus should be important to us. Not just because he has the greatest quote. What was the quote? What was Erasmus' quote?

I buy...

I use my money to buy books and if I have any left over... Yeah, I buy food and medicine if I have any left over. So I spend all my money on books. Erasmus is the reason why we have the King James Bible, by the way, at least in part.

Erasmus was the one who produced the Greek New Testament, which would later be called the Textus Receptus or the Received Text, which is what the King James Version was based on when it was written in 1611.