Tag: sin

Posted on

The Nature of Free Will Lesson 3: The Free Will Defense by Pelagius (Charges 1-6 of 12) (Part 1)

By Kathy L McFarland

9/15/2024

First, a Warning against Casual Refutation of Church Doctrine

The movement and timing of God in teaching mankind the things He wills them to know cannot be forgotten when a study of doctrine is initiated.  There is often a sharp change in direction of belief when God moves men to embrace a deeper thought concerning His Word and developing that thought into rules and foundations of belief, especially in the times of the Early Church.  However, it cannot be overstated how pleasing it is to the enemy of God to introduce error into the interpretation of Scripture that forms doctrines contrary to God’s truth.

When mature Christians begin unraveling the doctrines within the practice and expression of religion from the Truth of Scripture, a line must be established.  At some point, every doctrine that has survived debate, that has been defended to the death by convicted adherents, that has become the basis for the establishment of order and belief of other important ideas of Christian faith, must be considered very carefully if disagreement with Scriptural conformity is addressed.

A lackadaisical casualness or unwarranted critical attitude of addressing the development of the doctrine could possibly prevent the acknowledgement of the movement of God in very difficult times in the development of Christian faith. On the other hand, failure to demand that belief corresponds to God’s Truth as revealed in Scripture allows doctrinal error to creep into faith, building a wall of false teaching that will topple like a line of dominoes when those errors are brought to light.  This can most surely shake the faith of many.  Great care must be taken always when established doctrines are examined; however, Scriptural support with the Truth of God must always be foremost in a mature Christian’s mind when a study is undertaken concerning doctrinal things.

However,  a mature Christian can only believe seemingly apparent truth to be God’s Truth when it is verified through Scripture and the moving of the Holy Spirit. It should never be declared Truth absolutely because Church authority has deemed it so, especially if God has led you to this place of study.

We have already determined that the Pelagius and Augustine debate between free will and original sin is not so much the issue in the drama that unfolded with the establishment of Church doctrine.  Rather, it is the attempt of the Church to maintain authority and relationship between those of deep faith against those of deep affiliation with the Church with the presence of growing mistrust of teachings that seemingly reject the Truth of God.  Whether our present study moves us in one direction or the other concerning this issue, we cannot neglect a study on how original sin doctrine was formed and how free will to not sin was refuted; only then can we search Scripture and God’s will in this divisive matter and learn His Truth.

A More Detailed Look at the Council of Diospolis (Synod of Palestine, Eastern Christianity)

It is through the writings of Augustine to Bishop Aurelius of Carthage, “A Work on the Proceedings of Pelagius” that we know the defense of Pelagius against the charges of heresy in front of the Council of Diospolis.[1] His letter to Bishop Aurelius of Carthage stirs Western Christianity to uphold the authority of the Church by forming a Council of Carthage to prosecute Pelagius for heresy, in spite against the Eastern Orthodox verdict that upholds the teachings of Pelagius. The examination of this report will allow us to determine both Pelagius’ real belief, assuming that Augustine represents the things spoken at the Council of Diospolis truthfully, and the crux of the discussion concerning free will and original sin by the participants. We will cover charges 1-6 in this report, and 7-12 in the next lesson.

Some Specific Questions and Answers at the Council of Diospolis (Synod of Palestine)

First accusation concerning knowledge of the law and sin[2]

Synod Charge: Reported that Pelagius wrote “No man can be without sin unless he has acquired a knowledge of the law,”[3] the Council asked “Did you, Pelagius, express yourself thus?”[4]

Pelagius Response (partial): “I certainly used the words, but not in the sense in which they understand them.  I did not say that a man is unable to sin who has acquired a knowledge of the law; but that he is by the knowledge of the law assisted towards not sinning, even as it is written, ‘He hath given them a law for help.’”[5]

Synod Decision: The synod declared: “The words which have been spoken by Pelagius are not different from the Church.”[6] Their discussion concerning this matter faults Pelagius for not taking sufficient care with the succinct expression of his faith concerning the law’s effect upon sin in his writings. They cite the numerous sheep in the Church’s flock who are unable to understand the Latin and Greek rites and services, but yet are an integral part of the Church.  They particularly differentiate between Pelagius’ statement to them that “a man is by the knowledge of the law assisted towards not sinning,”[7] from the assertion in his book that “a man cannot be without sin unless he has acquired a knowledge of the law;”[8] while they acknowledge both statements can be God’s Truth, one is vastly different than the other if literal understanding is attempted. Thus, they demand that his book be revised and amended with specific words that reflect the actual association with sin and God’s law as they admonish him with Scripture “There is that slippeth in his speech, but not in his heart (Ecclesiasticus [Sirach] 19:16).”[9]

Second accusation examines Pelagius’ free will ideas that might dispute the grace of God[10]

Synod Charge: Pelagius writes in the same book concerning his position that “all men are ruled by their own will and everyone is submitted to his own desire.”[11] The Synod charges Pelagius with disputing the grace of God by taking this position.

Pelagius Response (partial): “This is stated in the interest of free will.  God is its helper whenever it chooses good; man, however, when sinning is himself in fault, as under the direction of a free will.”[12]

Synod Decision: First, they note that after this statement, Pelagius adds that no man ought to trust himself in the direction he chooses: “For all men have one entrance into life, and the like going out therefrom: wherefore I prayed and understanding was given to me; I called, and the Spirit of Wisdom came unto me.”[13] That Pelagius’ prays for direction confirms his heart to them over the literal interpretation of his words concerning personal free choice in the direction of travel in the journey of life.

Pelagius’ Response comforts the pious judges of the Synod. They do not continue examination on this point, conceding Pelagius’ point that God helps man choose good, but when man sins, it is only himself to blame.  Therefore, they concur that the direction a man travels is dependent upon God’s leading and refusal to be led results in sinful free choices to be implemented.

Third charge addresses the possibility of a faithful Christian being cast into Hell[14]

Synod Charge: The Synod then addresses Pelagius’ words “In the day of judgment no forbearance will be shown to the ungodly and the sinners, but they will be consumed in eternal fires.”[15] This distresses the brethren because it leaves open the possibility that sinful Christians are not protected and saved from eternal damnation through faith.

Pelagius’ Response: Pelagius quotes Matthew 25:46 concerning sinners: “These shall go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous into life eternal.”[16] Then he adds another probative point: “Who believes differently is an Origenist.”[17] This wise assertion places the Synod squarely in support of Pelagius.

Synod Decision: Since the Church thinks Origen abominable to assert that everlasting punishment will one day cease, and the devil and angels and sinners that have suffered in eternal fires will one day be purged and released of their penalties to assume a place with the saints and God with His blessings, they have no choice but to agree with Pelagius. That Pelagius did not say that all sinners without exception receive eternal punishment by everlasting fire allows the Synod to support his ideas in the general sense with the already established doctrines and dogmas.[18]

Fourth accusation concerns the purity of the thoughts of Christians[19]

Synod charge: The fourth accusation concerns Pelagius’ statement in his book that “evil does not enter our thoughts.”[20] This seemingly suggests that man is free from thinking evil things if he chose to do so.

Pelagius’ Response: Pelagius denies making that specific statement, at least to its perceived and referenced fuzzy meaning, saying, “We made no such statement. What we did say was that the Christian ought to be careful not to have evil thoughts.”[21]

Synod Decision: This charge is easily dismissed, because to deny that a Christian has the ability to avoid evil thoughts, encourages the thinking about evil which then leads to acts of sin. Righteous and holy men reject thoughts of evil and that stance is supported by Scripture, making the charge against Pelagius spurious and bordering upon the refutation of the Word of God.[22]

Fifth accusation addresses Pelagius assertion about the kingdom of heaven[23]

Synod charge: Pelagius’ asserts that “The kingdom of heaven was promised even in the Old Testament”[24] which seemingly takes away salvation from the New Testament of Christ.

Pelagius’ Response: “This can be proved by Scriptures: but heretics, in order to disparage the Old Testament, deny this.  I, however, simply followed the authority of Scriptures when I said this; for in the prophet Daniel it is written: ‘The saints shall receive the kingdom of the Most High.’”[25]

Synod Decision: The synod determines that this position is not opposed to the Church’s faith.

Sixth charges Pelagius’ view that a man can choose not to sin[26]

Synod charge: Pelagius writes in the questioned book “A man is able, if he likes, to be without sin.”[27] He also allegedly writes a widow with flattering words, “In thee piety may find a dwelling-place, such as she finds nowhere else; in thee righteousness, though a stranger, can find a home; truth, which no one any longer recognizes, can discover an abode and a friend in thee; and the law of God, which almost everybody despises may be honored by thee alone.”[28] In fact, many statements written to this specific widow are included in this part of questioning, and support the accusation that Pelagius believes sin to be choice rather than condition.

Pelagius’ Response: “We asserted that a man could be without sin and could keep God’s commandments if he wished; for this capacity has been given to him by God.  But we never saith that any man could be found who at no time whatever, from infancy to old age, had committed sin: but that if any person were converted from his sins, he could by his own labour and God’s grace be without sin; and yet not even thus would he be incapable of change ever afterwards.  As for the other statements which have made against us, they are not to be found in our books, nor have we at any time said such things”[29] Pelagius goes on to call them fools and heretics to believe such as he is accused, because it is without dogma.

Synod Decision: “Since now Pelagius has with his own mouth anathematized this vague statement as foolish verbiage, justly declaring in his reply, ‘That a man is able with God’s assistance and grace to be without sin,’ let him now proceed to answer the other heads of accusation against him.”[30] They declare the grace that Pelagius expresses as the same that is most completely known in the catholic Church, that “a man, when converted from his sins, is able by his own exertion and the grace of God to be without sin.”

Conclusion of Lesson 3

There are a total of 12 charges brought against Pelagius which are considered by the Palestine Synod.  The first six have been covered in this Lesson 3, and the next six will be part of Lesson 4. Pelagius’ beliefs as he defends them in the first six charges are:

Recap of 1-6 of 12 Pelagius Defenses in front of the Palestine Synod Council

1. There are no human beings capable of being free of sin unless they know the Law of God. It is through the knowledge of the law that humans are assisted towards not sinning.

2. All human beings are able to rule their free will and submit to their own desires; but God is their helper only whenever a choice for good is made. Those committing sin are under the direction of free will alone, and not under the direction of God.

3. Sinning human beings will be sentenced to hell on the Day of Judgment as a result of the eternal, everlasting, punishment by God.  Righteous human beings will receive eternal reward in heaven by God. Rather than define the Day of Judgment defendants as Christians or seculars, Pelagius argues for the literal representation of human being actions as either directed by God to righteousness, or directed by their own free wills to sin, to predict their eternal destinations of punishments or rewards adjudicated by the Lord.

4. Christians must be careful not to have evil thoughts to maintain their righteousness and holiness that is directed by God.

5. The fact that righteous saints will receive the Kingdom of God is clearly stated by both the Old Testament Prophets and the New Testament Gospels.

6. Human beings can be without sin with God’s grace and help directing them. When human beings are converted to righteousness through their faithful walk with Christ, they can also go without sin by their own free will exertion as their life journey is directed by God.

Join us in Lesson 4 to conclude the testimony of Pelagius and the findings of the Palestine Synod as we examine the last six charges.  An examination of the Palestine Synod allows us to complete the first part of our journey to find the historical, theological path that the issue of free will vs. original sin, Pelagius vs. Augustine, the Eastern Church vs. the Western Church has taken to resolve these issues.  It is only after the established doctrine and the journey taken to develop it are understood that a deeper effort to understand the Word and Will of God can be explored.

Bibliography

Augustine, Saint, Bishop of Hippo. “A Work on the Proceedings of Pelagius”. Translated by Peter Holmes. Vol. V: Saint Augustine: Anti-Pelagian Writings A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Edited by Philip Schaff. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1887.

[1] Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, “A Work on the Proceedings of Pelagius”, ed. Philip Schaff, trans., Peter Holmes, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, vol. V: Saint Augustine: Anti-Pelagian Writings (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1887).

[2] Ibid., 183-185.

[3] Ibid., 184.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid., 185.

[10] Ibid., 185-186.

[11] Ibid., 185.

[12] Ibid.

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid., 186-188.

[15] Ibid., 186.

[16] Ibid., 187.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Ibid., 188.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Ibid.

[23] Ibid., 188-190.

[24] Ibid., 188.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Ibid., 190-193.

[27] Ibid., 190.

[28] It is significant that the Synod addresses both his writings in the book under investigation, as well as a personal letter that is allegedly written to this certain widow and is indicative of the gathering of all available evidence to determine his guilt. However, it should be noted that there is no evidence that this certain widow testified in front of the Council or that the actual letter was examined during the trial.

[29] Augustine, 190.

[30] Ibid.

Posted on

The Nature of Free Will Lesson 2: Pelagian Controversy and Augustinian Victory – The First Free Will vs. Original Sin Debate

By Kathy L McFarland

9/14/2024

Pelagius was a 4th century Christian (AD 354-420/440) who denied the existence of original sin and predestination while defending the ability for human beings to exercise their free will with innate human goodness for the betterment of God’s creation.  Though there are no writings from him or his famous disciple Caelestius found present day, fragments of their teachings are included in both Augustine’s and Jerome’s writings, and Church records from council meetings give us a perspective of how they were judged by their accusers for heresy. These historical records offer a glimpse of how the doctrine of free will became judged so harshly in the Western Christian church which prohibited free will belief by diverting to the doctrine of original sin espoused by Augustine.

The Doctrine of Free Will According to Pelagius

Pelagius taught his followers the doctrine of free will and denied the doctrine of original sin that Augustine of Hippo was developing.  His free will doctrine became known as Pelagianism. Eastern Theologians were focused upon free will and human deeds, and at the Council at Diospolis (Lydda) in 415, they declared the teachings of Pelagius orthodox.

The Western Theologians disagreed vehemently with Eastern support for the doctrine of free will, which led the North African bishops to address the issue. His teachings were declared heretical by the Council of Carthage (A Council of Africa) in 418 which confronted the supposed errors of his student Caelestius who taught the existence of free will and possibility to remain sinless in human life. Of course, it didn’t help Pelagianism that Caelestius expanded the teachings to unacceptable places that denied Scripture by declaring Adam as a mortal being that would have experienced death even without sin, and that the entire human race does not die because of the sin of Adam and Eve nor share in the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.[1]

Predictably, the Council of Carthage rejected Caelestius for ordination and condemned his teachings. They grouped these false teachings into the general teachings of Pelagius, even though he denied his support for many of Caelestius’ later teachings that overstated or revised his beliefs concerning free will.

Augustine vs. Pelagius Prior to Condemnation by the Council of Carthage

Pelagius’ doctrine of free will was in stark contrast to Augustine’s original sin doctrine that claims mankind is born into corruption and sin and is a sinner at birth.  While Pelagius teaches that free will can be free of sin, Augustine thinks this preposterous.  But his doctrine of original sin is as difficult to prove with Scripture as Pelagius’ doctrine of free will.  Both are elusive and require a great deal of grouping of texts to prove each.

But Augustine was a clever theologist.  He knew that it would be difficult to refute the idea of free will with Scriptural support.  So instead, he chose two simple points that were easily gleaned from traditional Scriptural interpretations. He chose to address the baptism of infants as his test case to prove his point that all human beings are born into sin.  His argument was cleverly formed because he knew that Pelagius did not officially argue or object to the traditional church practice of the baptism of infants.

Augustine argued against Pelagians with two points in the development of the doctrine of original sin: 1) Infant baptism occurs and 2) Pelagians do not argue against it.  With supposed Scriptural support Augustine forms his argument that while they refuse to support the idea that sin comes from Adam, their admittance of the baptism of innocent infants for the forgiveness of sin, then infants are guilty of sin that is not from their acts.  Thus, Augustine makes his case for the doctrine of original sin:

“Now, seeing that they admit the necessity of baptizing infants,—finding themselves unable to contravene that authority of the universal Church, which has been unquestionably handed down by the Lord and His apostles,—they cannot avoid the further concession, that infants require the same benefits of the Mediator, in order that, being washed by the sacrament and charity of the faithful, and thereby incorporated into the body of Christ, which is the Church, they may be reconciled to God, and so live in Him, and be saved, and delivered, and redeemed, and enlightened. But from what, if not from death, and the vices, and guilt, and thraldom, and darkness of sin? And, inasmuch as they do not commit any sin in the tender age of infancy by their actual transgression, original sin only is left.” (De pecc. mer. et rem. 1.26:39)[2]

Original sin was not a standard doctrinal belief prior to Augustine’s stated position, and it was not an idea formed of careful Scripture exegesis.  Rather, it was an argument that he developed to trick the Pelagians into a corner in hopes that they would be forced to acknowledge the authority of the universal church.  Accordingly, Augustine established that infant sinlessness should require no baptism, but, because of the case of original sin from Adam and Eve, the universal church is left with no choice but to baptize infants also.  It should be noted that this argument was not so much a debate of the issue of free will versus original sin; but rather, it was a debate of the authority of the Church.  Augustine proves that since Pelagianism fails to go against Church authority, the matter of original sin is approved.

From that point, Augustine developed a fuller doctrine of original sin by declaring it to be related to ignorance and frailty (De pece. mer. et rem. 1.35:65-36:67).  These weaknesses justify infant baptism by joining the most vulnerable human beings, infants, to Christ and the universal church, saving them from certain death by healing their defects. Once healed, the baptized receive salvation, redemption from subjugation to sin, and illumination from the removal of the darkness of the inherited guilt from sin.

The Council of Diospolis (Synod of Palestine)

The debate against Pelagius’ free will doctrine and Augustine’s original sin doctrine began forming with ever-increasing hostilities between the two and the different sides concerning this issue.  The Council of Diospolis (Synod of Palestine) was formed to determine whether Pelagius was committing heresy against the Church through the position he took concerning these matters.  He was found innocent of heresy, and said to be lax in failing to specifically state his beliefs in a way that people could understand that agreed with the Church’s teachings.

Augustine’s reaction to the Council of Diospolis’ (Synod of Palestine) Verdict of Innocence

Augustine wrote “A Work on the Proceedings of Pelagius” addressed to Bishop Aurelius of Carthage to show “that although Pelagius was acquitted by the Synod of Palestine, there still clave to Him the suspicion of heresy; and that the acquittal of the accused by the Synod was so contrived, that the heresy itself with which he was charged was unhesitatingly condemned.”[3] In this letter, Augustine records some of the discussion concerning the charges brought against Pelagius in those Palestinian proceedings, which develop the debate between the two men.  Augustine’s points of disagreement over the verdict of the Council of Diospolis (Synod of Palestine) with Pelagius’ explanations and the synod’s discussion included, reveal a great deal concerning the issue of free will vs. original sin, and will be examined closely in our next lesson.

Council of Carthage Nine Canons of Condemnation

The Council of Carthage was formed in 418 A.D. after receiving Augustine’s rebuttal of the Synod of Palestine’s verdict, with growing weariness toward the dilution of Church authority. The condemnation from the angry North African bishops through the establishment of the nine canons dealing with Pelagianism was severe.  Their findings, stirred by Augustine’s letter of specifics concerning the Synod of Palestine, contributed to the formation of clear doctrinal positions by declaring anathema (banishment, separation) against:[4]

Original Sin Error

1. Those that refute that death is not a result of Adam’s sin

2. Those that declare a newborn child sinless and uncondemned from original sin of Adam.

3. Those that divide the Kingdom of Heaven from eternal life.

Grace Error

4. Those that say only past sins are remitted by grace

5. Those that say grace aids us not in understanding

6. Those that say grace only helps us to easily accomplish the things we do

Humble Prayer Error

7. Those that pray 1 John 1:8-10 and thinks it expresses humility only, not that they actually sinned. “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.”

8. Those that think the phrase “forgive our trespasses,” contained within the Lord’s Prayer applies only to the congregation, not necessarily to an individual

9. Those that say “forgive our trespasses,” out of humility rather than belief in its truth

When the smoke cleared, Pelagius and Caelestius were excommunicated, with the verdict confirmed by deposition of the Council of Ephesus in 431 against Caelestius, Pelagius, and Julian. Prior to this official response and while it was in the hands of Pope Zosimus (417-418), there were eighteen Italian bishops that refused to sign his condemnation of Pelagius when it reached his official desk.  Even in the midst of turmoil, some brave Christian leaders recognized that the teachings of Pelagius and the heretical outgrowth of beliefs espoused by Caelestius were not of the same nature and that the debate between Augustine and Pelagius apparently convoluted.[5] Some felt that the Pelagius’ doctrine of free will had some Scriptural support and could not support the Church’s condemnation with the charge of heresy against him.  They were deposed by the Pope for their refusal to change their minds and support the official position of the Church established by the Council of Carthage.[6]

Sadly, the debate and consideration for the doctrine of free will suffered from that church condemnation. Once those who believed in free will were quieted by threats of excommunication, Augustine’s doctrine of original sin filled the gaps of confusion and became the standard of faith that was officially forbidden to be argued against even though there were some serious questions concerning this position.

An examination of the representation and misrepresentation of the doctrine of free will by Pelagius, Caelestius, Augustine and the Church that led to the charges of heresy must be unraveled before the study of free will vs. original sin can be fully understood. Once we examine Pelagius truthful view of free will in Lesson 3, we will give Augustine’s original sin the same careful representation in Lesson 4.

Bibliography

Augustine, Saint, Bishop of Hippo. “A Work on the Proceedings of Pelagius”. Translated by Peter Holmes. Vol. V: Saint Augustine: Anti-Pelagian Writings A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Edited by Philip Schaff. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1887.

Augustine, Saint, Bishop of Hippo. A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants. Translated by Peter Holmes. Vol. 5 A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: First Series, Edited by Philip Schaff. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1887.

Ferguson, Everett. Church History Volume One: From Christ to Pre-Reformation. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005.

Percival, Henry R. Excursus on Pelagianism. Vol. Volume XIV: The Seven Ecumenical Councils. Second Series ed. A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1900.

[1] Everett Ferguson, Church History Volume One: From Christ to Pre-Reformation (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005), 280.

[2] Augustine of Hippo, A Treatise on the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants, ed. Philip Schaff, trans., Peter Holmes, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church: First Series, vol. 5 (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1887).

[3] Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, “A Work on the Proceedings of Pelagius”, ed. Philip Schaff, trans., Peter Holmes, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, vol. V: Saint Augustine: Anti-Pelagian Writings (New York: Christian Literature Company, 1887), 183.

[4] Ferguson, 281.

[5] Henry R. Percival, Excursus on Pelagianism, ed. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Second Series ed., A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, vol. Volume XIV: The Seven Ecumenical Councils (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1900), 230.

[6] Ibid.

Posted on

The Nature of Free Will Examined through Scripture (Lesson 1 – Predestination (Determinism) vs. Free Will)

By Kathy L McFarland

God did not make Adam and Eve sin; His most holy nature makes Him unable to sin or tempt others to commit transgressions of disobedience against Him.  Satan did not make them sin; he did not force Eve to eat of the forbidden fruit or Adam to disobey God.  There is absolutely NO evil or defect inside Adam or Eve that forced them to sin; God created man in His Image and formed both man and woman perfectly.  Adam and Eve chose to be disobedient to God through their own self-determination, a privilege given to them through the bestowment of free will by their Creator.[1] 

The LORD God created Adam and Eve as the perfect first man and woman in His Image, and placed them in the Garden, and they were PREDESTINED by Him to live that life.  How they chose to live their life required the use of their FREE WILL that God bestowed to them.   This can be understood through the example playing a card game.  Predestination (Determinism) in the Spiritual Realm is the dealing of cards by the LORD God.  Free Will is the choices each person that belongs to Him makes in playing those cards in their destined life.

The freedom to choose the direction of oneself has consequences attached.  Each free choice made by an individual is not enacted within a vacuum; rather, it influences the activity within the realm of humanity that it touches.  God’s divine plans are implemented above the choices made by mere humans.  While human choices change the direction of life as the various forces collide, change, build, grow, destroy, and fester, God’s plans are unaffected.  He is God.  His works unfold perfectly, at the time He chooses, and those works are not affected by the faulty free choices made by human beings.

It seems a simple concept.  God gives human beings free will that allows them to choose their life and make it what they will, with the counterbalance of all other humans having free choice that regulates those choices.  That becomes the connected life force that free choice gives all human beings.  And God’s Will reign and acts perfectly in the time He chooses far above the doings of mankind.  But that simple concept is not quite as unobtrusive in the relationship between God and mankind that it seems at first glance, especially in the affairs of spiritual connectedness between natural and spiritual lives interrelating to the divine nature of God.

Historical traditions formed by religious doctrines have connected the doctrine of free will with the doctrine of original sin. The common religious consensus of the union of these two doctrines reflects that sinners cannot save themselves because of their fallen condition, and that free will has no choice but to sin and receive the punishment of damnation for eternity. Thus, it is my intentions in this study to fully explore the nature of the free will of human beings before I tackle the possibly conflicted doctrine of original sin that has developed in traditional religious doctrines over time.

Understanding Free Will through Sarai, Abram, and Hagar

Sarai and Abram are able to make free choice as all humans possess, and Sarai uses that right by choosing her maid Hagar to fulfill God’s divine promise to give her husband an heir  (Genesis 11:30; 16:1-16; 21:1-20). Hagar, with much less free choice because of life circumstances but fully endowed with free choice by God, becomes the surrogate.  Things go miserably wrong for Sarai as her free will fights against the will and movement of God.  This leads to the removal of Hagar and Abram’s son Ishmael, to ensure their younger son Isaac’s full inheritance from his father Abram and to receive the everlasting covenant with God (Genesis 17:10-27).  Hagar and Ishmael have done nothing wrong; yet, they are captive of the times and the social structures that allow Sarai to act against her servant as a human agent representing God’s will.[2]

That Sarai’s actions are not in God’s plans are not at issue.  Rather, the absolute predicament that Hagar and Ishmael find themselves, unable to prevent the events that cascade toward them, brings them to cry out to God for salvation.  Though Hagar had acted according to the customs of the day, and lay down with Abram at Sarai’s orders, she was not guilty.  She had done nothing wrong.  Yet, as the account advances, the unchangeable direction of Hagar and Ishmael is rolling, and there is absolutely nothing they can do to prevent this from happening.

Genesis 21 reflects the results of the free choices of Sarai that brought adverse times to Hagar.  Yet, the Lord is with both Sarai and Hagar and His will and ways guide them to His desired consequences and conclusions despite the errors made in the exercise of Sarai’s free will. The Lord’s divine plans cannot be changed or affected by human freedom even when His will unfolds in humanity’s messed up environment.

Similarly, the poor choices made by Adam and Eve bring the curse of death to every living creature made in God’s Image when life forces grow uncontrollable. In the midst of the curse of death, is life, and it is life that is formed according to God’s desired consequences and conclusions.  Every person is subject to the penalty given by God to Adam and Eve for their sins of disobedience to Him.  Sin cannot be conquered without death; it is the natural order of things once the curse by God toward sinful human beings was applied.

Every person is also born with free will. But free will is not free ever. Just as Hagar was at the whims of Sarai, and unable to prevent the casting away, so too are all human beings that are subject to death and stopped from having control over life. Just as Sarai’s free will results in her creating the situation that she thinks reflects God’s intentions, she instead, guesses wrong and makes a mess of things.  End analysis shows that even Sarai, blessed by God with a son in her old age and able to receive words from Him, could not use her free will to accomplish the things of God perfectly.

There is not a human being ever created that controls life and none that can act perfectly as a human agent to carry out God’s divine plans with their inferior free will.  Even the most pure hearts, those able to express free will in the most righteous of ways, will run into a wall of end life that cannot be controlled.  Most notable, the end of lives begins with unpreventable, uncontrollable situations and always results in death.  Death is the curse given to mankind for the sins of Adam and Eve.  It is inevitable.  It will come to all human beings and when it comes, the unfolding events for each death are completely uncontrollable, even if free will is declared and applied by the dying.

Time, space, and limited knowledge of all the key players in this drama are affected by fallen humanity that allows human frailties to become errors and transgressions against God.  If Sarai had waited on the Lord, the birth of Isaac would have been the first son of Abram, done in God’s time.  But Sarai takes matters into her own hands with her free will, and mucks things up, and creates an impossible situation of conflict that eventually requires the intervention of God to save Ishmael’s life. Sarai, even though she exercises her free will and has confidence that she is fulfilling God’s will, is not in control of anything. God’s intentions are done in His way and time, in deference to the human error of the free will of Sarai.

The Penalty for Sin is God’s Curse of Death

If free will leads a human being to commit disobedience to God, then free will has led that person to sin. According to 1 John 1:5-8, the truth of God reveals that all human beings have sin:

This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

And since all have sinned through their free will to be disobedient to God, then the penalty for that sin activates the curse that God placed upon all sin that moves humanity away from His presence. Ultimately, death will come to all, regardless of human error or perfection:

Romans 5:12-21

Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. And not as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment was by one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offences unto justification. For if by one man’s offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.) Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. Moreover the law entered, that the offence might abound. But where sin abounded, grace did much more abound: That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.  (Romans 5:12–21)

Death will come even though some human beings have free will that seems to make righteous choices always; don’t let the semblance of perfection fool you.  Every adult human being has sinned at some time. The nature of free will gives opportunity to choose righteousness or transgression, and the nature of humanity in relationship to each other leads to some disobedience to God always.

Death is God’s curse placed upon mankind because of the transgressions made by the first human beings that released the component of sin into the natures of mankind (Genesis 3:19).  Only death to the physical body releases the cling of sin. God is not going to change His curse against sinful humanity with even one degree deviation.  It’s too late; sin is part of the fabric of human life, and only His curse against it can release its hold upon his beloved humanity.

The Grace of God Frees Sinners from the Curse

There is no deviation from the curse against sin; death is the only thing that releases a human being from the power of sin.  However, God has granted grace unto a select group of people, by allowing them to symbolically experience death while they are still alive, thereby releasing the hold that sin has upon them.  This grace of salvation is given to all human beings that receive the Baptism of Jesus Christ:

Romans 6:1-14

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?  Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?  Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.  For if we have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection:  Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin.  For he that is dead is freed from sin.  Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with him:  Knowing that Christ being raised from the dead dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over him.  For in that he died, he died unto sin once: but in that he liveth, he liveth unto God.  Likewise reckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ our Lord.  Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof.  Neither yield ye your members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin: but yield yourselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God.  For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace. (Romans 6:1-14)

Simply stated, human beings are sinners and remain sinners until death is brought to sin.  When death comes, sin releases its hold upon a person.  Followers of Jesus Christ can have this hold released by experiencing death through His Baptism because God has offered His grace by promising release from the His penalties of disobedience to His law that He bestowed upon humanity because of sin. God loosens man from the requirement of the law that brings death to sin:

Romans 7:1-6

Know ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth? For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God. For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death. But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. (Romans 7:1-6)

Next Focus of Study Concerning Free Will

We have explored a bit of Scripture in this study concerning free will and what it looks like in Scripture with an examination of Sarai’s poor choice.  We have examined Scripture that clearly states the curse that is brought against sin, and how death will come to every living thing as a result.  We have also recognized the special provision of grace that God grants believers of Christ in allowing a symbolic death to come upon their sins while yet alive, giving them hope in eternal life through the promise of the forgiveness of past sins.

Romans 6 begins with an expression of the effects of faulty free will and carefully leads the reader into Romans 7 and 8 with the development of the condition of sin in humanity.  It will be our primary focused text to discover the different connections that original sin has in its attachment to mankind.  Free will Scripture has been introduced in this first study; in our next we will take a more detailed look at the development of the Doctrine of Free Will that will ultimately lead to our study of the Doctrine of Original Sin, and reveal God’s truth in this important spiritual matter.

Bibliography

Andrews, James A. “On Original Sin and the Scandalous Nature of Existence.” Journal of Theological Interpretation 5, no. 2 (2011): 231-250.

 Geisler, Norman L. Systematic Theology, Volume Three: Sin, Salvation. Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2004.

[1] Norman L. Geisler, Systematic Theology, Volume Three: Sin, Salvation (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House Publishers, 2004), 86.

[2] James A. Andrews, “On Original Sin and the Scandalous Nature of Existence,” Journal of Theological Interpretation 5, no. 2 (2011): 239.