Excerpts
Excerpt 4: The Christological Controversy: The Nature of the Godhead Altered
Excerpt 5: Predestination Verses God's Foreknowledge, Foreordination, and Free Will
Excerpt 4
The Christological Controversy: The Nature of the Godhead Altered
Ancient Israel had been chastened over and over again for relegating itself to the worship of false gods. Israel had been warned, "Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Ex. 20:2). Additionally God had declared through Isaiah, "I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God" (Isa. 44:6). In both cases the context is plain: "They that make a graven image are all of them vanity; and their delectable things shall not profit" (Isa. 44:9). Similarly, Jesus reiterated the Old Testament commandment, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might" (Deut. 6:5; Matt. 22:37). The New Testament saints were taught that there was one true God, even the Eternal Father; and Jesus Christ, His Only Begotten Son; and the Holy Ghost. They were instructed on the infinite harmony of will that existed within the Godhead and were commanded to worship the true and living God. On the other hand, while both Jews and Christians were commanded to worship the only true and living God, the God of Greek philosophy had become identified by Socrates and Plato as the One. The strict interpretation of the word one became the basis of perpetual confusion, speculation, and contention.
Significant changes overtook the Church in the early centuries after the death of the Apostles. The first significant alteration of theology was the most important: the true nature of God the Father and His Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. This simple and pure doctrine as taught by the Apostles was mystified by the generations of Church leaders who followed. Without the Apostolic office to clarify gospel ideology, the rift in the Church over this one doctrine became preeminent. The question itself centered in reconciling the monotheistic beliefs of Hellenized Jews and Neoplatonics in One (immaterial and uncreated) God with the New Testament teaching that the Father is God, the Son is also God, as is also the Holy Ghost. The development of the Nicene Trinity was profoundly influenced by the recurring Old Testament theme "Thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth."27
To demonstrate how quickly apostasy actually took root, we have only to look to the writings of Ignatius who, in his letter to the Saints at Trallia, wrote as follows:
They introduce God as a Being unknown; they suppose Christ to be unbegotten; and as to the Spirit, they do not admit that He exists. Some of them say that the Son is a mere man, and that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person, and that the creation is the work of God, not by Christ, but by some other strange power.28
Ignatius was clearly troubled by those who perverted the pure teachings of Christ. He exposed those who claimed that God was unknown (incomprehensible; see John 17:3) and those who denied the existence of the Holy Ghost. He derided those who rejected the divinity of Christ and those who argued that members of the Godhead are the same person. Although historic Christianity does not cling to all of this perversion, misunderstandings linking Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as a single incorporeal entity eventually spawned the errant doctrine of "one substance" within the Trinity.
Trinitarian scholars recognize that "no doctrine of the Trinity in the Nicene sense is present in the New Testament."29 Likewise, "there is no doctrine of the Trinity in the strict sense in the [writings of the] Apostolic Fathers,"30 meaning that no one, before A.D. 150, attempted to define more than what was already provided in the text of the Old Testament, the Gospels, and the Apostolic writings. What can be derived from the scriptures is that we worship God the Father, in the name of His Only Begotten Son in the flesh, Jesus Christ, who reveals truth to us through the Holy Ghost.
The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are each identified as "God", but with differing responsibilities. For example, in John 17 Jesus prays to His Father, stating "the hour is come", and pleads for His Apostles and for those who will believe on their words. This passage provides a witness that God, the Eternal Father, is the Supreme Ruler of the universe. Jesus Christ is identified as God the Son, our intercessor (Isa. 53:12; Heb. 7:25) and thus the Father's mediator (1 Tim. 2:5), as illustrated by John 1:1, where Jesus is described as the Word, the Word (also) being God, and that the Word was in the beginning with God. The Holy Ghost is portrayed as God when Peter censures Ananias, "Why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost? . . . Thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God" (Acts 5:3-4). Demonstrating the separate entity of the Holy Ghost, Jesus testified, "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things" (Jn. 14:26). The unity of the Godhead is explained in John 17:11, 22: "Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one as we are. . . . And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one." The scriptures teach that there are three separate and distinct Beings, perfectly united in purpose and harmony of will. Again, according to the scriptures we worship God the Father, in the name of His Son Jesus Christ by the power of the Holy Ghost: "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him" (1 Cor. 8:5-6; see footnote).31 The Bible gives no further explanation.
In the absence of prophets and Apostles, late second century Christian scholars began to follow the pattern of Jewish intellectuals before the coming of Christ: They offered what they felt were scholarly answers to spiritual matters, seeking to define the Godhead as though they were pursuing some scientific discovery. Interpreting the Gospels and other inspired writings through the lens of Greek ideology and Hellenized Hebrew theology, they arrived at some fairly speculative conclusions when explaining the nature of God. Jesus told the Jews that the Father could only be revealed to them through the Son (Luke 10:22); thus, only revelation could provide the doctrinal answers Christians of this era sought. Neither the Bible authors nor the early Christian Fathers embraced Greek philosophy or Judaic scholarship; they rejected the perversions of Christian doctrine developed by Gnostic and Docetist defectors. The cause of this changing doctrine is ascribed to the apostasy explained by the Apostle John: "thou hast left thy first love" (Rev. 2:4) and the angel to the Shepherd: "They think it possible to find a better road, and err" (see p. 00). Not many years following Hermas's visions, quarrels over the nature of the Godhead intensified.
The doctrine of the orthodox Trinity (one substance in three persons, stemming from the Greek homoousios, and the Latin consubstantialis) begins its evolution with Justin Martyr's writings in approximately A.D. 150, as he attempts to explain the Logos (Christ), meaning both "word" and "reason." In articulating his concept of the Logos he used symbolic language, arguing that Christ was a part of God's essence, though separate, "as fires kindled from a fire."32 Although later Christianity would construe Justin's words to imply that God and Jesus are one substance, his intent seems to indicate "offspring," not one substance. Accordingly, he also used the word begotten:
You perceive, my hearers, if you bestow attention, that the scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by the Father before all things created; and that which is begotten is numerically distinct from that which begets, any one will admit.33
This was the beginning of comparisons and allegory as a replacement for precise interpretation of scripture to define true doctrine. From this point forward, a full theology of the nature of the Godhead would be developed, which produced a myriad of mystical elements unexplainable by scripture. While Justin was a man who loved and served God, he was a layman who may not have held ecclesiastical office. Although he believed that the Church still received revelation,34 Justin himself provided no examples, nor did he mention those receiving current revelation.35
In approximately A.D. 200, Tertullian began to interpret and expand on Justin Martyr's ideas. Because of his legal training, Tertullian drew portions of his terminology from Roman courts of law rather than scripture. For example, he used the Latin word substantia, meaning "property rights," to express "material," or, in other words, God's substantia as his "domain." The word Persona, which actually referred to a party in a legal action, Tertullian used to denote a "person." Employed together in this manner, it seemed plausible that three personae could share one substantia.36 Tertullian believed that God was a "corporeal" substance, though "purer than ours",37 but that the Godhead was "One, by unity of substance", such being a "mystery" that is "still guarded."38 He held that Jesus and the Holy Ghost were subordinate to the Father. None of Tertullian's language can be found in scripture, nor in any attempt by the Savior or the Apostles to explain the matter.
Although Tertullian's language provided a platform from which the Nicene council would extrapolate, even third-century theology did not describe the end eventually settled upon in Nicaea. Not many years after Tertullian, Origen began expressing his view of the Godhead. Like Justin, Origen believed in the separate nature of God and Jesus, insisting that they were separate persons or "subsistences."39 He is also the first person to use the term hypostasis, a Stoic-Platonic term meaning "essence" or "real existence." He maintained that the Father was ho theos, meaning absolutely God, and that the Son was theos, or a second God subordinate to the Father. In the following excerpt from Against Celsus, Origen seemed to clarify the interpretation of his own statement regarding the separate but unified nature of the Father and the Son. First quoting Celsus, Origen then offers his response:
"They pay excessive reverence to one who has but lately appeared among men, and they think it no offense against God if they worship also his servant," To this we reply, that if Celsus had known that saying, "I and My Father are one," . . . he would not have supposed that we worship any other besides Him who is the Supreme God. "For," says He, "My Father is in Me, and I in Him." And if any should from these words be afraid of our going over to the side of those who deny that the Father and the Son are two personages, let him weigh this passage, "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul," that he may understand the meaning of the saying, "I and my Father are one." . . . We worship, therefore, the Father of truth, and the Son, who is the truth; and these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will.40
Origen used the verse "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul" (Acts 4:32) to explain how the Father and the Son are one. The multitude did not become one substance, they became unified in love and one in righteous, unselfish desires. Origen also speaks of the Holy Ghost as a separate member of the Godhead, lower in hierarchal rank than the Father and the Son.41 Although Origen's description to Celsus regarding the unity of the Godhead seems clear, others use his language (plainly dependent on Platonic theory) to support a Trinitarian view.42 In the end, the Nicene council took significant license when interpreting Origen's language in order to arrive at its eventual conclusion.
The Monarchian Controversy
The effort to define the Godhead provoked unending quarrels. The first such widespread conflict is known as the Monarchian Controversy. In this argument there were those who revolted against Justin Martyr's bold statement of the Logos being "another God," not simply in will but also number.43 Others believed in the view of Hellenized Jews who claimed that one could use the analogy of sun and sunlight to illustrate the "divine Logos." Justin underscored his belief that Jesus was separate and independent by using the metaphor of one torch being lit from another torch. The Monarchian creed insisted that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost were the same person, but that the three terms were used to describe the different roles God played to enable man's redemption. Thus God was a single being whose three titles were simply descriptive and in no way altered his oneness. Monarchian ideology has also been termed Modalism. The architect of this theology is said to have been a Roman Prelate from the Eastern Church named Sabellius.44
Another theological perspective, Dynamic Monarchianism, or adoptionism, has been attributed to Paul of Samosata, who became bishop of Antioch in A.D. 260. This viewpoint claimed that although Christ's birth was miraculous, he was but a mere man until he was baptized, at which time the Holy Ghost made him the Son of God by adoption. A heated debate continued for decades, marked by intellectual pride, divisiveness, subtleties, and the absence of the Holy Spirit. Tertullian authored a composition entitled Against Praxeas, in which he defended the concept of God as one substance consisting of three persons, but attacked the biblical weaknesses of Sabellianism.
The Arian Controversy
As one debate subsided another began, this one being even more malicious and of much greater duration than the Monarchian dispute. In A.D. 318 a popular presbyter named Arius from the parish of Baucalis in Alexandria refused to support the concept of the Son being equal to the Father. Arius believed that only God the Father was "without beginning."45 He reasoned that since the Logos, the pre-existent Christ, was begotten, there was a time when "he was not," and he must therefore necessarily be a creature (created out of nothing) and thus had a beginning. Accordingly, he asserted that Christ was clearly subordinate to the Eternal Father.46 Following is the letter Arius later wrote to Constantine in defense of his belief:
We believe in one God, the Father, all-sovereign; and in the Lord Jesus Christ his only-begotten Son who came into existence from him before all ages, God the Word, through whom all things in the heavens and on earth came into existence, who came down and assumed flesh and suffered, rose and went up into the heavens and comes again to judge the living and dead. And in the Holy Spirit and in the resurrection of the flesh and in the life of the future age and in the kingdom of heaven.47
This view was intensely disputed by Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria, who asserted that Christ, the Logos, was divine, eternally generated by the Father. However, he believed Christ was a separate hypostasis (person within the trinity), sharing the same nature as the Father.48 Arius petitioned the support of important bishops outside of Egypt, including Eusebius of Caesarea; and what began as a local dispute soon had the effect of dividing the eastern Empire.
Constantine dispatched his ecclesiastical advisor, Hosius, the bishop of Cordova, to investigate and intervene in the matter. After conferring with Alexander, Hosius aligned himself with the bishop and assembled a Church council at Antioch in which Eusebius was excommunicated. Displeased with the judgment, Constantine moved the greater council which had been scheduled for Ancyra, to Nicaea and personally presided at the conclave. The meeting began in June of 325 and was attended by more than three hundred bishops, primarily from the eastern provinces. The assembly, which later became known as the first ecumenical council of the Church, was directed by Constantine to resolve the dispute and bring harmony to the Roman Empire.
Surviving documents indicate that the delegates soon divided into three camps: those supporting the Arian position, those in agreement with Athanasius (the Nicene doctrine), and those who straddled the middle by embracing variations of the other two, known as Homoeousianism. This last group, which included Eusebius of Caesarea, held that there were three divine persons separate in rank and glory but united in harmony of will.49 Representing the largest but least organized coalition, this doctrine had in fact been the prominent theology of the earliest Christians, as attested by Justin, Hippolytus, and Origen. Unfortunately, Arius pressed what was then considered a mildly heretical position; and in virtually a unanimous vote, the presbyters resolved to condemn the Arian view and compose a statement of belief or a creed that would render a precise definition of the nature of God and Jesus Christ. This declaration became known as the Nicene Creed. Following is the Nicene text in full:
Nicene Creed - A.D. 325 (First Ecumenical Council)
We believe in one God, the Father, Almighty, the maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, only begotten, (that is) of the substance of the Father; God of God, Light of Light; Very God of Very God; begotten not made; of the same substance with the Father, by whom all things were made, that are in heaven and that are in earth: who for us men, and for our salvation, descended and was incarnate, and became man; suffered and rose again the third day, ascended into the heavens and will come to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy Spirit. But those who say there was a time when he [the Son] was not, and that he was not before he was begotten, and that he was made out of nothing, or affirm that he is of any other substance or essence, or that the Son of God was created, and mutable, or changeable, the Catholic Church doth pronounce accursed.
Although the Council's decision was nearly unanimous, it was marred by ambiguity. Many of the delegates understood differently the precise meaning "of one substance," homoousios, which affirms "identity"; yet it also implies that the Father and the Son are "the same." To some, the term indicated a personal or distinct identity, while to many others it referred to a much broader, generic identity.50 William Rusch explains the confusion in this way:
It is not clear what the council intended to teach by the phrase "from the substance [ousia] of the Father" and homoousios with the Father. Both were unscriptural and employed with some reluctance. The latter phrase was placed in the creed by the emperor Constantine. . . . One of the assets of the word homoousios-and this led to its acceptance-was that different groups were able to interpret it in ways compatible with their own theology. As far as Constantine was concerned, this was agreeable.51
However, to soothe the continuing ill feelings of the Arians, Athanasius, the Nicene Creed's chief defender in the East, and Hilary, its foremost advocate in the West, agreed to include the term homoiousios (meaning similar substance), which had been refused at the Nicene Council. One scholar recorded the dispute in this manner:
Assailed by these difficulties, the most outstanding of the orthodox, an Athanasius, a Hilary, reached the point of conceding, in the interest of unity, that in order to judge of the faith, it was necessary to attach one's self less to words than to the expressed realities; without abandoning the homoousios (one substance), they admitted as catholic (orthodox) the homoiousios (like or similar substance), provided that one added "as to substance" or "in everything."52
Thus, matters of doctrine were negotiated in the same manner as political disputes.
The modifications offered by Athanasius and Hilary were never included in the Nicene text due to the negligence of a scribe. The eventual realization of the minute misunderstandings of definition later prompted a resurgence of fervor over the conflict. When Constantine died in 337 his son, Constans, an Arian, overturned the Nicene Council's decision. The Arian controversy continued unabated until the Second Ecumenical Council at Constantinople in 381, at which time the Nicene Creed was reinstated. Nevertheless, this battle continued to rage for some four-hundred years, while the Catholic Church maintained that the Holy Spirit had inspired the scribe to drop the iota.53
Post-Apostolic Christianity was feeling its way through the dark on a most important matter without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The Savior had once mightily prayed to His Father in the famous intercessory prayer:
And this is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent. (Jn. 17:3; emphasis added)
The Savior's testimony demonstrates the critical nature of the misconception of this formerly pure dogma. The earliest Christians did understand the nature of God, and Ignatius was unambiguous when he wrote, "I am able to understand . . . the incomparable majesty of Almighty God. . . . I am acquainted with these things" (see p. 0). In times past the Apostles filled the sacred role of clarifying doctrine; and since life eternal means knowing the true nature of God, a threatening breach occurred among the leadership of the Church, and the sheep of the fold were left in spiritual jeopardy.
Excerpt 5 Predestination Verses God's Foreknowledge, Foreordination, and Free Will
Augustine's theory of predestination stands in stark contrast to early Christian doctrine. His speculative teaching relies on Greek philosophy rather than the Bible. The following excerpt from The City of God, one of Augustine's most celebrated works, established his position on the subject:
Wherefore our wills also have just so much power as God willed and foreknew that they should have; and therefore whatever power they have, they have it within most certain limits; and whatever they are to do, they are most assuredly to do, for He whose foreknowledge is infallible foreknew that they would have the power to do it, and would do it.
Therefore, whatsoever a man suffers contrary to his own will, he ought not to attribute to the will of men, or of angels, or of any created spirit, but rather to His will who gives power to wills. It is not the case, therefore, that because God foreknew what would be in the power of our wills, there is for that reason nothing in the power of our wills.28
Augustine believed that because God foreknows what a person will do prior to an act of commission or omission, man has no power over his own will. From this conclusion Augustine necessarily extrapolates that God arbitrarily, or at least in some fashion known only to God, chooses His elect children to be saved while the rest are damned. For Augustine there was no such thing as true self-determination-everything or anything good happened because God foreknew and willed it to be so. Thus, Augustine believed that mankind's fate was sealed before birth, either to election or damnation.
J.N.D. Kelly summarizes Augustine's position in the following manner:
It is for God to determine which shall receive grace and which shall not. . . . The number of elect is strictly limited, being neither more or less than is required to replace fallen angels. Hence he [Augustine] has to twist the text "God wills all men to be saved" (1 Tim. 2:4), making it mean that He wills the salvation of all the elect, among whom men of every race and type are represented. God's choice of those to whom grace is given in no way depends on His foreknowledge of their future merits, for whatever good deeds they do will themselves be the fruit of grace.29
Answering the inevitable accusations of favoritism, Augustine replied as follows:
There can in the end, be no answer to this agonizing question. God has mercy on those whom He wishes to save, and justifies them; He hardens those upon whom He does not wish to have mercy, not offering them grace in conditions they are likely to accept it. If this looks like favoritism, we should all remember that all are in any case justly condemned, and that if God decides to save any it is an act of ineffable compassion.30
Satan's greatest ploy is half truths. We recall Satan's deceitful statement to Eve, "Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil" (Gen.3:4-5). The fallen state of man brought about not only physical death but also spiritual death, separating us from God and necessitating the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Augustine would have us believe that only a small number of God's children are elect before they are born into this world, and thus automatically saved, while the masses come to earth, including innocent children, predestined to damnation. This concept is foreign to Scripture and cannot be supported by religious history. While God's foreknowledge allows Him to know eternal outcomes before they actually occur, that He actually wills some of His children to election and others to damnation is a doctrine borne of a source other than God.
Augustine's theology of predestination was not the doctrine of the early Christian Church, nor was it the belief of many others in fourth-century Christianity. Semi-Palagians, as they were called, believed that the initial movement of faith came from the sinner's own choice to come unto God. They believed that grace assisted a man who had begun to will his own salvation31 and that God meant what He said when He inspired the words "Who will have all men to be saved, and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim. 2:4). Notwithstanding that Augustine's theories were at odds with those of early Christianity and many other churchmen of his own day, they eventually won out, becoming the dominant thought of the Universal Church and the Protestant movement when it arose.
The earliest Christian communities strongly believed in free will, while Christianity in the fourth century began to speculate significantly and to alter the pure teachings of the prophets and the Apostles.
Doctrine attributed to Peter in the Clementine Recognitions was recorded as follows:
Whether any one, truly hearing the word of the true Prophet; is willing or unwilling to receive it, and to embrace His burden, that is, the precepts of life, he has either in his power, for we are free in will. For if it were so, that those who hear had it not in their power to do otherwise than they had heard, there were some power of nature in virtue of which it were not free to him to pass over to another opinion. Or if, again, no one of the hearers could at all receive it, this also were a power of nature which should compel the doing of some one thing, and should leave no place for the other course. But now, since it is free for the mind to turn its judgment to which side it pleases, and to choose the way which it approves, it is clearly manifest that there is in men a liberty of choice.32
The Christian teacher next described the burden of responsibility upon hearing the truth:
Before any one hears what is good for him, . . . he is ignorant; and being ignorant, he wishes and desires to do what is not good for him; wherefore he is not judged for that. But when once he has heard the causes of his error, and has received the method of truth, then, if he remain in those errors with which he had been long ago preoccupied, he shall rightly be called into judgment, to suffer punishment, because he has spent in the sport of errors that portion of life which was given him to be spent in living well. But he who, hearing those things, willingly receives them, and is thankful that the teaching of good things has been brought to him, inquires more eagerly, and does not cease to learn, . . . gives thanks to God because He has shown him the light of truth; and for the future directs his actions in all good works, for which he is assured that there is a reward prepared in the world to come.33
This early Christian writer, perhaps recording Peter's views, informs us that we will be judged according to our response to hearing the truth. His discourse validates the basic premise of free will: men are provided the "Two Ways" (life or death), whereupon they must choose for themselves the path they will take.
Justin Martyr, added his testimony regarding free will:
God, wishing men and angels to follow His will, resolved to create them free to do righteousness; possessing reason. . . . And with a law that they should be judged by Him, if they do anything contrary to right reason. . . .34 Since God made . . . men in the beginning with free will, in eternal fire they will justly suffer the punishment of whatever sins they have committed. And this is the nature of all that is made-to be capable of vice and virtue. For neither would any of them be praiseworthy unless there was power to turn to both.35
Continuing, Justin recorded:
In the beginning He made the human race with the power of thought and of choosing the truth and of acting rightly, so that all people are without excuse before God; for they are born capable of exercising reason and intelligence.36
Finally, for Justin, free will was a critical element concerning man's salvation:
But lest some may infer from what has been said by us that whatever things happen, happen according to inevitable destiny, because they were foretold as foreknown, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets . . . that punishments . . . and good rewards are given according to the merit of each person's actions. . . . For if it be destined that one person be good and another wicked, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter blameworthy. And again unless the human race has the power by free choice to avoid evil and to choose good, there is no responsibility for actions of whatever kind they be. . . . But this we assert is irrevocable destiny, that those who choose the good have deserved rewards, and those who choose the opposite have their just punishment. For God did not make a man or a woman like other things, such as trees and animals, which cannot act by choice. . . . Through Moses God spoke to the first formed man: "Behold before your face are good and evil, choose the good."37
As one of the Fathers closest to the Apostles, Justin Martyr was a strong proponent of the doctrine of free will, for it was a central part of the apostolic tradition. But Justin was not alone in this regard. Mathetes (in his Epistle to Diognetus), Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and every other writer within the early Christian community were all in harmony regarding the principle of free will as a basic Christian tenet.
Mathetes taught:
He sent Him; as to men He sent Him; as a Savior He sent Him, and as seeking to persuade, not to compel us; for violence has not place in the character of God.38
Calling free will the "ancient law of human liberty," Irenaeus explained:
This expression [of our Lord], "How often I would have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not," set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests (ad utendum sentenia) of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no Coercion with God. . . . And in man, as well as angels, He has placed the power of choice, so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good. . . . On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall . . . receive condign punishment.39
The learned Hippolytus wrote:
Man possesses the capacity of self-determination, inasmuch as he is able to will and not to will, and is endued with power to do both.40
Finding full agreement with his early Christian brethren, Clement of Alexandria stated:
In no respect is God the author of evil. But since free choice and inclination originate sins, and a mistaken judgement sometimes prevails, . . . punishments are rightly inflicted.41
Origen too believed that we are rational beings and participate with God's grace in the salvation process:
God the Father bestows upon all, existence; and participation in Christ, in respect of His being the word of reason, renders them rational beings. From which it follows that they are deserving either of praise or blame, because capable of virtue and vice.42
Punctuating the profound belief Origen held regarding man's free agency, Joseph Trigg has written:
Origen presents grace and free will not as mutually exclusive, but as complimentary. We see this in his interpretation of another problematic text, 'So it depends not on man's will or exertion, but on God's mercy" (Rom. 9:16). He argues that Paul is not denying human agency but appropriately indicating God's share in our salvation far exceeds ours. [According to Origen] Paul is like a sailor who, at the conclusion of a safe voyage, ascribes all the credit to God. The Sailor does not for a moment suppose he could have arrived safe at harbor without his own skill at navigation. Even so, he is far more impressed by God's role in giving favorable winds, hospitable weather, and the stars as a guide.43
The collective weight of the earliest Christian Fathers as proponents of free agency is nearly overwhelming. It is certainly unmistakable. In stark contrast, Augustine's speculative doctrine of election does not find harmony with the Old or New Testament, with the tenets of the early Christian Fathers, nor with ancient pseudepigraphal writings. Misguided interpretations of a few isolated verses led Augustine to create entire theoretical discourses on the subject of predestination. By contrast, when faced with a similar doctrinal dilemma, Peter, as the Lord's prophet, was given a dream clarifying God's will to the membership of the Church (Acts 10:9-48). Augustine attempted to construct a doctrine based alone on intellectual arguments. In the final analysis we are left to ponder the reality that the earliest Christian writers are closer to the original teachings of Jesus than theologians writing in the fifth century, an era of escalating corruption.
|
