Book Review- Steven Lawson, Foundations of Grace: A Long Line of Godly Men

Foundations of Grace: A Long Line of Godly Men

By Steven J. Lawson / Reformation Trust Publishing

While discussing God’s sovereignty in salvation, students have often been asked me if I could provide to them the Bible verses on both sides of the issue. I usually receive a skeptical look when I reply that there are no Bible verses on both sides of the issue, that God does not contradict Himself, and that all of the Scripture supports the teaching of the Doctrines of Grace (I am happy, however, to work through the passages that appear contradictory). There are difficult to understand passages, but sovereign grace is so pervasive in the Bible that those looking for it will begin to see it everywhere.

In his book, Foundations of Grace, Dr. Steven J. Lawson traces elements of the Doctrines of Grace through every book of the Bible. The book begins with a foreword by Dr. John MacArthur, which is an excellent theological essay that would itself be worth the price of the book. Lawson then argues that how one understands God’s sovereign grace in salvation is foundational to their understanding of the biblical message and theology. He argues for God’s sovereign plan to save fallen humanity through a gracious act of election as a unifying theme of the Bible. Lawson then works through each section of the Bible from Genesis to Revelation examining God’s sovereign Grace and related truths. The book then concludes with a call to believers to stand firm in these truths in afterword by Dr. R.C. Sproul.

The book provides an accessible defense of the Reformed view of the unity and consistency of the Bible on these points. The treatment is not overly technical or complex and as expected, presupposes a Reformed understanding of various biblical and systematic theological positions. Since he explores similar themes in each chapter, reading the book from cover to cover becomes tedious at times. The upside of this style, however, is that the book will likely serve as a good reference resource to those who may want to examine these themes in relation to a particular book of Scripture.

Advanced readers looking for a comprehensive biblical theology, extensive exegetical detail, or a critical evaluation of theological issues attending the interpretations will not find that here. What readers can find here is a good introduction to why Reformed Christians are so passionate about God’s sovereignty and the Doctrines of Grace.  

* I received a free copy of this book from Reformation Trust Publishing as part of their book review program. Reviews are not required to be positive and the opinions I have expressed are my own.

Allow God?

I was looking for something on the internet recently and came across the following statement on a Christian website, “He will use you, but you must allow Him to work through your heart.” There is nothing surprising or unique about finding this kind of statement on a Christian site. In fact, many believers say this kind of thing all the time. It is not a quotation of any particular biblical text but those who say these kinds of things are clearly trying to communicate something that they believe is central to the teaching of the Bible. What is it exactly that they are trying to say? Is it biblical?

To begin unpacking this we must understand what is meant by the term “allow” in this context. Generally when these kinds of statements are made no definition is given. The speaker or writer typically assumes that a particular understanding is conveyed, but like most English words, the verb “allow” has a range of meanings. It is not at all clear that everyone who makes these statements intends to communicate the same thing. There are at least four common definitions for “allow” and each would suggest a different interpretation.

The first definition given in most English dictionaries is “to grant permission”. Taken this way, the phrase suggests that humans must grant permission to God in order for Him to use them or work in their hearts. This implies that human beings have authority over the acts of God in at least some areas. Probably most who use these phrases do not intend to say this, but some certainly do. The problem with this view is that it stands in opposition to every explicit statement in scripture about God’s authority and His relationship to humanity. In every case in the Bible where the concepts of authority and permission are in view it is God who is granting or denying. It never goes the other way.

The second definition is “to make possible or to provide an opportunity”. This seems to be what is meant by most who talk about our need to “allow” God to work in us. The idea is that although God has the authority to act He will not do so unless we cooperate with Him. His character is such that He waits for us to invite Him to work in our lives. The idea is that God woos us and draws us but we must yield to Him if we are to be used by Him. There are no explicit verses in the Bible teaching that God respects our freedom so much that He refrains from working in us until invited. The concept is developed from various passages that indicate that humans have the ability to resist God and His Spirit (Rom. 6:16, 19; Eph. 4:30, Acts 7:51, etc.). Of course, the Bible does teach that humans can resist God. In fact, it teaches that all humans resist God. The question is if there is some point, at which God will act unilaterally to overcome that resistance. This is essentially the issue involved in the debate about the doctrine of irresistible grace. We all resist God and in sin none of us seeks to cooperate with Him or submit to him (Rom. 3:23-24). This is the essence of grace, that it is God who overcomes our resistance and makes us alive spiritually (Eph. 2:4-6, John 6:44, 63-65, etc.). If it is true that God takes the initiative to overcome our resistance and continues to work in us to sanctify us and give us the power to live the Christian life (Phil. 2:12-13, John 3:21, Eph. 2:10) then He is not limited by or waiting for us to grant Him permission to work. Indeed, we are spiritually incapable of initiating the process (1 Cor. 2:14, 2 Cor. 3:5, Rom. 8:7-8). In the end we recognize that far from responding to us, His work to save us and work in us began long before we were even born (Eph. 1:3-5).

The third definition is “to grant that a piece of information has legal standing”. Since it is God who judges and we who are to be judged this does not seem to be the meaning intended. We certainly have no standing by which to render judgment over the criteria that God would use in His heavenly court (1 Tim. 6:15).

The final common definition is “to admit or accept the truth of a proposition”. I doubt that most people intend anything like this meaning when they talk about “allowing God to work” but in a sense this is the definition that would be the most biblical in its application. The definition is speaking of intellectual assent but if we truly believe something then our desire will be to act in accordance with that belief. In this way, this definition is consistent with the way Paul and the other Apostles generally encouraged the churches. In each of his letters, Paul begins by laying the doctrinal foundation of what God has done through Christ for those who believe. Paul then builds upon that doctrinal foundation by encouraging the believers to live and work in a way that is consistent with those truths. The life of the believer is an acknowledgment of the truth of what God has done and is doing. The Christian life is an act of worship and is a reasonable expression of gratefulness for the work of God and a testimony to it (Rom. 12:1-2). The apostles repeatedly encourage the saints to live consistently with who they actually are.

In this way to speak of “allowing” God to work in our lives is simply another way of saying that we must submit to God in recognition of the Truth. If we will be productive and faithful servants we must be transformed by that truth or else we testify that we are not His. Our great privilege is that God has chosen to work in us and through us. We should therefore submit to Him, listen to His word, and honor Him. If that is what is meant by “allowing” God to work in our lives then I add my Amen.

We have no authority to exercise power over God in any way, neither does He require our permission should He choose to work in our lives. We do not influence how He judges and works (Job 40:2). If any of this is what is intended by “allow” then I think it is a boldness that we should be cautious about because I do not find it in the Bible. Salvation from start to finish is of the Lord (Heb. 12:2).

Salvation of the Fittest? Grace, God’s Glory, and Spiritual Darwinism

For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9 ESV)

Christians talk about grace a lot. Unfortunately, we do not all mean the same thing when we use the word. Most Christians agree that grace means “unmerited favor” but it seems a common statement of definition does not solve the problem. The difference comes down to what exactly “favor” refers to in a Christian context. What is it that we receive that we do not merit?

The fundamental teaching of Christianity is that we cannot save ourselves and any hope of salvation is necessarily dependent on the grace of God in Christ. The question is to what extent does this grace extend? Historically, evangelical Christians have understood the Bible to teach that salvation is completely of grace and that we do not contribute to it whatsoever. Others have argued instead that God’s grace is a helping grace that strengthens a believer to complete their journey of faith. Both agree that sinners cannot be saved apart from grace but one side thinks that God’s grace initiates faith and desire for God and the other side thinks God’s grace is a response to faith and a desire for God.

It is an important issue because either view has major implications for how we understand the Gospel. Is our justification before God solely the work of God (monergism) or is it a cooperative effort between God and sinners (synergism)? I believe the Bible teaches that justification is the work of God alone and that apart from a gracious work of God we do not even know we need to be saved let alone have a desire for it. As the old song says, “twas grace that taught my heart to fear”.

Most people who hold a concept of helping grace that has God and sinners cooperating to achieve salvation are careful to give the credit for salvation to God. The reasoning goes that without the grace of God, those who desire to be saved could not be therefore God alone should be glorified. Even so, one cannot have a cooperative view of salvation where God is completing a process that initiates within the sinner and attribute salvation fully to God. If God is responding to a desire or faith in the sinner then both elements (this desire and God’s response) are necessary. The result is that we end up with the kind of thing where you do the first 1% and God does the other 99%.

My reading of the Bible leads me to believe that God is not content to be given 99% of the glory for saving sinners. There are many biblical and theological arguments related to this issue but there is one very simple observation that I think highlights the difficulty of the view that God is responding to an impulse in the sinner. Ultimately, this view degenerates into a type of spiritual Darwinism.

Darwin argued that there are characteristics in some animals that make them better suited to feed and reproduce than others. As a result, those creatures best suited to their environment would survive and pass on their genes. Over time, the strong species would survive and the weak would become extinct. In Darwinism, the providential hand of God is removed from the process and the only forces that are left are the environment and the intrinsic characteristics of the individual creatures. If God is responding to an impulse of some sort in the sinner then He cannot also be the cause of that impulse. The cause must then be within the sinner himself, his environment, or some combination of the two.

Imagine the following scene: On Judgment Day, there will be two groups of people before the throne of God. One group will enter into heaven and the other will enter into eternal punishment. Suppose that the synergistic view is correct and we were to ask someone who was in the group waiting to enter into heaven how it is that they came to be in that group. They might respond that they will enter heaven because God, in His grace, has saved them. We might then logically ask why it is that they have been saved when many others have not. I imagine that they are likely to respond that they believed in the Lord Jesus Christ and trusted in Him as their savior.

At this point, if we were to ask why it is that they believed and accepted this message while those in the other group did not, what would they say? They certainly will not want to say that they were more intelligent, more spiritual, or more sensitive than all those who were lost. Maybe they would point out that there were many believers in their lives that prayed for them, encouraged them, and shared the truth with them but then there will be many in the other line who had equal or better support in this regard. What within a sinner would give them an advantage in developing a desire or faith? None of the potential answers seem satisfying.

I know of no Christian that is comfortable saying that ultimately there is something within them that led to their salvation no matter how much they want to protect a human role in the process. If, however, God is not initiating the process and is instead responding then this seems to be an inevitable conclusion. In order to believe in a cooperative view of grace one must admit that there is something within particular sinners that gives them an advantage. Just as in biology if you remove the design of God from the equation you end up with creature/environment determinism. The grace of God is reduced to salvation of the fittest.

I cannot imagine anyone who on that day will not give all glory to God for what He has done for him or her. I cannot imagine anyone who will point to themselves as the reason. Rather I think we will join the heavenly chorus we see in the book of Revelation. Shouting, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!” and “Hallelujah! Salvation and glory and power belong to our God” (Rev. 7:10, 19:1).

Why I am a Compatibilist

In the previous article I discussed Jonathan Edwards' explanation of how divine sovereignty and human responsibility can be compatible. Edwards argument is important because it demonstrates that the teaching of the scripture that God is in control, and also that He justly holds people accountable for their actions, does not involve a logical contradiction. His arguments, and others like it, however are not the basis for why I am a compatibilist. I am a compatibilist because I believe that the Bible teaches it.

The basic question comes down to whose will is determinative for whatever events occur. Is it human choices and intentions that determine what happens or is it God’s choices and intentions? There are many Biblical examples that I think require us to answer that question in a way that asserts that both are the case. As the old theologians used to say “God works through means”. Let’s look at a couple of examples.

The Joseph Story (Genesis 37:18-28, 45:1-8, 50:15-20)

Notice the pronouns in the first part of this story. The text is clear that it is the brothers who are making these choices. If we ask who decided that Joseph would be sold to the Ishmaelites we have to answer based upon this section that his brothers did.

They saw him from afar, and before he came near to them they conspired against him to kill him. They said to one another, “Here comes this dreamer. Come now, let us kill him and throw him into one of the pits. Then we will say that a fierce animal has devoured him, and we will see what will become of his dreams.” But when Reuben heard it, he rescued him out of their hands, saying, “Let us not take his life.” And Reuben said to them, “Shed no blood; throw him into this pit here in the wilderness, but do not lay a hand on him”—that he might rescue him out of their hand to restore him to his father. So when Joseph came to his brothers, they stripped him of his robe, the robe of many colors that he wore. And they took him and threw him into a pit. The pit was empty; there was no water in it. Then they sat down to eat. And looking up they saw a caravan of Ishmaelites coming from Gilead, with their camels bearing gum, balm, and myrrh, on their way to carry it down to Egypt. Then Judah said to his brothers, “What profit is it if we kill our brother and conceal his blood? Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites, and let not our hand be upon him, for he is our brother, our own flesh.” And his brothers listened to him. Then Midianite traders passed by. And they drew Joseph up and lifted him out of the pit, and sold him to the Ishmaelites for twenty shekels of silver. They took Joseph to Egypt. (Genesis 37:18-28 ESV)

When the story picks up a few chapters later we are given another perspective. This time we see the intention of God introduced. In fact, in the same sentence we see two different wills connected to the same event. Joseph says that his brothers sold him into Egypt but then he says that it was God who did it. He emphasizes God’s providence in their actions by telling his brothers “it was not you who sent me here, but God”. It is clear from the overall narrative that this statement is not intended as a denial of the fact that the brothers had sent him but rather his way of emphasizing that God’s purposes are fulfilled even through their sinful actions. Even their rebellious choices end up being part of the means God uses to bring about His ends.

So Joseph said to his brothers, “Come near to me, please.” And they came near. And he said, “I am your brother, Joseph, whom you sold into Egypt. And now do not be distressed or angry with yourselves because you sold me here, for God sent me before you to preserve life. For the famine has been in the land these two years, and there are yet five years in which there will be neither plowing nor harvest. And God sent me before you to preserve for you a remnant on earth, and to keep alive for you many survivors. So it was not you who sent me here, but God. He has made me a father to Pharaoh, and lord of all his house and ruler over all the land of Egypt. (Genesis 45:4-8 ESV)

As we reach the end of the narrative the brothers clearly understand that they are responsible for what happened to Joseph. They did not, however, understand Joseph’s faithfulness and trust in God’s providence that he shows in his famous statement “you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good”. I have heard many teachers and preachers explain this verse by saying that God used the actions of brothers to bring about His purposes as if God simply made the best out of what happened. This is not, however, what the verse says. Joseph says that “God meant it”. If we ask the question “who is responsible for Joseph ending up in Egypt” we must give two answers. The brothers are responsible but so is God. God didn’t force the brothers to do what they did, their choices were their own. They did what they desired to do and chose according to their own sinful and selfish natures. Their choices, however, were part of the larger plan of God to provide for His people.

When Joseph's brothers saw that their father was dead, they said, “It may be that Joseph will hate us and pay us back for all the evil that we did to him.” So they sent a message to Joseph, saying, “Your father gave this command before he died: ‘Say to Joseph, “Please forgive the transgression of your brothers and their sin, because they did evil to you.”’ And now, please forgive the transgression of the servants of the God of your father.” Joseph wept when they spoke to him. His brothers also came and fell down before him and said, “Behold, we are your servants.” But Joseph said to them, “Do not fear, for am I in the place of God? As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good, to bring it about that many people should be kept alive, as they are today. (Genesis 50:15-20 ESV)

The Crucifixion (Is. 53:10, Acts 2:22-23, 4:26-28)

We see a similar dynamic with regard to the crucifixion of Jesus. The Bible tells us that it was the plan of God that Christ would be sacrificed. Hundreds of years before Jesus was born the prophet Isaiah revealed God’s intentions in the death of His Son.

By oppression and judgment he was taken away; and as for his generation, who considered that he was cut off out of the land of the living, stricken for the transgression of my people? And they made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death, although he had done no violence, and there was no deceit in his mouth. Yet it was the will of the LORD to crush him; He has put him to grief; when his soul makes an offering for guilt, he shall see his offspring; he shall prolong his days; the will of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. (Isaiah 53:8-10 ESV)

Peter, in his well known sermon recorded in Acts 2, also touches upon both the human and the divine intention when discussing the death of Christ. He makes it clear that human choices led to the death of Christ but like Joseph’s story this is also part of the plan that God has willed to bring about.

Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a man attested to you by God with mighty works and wonders and signs that God did through him in your midst, as you yourselves know—this Jesus, delivered up according to the definite plan and foreknowledge of God, you crucified and killed by the hands of lawless men. (Acts 2:22-23 ESV)

Again in chapter 4 when Peter and John are released from custody and are praising God both the human and the divine wills and intentions involved in the crucifixion are mentioned again.

The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers were gathered together, against the Lord and against his Anointed’—for truly in this city there were gathered together against your holy servant Jesus, whom you anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, along with the Gentiles and the peoples of Israel, to do whatever your hand and your plan had predestined to take place. (Acts 4:26-28 ESV)

The Bible teaches that there are two distinct purposes at work in the death of Christ. There are the sinful acts of human beings but also there is the plan of God. God did not force these people to do what they did; they acted according to their own desires and their own motives. There was, however, another purpose and another cause of these events. If we ask who determined that Jesus would be crucified we must provide two answers if we are to be consistent with the teaching of the Bible.

We see in both of these examples that God’s plans infallibly come to pass. He determines what will happen but He does so in a way that does not violate the ability of people to act according to their own desires. To deny the human intention and agency in bringing about these events is to deny the Biblical witness that those people were responsible for those choices and that they were indeed real choices. If we deny the divine intention then we deny the Biblical witness to God’s purposes in history and perhaps His sovereignty as well. These people made choices that proceeded from their own desires, their own natures, from who they were and God working through them according to their nature accomplishes His own ends. Therefore in these examples we see an illustration of what Edwards was talking about. God is in control and His sovereignty means the outcomes are certain even though people are making free choices for which they can justly be held accountable. There are many other Biblical examples that we could have looked at but these are the most well known and I think they are sufficient to make the point. Compatibilism is not just a speculative philosophical position but is a conclusion based upon a careful reading of the Biblical text.

On Free Will

I have been asked many times whether I think the Bible teaches that God is completely sovereign or if it teaches that people have free will. I usually respond that the Bible teaches both. That answer usually frustrates people. Most people recognize that if the Bible is truly God’s word it cannot contain real contradictions and they therefore conclude that it has to teach either one or the other. How, they ask, could God be just in holding people accountable for actions that He ultimately planned or determined?

Many assume that God being in control of all things and people being truly free are incompatible. As Christians, however, we believe that the Bible is true and it is the Bible that is our ultimate authority. The Bible clearly teaches that God is completely sovereign and in control. It also teaches that people are responsible for their actions and that God will hold them accountable for what they do. The logical compatibility of those truths is therefore a necessity for a rationally coherent Biblical theology.

The Bible simply asserts and assumes these truths as facts and does not explain the details of how they can be logically reconciled so various theologians have offered potential solutions. The best attempt I have read is Jonathan Edwards work The Freedom of the Will. Edwards explained that all choices were both determined and free. His observations and insights into the nature of willing allows for a logically consistent compatibilism between divine sovereignty and moral accountability. Since this issue has come up a couple of times in recent conversation and since Edwards’ writing is fairly dense philosophical and theological argument I thought it might be helpful to summarize some of the key points that he makes.

Most people think of free will as the ability to make alternative choices in such a way that the will is neutral and can make a choice either for or against any particular alternative. Edwards, however, shows that the will never has this kind of freedom. He points out that “will” is not so much a noun as it is a verb. The will is not a thing but it is rather the mind choosing. He then examines the basis upon which the mind makes choices. He demonstrates that a mind will choose (or will) that which is the greatest desire acting upon it at the time of the choice. This is very important because it implies that the will is never neutral. There is always a reason why a choice is made. A particular mind cannot choose against its own desires. A mind cannot want to not do what it most wants to do at the same time.

Someone may object and point out that people often do things they do not want to do. The reality is, however, that what people choose to do is in fact what it is they wanted to do at the moment they made the choice. For example, I have met many alcoholics who hate their addiction. They genuinely do not want to continue with that lifestyle. The fact is, however, that at the moment that they decide to pick up the bottle their desire for that short term pleasure is greater than their desire to refrain from drinking. They may seriously regret it later but in that moment the thing they most wanted to do was to take a drink. Although those desires may be so strong that one could say they were not free the fact is that they were choosing according to their own desire. Another example is if your boss asked you to do something that you absolutely did not want to do but you ended up doing it anyway. Even though everything in you might have been resistant to doing what you were asked, if you do it, it is still true that your greatest desire at that moment was to comply. At that moment your desire to keep your job or not have a problem with your boss was greater than your desire to resist. Even though it may not be a choice you would have made in other circumstances, all things being considered, it is what you wanted to do.

The will is therefore always determined by the greatest desires acting upon it at the moment of the choice. This means that every choice is determined by our nature and character. Edwards, however, also argues that our wills are indeed free. They are not free with regard to the power of contrary choice as so many people assume but they are truly free in that they do what it is they wish to do. His point is that so long as a person is not forced to do something against their will or is not restrained from doing something they willed to do then their actions freely proceed from them and so they are justly held responsible for them. Edwards argues that if you do what you want to do then your choices are free even if what you did was what God planned for you to do and you are still justly responsible because they were choices that came unimpeded from your own desires. 

By demonstrating that choices can be both free and also determined Edwards lays a logical philosophical foundation for understanding how to reconcile the Bible’s assertion that God is sovereign and also its assertion that He also holds people accountable for their actions. This view of freedom does not require that people have an equal ability to actualize multiple future realities in order to be free. If God works through beings according to their natures He can determine what will happen without overruling the ability of creatures to choose that which they wish to do. If the actions of those creatures are expressions of their own desires then they are justly held morally accountable for them even if they could not have done otherwise.

The objections to divine sovereignty tend to flow not from Biblical passages that teach that people possess the power of contrary choice (there aren’t any) but rather from a question about God’s justice in holding people accountable for choices that they were certain to make. Edwards’ argument provides a logically consistent explanation that fits with the two plain assertions of the scripture (God’s sovereignty & man’s responsibility). Much ink has been spilled on this subject but Edwards’ argument remains the most compelling work on the subject that I have read. Obviously the summary above barely scratches the surface of the overall argument. If you are interested in reading the entire thing you can get a free copy HERE. 

A brief consideration of objections to studying the doctrines of grace

Many Christians get uncomfortable when the topics of election and predestination come up. In fact, a conversation about any of the issues related to the doctrines of grace is potentially a cause of heartburn for a great many believers.  Many think these issues should only be sparingly handled and that it is usually better to not dig into them too deeply. I agree that it is certainly possible to handle these issues in an unhelpful or even damaging way but through the years I have noticed that much of the concern goes beyond concerns about appropriate balance or humility. In numerous occasions both in classes specific to the topic and in general bible studies where the question was raised I have been advised that these are issues that are best left mostly unexamined by the average Christian. Careful consideration of these objections demonstrates that there is something particular to these doctrines that causes them to be uniquely concerning to people. I would like to take a moment to briefly reflect upon the most popular reasons usually given as to why these topics should not be studied too seriously.

1. These things are too complicated and we will never be able to understand them:

It is true that we should be wary of anyone who claims to have all the answers nailed down perfectly on these issues but is it true that these doctrines are uniquely complex? The answer is no. The doctrine of the incarnation for example is far more complex than are the doctrines of grace. Also fundamentally more complicated is the doctrine of the Trinity. I have, however, never been advised that I should avoid teaching on either of these. In fact, most people are excited to learn more of what the bible teaches about those truths. They recognize that they will not be fully comprehensible but want to know what has been revealed about them in a way that tends not to be the case with the doctrines of grace. It is true that the doctrines of grace are not fully comprehensible but neither are many other basic truths of our faith (we are laboring to understand God after all) and there is much more explicit scriptural teaching on the doctrines of grace than there is on other complicated topics such as the Trinity.

2. There are brilliant Godly people on both sides of this issue:

This is closely related to #1 in that it implies that since other smarter people couldn’t come to a consensus that we shouldn’t bother. It is true that there are brilliant thinkers on both sides of these issues but our responsibility is to seek to understand the Word of God as best we can with the grace given to us. The things of God are spiritually discerned and the truths of any basic Christian doctrine are not attained upon the basis of the strength of our intellect but rather by God who reveals it. Indeed, there is no major theological issue upon which there is not a variation of opinion and yet on most of these things we are content to study them together and formulate our own conclusion. For example, issues such as the function, efficacy, and mode of baptism have a scholarly history just as divided as the doctrines of grace but within fellowships those issues are seldom avoided. It also seems to me that if there are various opinions on an important issue that there is more not less reason to look into it.

3. We should not try to pry into the deep and secret things of God:

This concern is often followed by quoting Deuteronomy 29:29, “The secret things belong to the Lord our God”. The implication is that by delving into these issues we are going beyond the boundaries of what the Lord intended for us to be concerned with. There are certainly things that the Lord has kept for Himself but the second half of Deut 29:29 reads “but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.” The secret things belong to God but what He has revealed is given to us for our benefit and they “belong to us”. Our understanding of these issues should be biblically based and not simply philosophical speculation. The scriptural passages that bear upon these teachings are not hidden or secret. These themes run throughout the bible and include some rather long and extensive sections of scripture. In fact, they are so frequent that it is necessary to have a position of some kind on these issues in order to interpret many whole teaching segments including the overall argument of entire books such as Romans, Ephesians, 1 Peter etc. I agree that the why and how of these doctrines applied to particular lives and events is to a great extent a hidden thing in God but I believe that they are so is clearly revealed. The issue becomes one of interpretation of those passages. Whether it is well developed or not, if you are studying the bible you are already utilizing some kind of understanding of these doctrines to support your overall understanding of the revelation of God in the scriptures.

4. These are not practical concerns… What difference does it really make?

Some Christians argue that we are called to witness the gospel and teach people to do what God has commanded and to what extent He is guiding, planning, or reacting to this doesn’t change that so why worry about it. Shouldn’t we pray as if everything depends upon God and work as though everything depends on us?  

There are few things that have more of a practical impact on the lives of a believer than their position on these issues. First, your perspective on these issues influences how you understand the very purpose of ministry, teaching, preaching etc. The type of worship service, type of evangelistic activities, and even the way that you pray will be influenced by your view of God and how He relates to His people. Second, your understanding of God’s sovereignty has a tremendous influence on how you respond to the challenges, trials, and setbacks in this world. It affects how you process things like the ultimate purpose behind the earthquake and tsunami that recently hit Japan or the pressures to compromise your integrity that might be placed upon you by your employer or associates. Third, the questions of what is involved in salvation and how it is attained and if it can be lost are preeminently practical questions that are foundational to Christian life and experience. If these doctrines do not make a difference in the lives of believers then I submit that they are either not understood or not believed.

5. They are divisive

It is true that an examination of these doctrines can be divisive but we would do well to ask ourselves upon what basis they cause division. Often division is the result of stubbornness, pride, or arrogance. Obviously none of these is from The Spirit and are all inconsistent with the humble submission of the believer to the Word of God. If, however, these doctrines are investigated in Christian love and humility recognizing that they are difficult and seem to us all to be unnatural when we first encounter them then it is my experience that they can be discussed in a positive and productive way even with those who struggle with them. On the other hand there is a sense in which the Word of God divides His children from those who are not willing to submit to His teaching. As Luther said, wherever the Gospel is preached there is opposition. There are many other issues that are even more divisive such as the role of women in leadership, homosexual Christian identity, and even the style of the worship music that conservative churches continue to teach on openly without reservation.  Yes, these doctrines can be divisive but if handled with humility they should no more divisive than any other spiritual teaching in God’s Word.

Conclusion:

I don’t doubt that these (and many others) are sincere concerns among brothers and sisters who raise them. If, however, we pause to reflect upon the logic of them we will see that there must be something else involved because those same people do not often seem to be as concerned about many other issues that would rightfully fall under the same objections. There are many complex and sensitive issues that we routinely discuss among ourselves when we gather to study. Certainly since these doctrines touch upon our fundamental understanding of God and salvation they easily lend themselves to emotional reactions. To change ones mind (either way) regarding these truths requires the alteration of ones very view of the world and God at a basic level. The reason, however, why we are naturally hesitant to investigate them is that they also require a fundamental shift in how we understand ourselves. Whatever position we hold, we should not be afraid to seek an understanding of what God has revealed to us in His word. The Word of God was not given only to the scribes and scholars, it was given to all of us for our own edification and growth and every truth in it is there for our benefit. Since God chose to include these truths in His word we have a responsibility to address ourselves to them. I pray that we always do so with due reverence and humility so that both the stronger and weaker brothers and sisters might be built up.

God's Work in Ours

In our time one of the most contentious questions, especially within Reformed theological communities, is the nature and process of sanctification. There have been many debates about the necessity of personal holiness and its relation to ultimate salvation. Some are hesitant to argue that works of righteousness are necessary to salvation and others insist upon it. It seems to me that part of the issue in the modern debate is due to the failure to make appropriate distinctions with regard to the cause, means, and effect of sanctification. The following passage from Abraham Kuyper’s The Work of the Holy Spirit provides a helpful perspective on the biblical teaching. He shows that personal holiness is a necessary effect in our lives that originates wholly from God’s gracious work in us.

“The difference between sanctification and good works should be well understood. Many confound the two, and believe that sanctification means to lead an honorable and virtuous life; and, since this is equal to good works, sanctification, without which no man shall see God, is made to consist in the earnest and diligent effort to do good works.

But this reasoning is false. The grape should not be confounded with the vine, lightning with thunder, the birth with the conception, any more than sanctification with good works. Sanctification is the kernel from which the blade and full ear of good works shall spring; but this does not identify the kernel with the blade. The former lies in the ground and by its fibers attaches itself to the furrow internally. The latter shoots from the ground externally and visibly. So is sanctification the implanting of the germ, of the disposition, and inclination which shall produce the blossom and fruit of a good work.

Sanctification is God’s work in us, whereby He imparts to our members a holy disposition, inwardly filling us with delight in His law and with repugnance to sin. But good works are acts of man, which spring from this holy disposition. Hence sanctification is the source of good works, the lamp that shall shine with their light, the capital of which they are the interest. Allow us to repeat it: “sanctification“ is a work of God; “Good works” are of men. “Sanctification” works internally; “good works” are external. “Sanctification“ imparts something to man; “good works” take something out of him. “Sanctification” forces the root into the ground; to do “good works” forces the fruit out of the fruitful tree.

To confound these two leads the people astray. The Pietist says: “Sanctification is man’s work; it can not be insisted upon with sufficient emphasis. It is our best effort to be godly.” And the Mystic maintains: “We can not do good works, and may not insist upon them for man is unable; God alone works them in him independently of him.” Of course, both are equally wrong and unscriptural. The former, in reducing sanctification to good works, takes it out of God’s hand and lays it upon man, who never can perform it; and the latter, in making good works take the place of sanctification, releases man from the task laid on him and claims that God will perform it. Both errors must be opposed.

Both sanctification and good works should receive recognition. Ministers of the Word, and through them the people of God, should understand that sanctification is an act of God that He performs in man; and that God has commanded man to do good works to the glory of His name. And this will have twofold effect: (1) God’s people will acknowledge their complete inability to receive a holy disposition otherwise than as a gift of free grace, and then they will earnestly pray for this grace. (2) They will pray that His elect, in whom this work is already wrought, may show it forth in God-glorifying works: “Chosen in Christ Jesus, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love” (Ephes. i. 4).

                                                                                                            -Abraham Kuyper

Which is it? The Translation of Acts 13:48

All of God’s word is powerful and useful without exception but naturally there are certain passages and verses that will have a huge impact on our understanding of particular doctrines or positions. Few doctrinal arguments have resulted in the proliferation of collections of such verses on each side as the Calvinist Arminian debate. Over the years supporters of each side have stockpiled proof-texts like so many missiles at the ready to be launched at any potential challenger.  In addition to these missile texts there are also what I call grenade texts; proof-text that get lobbed over where if the person on the receiving end is quick enough, they can be hurled right back. These “grenade” texts can really be confusing because the argument regarding them often revolves around nuanced grammatical or contextual issues. One such text is Acts 13:48.

The ESV renders this verse the following way:

And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed.

Calvinists often quote this verse because it seems to be clear support for their view of predestination. In addition they often quote from traditional translations such as the KJV that give the verse a strong predestinarian emphasis.

”And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed.

Arminians, however, argue that this verse may not be as clear an example as the Calvinists believe it to be. Dr. Jack Cottrell, who is one of the most capable contemporary advocates for the Arminian view, says the following when discussing this verse:

The verse is “almost uniformly translated in a way that pleases Calvinists: ‘As many as had been appointed to eternal life believed.’ How can this be reconciled with the Arminian view? There is no need to invoke an implied foreknowledge here, nor to seek some esoteric meaning for the verb tasso. The key is to understand that the verb form (tetagmenoi) should be taken as middle (reflexive) voice, not passive. (Grammatically the form can be either.) Using the common connotation “to place, set, order, or arrange in a certain position,” we can see that the statement can quite validly be taken thus: “As many as arranged themselves unto (eis) eternal life believed,” or “As many as turned themselves toward eternal life believed.” This agrees with the context, where the Jews’ response to the gospel is being contrasted with that of the Gentiles. Whereas the Jews rejected the gospel and judged themselves to be unworthy of eternal life (v. 46), the Gentiles received it gladly and embraced the message of eternal life (v. 48). In both cases the decision was a matter of free choice.

This Arminian interpretation of Acts 13:48 is essentially the opposite of the usual translation. We therefore have two possible translations of the same Greek text which are worlds apart in their theological implications. The obvious question is based upon the plain understanding of the language itself, apart from preconceived theological convictions, which of these translations is more accurate?

As expected, answering this question is not simple and I certainly am not qualified to give any final or definitive opinion on the matter. My purpose in this post is rather to describe the debate and to use it as a template to highlight the need for working through these kinds of issues with a commitment to let the text drive our conclusions rather than imposing our theology upon it.

The verse in Greek is:

ἀκούοντα δὲ τὰ ἔθνη ἔχαιρον καὶ ἐδόξαζον τὸν λόγον τοῦ κυρίου, καὶ ἐπίστευσανὅσοι ἦσαν τεταγμένοι εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον: 

The primary argument revolves around the word τεταγμένοι (tetagmenoi) which is a form of the Greek verb tassw (tasso). The verb tasso means to draw up in order, to arrange, assign, fix, determine, appoint, or position. It is a word that is derived from the positioning of units in military order. The verb form in this verse, Tetagmenoi, is in the perfect tense meaning that it implies past action that has ongoing consequences (at least to the time of the writing). It is also part of a phrase that can be taken to be a past perfect (pluperfect) construction. This simply means that it establishes some point in the past (the time of the events in the narrative) and then describe some action prior to that time (tetagmenoi).

This brings us to the crucial part of the argument. If the verb is taken to be in the passive voice, meaning that the subject is receiving rather than doing the action of the verb, then the common translation is preferred. If, however, we understand the verb to be in the middle or reflexive voice, meaning that the subject acts upon themselves and both gives and receives the action of the verb, then Dr. Cottrell’s translation would be preferable. The problem is that τεταγμένοι, could be either middle or passive since the form of the verb would be the same in both cases. Since both the middle and passive renderings of the word are grammatically indistinguishable the decision on which is being used has to be made based upon its usage and context.

Arminians make a contextual argument from the overall passage in Acts that the middle voice makes more sense (see Olsen etc.) and of course, Calvinists argue for the passive voice (see Wallace etc.). There have been other scholars such as Alford who have argued based upon context and grammar that the verse should be interpreted “as many as were disposed believed”. If this is correct it would essentially remove the argument at least one step from this particular verse because whether it was human or divine agency that produced such a disposition cannot be determined conclusively from this verse.

There is the question of why, if this is such a contested verse, the preferred Arminian rendering is so rare. Many Arminians argue that the traditional translation is popular as a result of tradition but I find it difficult to believe that virtually every translator would be loyal to traditional renderings. In any case, regardless of which side of the theological argument we happen to be on we must always be honest in our approach to the text. It seems to me, despite my Reformed theological commitments, that the word τεταγμένοι should not be translated as “were ordained” or “were destined” as some older translations render it. It seems that the word more accurately means “were appointed” or “were arranged” as the ESV translates it. Based upon the context I do not think that these people arranged themselves for eternal life therefore understanding the verb in the passive voice makes more sense to me.

The goal of looking into these matters should never be to win arguments. We must always faithfully follow the scriptures wherever they lead us. No major doctrine ever rests upon any single verse. The flinging of proof-texts back and forth in argument is generally unproductive and can be dishonoring to God who has revealed a unified truth to us in His word. This does not, however, mean that we should not wrestle over the meanings of these verses. We must always be willing to sit in subjection to scripture and carefully investigate, understand, and consider the biblical arguments of brothers and sisters who disagree with us so that we may grow in our understanding and our pride may be kept in check. May the Lord who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing grant us a spirit of wisdom and of revelation in the knowledge of Him.

Augustine & Free Will

(This is a follow up to the post “The Early Fathers: whose side were they on?”)


It is often asserted that prior to Augustine the only view of the human will that existed in Christian theology was that of a libertine free will (LFW) whereby people possess the power of contrary choice. The claim is made that prior to Augustine the Fathers were unified in this kind of understanding of the will and that Augustine’s teaching was an innovation and a departure from the traditional teaching of the church.

As I mentioned in the previous post, The Early Fathers: whose side were they on?, some of the early fathers, particularly in the east, articulated a libertine view of the will, however, it is anachronistic to assume that they understood it to relate to God’s sovereignty in the way that modern Arminians do. Augustine’s teaching on human ability should not necessarily be assumed to be a departure from the traditional teaching of the earlier fathers even though they never articulated their doctrine of the will they way he did.

Why LFW in Some Early Fathers Is Not Surprising

It shouldn’t surprise us that some of the Fathers, eager to emphasize the ethical and judicial teaching of Christianity against the pagan fatalism of their day, would respond with what seems to be a natural, common sense, explanation of human freedom. They recognized that scripture clearly teaches that humans are moral agents who are responsible for the choices that they make. We all experience our own agency in a way that feels as though we have the power of contrary choice. The “default” view of our own will and liberty is virtually always that of LFW. It is not surprising to me that some early Fathers would not have expressed any other view of the will because there was no compelling reason to do so. Until the Pelagian controversy there was no claim appealing to scriptural authority that the freedom they proclaimed might be in tension with their view of sovereignty. None of the fatalistic arguments of their philosopher opponents would have been convincing to them because they did not highlight any potential difficulties within their biblical understanding. A compatibilist view of the will or a doctrine of prevenient grace was simply not required at the time they were writing.

Even Augustine defended a LFW view early in his early writings. In his book against the Manichaeans, On Two Souls, Augustine writes:

“Wherefore whatever these souls do, if they do it by nature not by will, that is, if they are wanting in a movement of mind free both for doing and not doing, if finally no power of abstaining from their work is conceded to them; we cannot hold that the sin is theirs.”

It is not until later when responding to the challenges of Pelagius and Coelestus that he works out a more complete attempt to reconcile free moral agency and meticulous divine providence. In the same way that it was necessary for the doctrines of the Incarnation and the Trinity to become increasingly precise after challenges were raised, the early expressions of human ability and divine sovereignty were too ambiguous in their early articulations to resolve the Pelagian difficulty with an appeal to the Fathers. The scriptural truths of moral culpability and divine sovereignty were not harmonized within their systems. It is impossible to know what kinds of modifications, if any, the earlier fathers might have made to their understanding of freedom had the same challenge been posed to them.

Innovator or Defender of Church Tradition?

Augustine expressed his teaching on the will in ways that were not explicitly developed in the earlier Fathers. We do not see in their writing a clear distinction between original sin and actual sin in the way we find in him, nor do we see any kind of consistent compatibilism of the will expressed prior to him. It is therefore understandable that many see his work as an innovation and departure from the teaching of the earlier Fathers. However, for reasons discussed in a previous post it would be an oversimplification to consider Augustine’s doctrine as something completely distinct from their teaching because the trajectory of his thought is firmly founded upon important biblical elements that were articulated in their writings.

The Protestant Reformers insisted that even their much stronger Augustinian doctrine of the will was historical and that it was Rome who had deviated from the original faith. Martin Luther, for example, who was never reluctant to point out what he saw as errors in the fathers said:

The very name, Free-will, was odious to all the Fathers. I, for my part, admit that God gave to mankind a free will, but the question is, whether this same freedom be in our power and strength, or no? We may very fitly call it a subverted, perverse, fickle, and wavering will, for it is only God that works in us, and we must suffer and be subject to his pleasure. Even as a potter out of his clay makes a pot or vessel, as he wills, so it is for our free will, to suffer and not to work. It stands not in our strength; for we are not able to do anything that is good in divine matters.”

-Luther Table Talk chapter 259

Likewise, John Calvin also insisted that Protestant doctrine flowed logically from the teaching of the early fathers. In the preface to his Institutes of the Christian Religion Calvin says:

“It is a calumny to represent us as opposed to the Fathers (I mean the ancient writers of a purer age), as if the Fathers were supporters of their impiety. Were the contest to be decided by such authority (to speak in the most moderate terms), the better part of the victory would be ours. While there is much that is admirable and wise in the writings of those Fathers, and while in some things it has fared with them as with ordinary men; these pious sons, forsooth, with the peculiar acuteness of intellect, and judgment, and soul, which belongs to them, adore only their slips and errors, while those things which are well said they either overlook, or disguise, or corrupt; so that it may be truly said their only care has been to gather dross among gold. Then, with dishonest clamor, they assail us as enemies and despisers of the Fathers. So far are we from despising them, that if this were the proper place, it would give us no trouble to support the greater part of the doctrines which we now hold by their suffrages.”

-John Calvin, Preface to King Francis

Of course, Luther and Calvin might have had their own reasons for claiming that there was support from the fathers but more importantly Augustine, himself, was adamant that he offered no novel doctrine. He saw his work as a refinement and a development of the traditional teaching of the church and went to some lengths to show that his views were not “new”. Luther and Calvin’s competence as patristic scholars is open for debate and a great deal has been published on both sides of this issue regarding the accuracy of their claim. Augustine, however, was writing for an audience that was much closer in time, culture, and familiarity with the earlier fathers than were the Reformers and the majority of his contemporaries accepted his claim.

Referring to his work against the Pelagians, Jerome writes the following words to Augustine in one of his letters, “You are famous throughout the world. Catholics revere you and point you out as the establisher of the old-time faith; and - an even greater glory - all heretics hate you.” Notice that Jerome asserts specifically that Augustine is defending the old faith against heretics and that this opinion is widespread. It is unlikely that this is mere flattery since the Augustinian position was in fact confirmed by many subsequent synods and councils, most notably those of Ephesus (431) and Orange (529).

There were, of course, many contemporaries of Augustine, such as John Cassian, who argued against his views. In fact, although both the Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian view of human ability was rejected by the Council of Orange, the Semi-Pelagian view, as taught by Cassian eventually became the dominant view in Roman Catholic theology. It is essentially a version of this view that is made the official position of the Roman church at the Council of Trent in 1545 in response to the Reformation. The fact remains, however, that at the time he was writing most of the teachers of the church accepted Augustine’s view as consistent with scripture and the historic teaching of the church.

Conclusion

Although Augustine develops a view of the will that is different than that expressed by many of the earlier fathers he does not do it in opposition to their teaching. He develops his doctrine in such a way as to retain the moral culpability they emphasized while retaining the divine initiative in salvation that was also assumed in their writing. It can be argued that the Pelagian controversy itself arose because the church teaching did not satisfactorily harmonize the tension between those two truths found in scripture. If faced with the same challenge there is really no reason to be confident that the earlier fathers would have resolved this tension with anything akin to the Arminian doctrine of prevenient grace any more than they would be likely to follow a more Augustinian direction. Augustine’s work, while original, shares a logical foundation with the early understanding of important doctrinal truths which the fathers expressed in their writings.

At the end of the day, what matters is that we derive our theological positions based upon careful exegesis of the bible rather than the teaching of any theologian regardless of how highly esteemed or ancient. There is no need to seek out candles when we have the noonday sun to light our path. The argument that Augustine essentially invented his doctrine of grace virtually out of nothing, however, is not true. An understanding that God is the active agent in salvation has been an important teaching through all of church history. How that is reconciled with the biblical teaching that we are responsible for our moral choices, however, has developed over time as new questions have been raised.

The Early Fathers: whose side were they on?

The relationship between God’s sovereignty and the will of man is one of the most contentious, difficult, and longstanding debates in history. Philosophers, both ancient and modern, have wrestled with the question and it was a well known debate among Jewish teachers. The Jewish historian Josephus, writing for a Roman audience, says the following:

“Of the two first-named schools, the Pharisees, who are considered the most accurate interpreters of the laws, and hold the position of the leading sect, attribute everything to Fate and to God; they hold that to act rightly or otherwise rests, indeed, for the most part with men, but that in each action Fate co-operates.” … “The Sadducees, the second of the orders, do away with Fate altogether, and remove God beyond, not merely the commission, but the very sight, of evil. They maintain that man has the free choice of good or evil, and that it rests with each man’s will whether he follows the one or the other.”
-Josephus, The Jewish War (70 A.D.)

This question has tremendous significance in Christian theology and has been at the center of some of the most important disputes in church history. The debate involves a number of disagreements related to the interpretation of the biblical text. Although they are not considered in the Protestant tradition to be authoritative the question still arises: Which side were the Early Church Fathers on?

Were the Early Fathers Arminians or Calvinists?

The fact is that the Early Church Fathers taught neither a Calvinistic nor an Arminian system of doctrine. Even Augustine, the great defender of the biblical doctrine of Sola Gratia, never approached anything like the Protestant doctrine of Sola Fide which both Calvinists and Arminians accept. Although there are many antecedents to Protestant systems in the Fathers none of them taught a coherent system of doctrine that is analogous to those developed during the Reformation. Both Calvinism and Arminianism are substantially different in many ways from the systems found in the Fathers.

The question remains, however, if there was any consensus amongst the Fathers on the key point of disagreement between Arminians and Calvinists, namely the nature and ability of the human will. Did the early Fathers all teach that humans possessed a libertine free will?

Did the Fathers Teach Free Will?

To begin with the “Fathers” are not a homogeneous group. Early Christian teachers held differing views and emphases on various doctrines. In the case of the freedom of the will there are some examples of Fathers giving very clear explanations as to their view of the will and in other cases it isn’t so clear. From what I have read of them it is clear that they universally rejected the pagan views of fate, asserted that human beings have a free will, and that they were responsible moral agents. Both Calvinists and Arminians would agree with those assertions and in many cases nothing more is said by the Fathers. In other cases, however, they speak of election and predestination in conjunction with God’s foreknowledge regarding the actions of men. Therefore, it is quite easy to find quotations from the Fathers that appear to strongly support a view of the will very similar to that which is held by Arminians. On the face of it, it would seem as though many of Fathers were firmly in the Arminian camp on this issue and that the others (who offer no explanation) might possibly be as well.

Of course, the truth of neither view depends upon the witness of the Fathers so there is really no reason even for Calvinists to shy away from the conclusion that the Fathers held to a libertine view of the will if that is supported by the evidence. I think, however, that such a conclusion would be an oversimplification for a few reasons.

First, Calvinists also reject the pagan view of fate and the kind of determinism that the Fathers were reacting to is not what Calvinists teach. Calvinists do affirm that humans have a will that is free but in a different sense than do Arminians. Depending upon how they are understood many of the pro-will statements made by the Fathers would be perfectly consistent with a Reformed view.

Secondly, the Fathers emphasize other elements in their teaching that should cause us to pause before assuming that they taught that the libertine will as created remains intact after the fall. There is nothing I have seen that would lead one to the conclusion that they maintain a general grace which overcomes the depravity inherited from Adam for all mankind. Many of the “free will” quotes popularly given from the Fathers are, in their context, referring to the nature and constitution of man as originally created.

Third, it is anachronistic to take statements made prior to the Pelagian and Semi-Pelagian controversy and read back into them answers to questions they never addressed. The Fathers, particularly those writing very early, assert both man’s freedom and God’s sovereignty. They do not develop the relationship of the concepts as later writers do. Trying to understand how they might have responded in light of later developments is a rather uncertain task. They did not address many of our concerns as specifically as later writers would because the questions had not yet been raised. As is common to every age they tended to carefully articulate and work out doctrines that were being debated or challenged in their day. Therefore, we expect to see well defined expressions of doctrines such as The Trinity, the nature of Christ, etc. while expecting less developed statements regarding other issues that were not the central subjects of their writing. I will develop why it is not unexpected that they should write the way they do prior to Augustine and why he can rightfully be seen as building upon their foundation in an upcoming follow up post to this one.

A Closer Look at Their View of Ability

As I mentioned previously, the pre-Augustinian Fathers do often write in a way that sounds very consistent with an Arminian view. One such example are the comments of Irenaeus regarding the will of man:

For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves. On the other hand, they who have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign punishment: for God did kindly bestow on them what was good; but they themselves did not diligently keep it, nor deem it something precious, but poured contempt upon His super-eminent goodness… But if some had been made by nature bad, and others good, these latter would not be deserving of praise for being good, for such were they created; nor would the former be reprehensible, for thus they were made [originally]. But since all men are of the same nature, able both to hold fast and to do what is good; and, on the other hand, having also the power to cast it from them and not to do it,—some do justly receive praise even among men who are under the control of good laws (and much more from God), and obtain deserved testimony of their choice of good in general, and of persevering therein; but the others are blamed, and receive a just condemnation, because of their rejection of what is fair and good.
-Irenaeus Against the Heresies Book 4, Chapter 37 (175-185) [the date of the works will be provided in parenthesis]

This is a somewhat typical statement that one might easily find in the writings of the Fathers. It is rather clear and seems on the surface to be conclusive regarding his position. The complication with Irenaeus and others is that they make other statements attributing various causal elements of belief and obedience directly to God. Elsewhere in the same book he makes numerous statements such as this:

“…but since it was impossible, without God, to come to a knowledge of God, He teaches men, through His Word, to know God.”
-Irenaeus Against the Heresies Book 4, Chapter 5 (175 -185)

An argument could be made that these should be understood as references to the general outward ministry of the Holy Spirit and not to an inward ministry of regeneration; however, in many of the Fathers it is clear that they believed the fall had such an impact on human nature that a special means of grace was necessary to bring about faith and obedience. The depravity imparted by original sin was clearly seen as limiting the free exercise of the will.

“But whence should they perceive or understand these things? Howbeit we having justly perceived the commandments tell them as the Lord willed. To this end He circumcised our ears and hearts, that we might understand these things.”
-Epistle of Barnabas (date uncertain 70-131)

“Anything like boasting in one's own praise is hateful, although we cannot in reality boast but only be grateful for whatever we do not ascribe to man's virtue but declare to be the gift of God; so that now we sin not is the beginning of the work of faith, whereas that we sinned before was the result of human error. All our power is of God; I say, of God.”
-Cyprian Epistle to Donatus (246)

There is the underlying assumption on the part of the Fathers that the will cannot properly operate apart from the gracious work of God (they were certainly not Pelagians). The assumption often seems to be that our wills are free but that special grace is required for conversion. Prior to Augustine there is no attempt to develop a compatible view of the will but neither is there any development of a doctrine of prevenient grace. The two truths simply stand side by side without reconciliation.

“… whether the free-will which is in us, by reaching the knowledge of the good, leaps and bounds over the barriers, as the gymnasts say; yet it is not without eminent grace that the soul is winged, and soars, and is raised above the higher spheres, laying aside all that is heavy, and surrendering itself to its kindred element. … “Wisdom which is God-given, as being the power of the Father, rouses indeed our free-will, and admits faith, and repays the application of the elect with its crowning fellowship.”
-Clement of Alexandria … Stromata Book 5, Chapter 13 (182-202)

In many places the Fathers recognized the inability of fallen man to overcome his own sinfulness and also that God ordains ends in accordance with the nature of the creature. These truths are held together, both inability and freedom asserted.

“Having then in the former time demonstrated the inability of our nature to obtain life, and having now revealed a Savior able to save even creatures which have no ability, He willed that for both reasons we should believe in His goodness and should regard Him as nurse, father, teacher, counselor, physician, mind, light, honor, glory, strength and life.”
-Mathates epistle to Diognetus Chapter 9 (130-200)

“Neither let any one either take comfort from, or apologize for what happens from fate. Let what happens be of the disposition of fortune, yet the mind is free; and therefore man’s doing, not his dignity, is judged. For what else is fate than what God has spoken of each one of us? who, since He can foresee our constitution, determines also the fates for us, according to the deserts and the qualities of individuals. Thus in our case it is not the star under which we are born that is punished, but the particular nature of our disposition is blamed.”
-The Octavius of Minucius Felix Chapter 36 (160-250)

They also often teach that the willful choices of men are confirmed by God and those who are saved are not saved through their own power but through the grace of God a remnant is saved and made manifest. We see both God preserving for Himself a people as well as a defense of human agency in salvation.

"… if the word of God foretells that some angels and men shall be certainly punished, it did so because it foreknew that they would be unchangeably [wicked], but not because God had created them so. So that if they repent, all who wish for it can obtain mercy from God…”
-Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 141 (150-160)


“But now, by means of the contents of those Scriptures esteemed holy and prophetic amongst you, I attempt to prove all [that I have adduced], in the hope that some one of you may be found to be of that remnant which has been left by the grace of the Lord of Sabaoth for the eternal salvation.”
-Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 32 (150-160)

These are just a few of the hundreds of quotations that could be brought forward to demonstrate that the Fathers did teach that the liberty of the will was affected by the fall thus limiting its ability to respond without grace. Arminians and Calvinists agree on that point. The Fathers provide a clear teaching on neither compatibilism nor prevenient grace as a method of bridging their view of liberty and the necessity of grace. They simply let stand various comments about the will that are not reconciled with their view of providence, original sin etc. Both the Reformed and Arminian systems are distinctive in the way they explain the relationship between spiritual inability and freedom. The Fathers often do not and when they do it is often not done in a way that modern readers would find satisfactory.

Although the Fathers do often speak in a way that seems quite consistent with an Arminian view of the will they also teach human inability and that the decisive action in salvation is an action of God. Following are a few quotes from the earliest church Fathers whose lives overlapped with some of the apostles and other disciples who had actually seen and heard Christ.

“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which is at Ephesus, in Asia, deservedly most happy, being blessed in the greatness and fullness of God the Father, and predestinated before the beginning of time, that it should be always for an enduring and unchangeable glory, being and elected through the true passion by the will of God the Father, and of our Lord Jesus Christ our Savior”
-Ignatius Epistle to the Ephesians (90-115)

“The Christian is not the result of persuasion, but of power. When he is hated by the world, he is beloved of God. For says [the Scripture], “If ye were of this world, the world would love its own; but now ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of it: continue in fellowship with me.”
-Ignatius Epistle to the Romans Chapter 3 (90-115)

“All these, therefore, were highly honored, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever.”
Clement 1 Epistle to the Corinthians Chapter 32 (80-140)

“Let him that is pure in the flesh boast not of it, knowing that it is another that gives him the power of continence. Let us consider, brethren, of what matter we are made, of what sort and who we are that have come into the world, as it were out of the tomb and darkness. He that made and fashioned us hath brought us into this world, having prepared beforehand his benefactions, even before we were born. Having, therefore, all these things from him, we ought in all respects to give thanks unto him, to whom be glory world without end.”
-Clement of Rome Epistle to the Corinthians chapter 38 (80-140)

Conclusion

Did the Early Church Fathers prior to Augustine teach that man had a free will? Yes, they asserted the freedom of the will against the pagan forms of determinism of their day and some did so in a way that assumes a libertarian view of the will. They also, however, acknowledged that sin limited the ability of the will to choose right and that we cannot, apart from grace, obtain salvation. Because there had yet to be a scriptural challenge to those notions there was no development of how to biblically reconcile the freedom they saw in creation with the inability they recognized in the fall as we find in both Arminianism and Calvinism.

Many Arminians like to point out that the Fathers, like Arminians, teach a form of inability, predestination, and sovereignty along with a libertine view of the will. They are generally and technically correct so far as that goes. It does not follow, however, that they would have reconciled them in the same way that Arminius did. Given their other doctrinal commitments it is just as likely that they would have reconciled them in a way that was more Augustinian than Arminian. Augustine vehemently claimed that he was simply defending the historic view of the earlier Fathers and many of his contemporaries agreed with him. It is not necessary, given the broad sweep of the doctrinal commitments of the Fathers, that one sees Augustine’s view of freedom as a deviation from their teaching. I will develop this further in a future post.