If Augustinian soteriology and Reformed theology were unknown in the mid-to-late first- through at least the late fourth-century then how can such views be orthodox and biblical? I once believed that, because the fathers did not hold to doctrines of Original Sin, Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and Perseverance of the saints, such views could not possibly be biblical. I have had a change of mind in that regard. I once would argue that the water would be purer from the fountain than that downstream. So, if the fathers did not espouse certain views, then those views could not be orthodox. The reason for this change in my perspective is threefold: 1) the more time we spend in the Word of God (throughout the ages) the sharper our theology will become; and, so, a frame of reference can evolve and become better defined in time; 2) some beliefs in the fathers were in seed-form and, hence, needed time and study to blossom; and 3) theology developed over time and was not a universally monolithic, well-constructed, and binding cohesion of Christian dogma.
CAVEATS
The question of the relationship of the theology of the early fathers (and by "early fathers" I am referring to the disciples of the apostles of Jesus Christ of the mid-to-late first century through the end of the second century) compared to the Reformers (from as early as Jan Hus and John Wycliffe to Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, Tyndale and Cranmer) is paramount to some people and entirely irrelevant to others. But already we have assumed too much: the fathers agreed on the essentials of the Christian faith--God is Trinity, Jesus is eternal Deity / Divine and equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit, faith in Jesus' atonement and resurrection is non-negotiable for the salvation of the soul--but differed with each other on some secondary and tertiary theological views (original sin and freedom of choice, predestination and free will, election and salvation, the effects of grace, perseverance and forfeiture of salvation). So when we consider "the theology of the early Church fathers" we are not suggesting that they agreed with each other on all matters--their theology in toto was not monolithic. What we want to know is if we can find traces of basic Reformed theology in any of the early fathers: mid-to-late first through the end of the second century.
Why this is important for some believers, as it has been for me for nearly thirty years now, is for one simple reason: If the apostles Paul, Peter, and John did not theologically train their disciples in the manner in which many of their own passages is interpreted by Ambrose, Augustine and Cyprian, and then of course by Luther, Calvin and others, then how do we account for that theological misinterpretation? If the Paul of Romans 9:1-33 and Ephesians 1:3-2:3, and the John of John 1:11-13; 3:3-8, 6:26-65 and 10:1-42, and the Peter of his two letters, which explicitly refer to the elect of God (1 Pet. 1:1, 2; 2 Pet. 1:1), whom God particularly and directly caused to be born again to a living hope (1 Pet. 1:3), as they are particularly protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time (1 Pet. 1:5), if all these authors are not explicitly referring to the doctrines of unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and a faith that is directly given as a gift by God to His elect due to our radical depravity, as well as to the absolute perseverance of the saints, then we need to know why what appears to be present in these texts, as is understood in Reformed theology, is not what the original authors intended to convey.
THE FATHERS OR SCRIPTURE?
I think we need to embrace what I believe to be a universal truth at the outset: Whether or not one or most early Church fathers espoused secondary / tertiary Christian views is irrelevant. What matters are the underlying questions: Is the doctrine biblical? Does the Bible support the doctrine in question? Does the teaching conform to God's eternal covenant and plan and purpose? Most early Church fathers did not hold to Amillennialism. But that does not mean, ipso facto, that the Amil position is in error. The fathers did not always agree with each other on all beliefs. They agreed on what was essential and that was finally formulated in the fourth-century Nicene Creed and, so, we maintain a Nicene Faith: we believe in One God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the Son being eternal with the Father and the Spirit, and that God has elected to save fallen sinners from their sin by His grace through faith in Jesus Christ. The fathers adhered to infant baptism but Tertullian questioned the practice. Origen wondered about a limited scope of punishment in Hell and a potential universal salvation. When these fathers disagree with each other, to whom do we turn, who do we follow? If Scripture is not our sole authority then we will be children tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine (Eph. 4:14). The fathers cannot be our standard. They did not intend to be our standard. Scripture alone is our standard.
My hope is that every believer would adopt this standard. For instance, if Arminians (or Provisionists) want to turn to the fathers to garner support against the doctrine of Unconditional Election, they should remind themselves that some fathers do not agree (anachronistically) with Arminius' views on Free Will (though they do agree with the Provisionist's views). But aligning yourself with a handful or so of early fathers to support your pet theology a) should not be your goal and b) will backfire when you discover that they disagree with you on other doctrines you passionately espouse. The writings and theology of the fathers are not infallible, authoritative, or inerrant. Those categories belong to Scripture alone. Even the notion of apostolic authority does not belong to the fathers. Apostolic authority belongs to the apostles and authors of Scripture. Dr. Sinclair Ferguson admits that the post-apostolic fathers were "less clear ... on the nature of the Gospel."1 If they were "less clear" on the very nature of the Gospel itself then we should guard our hearts and minds as we delve into their writings--and this is especially true during the Dark Ages. The result is obvious: our beliefs need to be grounded in, and should grow out of, Scripture alone.
SEEDS OF ORIGINAL SIN
Augustine of Hippo (354-430 CE) masterfully systematized Trinitarianism, as well as Original Sin, and biblical views related to Unconditional election, Depravity, and the intersection of the effects of sin with Free Will. But we are not left without some attestation of these views in the early fathers. As early as Justin Martyr, in 160 CE, we find the seeds of Original-Sin theory: Adam, having disobeyed God and sinned, he "naturally became subject to corruption. Therefore, corruption became inherent in [all of human] nature."2 Irenæus, in 180 CE, agrees: "By means of our first parents, we were all brought into bondage by being made subject to death."3 Tertullian, in 210 CE, argues that every individual soul, "by reason of its birth, has its nature in Adam until it is born again in Christ. Moreover, it is unclean all the time that it remains without this regeneration; and, because it is unclean, it is actively sinful."4 Augustine did not invent the doctrine of Original Sin.
That the early Church fathers believed in Free Will much as did Pelagius is not a new statement.5 Even Jacob Arminius' views on Free Will align more with Reformed theology than the views of the early fathers.6 Even Augustine himself, early in his theological career, believed in Free Will in the same manner as the early fathers and Pelagius--that sin did not negatively affect our Free Will to freely choose our own course of life and that such negative effects derived from being born corrupted. B.R. Rees notes that "Cyprian, Ambrose, and [the figure known as] 'Ambrosiaster' can all be said to have at least suggested the idea of original guilt. ... Augustine did not pluck his doctrine out of the air nor did he proceed to force a doctrine of his own invention on the African Church."7 As a matter of historical fact, Augustine's account of his own conversion to the Faith was "written after he had devoted a decade of serious study to Paul's Epistles and to the account of Paul's conversion in Acts 9 and, as a result, [he] had come to interpret his own experience in the light of his understanding of Paul's."8 That history needs to be in the forefront of our understanding: Augustine spent ten years studying Paul's letters--an entire decade reading just Paul.
Augustine's conversion in 386 CE was radical. He was immoral, steeped in sexual encounters with women, and he loved his sin. "Like Paul, he underwent a 'cataclysmic experience of instantaneous conversion from sin to God.'" I experienced this same radical conversion: from steeped in sexual sin for years to an instantaneous faith in Christ Jesus in May of 1995. From "that moment, his moment of truth, when the veil of uncertainty was torn aside, he was at last able to see the whole of his earlier life as a preliminary to the direct intervention of God."9 Having spent an entire decade reading Paul, Augustine had been brought "to the point where he could exclaim in an agony of self-realization: 'What shall wretched man do? Who shall deliver him from the body of this death [Rom. 7:24] but Your grace through our Lord Jesus Christ?' All this sank down into the heart of my being by some wonderful means, when I read [Paul] 'the least of Your Apostles'"10 (1 Cor. 15:9; Eph. 3:8).
My own conversion mirrors that of Augustine. I was not looking for Christ. I did not want Christ. I wanted my sin. I was in love with my sin. Jesus was an unwanted interruption and invasion into my perverse life of sexual sin. How does someone go from loving his sin, rejecting Christ, to loving Christ and rejecting his sin? The change wrought within me by the Spirit of God was instantaneous, miraculous, and bewildering. My friends did not understand me anymore. I may not have suddenly seen a light from Heaven that flashed around me, causing me to fall to the ground, as I heard a voice saying to me, "William, William, why are you persecuting Me?" (Acts 9:3-4), but the experience was equally as powerful, equally as life-changing. I can echo this statement from William Tyndale: "Now faith comes not from our Free Will; it is the gift of God, given us by grace [Eph. 2:8, 9], before there ever be any will in our hearts to do the Law of God; and why God gives it not to everyone I can give no reckoning of His judgments. But well I know, I never deserved it, nor prepared myself unto it; but ran another way clean contrary in my blindness, and sought not that way; but He sought me, and found me out, and showed it to me, and therewith drew me to Himself." I was running away from God and all that pertained to God as fast and as hard as I could. But still He found me out.
GRACE, GRACE, MARVELOUS GRACE
In Julia H. Johnston's (b. 1849) hymn, "Grace Greater Than Our Sin," we read: "Marvelous grace of our loving Lord / Grace that exceeds our sin and our guilt! / Yonder on Calvary's mount out-poured / There where the blood of the Lamb was spilt." My sin, as great as it was (is), was no match for His grace. Where sin abounded, grace abounded all the more (Rom. 5:20). "Sin and despair, like the sea-waves cold / Threaten the soul with infinite loss / Grace that is greater--yes, grace untold / Points to the Refuge, the mighty Cross." As my sin reigned in death, even so "grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 5:21). "Marvelous, infinite, matchless grace / Freely bestowed on all who believe! / All who are longing to see His face / Will you this moment His grace receive?" The promise of imputed righteousness comes to us through faith in Christ "so that it might be by grace" (Rom. 4:16). "Grace, grace, God's grace / Grace that will pardon and cleanse within / Grace, grace, God's grace / Grace that is greater than all our sin!" You and I cannot out-sin His immense grace. Grace, Greek χάρις (charis), is referred to as (whether emoted from divine or human persons) favor, kindness, blessing, being disposed or inclined or leaning toward benefiting someone, noted biblically and theologically as a "gift or blessing brought to mankind by Jesus Christ."
In the New Testament, charis refers to "the unmerited favor and kindness of God towards humanity." The word "unmerited" means that no one can earn God's kindness / favor / grace, as this is His to give to whomever He chooses, "freely extended in the giving of Himself away to people" (Rom. 9:11, 12, 15, 16, 18). Grace "encompasses the idea of divine assistance given to humans for their regeneration and sanctification." We cannot regenerate and save ourselves. This is the sole work of God. Charis is "often associated with the concept of salvation, as it is by grace that believers are saved through faith (Ephesians 2:8). It also denotes the graciousness of God in bestowing gifts, and blessings upon His people, as well as the grace that believers are to extend to others." Culturally, then, charis is "deepened and transformed to express the profound and unconditional love of God towards humanity, which is not based on human merit but on God's own character and purpose":
GRACE IN SALVATION
The statement has been aired frequently that, if one studies the early fathers (especially of the first and second century), he will become a Roman Catholic. I understand why someone would make that claim but it needs a correction. Having read Pelagius for three years, I make a similar claim, but toward Pelagius. If one studies the early fathers, and especially of the first and second century, then he will make of himself a disciple of Pelagius with great ease, conviction, and even being entirely justified. Pelagius is a synthesis of both Eastern and Western thought in one man. His views on Free Will, Works of Righteousness, Perfect Obedience and Holiness of life are those of many early fathers--especially Clement of Alexandria (150-215 CE) from the East, Tertullian (155-220 CE) from the West, Origen (185-253 CE) from the East, and Cyprian (210-258 CE) from the West. If someone wants to render Cyprian a strict Augustinian then he has obviously never read Cyprian:
EFFECTUAL GRACE AND JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH
Clement of Rome, in 96 CE, boldly insists that we are not saved and thusly honored by the Lord "for [our] own sake, or for [our] own works, or for the righteousness which [we have] wrought, but through the operation of His will." This statement reminds us of explicit passages we find of the same wording in places like 1 Corinthians 1:30 and James 1:18. "And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves. Nor are we justified by our own wisdom, understanding, godliness, or works that we have done in holiness of heart [cf. Titus 3:5]. Rather, we are justified by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men [Rom. 4:3, 4, 5; 5:1]."13 Ignatius (105 CE) writes: "Therefore, let us not be ungrateful for His kindness. For if He were to reward us according to our works, we would cease to be."14 Our hearts are glad to read early attestation to the effectual grace of God. But then we also read this tragic statement from Polycarp (135 CE): "Into this joy many persons desire to enter. They know that 'by grace you are saved, not works,' but by the will of God through Jesus Christ. ... But He who raised Him up from the dead will raise up us also--if we do His will, and walk in His commandments, and love what He loved, keeping ourselves from all unrighteousness."15 If that is your hope for salvation, perfect obedience, then you are doomed to failure.
CAVEATS
The question of the relationship of the theology of the early fathers (and by "early fathers" I am referring to the disciples of the apostles of Jesus Christ of the mid-to-late first century through the end of the second century) compared to the Reformers (from as early as Jan Hus and John Wycliffe to Luther, Zwingli, Calvin, Knox, Tyndale and Cranmer) is paramount to some people and entirely irrelevant to others. But already we have assumed too much: the fathers agreed on the essentials of the Christian faith--God is Trinity, Jesus is eternal Deity / Divine and equal with the Father and the Holy Spirit, faith in Jesus' atonement and resurrection is non-negotiable for the salvation of the soul--but differed with each other on some secondary and tertiary theological views (original sin and freedom of choice, predestination and free will, election and salvation, the effects of grace, perseverance and forfeiture of salvation). So when we consider "the theology of the early Church fathers" we are not suggesting that they agreed with each other on all matters--their theology in toto was not monolithic. What we want to know is if we can find traces of basic Reformed theology in any of the early fathers: mid-to-late first through the end of the second century.
Why this is important for some believers, as it has been for me for nearly thirty years now, is for one simple reason: If the apostles Paul, Peter, and John did not theologically train their disciples in the manner in which many of their own passages is interpreted by Ambrose, Augustine and Cyprian, and then of course by Luther, Calvin and others, then how do we account for that theological misinterpretation? If the Paul of Romans 9:1-33 and Ephesians 1:3-2:3, and the John of John 1:11-13; 3:3-8, 6:26-65 and 10:1-42, and the Peter of his two letters, which explicitly refer to the elect of God (1 Pet. 1:1, 2; 2 Pet. 1:1), whom God particularly and directly caused to be born again to a living hope (1 Pet. 1:3), as they are particularly protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time (1 Pet. 1:5), if all these authors are not explicitly referring to the doctrines of unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and a faith that is directly given as a gift by God to His elect due to our radical depravity, as well as to the absolute perseverance of the saints, then we need to know why what appears to be present in these texts, as is understood in Reformed theology, is not what the original authors intended to convey.
THE FATHERS OR SCRIPTURE?
I think we need to embrace what I believe to be a universal truth at the outset: Whether or not one or most early Church fathers espoused secondary / tertiary Christian views is irrelevant. What matters are the underlying questions: Is the doctrine biblical? Does the Bible support the doctrine in question? Does the teaching conform to God's eternal covenant and plan and purpose? Most early Church fathers did not hold to Amillennialism. But that does not mean, ipso facto, that the Amil position is in error. The fathers did not always agree with each other on all beliefs. They agreed on what was essential and that was finally formulated in the fourth-century Nicene Creed and, so, we maintain a Nicene Faith: we believe in One God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, the Son being eternal with the Father and the Spirit, and that God has elected to save fallen sinners from their sin by His grace through faith in Jesus Christ. The fathers adhered to infant baptism but Tertullian questioned the practice. Origen wondered about a limited scope of punishment in Hell and a potential universal salvation. When these fathers disagree with each other, to whom do we turn, who do we follow? If Scripture is not our sole authority then we will be children tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine (Eph. 4:14). The fathers cannot be our standard. They did not intend to be our standard. Scripture alone is our standard.
My hope is that every believer would adopt this standard. For instance, if Arminians (or Provisionists) want to turn to the fathers to garner support against the doctrine of Unconditional Election, they should remind themselves that some fathers do not agree (anachronistically) with Arminius' views on Free Will (though they do agree with the Provisionist's views). But aligning yourself with a handful or so of early fathers to support your pet theology a) should not be your goal and b) will backfire when you discover that they disagree with you on other doctrines you passionately espouse. The writings and theology of the fathers are not infallible, authoritative, or inerrant. Those categories belong to Scripture alone. Even the notion of apostolic authority does not belong to the fathers. Apostolic authority belongs to the apostles and authors of Scripture. Dr. Sinclair Ferguson admits that the post-apostolic fathers were "less clear ... on the nature of the Gospel."1 If they were "less clear" on the very nature of the Gospel itself then we should guard our hearts and minds as we delve into their writings--and this is especially true during the Dark Ages. The result is obvious: our beliefs need to be grounded in, and should grow out of, Scripture alone.
SEEDS OF ORIGINAL SIN
Augustine of Hippo (354-430 CE) masterfully systematized Trinitarianism, as well as Original Sin, and biblical views related to Unconditional election, Depravity, and the intersection of the effects of sin with Free Will. But we are not left without some attestation of these views in the early fathers. As early as Justin Martyr, in 160 CE, we find the seeds of Original-Sin theory: Adam, having disobeyed God and sinned, he "naturally became subject to corruption. Therefore, corruption became inherent in [all of human] nature."2 Irenæus, in 180 CE, agrees: "By means of our first parents, we were all brought into bondage by being made subject to death."3 Tertullian, in 210 CE, argues that every individual soul, "by reason of its birth, has its nature in Adam until it is born again in Christ. Moreover, it is unclean all the time that it remains without this regeneration; and, because it is unclean, it is actively sinful."4 Augustine did not invent the doctrine of Original Sin.
That the early Church fathers believed in Free Will much as did Pelagius is not a new statement.5 Even Jacob Arminius' views on Free Will align more with Reformed theology than the views of the early fathers.6 Even Augustine himself, early in his theological career, believed in Free Will in the same manner as the early fathers and Pelagius--that sin did not negatively affect our Free Will to freely choose our own course of life and that such negative effects derived from being born corrupted. B.R. Rees notes that "Cyprian, Ambrose, and [the figure known as] 'Ambrosiaster' can all be said to have at least suggested the idea of original guilt. ... Augustine did not pluck his doctrine out of the air nor did he proceed to force a doctrine of his own invention on the African Church."7 As a matter of historical fact, Augustine's account of his own conversion to the Faith was "written after he had devoted a decade of serious study to Paul's Epistles and to the account of Paul's conversion in Acts 9 and, as a result, [he] had come to interpret his own experience in the light of his understanding of Paul's."8 That history needs to be in the forefront of our understanding: Augustine spent ten years studying Paul's letters--an entire decade reading just Paul.
Augustine's conversion in 386 CE was radical. He was immoral, steeped in sexual encounters with women, and he loved his sin. "Like Paul, he underwent a 'cataclysmic experience of instantaneous conversion from sin to God.'" I experienced this same radical conversion: from steeped in sexual sin for years to an instantaneous faith in Christ Jesus in May of 1995. From "that moment, his moment of truth, when the veil of uncertainty was torn aside, he was at last able to see the whole of his earlier life as a preliminary to the direct intervention of God."9 Having spent an entire decade reading Paul, Augustine had been brought "to the point where he could exclaim in an agony of self-realization: 'What shall wretched man do? Who shall deliver him from the body of this death [Rom. 7:24] but Your grace through our Lord Jesus Christ?' All this sank down into the heart of my being by some wonderful means, when I read [Paul] 'the least of Your Apostles'"10 (1 Cor. 15:9; Eph. 3:8).
My own conversion mirrors that of Augustine. I was not looking for Christ. I did not want Christ. I wanted my sin. I was in love with my sin. Jesus was an unwanted interruption and invasion into my perverse life of sexual sin. How does someone go from loving his sin, rejecting Christ, to loving Christ and rejecting his sin? The change wrought within me by the Spirit of God was instantaneous, miraculous, and bewildering. My friends did not understand me anymore. I may not have suddenly seen a light from Heaven that flashed around me, causing me to fall to the ground, as I heard a voice saying to me, "William, William, why are you persecuting Me?" (Acts 9:3-4), but the experience was equally as powerful, equally as life-changing. I can echo this statement from William Tyndale: "Now faith comes not from our Free Will; it is the gift of God, given us by grace [Eph. 2:8, 9], before there ever be any will in our hearts to do the Law of God; and why God gives it not to everyone I can give no reckoning of His judgments. But well I know, I never deserved it, nor prepared myself unto it; but ran another way clean contrary in my blindness, and sought not that way; but He sought me, and found me out, and showed it to me, and therewith drew me to Himself." I was running away from God and all that pertained to God as fast and as hard as I could. But still He found me out.
GRACE, GRACE, MARVELOUS GRACE
In Julia H. Johnston's (b. 1849) hymn, "Grace Greater Than Our Sin," we read: "Marvelous grace of our loving Lord / Grace that exceeds our sin and our guilt! / Yonder on Calvary's mount out-poured / There where the blood of the Lamb was spilt." My sin, as great as it was (is), was no match for His grace. Where sin abounded, grace abounded all the more (Rom. 5:20). "Sin and despair, like the sea-waves cold / Threaten the soul with infinite loss / Grace that is greater--yes, grace untold / Points to the Refuge, the mighty Cross." As my sin reigned in death, even so "grace would reign through righteousness to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 5:21). "Marvelous, infinite, matchless grace / Freely bestowed on all who believe! / All who are longing to see His face / Will you this moment His grace receive?" The promise of imputed righteousness comes to us through faith in Christ "so that it might be by grace" (Rom. 4:16). "Grace, grace, God's grace / Grace that will pardon and cleanse within / Grace, grace, God's grace / Grace that is greater than all our sin!" You and I cannot out-sin His immense grace. Grace, Greek χάρις (charis), is referred to as (whether emoted from divine or human persons) favor, kindness, blessing, being disposed or inclined or leaning toward benefiting someone, noted biblically and theologically as a "gift or blessing brought to mankind by Jesus Christ."
In the New Testament, charis refers to "the unmerited favor and kindness of God towards humanity." The word "unmerited" means that no one can earn God's kindness / favor / grace, as this is His to give to whomever He chooses, "freely extended in the giving of Himself away to people" (Rom. 9:11, 12, 15, 16, 18). Grace "encompasses the idea of divine assistance given to humans for their regeneration and sanctification." We cannot regenerate and save ourselves. This is the sole work of God. Charis is "often associated with the concept of salvation, as it is by grace that believers are saved through faith (Ephesians 2:8). It also denotes the graciousness of God in bestowing gifts, and blessings upon His people, as well as the grace that believers are to extend to others." Culturally, then, charis is "deepened and transformed to express the profound and unconditional love of God towards humanity, which is not based on human merit but on God's own character and purpose":
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places. He did this when He chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world, so that we would be holy and blameless in His sight. In love He predestined us to be adopted as His sons through Jesus Christ. He did this in accordance with the good purpose of His will, and for the praise of His glorious grace, which He has graciously given us in the One He loves. In Him we also have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, in keeping with the riches of His grace, which He lavished on us in all wisdom and insight. He made known to us the mystery of His will in keeping with His good purpose, which He planned in Christ. This was to be carried out when the time had fully come, in order to bring all things together in Christ, things in heaven and things on earth. In Him we have also obtained an inheritance, because we were predestined according to the plan of Him who works out everything in keeping with the purpose of His will. He did this so that His glory would be praised as a result of us, who were the first to hope in Christ. In Him, when you heard the Word of truth, the Gospel of your salvation, and in Him, when you also believed, you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit. He is the down payment [the guarantee] of our inheritance until the redemption of God's own possession, so that His glory would be praised (Eph. 1:3-14 EHV).Sinclair Ferguson reminds us of "the first principles of the Gospel," that grace is not a substantive or tangible force, but a Person.11 Jesus is both Truth Incarnate (John 14:6) and Grace Incarnate: "the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we saw His glory, glory as of the only begotten [or Son, NIV] from the Father, full of Grace and Truth" (John 1:14 NASB); "For of His fullness, we have all received, and Grace upon Grace" (John 1:16 NASB)--or "Grace in place of Grace already given" (NIV); or "we have all received Grace upon Grace from His fullness" (CSB); or "we have all received from His fullness one gracious Gift after another" (NET); "For the Law was given through Moses; Grace and Truth were realized through Jesus Christ" (John 1:17 NASB). If we perceive of Grace as the divine Work of the divine Himself then we can read passages thusly: "The Law came in so that the transgression would increase [that we would see sin for what it is: heinous and evil]; but where sin increased, Grace [Christ Jesus] abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, even so Grace [Christ Jesus] would reign through righteousness to eternal life" (Rom. 5:20-21 NASB); "For sin shall not be master over you, for you are not under Law, but under Grace [in Christ Jesus]" (Rom. 6:14); "For by Grace [Christ Jesus] you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast" (Eph. 2:8-9); "For the Grace [Christ] of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men" (Titus 2:11). Charis refers to "God freely extending Himself ..., reaching (inclining) to people because He is disposed to bless (or be near) them."
GRACE IN SALVATION
The statement has been aired frequently that, if one studies the early fathers (especially of the first and second century), he will become a Roman Catholic. I understand why someone would make that claim but it needs a correction. Having read Pelagius for three years, I make a similar claim, but toward Pelagius. If one studies the early fathers, and especially of the first and second century, then he will make of himself a disciple of Pelagius with great ease, conviction, and even being entirely justified. Pelagius is a synthesis of both Eastern and Western thought in one man. His views on Free Will, Works of Righteousness, Perfect Obedience and Holiness of life are those of many early fathers--especially Clement of Alexandria (150-215 CE) from the East, Tertullian (155-220 CE) from the West, Origen (185-253 CE) from the East, and Cyprian (210-258 CE) from the West. If someone wants to render Cyprian a strict Augustinian then he has obviously never read Cyprian:
- How can a man say that he believes in Christ if he does not do what Christ commanded him to do? From where will he attain the reward of faith if he will not keep the faith of the commandment? [referring to such passages as John 14:15, 21, 23] ... He will make no advancement in his walk toward salvation, for he does not keep the truth of the way of salvation [meaning, the way of salvation is perfect obedience];
- To prophesy, to cast out devils, and to do great acts upon the earth [referring to Matt. 7:22]--these are all certainly a sublime and an admirable thing. However one does not attain the Kingdom of Heaven even though he is found in all these things unless he walks in the observance of the right and just way [yet another appeal to living in complete and utter obedience and holiness of life in order to obtain salvation];
- There is need of righteousness, that one may deserve well of God the Judge. We must obey His teachings and warnings so that our merits may receive their reward [What of Christ's righteousness imputed? Rom. 3:21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26; cf. Phil. 3:7, 8, 9, 10, 11];
- By enduring suffering, and by going forward to Christ by the narrow way that Christ trod, we may receive the reward of His life [blasphemy!];
- He who has not been merciful will not be able to deserve the mercy of the Lord [but no one deserves the mercy of the Lord];
- He follows Christ who stands in His commandments, who walks in the way of His teaching, who follows His footsteps and His ways, who imitates that which Christ both did and taught [that statement right there is right out of Pelagius' playbook--except that he predates Pelagius by over a century] ... To put on the Name of Christ, and yet not to go in the way of Christ--what else is this but a mockery of the divine Name! It is a desertion of the way of salvation. For He Himself teaches and says that the persons who keep His commandments will come into [eternal] life;
- He who wills that no one should perish desires that sinners should repent and by repentance should return again to life [eternal];
- They should not think that the way of life or of salvation is still open to them if they have refused to obey the bishops and priests. For in Deuteronomy, the Lord God says, "And the man that will do presumptuously and will not listen to the priest or judge ... that man will die";
- To anyone who is born and dies, is there not a necessity at some time ... to suffer the loss of his estate? Only let not Christ be forsaken, so that the loss of salvation and of an eternal home would be feared.12
EFFECTUAL GRACE AND JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH
Clement of Rome, in 96 CE, boldly insists that we are not saved and thusly honored by the Lord "for [our] own sake, or for [our] own works, or for the righteousness which [we have] wrought, but through the operation of His will." This statement reminds us of explicit passages we find of the same wording in places like 1 Corinthians 1:30 and James 1:18. "And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves. Nor are we justified by our own wisdom, understanding, godliness, or works that we have done in holiness of heart [cf. Titus 3:5]. Rather, we are justified by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men [Rom. 4:3, 4, 5; 5:1]."13 Ignatius (105 CE) writes: "Therefore, let us not be ungrateful for His kindness. For if He were to reward us according to our works, we would cease to be."14 Our hearts are glad to read early attestation to the effectual grace of God. But then we also read this tragic statement from Polycarp (135 CE): "Into this joy many persons desire to enter. They know that 'by grace you are saved, not works,' but by the will of God through Jesus Christ. ... But He who raised Him up from the dead will raise up us also--if we do His will, and walk in His commandments, and love what He loved, keeping ourselves from all unrighteousness."15 If that is your hope for salvation, perfect obedience, then you are doomed to failure.
The Gospel is not about what you must accomplish in order to obtain salvation and eternal life with Christ.
The Gospel is about what Christ accomplished on your behalf in order to offer to you salvation and eternal life.
The Gospel is about what Christ accomplished on your behalf in order to offer to you salvation and eternal life.
If you choose the path of attempting perfect obedience to Christ's Laws / Commandments / Teachings in order to 1) either prove that you are a true disciple of Jesus or 2) that you have truly been saved and 3) perhaps may even prove yourself to be worthy of the Gospel and the Grace and the Salvation freely offered to you by God then I have but one question for you: What will you do with all your failures to measure up to absolute perfection? "For whoever keeps the whole Law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it" (James 2:10 NIV). So, will you ask for forgiveness and then return in your attempts toward perfect obedience? When you fail yet again, and again, and again and again and again and again, will keep asking for forgiveness and then return in your attempts toward perfect obedience? Is that what you think the Christian life in Christ is supposed to be: failure after failure after failure in trying to measure up to God's perfect standards? Have you really learned nothing of Christ? Have you really not read Paul, where he wrote, "that I may gain Christ and be found in Him not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the Law [and Commandments and Teachings], but that which is through faith in Christ--the righteousness that comes from God on the basis of faith" (Phil. 3:8-9 NIV)? Grace is in salvation--not in attempts to be worthy of it.
"What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? We were therefore buried with Him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life" (Rom. 6:1-4 NIV). Your rest in the finished work of Christ Jesus, your Lord and Savior and King, originates not in your attempts at perfection but in His perfect work accomplished on your behalf. The regenerate believer does walk in obedience, yes (John 14:15, 21, 23; 1 John 1:6, 7, 8, 9, 10; 2:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 15, 16, 17, 24; 3:3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24; 4:7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21; 5:1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18), not in order to prove himself worthy of God and His Kingdom (for only the sinless and eternal Christ is truly worthy: Rev. 5:9) but because he has been graced of God for a salvation planned for him from eternity past (Eph. 1:3-14).
Your attempts at perfect holiness, if from a truly pure heart that merely wants to imitate his God, is precious. Otherwise, it is offensive, because only Jesus Christ is truly qualified, as the Second Adam, to be the Humanity that God wanted when He created Adam and Eve. But pursuing holiness of life is prideful if you are the object of such a life. Your spiritual gaze is to be set on Jesus (Col. 3:1, 2, 3, 4) and not you or your walk in Him. When Peter perceived the Transfiguration of Jesus incorrectly, imagining the seemingly holy appearance of Moses and Elijah to be on par with that of Christ, God boomed a mighty response: "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased, listen to Him!" (Matt. 17:5 NASB). "When the disciples heard this, they fell face down to the ground, and were terrified" (Matt. 17:6). Without doubt, Moses and Elijah were men chosen by God for their respective purposes, but they were no match for the matchless King, Jesus Christ. Listen to Him! He is the Center of your universe. Fix your spiritual gaze on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of faith, the eternal Son of God (Heb. 12:2).
SEEDS OF AUGUSTINIANISM AND REFORMED THEOLOGY
Often throughout Church history, certain doctrines of the Christian faith are not thoroughly codified and biblically systematized until a controversy presents itself, when one or more persons openly challenges what is generally yet privately held by orthodox believers in Christ. The controversy forces the Church to think more carefully, more critically, and to set forth in Creeds and Confessions a proper orthodoxy for the Faith. Dr. Gerald Bray rightly notes: "One thing led to another and in the course of Church history different aspects of Christian doctrine came to the fore and demanded resolution."16 For example, early in Church history we witness a controversy over whether Gentiles can be part of the Messianic movement of Jesus and the Church He was (and is) building, and to whether they needed to be circumcised. A council of elders was held and the conclusion cemented the issue forever: "But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus in the same way as they also are" (Acts 15:11). "Therefore it is my judgment [James, Jesus' half-brother, is speaking] that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols, and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood" (Acts 15:19-20). Gnosticism soon became an issue and a resolution was needed. From Docetism and Gnosticism to Marcion to Arius, false teachings emerged, and the Church set forth orthodox doctrine that all should embrace.
The doctrine of Free Will vs. Predestination or the Sovereignty of God may seem like a minor issue when compared to Trinitarianism and Christology but the issue may not be as "minor" as some think when we consider that these views impact our soteriology (the doctrine of salvation). Do sinners contribute to their own salvation or is the work of salvation entirely the work of God the Father, in Christ Jesus, through the agency, work, and Person of the Holy Spirit? If God has elected to save "those who believe" (1 Cor. 1:21), or "the believing ones," then is faith the only contribution the sinner grants in the act of salvation? If so then could the sinner boast in his salvation, because he had faith in Christ, while others did not choose to have faith in Jesus? If faith is a gift (Eph. 2:8-9; 2 Pet. 1:1) then in what sense is faith a gift?
We witness seeds of Augustinianism and Reformed theology in some of the early fathers. This indicates that the early fathers saw in the scriptures what later students of God's Word also saw: that the negative effects of sin require a grace from God in those who are to believe in the Person and Work of Christ through the Gospel-centered inward-working activity of the Holy Spirit. What we must keep in mind therefore is that, when some of the early fathers are defending Free Will, they do so in order to argue against the fatalism inherent in pagan religions, such as Gnosticism and those of the Romans and Greeks, and their arguments are not to be viewed as advocating without any qualifications whatsoever for absolute Free Will (unaided by any work of the Holy Spirit). Some fathers might even avoid words like predestination because of the fear of being misunderstood by the culture to refer to fate--something "which even the gods are powerless to overcome."17
Clement of Rome (96 CE) speaks to the operation of God's grace in salvation when he argues that people who were saved were delivered "not for their own sake, or for [from] their works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will [and not of our Free Will]; and we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus [and we must ask if all are thusly called], are not justified by ourselves. Nor are we justified by our own wisdom, understanding, godliness, or works that we have done in holiness of heart. Rather, we are justified by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men."18 He echoes Paul: "But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by [He saves by] the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life" (Titus 3:4-7 NASB).
We find the same language in the Letter to Diognetus (125-200 CE): "Being convinced at that time of our unworthiness of attaining life through our own works, it is now, through the kindness of God, graciously given to us. Accordingly, it is clear that in ourselves we were unable to enter into the Kingdom of God. However, through the power of God, we can be made able."19 Dr. Harold O.J. Brown underscores the fact that this is the language of Augustine: "God imparts to some the ability to choose Him: He does not make believers out of those who are unwilling but He makes unwilling hearts willing."20 But if God made all hearts willing then all would be universally saved. If God "called" all people in the manner spoken of by Clement of Rome then all people would be universally saved. Irenæus in 180 CE argues that the Lord Himself must save: "For they could not be saved by their own instrumentality." That is quite an important word, instrumentality, since it refers to an inadequacy within us to actually do anything toward our salvation. Hence, if God requires anything from us in order to be saved, e.g., faith in Christ Jesus, then He Himself must provide for the means (faith in Christ) as well as the ends (salvation in Christ). "Therefore, when Paul explains human infirmity, he says, 'For I know that there dwells in me no good thing' [Rom. 7:18]. He thus shows that the 'good thing' of our salvation is not from us, but from God. ... Here we see that we must be saved by the help of God, not by ourselves [no reliance on Free Will]."21 Does God operate like this in every person? No. "He confers His free gifts [particularly] upon those who should receive them."22
Tertullian, in 198 CE, concurs: "We make petition, then, that He supply us with the substance of His will and the capacity to do it [for, if we could "do it" of our own Free Will, then there would be nothing to "supply"]--so that we may be saved both in the heavens and on earth. For the sum of His will is the salvation of those whom He has adopted."23 If He adopted all then, obviously, all would be universally saved.
CONCLUSION
The merits of any teaching should be qualified or disqualified on Scripture alone and not by any one or any group of early Church fathers. I am sympathetic, however, to the student of God's Word who questions the validity of Augustinianism / Reformed theology based on some of the writings of some of the early fathers--notably Polycarp, as well as the writing known as the Shepherd of Hermas, and also Clement of Alexandria. I once questioned that, if Augustinianism was true (and Augustine "recovered" a proper interpretation of Paul), then why did the successors of the apostles not espouse those theological views. Logic dictates that, if the apostles of Jesus were "Augustinian" in their theology, then they failed to communicate that theology to their successors--especially, I thought, the apostle John to Polycarp. Was I wrong?
Perhaps we should consider the lives and the times of these people. John himself was stranded, imprisoned, suffering "on the island of Patmos because of the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus" (Rev. 1:9 NIV). Paul and Peter, too, were constantly in danger of persecution and imprisonment (2 Cor. 11:23-29), and their interactions with others were often brief correspondences (2 Tim. 4:9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20, 21). Many believers were on the run from authorities and / or exiled. Peter writes "to God's elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia" (1 Pet. 1:1 NIV). There were no Bible colleges, no seminaries, no theological conferences. Even where there was a library in a city, it was useless, for many / most of the newly-born-again believers could not read (though the priests / pastors / bishops and other Church leaders were educated and obviously could read and write). Laypeople listened intently to a priest or bishop preaching the Word of God and tried to memorize the words. They didn't even have their own Bible to take home with them and study. Many villages for centuries only had one Bible and that Bible was kept safe at their respective meeting places or in their churches. They had no opportunity to spend weeks and months and years studying God's Word and forming theological systems. We take all of that for granted.
Only in the mid-to-late fourth century do Christians find relief via the work of Constantine, who as Emperor decrees that Christianity is to be legalized, legitimized, and be the State Religion--and in this era Christian doctrine begins to flourish. These believers begin to enjoy peace and opportunities for theological study and spiritual reflection. Monasteries and the monastic life begin to spread. A Nicene Faith emerges, Jerome creates the Latin Vulgate for Latin-speaking people, and Augustine becomes a prolific writer of theology and defender of the Gospel. God is preserving His work, His Word, saving people by His grace through faith in His Son Jesus Christ, and Christ is building His universal Church through the effectual work of the Holy Spirit. "The Light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it" (John 1:4 NIV). The Dark Ages may have shrouded God's Word and Christ's Gospel, but a Light was beginning to shine, until the veil could hide it no longer, and the Light of God's Reformation burst forth with a brilliance that could not and, by God, still cannot be denied. Soli deo gloria!
__________
1 Sinclair B. Ferguson, The Whole Christ: Legalism, Antinomianism, and Gospel Assurance--Why the Marrow Controversy Still Matters (Wheaton: Crossway, 2016), 179.
2 A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs: A Reference Guide to More Than 700 Topics Discussed by the Early Church Fathers, ed. David W. Bercot (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2003), 271.
3 Ibid., 273.
4 Ibid.
5 Here is a small sampling:
7 B.R. Rees, Pelagius: Life and Letters (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1998), 1.64.
8 Ibid., 1.30, fn 40.
9 Ibid., 1.30.
10 Ibid., 1.31.
11 Ferguson, 110.
12 Dictionary, 583, 584, 588, 589.
13 Ibid., 575.
14 Dictionary, 575.
15 Ibid., 575-76.
16 Gerald Bray, God Has Spoken: A History of Christian Theology (Wheaton: Crossway, 2014), 18.
17 Ibid., 178-79.
18 Dictionary, 575.
19 Ibid.
20 Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2003), 206.
21 Dictionary, 576.
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid., 577.
"What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into His death? We were therefore buried with Him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life" (Rom. 6:1-4 NIV). Your rest in the finished work of Christ Jesus, your Lord and Savior and King, originates not in your attempts at perfection but in His perfect work accomplished on your behalf. The regenerate believer does walk in obedience, yes (John 14:15, 21, 23; 1 John 1:6, 7, 8, 9, 10; 2:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 15, 16, 17, 24; 3:3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24; 4:7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21; 5:1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18), not in order to prove himself worthy of God and His Kingdom (for only the sinless and eternal Christ is truly worthy: Rev. 5:9) but because he has been graced of God for a salvation planned for him from eternity past (Eph. 1:3-14).
Your attempts at perfect holiness, if from a truly pure heart that merely wants to imitate his God, is precious. Otherwise, it is offensive, because only Jesus Christ is truly qualified, as the Second Adam, to be the Humanity that God wanted when He created Adam and Eve. But pursuing holiness of life is prideful if you are the object of such a life. Your spiritual gaze is to be set on Jesus (Col. 3:1, 2, 3, 4) and not you or your walk in Him. When Peter perceived the Transfiguration of Jesus incorrectly, imagining the seemingly holy appearance of Moses and Elijah to be on par with that of Christ, God boomed a mighty response: "This is My beloved Son, with whom I am well-pleased, listen to Him!" (Matt. 17:5 NASB). "When the disciples heard this, they fell face down to the ground, and were terrified" (Matt. 17:6). Without doubt, Moses and Elijah were men chosen by God for their respective purposes, but they were no match for the matchless King, Jesus Christ. Listen to Him! He is the Center of your universe. Fix your spiritual gaze on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of faith, the eternal Son of God (Heb. 12:2).
SEEDS OF AUGUSTINIANISM AND REFORMED THEOLOGY
Often throughout Church history, certain doctrines of the Christian faith are not thoroughly codified and biblically systematized until a controversy presents itself, when one or more persons openly challenges what is generally yet privately held by orthodox believers in Christ. The controversy forces the Church to think more carefully, more critically, and to set forth in Creeds and Confessions a proper orthodoxy for the Faith. Dr. Gerald Bray rightly notes: "One thing led to another and in the course of Church history different aspects of Christian doctrine came to the fore and demanded resolution."16 For example, early in Church history we witness a controversy over whether Gentiles can be part of the Messianic movement of Jesus and the Church He was (and is) building, and to whether they needed to be circumcised. A council of elders was held and the conclusion cemented the issue forever: "But we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus in the same way as they also are" (Acts 15:11). "Therefore it is my judgment [James, Jesus' half-brother, is speaking] that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles, but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols, and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood" (Acts 15:19-20). Gnosticism soon became an issue and a resolution was needed. From Docetism and Gnosticism to Marcion to Arius, false teachings emerged, and the Church set forth orthodox doctrine that all should embrace.
The doctrine of Free Will vs. Predestination or the Sovereignty of God may seem like a minor issue when compared to Trinitarianism and Christology but the issue may not be as "minor" as some think when we consider that these views impact our soteriology (the doctrine of salvation). Do sinners contribute to their own salvation or is the work of salvation entirely the work of God the Father, in Christ Jesus, through the agency, work, and Person of the Holy Spirit? If God has elected to save "those who believe" (1 Cor. 1:21), or "the believing ones," then is faith the only contribution the sinner grants in the act of salvation? If so then could the sinner boast in his salvation, because he had faith in Christ, while others did not choose to have faith in Jesus? If faith is a gift (Eph. 2:8-9; 2 Pet. 1:1) then in what sense is faith a gift?
We witness seeds of Augustinianism and Reformed theology in some of the early fathers. This indicates that the early fathers saw in the scriptures what later students of God's Word also saw: that the negative effects of sin require a grace from God in those who are to believe in the Person and Work of Christ through the Gospel-centered inward-working activity of the Holy Spirit. What we must keep in mind therefore is that, when some of the early fathers are defending Free Will, they do so in order to argue against the fatalism inherent in pagan religions, such as Gnosticism and those of the Romans and Greeks, and their arguments are not to be viewed as advocating without any qualifications whatsoever for absolute Free Will (unaided by any work of the Holy Spirit). Some fathers might even avoid words like predestination because of the fear of being misunderstood by the culture to refer to fate--something "which even the gods are powerless to overcome."17
Clement of Rome (96 CE) speaks to the operation of God's grace in salvation when he argues that people who were saved were delivered "not for their own sake, or for [from] their works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will [and not of our Free Will]; and we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus [and we must ask if all are thusly called], are not justified by ourselves. Nor are we justified by our own wisdom, understanding, godliness, or works that we have done in holiness of heart. Rather, we are justified by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men."18 He echoes Paul: "But when the kindness of God our Savior and His love for mankind appeared, He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by [He saves by] the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life" (Titus 3:4-7 NASB).
We find the same language in the Letter to Diognetus (125-200 CE): "Being convinced at that time of our unworthiness of attaining life through our own works, it is now, through the kindness of God, graciously given to us. Accordingly, it is clear that in ourselves we were unable to enter into the Kingdom of God. However, through the power of God, we can be made able."19 Dr. Harold O.J. Brown underscores the fact that this is the language of Augustine: "God imparts to some the ability to choose Him: He does not make believers out of those who are unwilling but He makes unwilling hearts willing."20 But if God made all hearts willing then all would be universally saved. If God "called" all people in the manner spoken of by Clement of Rome then all people would be universally saved. Irenæus in 180 CE argues that the Lord Himself must save: "For they could not be saved by their own instrumentality." That is quite an important word, instrumentality, since it refers to an inadequacy within us to actually do anything toward our salvation. Hence, if God requires anything from us in order to be saved, e.g., faith in Christ Jesus, then He Himself must provide for the means (faith in Christ) as well as the ends (salvation in Christ). "Therefore, when Paul explains human infirmity, he says, 'For I know that there dwells in me no good thing' [Rom. 7:18]. He thus shows that the 'good thing' of our salvation is not from us, but from God. ... Here we see that we must be saved by the help of God, not by ourselves [no reliance on Free Will]."21 Does God operate like this in every person? No. "He confers His free gifts [particularly] upon those who should receive them."22
Tertullian, in 198 CE, concurs: "We make petition, then, that He supply us with the substance of His will and the capacity to do it [for, if we could "do it" of our own Free Will, then there would be nothing to "supply"]--so that we may be saved both in the heavens and on earth. For the sum of His will is the salvation of those whom He has adopted."23 If He adopted all then, obviously, all would be universally saved.
CONCLUSION
The merits of any teaching should be qualified or disqualified on Scripture alone and not by any one or any group of early Church fathers. I am sympathetic, however, to the student of God's Word who questions the validity of Augustinianism / Reformed theology based on some of the writings of some of the early fathers--notably Polycarp, as well as the writing known as the Shepherd of Hermas, and also Clement of Alexandria. I once questioned that, if Augustinianism was true (and Augustine "recovered" a proper interpretation of Paul), then why did the successors of the apostles not espouse those theological views. Logic dictates that, if the apostles of Jesus were "Augustinian" in their theology, then they failed to communicate that theology to their successors--especially, I thought, the apostle John to Polycarp. Was I wrong?
Perhaps we should consider the lives and the times of these people. John himself was stranded, imprisoned, suffering "on the island of Patmos because of the Word of God and the testimony of Jesus" (Rev. 1:9 NIV). Paul and Peter, too, were constantly in danger of persecution and imprisonment (2 Cor. 11:23-29), and their interactions with others were often brief correspondences (2 Tim. 4:9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19, 20, 21). Many believers were on the run from authorities and / or exiled. Peter writes "to God's elect, exiles scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia" (1 Pet. 1:1 NIV). There were no Bible colleges, no seminaries, no theological conferences. Even where there was a library in a city, it was useless, for many / most of the newly-born-again believers could not read (though the priests / pastors / bishops and other Church leaders were educated and obviously could read and write). Laypeople listened intently to a priest or bishop preaching the Word of God and tried to memorize the words. They didn't even have their own Bible to take home with them and study. Many villages for centuries only had one Bible and that Bible was kept safe at their respective meeting places or in their churches. They had no opportunity to spend weeks and months and years studying God's Word and forming theological systems. We take all of that for granted.
Only in the mid-to-late fourth century do Christians find relief via the work of Constantine, who as Emperor decrees that Christianity is to be legalized, legitimized, and be the State Religion--and in this era Christian doctrine begins to flourish. These believers begin to enjoy peace and opportunities for theological study and spiritual reflection. Monasteries and the monastic life begin to spread. A Nicene Faith emerges, Jerome creates the Latin Vulgate for Latin-speaking people, and Augustine becomes a prolific writer of theology and defender of the Gospel. God is preserving His work, His Word, saving people by His grace through faith in His Son Jesus Christ, and Christ is building His universal Church through the effectual work of the Holy Spirit. "The Light shines in the darkness and the darkness has not overcome it" (John 1:4 NIV). The Dark Ages may have shrouded God's Word and Christ's Gospel, but a Light was beginning to shine, until the veil could hide it no longer, and the Light of God's Reformation burst forth with a brilliance that could not and, by God, still cannot be denied. Soli deo gloria!
__________
1 Sinclair B. Ferguson, The Whole Christ: Legalism, Antinomianism, and Gospel Assurance--Why the Marrow Controversy Still Matters (Wheaton: Crossway, 2016), 179.
2 A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs: A Reference Guide to More Than 700 Topics Discussed by the Early Church Fathers, ed. David W. Bercot (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2003), 271.
3 Ibid., 273.
4 Ibid.
5 Here is a small sampling:
- Neither do we maintain that it is by [theological determinism] that men do what they do or suffer what they suffer. Rather, we maintain that each man acts rightly or sins by his free choice. --Justin Martyr (160 CE);
- Each of these two orders [men and angels] was made free to act as it pleased. They did not have the nature of good [sinlessness] which, again, is with God alone. However, it [his nature] is brought to perfection in men through their freedom of choice. In this manner, the bad man can be justly punished, having become depraved through his own fault. Likewise, the just man can be deservedly praised for his virtuous deeds, since in the exercise of his free choice he refrained from transgressing the will of God. --Tatian (160 CE);
- We were not created to die. Rather, we die by our own fault. Our free will has destroyed us. We who were free have become slaves. We have been sold through sin. Nothing evil has been created by God. We ourselves have manifested wickedness. But we, who have manifested it, are able again to reject it. --Tatian (160 CE);
- There is, therefore, nothing to hinder you from changing your evil manner of life because you are a free man. --Melito (170 CE);
- If, on the other hand, he would turn to the things of death, disobeying God, he would himself be the cause of death to himself. For God made man free and with power of himself. --Theophilus (180 CE);
- But man, being endowed with reason, and in this respect similar to God, having been made free in his will and with power over himself, is himself his own cause that sometimes he becomes wheat and sometimes chaff. --Irenæus (180 CE);
- God has always preserved freedom and the power of self-government [and self-determination] in man. Yet, at the same time, He issued His own exhortations in order that those who do not obey Him would be righteously judged because they have not obeyed Him. And those who have obeyed and believed on Him should be honored with immortality. --Irenæus (180 CE);
- God knows the number of those who will not believe since He foreknows all things. So He has given them over to unbelief and turned His face away from men of this character, leaving them in the darkness that they have chosen for themselves. So what is baffling if He gave Pharaoh and those who were with him over to their unbelief? For they would never have believed. --Irenæus (180 CE);
- This expression ... sets forth the ancient Law of human liberty. For God made man free from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the commandments of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God. ... And in man, as well as in angels (for angels are rational beings), He has placed the power of choice, so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good--given indeed by God but preserved by themselves. --Irenæus (180 CE);
- Those who work it [works of righteousness] will receive glory and honor because they have done that which is good when they had it in their power not to do it. But those who do not do it will receive the just judgment of God because they did not work good when they had it in their power to do so. But if some had been made by nature bad [which is clearly a rejection of Original-Sin theory], and others good, these latter would not be deserving of praise for being good, for they were created that way. Nor would the former be reprehensible, for that is how they were made. However, all men are of the same nature. They are all able to hold fast and to do what is good. On the other hand, they have the power to cast good from them and not to do it. For that reason, some justly receive praise. --Irenæus (180 CE);
- If, then, it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason did the apostle have, and much more the Lord Himself, to give us counsel to do some things and to abstain from others? But because man is possessed of free will ..., and God is possessed of free will (in whose likeness man was created), advice is always given to him to hold fast to the good, which is done through obedience to God. God has preserved the will of man free and under his [own] control. This is not merely in works but also in faith. --Irenæus (180 CE);
- Nor, again, does God exercise compulsion upon anyone unwilling to accept the exercise of His skill. ... They have been created free agents and possessed of power over themselves. --Irenæus (180 CE);
- Those who believe do His will agreeably to their own choice. Likewise, agreeably to their own choice, the disobedient do not consent to His doctrine. It is clear that His [Jesus'] Father has made everyone in a like condition, each person having a choice of his own and a free understanding. --Irenæus (180 CE);
- We ... have believed and are saved by voluntary choice. --Clement of Alexandria (195 CE);
- Each one of us who sins with his own free will chooses punishment. So the blame lies with him who chooses. God is without blame. --Clement of Alexandria (195 CE);
- Neither praises nor censures, neither rewards nor punishments, are right if the soul does not have the power of inclination and disinclination ... In no respect is God the author of evil. But since free choice and inclination originate sins ... punishments are justly inflicted. --Clement of Alexandria (195 CE);
- We have heard by the Scriptures that self-determining choice and refusal have been given by the Lord to men. Therefore, we rest in the infallible criterion of faith, manifesting a willing spirit, since we have chosen life. --Clement of Alexandria (195 CE);
- To obey or not is in our own power--provided we do not have the excuse of ignorance. ... Sin, then, is voluntary on my part. ... This clearly shows sins and transgressions to be in our own power by prescribing modes of cure corresponding to the maladies. ... Their estrangement [that of sinners with regard to God, to faith, and to salvation] is the result of free choice. ... God's will is especially obeyed by the free will of good men. ... Believing and obeying are in our own power. ... Nor will he who is saved be saved against his will, for he is not inanimate. But above all, he will speed to salvation voluntarily and of free choice. --Clement of Alexandria (195 CE);
- I find, then, that man was constituted free by God. He was master of his own will and power. ... For a Law would not be imposed upon one who did not have it in his power to render that obedience which is due to Law. Nor again would the penalty of death be threatened against sin if a contempt of the Law were impossible to man in the liberty of his will. ... Man is free with a will either for obedience or resistance. --Tertullian (207 CE--Western Father);
- On the contrary, men are not governed like [plants and animals] ... In matters pertaining to their minds, they do whatever they choose--as those who are free, endowed with power, and in the likeness of God. --Bardesanes (222 CE);
- The Word promulgated [put into effect] the divine commandments by declaring them. He thereby turned man from disobedience. He summoned man to liberty through a choice involving spontaneity--not by bringing him into servitude by force of necessity. --Hippolytus (225 CE--Western Father);
- Christ passed through every stage in life in order that He Himself could serve as a Law for persons of every age, and that, by being present among us, He could demonstrate His own manhood as a model for all men. Furthermore, through Himself He could prove that God made nothing evil and that man possesses the capacity of self-determination. For man is able to both will and not to will. He is endowed with power to do both. --Hippolytus (225 CE);
- This also is clearly defined in the teaching of the Church, that every rational soul has free will and volition. ... We understand that we are not subject to necessity. We are not compelled by various means to do either good or evil, even against our will. For if we are our own masters, some influences may perhaps impel us to sin, and others may help us to salvation. However, we are not forced by any necessity to act either rightly or wrongly. --Origen (225 CE);
- When he had given man all things for his service, He willed that man alone should be free. And lest an unbounded freedom would lead man into peril, He laid down a command, in which man was taught that there was no evil in the fruit of the tree. Rather, he was forewarned that evil would arise if man were to exercise his free will in contempt of the Law that had been given him. ... As a result, he could receive either worthy rewards or a just punishment. For he had in his own power that which he might choose to do. --Novatian (235 CE--Western Father);
- The liberty of believing or of not believing is placed in free choice. --Cyprian (250 CE--Western Father);
- Some persons decide that man is not possessed of free will. Rather, they assert that he is governed by the unavoidable necessities of fate and her unwritten commands. Such persons are guilty of impiety towards God Himself. For they make Him out to be the cause and author of human evils. --Methodius (290 CE);
- To do good or evil is in our own power and it is not decided [deterministically]. ... Man was made with a free will ... on account of his capacity of obeying or disobeying God. For this was the meaning of the gift of free will. --Methodius (290 CE);
- Man received power and enslaved himself--not because he was overpowered by the irresistible tendencies of his nature. ... For if he had been made as any of the elements of creation [and governed only by instinct] ... he would cease to receive a reward befitting deliberate choice. Instead, he would be like an instrument of the Maker. And it would be unreasonable for him to suffer blame for his wrong-doings. For the real author of them would be the one by whom he is used. ... Therefore, I say that God--purposing to honor man in this manner and to grant him an understanding of better things--has given man the power of being able to do what he wishes. --Methodius (290 CE);
- If your "wisdom" is so great that you consider the things that are offered by Christ to be ridiculous and absurd, why should He keep on inviting you? For His only duty is to make the enjoyment of His gift dependent upon your own free choice. --Arnobius (305 CE);
- Rational creatures have been entrusted with free will. Because of this they are capable of converting [from bad to good]." --Disputation of Archelaus and Manes (320 CE);
- All the creatures that God made He made very good. And He gave to every individual the sense of free will in accordance with which standard He also instituted the Law of Judgment. To sin is ours and that we sin not is God's gift [of freely choosing not to sin]. For our will is made to choose either to sin or not to sin. ... Certainly whoever wishes to may keep the commandments. And whoever will despise them and turn aside to what is contrary to them, he will yet undoubtedly have to face this Law of Judgment. ... All persons will not follow the example of [Satan's] fall and ruin. For everyone is given liberty of will. --Disputation of Archelaus and Manes (320 CE);
- Natural will is the free faculty of every intelligent nature as having nothing involuntary [and, hence, deterministically rendering certain his decisions or actions] pertaining to its essence. --Alexander of Alexandria (324 CE). (Ibid., 285-93.)
- That is, He gave them free will, He gave them the choice of their own mind, so that each might live not according to God's [deterministic] command, but to please [and choose for] himself; that is, not out of necessity but by their will, in order that virtue might have its place, so that on the model of God we have been permitted to do as we wish. --Jerome (383 CE--Western Father). (Quoted in Ali Bonner, The Myth of Pelagianism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 115.)
- For nothing can be called "good" except what is voluntary ... The question posed earlier is therefore resolved as follows: God could have made man good without a role for man's will ... But if He had done this, moral goodness would not have been freely willed but would have been done out of necessity [by God's predetermination, His decree, and His bringing about such within man]. But what is good by necessity is not good and by another classification is censured as evil. --Jerome (387 CE). (Ibid., 116.)
- God's work is to call and men's work is either to believe or not to believe [John 6:27, 28, 29]. ... Neither God nor the devil is the reason why we incline either toward good or toward evil [a rejection of Original-Sin theory], because our belief comes not from the one who has called us but from us, who either give our consent to or do not give our consent to the one who calls. --Jerome (387 CE). (Ibid.)
- But you will never hear from me that human nature is [inherently] evil [another rejection of Original-Sin theory]. --Jerome (410 CE). (Ibid., 153.)
7 B.R. Rees, Pelagius: Life and Letters (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1998), 1.64.
8 Ibid., 1.30, fn 40.
9 Ibid., 1.30.
10 Ibid., 1.31.
11 Ferguson, 110.
12 Dictionary, 583, 584, 588, 589.
13 Ibid., 575.
14 Dictionary, 575.
15 Ibid., 575-76.
16 Gerald Bray, God Has Spoken: A History of Christian Theology (Wheaton: Crossway, 2014), 18.
17 Ibid., 178-79.
18 Dictionary, 575.
19 Ibid.
20 Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2003), 206.
21 Dictionary, 576.
22 Ibid.
23 Ibid., 577.
0 Comments
Please be respectful to everyone.