There have been many misconceptions of sovereignty and free will throughout church history and it should be one’s goal to understand the true meaning of these two important theological ideas and how they might work together if one is to appropriately evaluate important systematic theologies.

What is Sovereignty?

Central to our discussion will be the idea of what exactly is sovereignty. This will be absolutely crucial to this study as it will set the guideline for exactly what type of freedom of the will is possible in coexisting with sovereignty. This is also well known and admittedly so by Calvinists themselves as they say that sovereignty is the bedrock of the doctrines of Calvinism. Not only this but they make the claim that traditionally virtually all theist’s have held to sovereignty in the way Calvinism explains it. As Steven Britt Cowan explains, “Theists have traditionally believed that God is, in some sense, in control of his creation such that whatever happens in the course of history is nothing more nor less than what God wanted to happen. As John Calvin wrote, the theist sees God as “holding the helm of the universe, and regulating all events.” God’s will cannot finally be thwarted by the action of any creature.”  

This understanding of God’s sovereignty is assumed by many, especially Calvinists, in today’s Christian realm but there are two simple questions to be asked here. What does sovereignty actually mean and was sovereignty (in the way explained above) always assumed by the theistic society of the early Christian church?

While the explanation of sovereignty presented above is assumed to be the only way to understand a sovereignty possessed by God it is not actually what the word sovereignty means. F.H. Klooster, who appears to assume a Calvinistic stance himself, starts out an article he wrote on the sovereignty of God with this definition of sovereignty, “The biblical teaching that God is king, supreme ruler, and lawgiver of the entire universe.”   Virtually all theistic Christian’s would agree with this definition of God’s sovereignty. So in this since all Christians believe God is sovereign in that he is the King of kings, Lord of lords, Ruler of all and as such is the ultimate law giver that all of his creation must give an account and answer to but God himself has no higher authority so he does not answer to anyone for he is the absolute sovereign of the universe. This is the dictionary version of sovereignty as well and this is why a king or queen might be called a sovereign (within the dictionary context of the word) because as Monarch of a given area (let’s use the King or Queen of England as an example), the monarch does not have to answer to any man, yet all men under their jurisdiction have to answer to them. In this way God’s jurisdiction , which is all of creation, is answerable to Him and the law he puts forth for he is the sovereign of the entirety of the created universe and this is to be praised. All Christian everywhere regardless of denomination or theological leaning seem to adhere to this understanding of God being sovereign. However, this definition does not presuppose that God, “is in control of his creation such that whatever happens in the course of history is nothing more nor less than what God wanted to happen.”  If this were the case then one would have to hold that God wanted each and every sin that happens, including Adam’s first sin which is often referred to as the fall of man. While some Calvinist are willing to except this idea, there are many Christians who oppose it and recognize that this is being dictated by the Calvinistic presupposition of what God’s sovereignty means because the actual definition of sovereignty does not include this assumption and it runs contrary to what the rest of scripture says about God and sin.

In fact, in answering the second question, one would be hard pressed to find an orthodox Christian writer within the first 300 years of the church that indicated this understanding of God’s sovereignty or providence. In fact they often took a stand against the idea that whatever happens is fated to have happened in the way it does due to God’s sovereignty. Take this well-known quote from Justin Martyr for example, “But lest some suppose … that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed.”  Quotes like these make the claim that Theist’s have always assumed or adhered to a Calvinistic understanding of God’s sovereignty look incoherent but instead show that many within the early church who most consider orthodox thinkers argued against such thinking. In fact it is widely thought that the first time the Calvinistic understanding of God’s sovereignty became accepted by the church was around the start of the 5th century being introduced by Augustine. However, that leaves over 300 years between the apostles and the first person to think of the Calvinistic understanding of God’s sovereignty as what the apostles and the rest of scripture were actually saying.

 

The Importance of Augustine

So how did this teaching make its way into the church? The answer here as indicated above, lies with Augustine. He began to teach some of these ideas such that would be expounded upon and used in the doctrines of a Calvinistic understanding of God’s sovereignty in the early 400’s (this means that it appears to be for over 350 years after Christ no leader in the church had taught this doctrine of any kind). Augustine was the first Christian writer to implement these ideas that are now associated with Calvinism into the Christian church thus making Augustine the foundation that Calvin and all other reformers were building on. Now many say that Augustine got his ideas from evaluating the scriptures but one should really also take care to note his background before he joined the church. What so many seem to make light of is that Augustine actually studied and was a part of Gnostic and Neo-Platonic sects before he became a Christian. One specific sect he was a part of was called Manichaeism. He studied and was an auditor for this group for somewhere between 7 and 10 years. Toward the end of that he also became very interested in Neo- Platonism. At the end of this approximate 10 year period he converts to Christianity. When he first came to Christianity he seemed to teach things more in line with what the rest of the early church had thought. However, later when he starts to try to correct Pelagius on some doctrines he goes to far and seems to mix his Christian theology with the Manichaeism and Neo-Platonism of his past.

As Paul Eddy notes, “For a decade of his life – during what were (as John O’Meara reminds us) Augustine’s ‘impressionable and formative twenties’ – Augustine moved within the Manichaean thought-world. Given this fact, a good number of scholars have surmised that the Manichaean philosophical influence upon Augustine was both significant and persistent – perhaps, as J. A. Mourant suggests, ‘far more persistent’ than has traditionally been accepted.”  This is key to our investigation here because, “Manichaeism – like other Gnostic expressions – naturally depends upon a strong soteriological determinism.”  In other words the determinism inherent in Manichaeism could be seen as a strong influence of Augustine’s articulation and seemingly new Christian idea’s that God controls and “determines” all that will occur before hand, including man’s salvation. Neo-Platonism could be said to have given a similar role as it is commonly held within that practice that all things are determined by a “One transcendent principle.”  Both of these ideas which were rejected by the earlier church seemed to sneak into Augustine’s theological understanding of God to form a new idea within the church that had never before been accepted. This theistic determnism that is first explained by Augustine later becomes articulated under the umbrella of God’s sovereignty by Calvin and others.

 

Sovereignty in Salvation: Addressing Election and Predestination

Keeping this in mind the most important aspect of God’s sovereignty for most people is its role in salvation. While some may be willing to except some form of Calvinistic sovereignty, many would not accept that articulation in the framework of Salvation or soteriology. In this situation the common Calvinistic approach is to point to certain passages of scripture that talk about the election and predestination of certain individuals. It is often assumed that in scripture passages or early church quotes that use the words that are translated to predestination or the elect that this ties strongly and irrefutably to Calvinism against other theological ideas. Those same Greek words are in everyone’s scripture and other systematic theologies often acknowledge and claim them. However they just don’t think it means what the Calvinist does.

 

Election

Let’s start with election. Someone holding to an early church theology would gladly claim election to be proclaimed throughout the New Testament. The issue here lies in the idea of unconditional election as held by most Calvinists, meaning God just chooses people randomly, not according to their cooperation, choice, love, or merit but only his will, that he then elects to salvation and take part in Christ. However, election in scripture is always seen in light of whether one has met the condition of being part of a set group of people weather that is Israel in the Old testament and Romans or his being a part of the church by being in Christ in much of the New Testament teaching on election (most notably in Ephesians). Ben Witherington notes regarding the doctrine of election, “The concept of election and destining here is corporate. If one is in Christ, one is elect and destined. Paul is not talking about the pre-temporal election or choosing of individual humans outside of Christ to be in Christ, but rather the election of Christ and what is destined to happen to those, whoever they may be, who are in Christ.”  What is required for one to be in Christ? Scripturally speaking it is a belief or trust in God. If (meaning the condition for which God elects) one is a part of Christ he has elected them to certain things. Therefore unconditional election would be dismissed and a conditional election would apply. That condition would be that of being members of Christ. Thus when one see’s the word elect they would view it simply as those who are in Christ are a part of his church and they are the elect.

 

Predestination

Another thing that should be addressed in light of this section is predestination or in the Greek “proorizein” which has been translated in English scriptures as predestined. However, let us not ignore Augustine, who has become probably the prime influencer of Calvin and most of western theology, was using a flawed Latin translation of Scripture, which translated the Greek word “proorizein” to the Latin “praedestinare.” The Latin verb is much stronger in its meaning than the Greek and Augustine naturally took this strong Latin word to its logical conclusion, a conclusion which none of the early church Fathers who worked with the original Greek text reached. David Bentley Hart explains it in this way, “the English tradition of translating proorizein as the relatively strong word “predestined” comes not from the meaning of the Greek, but of the Latin translation used by St. Augustine. The Latin uses the very strong word “praedestinare.” St. Augustine’s use of the Latin translation led to the strong Western doctrines of predestination which slant modern translations.”  With this in mind the term predestination is probably too strong (though it makes since that the reformers would use it in that they were reforming to Augustine). While a precise word to describe what is meant by this “proorzein” may not be available, it probably in the . Greek meant something more along the lines of, something marked out as possible a way before hand, per purposed, prepared a way of possibility or preplanned but in all these it does not entail rendering something as certain or destined beforehand as our English translation seem to perhaps presumptiously indicate in the word predestine.

Almost all English translations opt for the predestined understanding and translation of the word “proorizein” but there is at least one that seems to have opted for a true earlier understanding and translation of the word. The one being referred to is the Jubilee 2000 translation. When they come to the word proorzein they do not translate it predestined but with the idea that it was a way God marked out beforehand to make something possible. Consider the translation of Romans 8:29, “For unto those whom he knew beforehand, he also marked out beforehand the way that they might be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. This translation of the word “proorizein” (as underlined above) seems to be much more in line with the early church and eastern understanding of the word in that it shows he beforehand planned a way but in no way does it indicate that it is a certainty to be walked in but that it is a specific plan of the way for the possibility of being conformed to the Son that he has planned beforehand.  This different understanding of the Greek word “proorizein” may not be appealing to many because in the west most have essentially used Augustine’s meaning of the Latin word “praedestinare” for over 1,500 years in Western societies. However, the fact remains that it may not be the truest meaning of what the word originally meant in the Greek.

Setting this aside the question begs asking who has God “proorizein” and to what? This answer is plainly labeled in scripture. It is expressed in Romans 8:28-30 when Paul states, “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. For those whom He foreknew, He also “proorzein” to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He “proorzein”, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified.” With this in mind what can be said about this passage would go as such: prior to God saying a group of people is “proorizein” he says that they are those who love God, are called according to his purpose, and that he foreknows who they are. When understanding the proper interpretation of the word proorzien it is easily viewed that Paul is using the common Jewish structure of using parallel sentences that actually say the same thing. Therefore those who love God are those whom he foreknew, and those who whom he foreknew would love him he called according to his purpose which means he marked out a way beforehand (proorzein) that they might walk in his purpose and his purpose is for them, to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren. When one continues in this process not only does God call, but he justifies, sanctifies and glorifies the one who goes through this process of conforming to the image of his Son.

Another thing to consider here is the word saved or salvation which in modern times we have come to define as someone being saved from hell which is the penalty of sin, but this understanding of the salvation that takes place at conversion is absent both from scripture and the early church fathers. Instead what God saves those who choose to believe, know, and love him from is slavery to sin itself so that they no longer have to live in the weakness of the flesh where they fell in slavery to sin time and time again but now through grace and by walking in the Spirit they are saved from sin itself and are free to “go and sin no more.” Thus salvation rather than being seen as an event, is seen more as a relational process with God where we become his righteousness by growing in Him and ceasing to sin. On this, Robert Sungenis, writes on one of the more quoted verses supporting the event view “The grammatical construction of 2 Cor. 5:21 does not necessarily treat the subordinate clause (‘in order that we might become the righteousness of God in Him’) as an actual or definite result of the main clause (‘He made the one not knowing sins to be sins on our behalf’). [The passage shows] a potential result in process rather than a punctiliar event.”  When taking this into account the idea that they have been “Proorizein” to salvation from sin or to put it another way freed from having to walk in the weakness of the flesh, falls in line perfectly with the idea that Paul explains when he states that those who love God have been “proorizein’ to be conformed to the image of God’s son so that he might be the first born of many brethren.

In light of the difference of the understanding of salvation in the early church something else should be pointed out. In our current western Christian culture Salvation has been made out to be a specific moment in time and from the penalty of sin but Salvation in the early church view is the process of clinging more and more to God and in that process being saved and freed from the death (mortality) and the sin itself we had formerly enslaved our self to. So what is often pointed out by the Calvinist is that election sometimes seems to be before salvation but in the early church understanding this point is muted because salvation is a process of which joining the church in belief of God is only the beginning of the process. Basically it would be viewed this way, all who believe are in his church and those who are in his church are elect and “proorzein”(predestined) to be conformed to the image of the Son (the process of salvation) which at the end of the process will result in final salvation. Thus a better understanding of the conditions for election, the actual meaning of the greek word “proorzein,” and an acceptance of the understanding of how the early church viewed salvation would render the Calvinistic view of Predestination and election as God’s sovereignty in salvation nonsensical.

 

Evaluating Freewill

Free will, much like sovereignty, is not a term used clearly in scripture. However, it has become a hotly debated topic because it seems to be highly indicated in scripture and is taken as the main reason why God holds humanity responsible for their actions. For if a man is not capable and free to do anything other than what he is predetermined to do, why would God hold him responsible for his actions that God himself predetermined without man’s freedom to accept or reject that determination. As a result, free will is accepted by many (although plainly rejected by some in the Augustinian/ Calvinistic camp) but for those in both camps the argument comes in the idea of what type of freewill man possesses.

 

Compatibilism vs Libertarianism

David Ciocchi explaining the two types of freedom typically held to throughout the theological realms explains, “Taking the term “free will” to designate whatever sort of freedom is necessary for moral responsibility, we can classify traditional supporters of moral responsibility as either compatibilists (free will is compatible with determinism) or incompatibilists (free will is not compatible with determinism). Accounts of free will advanced by compatibilists are normally called compatibilist, and those advanced by incompatibilists are called libertarian.” As Ciocchi indicates the entire argument for the two camps for free will rest on whether one holds a deterministic Calvinistic view of God’s sovereignty. Now there are some that seem to try to hold to both a libertarian freewill and deterministic view of God’s sovereignty but the vast majority of scholars would find this to be completely nonsensical and claim that a person in this camp is holding to some type of compatibilist view of freewill.

So this argument can be settled first by evaluating what type of God sovereignty one is adhering to because if one rejects the deterministic/Calvinistic view of God’s sovereignty then accepting a libertarian freewill stance is of no consequence. Now there are many from the calvinistic side of God’s sovereignty that assume that the only reason a person could have for rejecting their deterministic view of God’s sovereignty is that they are holding to tightly and focusing on a libertarian free will. One such example of this would be W.C. Walton when he states, “some by fixing their attention too strongly and too exclusively upon the responsibility of man, have rejected the doctrine of God’s sovereignty, so far as it relates to the conversion of sinners.”  However, this type of reasoning assumes the only reason one would reject his (or a Calvinistic view) of God’s sovereignty is that they have focused to much on free will and responsibility of the human. This need not be the case as the first part of this paper shows. However just as many have assumed the Calvinistic understanding of God’s sovereignty to be true (of which we went to great lengths to unveil this preconceived misconception) many have fallen for the idea that a compatibilist free will is the one of which the early church wrote so much about but a quick evaluation shows the opposite.

 

Early church understanding of Free Will

 

Here are just a couple of early church quotes before Augustine that seem to only indicate a libertarian freewill: Irenaeus said, “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.”  This quote clearly indicates a libertarian free will when it comes to salvation as indicated by the wheat and chaff reference. However, here is an even more clear statement in that regard by Clement of Alexandria, “Nor shall he who is saved be saved against his will, for he is not inanimate; but he will above all voluntarily and of free choice speed to salvation. Wherefore also man received the commandments in order that he might be self-impelled, to whatever he wished of things to be chosen and to be avoided. Wherefore God does not do good by necessity, but from His free choice benefits those who spontaneously turn.”

However, Justin Martyr probably makes the most clear rejection of any type of compatibilist free will that would adhere to the fatalistic view of God’s sovereignty which Calvinism adheres to when he writes, “We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it be fated that this man, e.g., be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be. But that it is by free choice they both walk uprightly and stumble, we thus demonstrate. We see the same man making a transition to opposite things. Now, if it had been fated that he were to be either good or bad, he could never have been capable of both the opposites, nor of so many transitions.”

There can be little doubt then that the early church fathers before Augustine held clearly to a libertarian version of freewill which made men responsible for their actions before God. The change in church history again comes from Augustine. He is the first to posit what many have called a compatibilist view of free will (although some would claim that by the end of his life he abandons this teaching for a view of bondage of the will). However this again should be tempered with the grain of salt that as Paul Eddy wrote, “Manichaeism – like other Gnostic expressions – naturally depends upon a strong soteriological determinism, wherein libertarian free will has no logical place.”  And Augustine for a 10 year period was a hearer of the Manichean sect. So what is apparent is that the church fathers before Augustine seem to be in full agreement with each other that man possesses libertarian freewill that makes him accountable before God. Augustine is the first one in over 300 years to posit something different into the church but it seems as though this may have been left over influence from a herectical sect he was apart of beforehand that may have continued to unknowingly influence his understanding of the scriptures. Now some may say that could be just a coincidence but this would appear to be a very big coincidence and it appears much more likely that the influences of his pasts seem to creep into his teaching in his later years.

Conclusion

After careful evaluation one must strongly consider that perhaps many of the assumptions that Calvinism is built on may actually be misconceptions that were ushered in by Augustine. It is a well-known fact that Calvin and other influential figures in Calvinism (such as Luther, Zwingli, and Beza) relied heavily on Augustine and considered him their most trusted source among the “church fathers.” This is especially the case when it comes to their understandings of God’s sovereignty and man’s free will. However, as shown throughout this paper Augustine himself may have been influenced by heretical sects of his past when he formulated his doctrines on these important understandings of God and man. As a result, it can be shown that his ideas on these subjects are at odds with virtually the entirety of church leaders before him. With this in mind one may conclude that it would be good for our modern day church culture to re-evaluate the discussion of God’s sovereignty and man’s free will with these misconceptions being brought to light. While doing this constantly keeping our presuppositions (and perhaps misconceptions) in check as we evaluate the Holy Scriptures to try to find the truths about both God and man that is held within them.

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

Barnard, Leslie William. “St. Justin Martyr: The First and Second Apologies (Ancient

          Christian Writers)” Mawah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1997.

 

Bercot, David. “A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs” Peabody, MA: Hendrickson

          Publishers, 1998.

 

 

Ciocchi, David M. “Suspending The Debate About Divine Sovereignty And Human

Freedom.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Work 51.3 (September

2009): 573-590.

 

Clement of Alexandria. “Miscellanies (Stromata)” Bottom of the Hill Publishing, 2012.

 

Cowan, Steven B. “Divine sovereignty and human responsibility: A compatibilist

reconciliation” University of Arkansas, ProQuest, UMI Dissertations Publishing, 1996. 9721254.

 

Ferguson, E. “Evangelical Dictionary of theology”, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker

          Academic, 2001.

 

Eddy, Paul Rhodes. “Can a leopard change its spots?: Augustine and the crypto-

          Manichaeism question” Scottish Journal of Theology62.3 (Aug 2009): 316-346.

 

Hart, David Bentley. “The Story of Christianity,”Quercus Books, 2007.

 

Klooster F. H. “Evangelical Dictionary of theology”, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker

          Academic, 2001.

 

Payne, George. “Lectures on divine sovereignty, election, the atonement, justification,

and regeneration” London : J. Dinnis, 1838.

 

Sungenis, Robert, “Not By Faith Alone,” Goleta, Queenship Publishing, 1997.

 

Walton, W. C. “The Scripture doctrine of divine sovereignty, viewed in connection with

man’s responsibility.” New York, Published by J. P. Haven, 1829.

 

Witherington, Ben, “A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on Paul’s Letter to the Romans,”

Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004.