In the Early Church, a dispute arose between Augustine and Pelagius. Augustine taught a doctrine called "Original Sin." Pelagius taught a doctrine called "Free Will." Pelagius was condemned as a heretic by the Early Church and to this day, most will consider him outside the boundaries of Orthodoxy. The term "semi-pelagian" was invented by later people within the Reformed protestant tradition that discribe those former theologians who tried to combine the two concepts of original sin and free will.
The subject of this thread is not to have yet another "free will" thread. There are enough of them. The question of this thread concerns the concept of Original sin. The question is this.... is the doctrine of Original sin incompatible with the doctrine of free will. Before turning over the discussion to everyone let me define the two terms.
ORIGINAL SIN
Genesis 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Original sin begins in the Garden of Eden in the command of God to Adam. The command may not have been given to Eve. We dont know, the text does not say. Eve was aware of the command, but that is unimportant. Eve was the first one to partake of the forbidden fruit, but that is not as meaningful as Adams sin, because Romans 5 tells us we are all in Adam. Nowhere in the bible are we "in Eve."
The threatened penalty for Adams sin was death. The question of original sin concerns the nature of that death. To be plain and straitforward, let me say that later scripture makes it clear that the nature of Adams death at his original sin was a both a physical and a spiritual death.
Paul developed the doctrine of original sin in Romans 5.
12 Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned:--
17 For if, by the trespass of the one, death reigned through the one;..........
18 So then as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men to condemnation;..........
19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners
It is clear from the above verses that God's curse on Adam the sinner includes the whole human race. We all not only sinned in Adam, we became sinners. We not only did evil in Adam, we became evil.
Notice verse 19, we not only sinned in Adam, we became sinners. From Adam's sin onward, the entire Human race became evil and rebellous against God. Just as Adam rebelled against God's command concerning the fruit of the tree, we became rebels against the will of God.
Paul further clarifies the concept of spiritual death in Adam in Ephesians 2.
1 And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins,
Death is spiritual here because we are dead in trespasses and sins. The use of the two terms is used to stress the nature of Adams rebellion (and ours). The consequences is in verse 3.
3 among whom we also all once lived in the lust of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest:--
The results is that human nature was changed at Adams fall. We are now, "by nature children of wrath." Notice the word "nature." It is our nature to rebel.
Paul in Romans 3 gives a discription of our rebellion.
11 There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God;
12 They have all turned aside, they are together become unprofitable; There is none that doeth good, no, not, so much as one:
Because of our nature, we do not seek God (vs 11). Because of our nature, none of us do good (vs 12). Is having faith good?
Hebrews 12:6 And without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him.
There is nothing better then to please God. Faith pleases God. How can a person do such good, and be under Origianl Sin?
Now for "Free will."
In my opinion, free will is difficult to define scripturally. People have so many different concepts of how to define free will. To make things simple, I am going to define free will as the ability of man to have faith. Let me now point to the different concepts of free will.
1---Westley/Arminianism------------ In this doctrine, Arminian/Westlians believe that man is totally depraved and cannot have faith. However, they also believe that God does a universal prevenient (preceeding salvation) work of Grace in which he restores a universal free will among all men. Common texts used by Westlians are texts like John 12:32. I would dispute this as correct exgesis, but will not do it at this time.
2---Semi-Pelagianism--------- In this doctrine, Original sin is affirmed, but Original sin is seen to only mean that mankind has a tendency to sin. Man is so weakened by the fall, that he always fails to be perfect. In this doctrine, no universal prevenient work of grace is needed to restore man to his "Free will."
3--- Some Calvinists------ A few Calvinists have used the term "free will." Men such as John MacArther have said "man has the free will to choose any path of sin he desires. This group moves the definition away from the concept of the ability to have faith. They make the concept of free will to simply mean that one can make a choice. They stress that man cannot make the good and righteous decision of faith, but that he has the ability to choose his path of sin and rebellion according to his personal preference.
Now, for the question. Do you see the doctrine of free will and orginal sin as compatible, and how would they blend together in a consistent doctrine?
The subject of this thread is not to have yet another "free will" thread. There are enough of them. The question of this thread concerns the concept of Original sin. The question is this.... is the doctrine of Original sin incompatible with the doctrine of free will. Before turning over the discussion to everyone let me define the two terms.
ORIGINAL SIN
Genesis 2:17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.
Original sin begins in the Garden of Eden in the command of God to Adam. The command may not have been given to Eve. We dont know, the text does not say. Eve was aware of the command, but that is unimportant. Eve was the first one to partake of the forbidden fruit, but that is not as meaningful as Adams sin, because Romans 5 tells us we are all in Adam. Nowhere in the bible are we "in Eve."
The threatened penalty for Adams sin was death. The question of original sin concerns the nature of that death. To be plain and straitforward, let me say that later scripture makes it clear that the nature of Adams death at his original sin was a both a physical and a spiritual death.
Paul developed the doctrine of original sin in Romans 5.
12 Therefore, as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin; and so death passed unto all men, for that all sinned:--
17 For if, by the trespass of the one, death reigned through the one;..........
18 So then as through one trespass the judgment came unto all men to condemnation;..........
19 For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners
It is clear from the above verses that God's curse on Adam the sinner includes the whole human race. We all not only sinned in Adam, we became sinners. We not only did evil in Adam, we became evil.
Notice verse 19, we not only sinned in Adam, we became sinners. From Adam's sin onward, the entire Human race became evil and rebellous against God. Just as Adam rebelled against God's command concerning the fruit of the tree, we became rebels against the will of God.
Paul further clarifies the concept of spiritual death in Adam in Ephesians 2.
1 And you did he make alive, when ye were dead through your trespasses and sins,
Death is spiritual here because we are dead in trespasses and sins. The use of the two terms is used to stress the nature of Adams rebellion (and ours). The consequences is in verse 3.
3 among whom we also all once lived in the lust of our flesh, doing the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest:--
The results is that human nature was changed at Adams fall. We are now, "by nature children of wrath." Notice the word "nature." It is our nature to rebel.
Paul in Romans 3 gives a discription of our rebellion.
11 There is none that understandeth, There is none that seeketh after God;
12 They have all turned aside, they are together become unprofitable; There is none that doeth good, no, not, so much as one:
Because of our nature, we do not seek God (vs 11). Because of our nature, none of us do good (vs 12). Is having faith good?
Hebrews 12:6 And without faith it is impossible to be well-pleasing unto him; for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that seek after him.
There is nothing better then to please God. Faith pleases God. How can a person do such good, and be under Origianl Sin?
Now for "Free will."
In my opinion, free will is difficult to define scripturally. People have so many different concepts of how to define free will. To make things simple, I am going to define free will as the ability of man to have faith. Let me now point to the different concepts of free will.
1---Westley/Arminianism------------ In this doctrine, Arminian/Westlians believe that man is totally depraved and cannot have faith. However, they also believe that God does a universal prevenient (preceeding salvation) work of Grace in which he restores a universal free will among all men. Common texts used by Westlians are texts like John 12:32. I would dispute this as correct exgesis, but will not do it at this time.
2---Semi-Pelagianism--------- In this doctrine, Original sin is affirmed, but Original sin is seen to only mean that mankind has a tendency to sin. Man is so weakened by the fall, that he always fails to be perfect. In this doctrine, no universal prevenient work of grace is needed to restore man to his "Free will."
3--- Some Calvinists------ A few Calvinists have used the term "free will." Men such as John MacArther have said "man has the free will to choose any path of sin he desires. This group moves the definition away from the concept of the ability to have faith. They make the concept of free will to simply mean that one can make a choice. They stress that man cannot make the good and righteous decision of faith, but that he has the ability to choose his path of sin and rebellion according to his personal preference.
Now, for the question. Do you see the doctrine of free will and orginal sin as compatible, and how would they blend together in a consistent doctrine?