Commenting
on (genuine) human free will in the Apostolic Fathers, Ken Wilson wrote:
I. Justin
Martyr and Tatian
The first author to write more specifically
on divine sovereignty and human free will is Justin Martyr (ca. 155 CE), Erwin Goodenough explained:
Justin everywhere is positive in his
assertion that the results of the struggle are fairly to be imputed to the
blame of each individual. The Stoic determinism he indignantly rejects. Unless
man is himself responsible for his ethical conduct, the entire ethical scheme
of the universe collapses, and with it the very existence of God himself. (The Theology of Justin Martyr [Jena:
Verlag Frommannsche Buchhandlung, 1923], 219)
Commenting on Dial. 140.4 and 141.2, Barnard concurred, saying God “foreknows
everything—not because events are necessary, not because he has decreed that
men shall act as they do or be what they are; but foreseeing all events he
ordains reward or punishment accordingly” (Justin
Martyr: His Life and Thought [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967],
78). After considering 1 Apol. 28 and
43, Chadwick also agreed. “Justin’s insistence on freedom and responsibility as
God’s gift to man and his criticism of Stoic fatalism and of all moral
relativism and so frequently repeated that it is safe to assume that here he
saw a distinctively Christian emphasis requiring special stress” (“Justin
Martyr’s Defence of Christianity,” Bulletin
of the John Rylands Library 47.2 [1965]: 284; cf., 291-292). Similarly,
Barnard wrote: “Justin, in spite of his failure to grasp the corporate nature
of sin, was no Pelagian blindly believing in man’s innate power to elevate
himself. All was due, he says, to the Incarnation of the Son of God” (Barnard
[1967], 156).
Tatian (ca.
165) taught that free choice for good was available to every person. “Since all
men have free will, all men therefore have the potential to turn to God to
achieve salvation” (Emily Hunt, Christianity
in the Second Century: The Case of Tatian [New York, N.Y.: Routledge,
2003], 49). This remains true even though Ada’s fall enslaved humans to sin (Or. 11.2) The fall is reversed through a
persona choice to receive God’s gift in Christ (Or. 15.4). Free choice was the basis of God’s rewards and
punishments for both angels and humans (Or.
7.1-2).
II.
Theophilus, Athengoras, and Melito
For Theophilus (ca. 180), all creation sinned in Adam and received the punishment
of physical decay, not eternal death or total inability (Autol. 2.17). Theophilus’ insistence upon a free choice response
to God (Autol. 2.27) occurs following
his longer discussion of the primeval state in the Garden and subsequent fall
of Adam. Christianity’s gracious God provides even fallen Adam with opportunity
for repentance and confession (Autol.
2.26). Theophilus exhorts Christians to overcome sin through their residual
free choice (Autol. 1.2, 1.7).
Athengoras (ca. 170 CE) believed infants were innocent and therefore could be
judged and used them as a proof for a bodily resurrection prior to judgment (De. resurr. 14). For God’s punishment to
be just, free choice stands paramount. Why?—because God created both angels and
persons with free choice for the purpose of assuming responsibility for their
own actions (De. resurr. 24.4-5)
(Barnard Pouderon, Athénagore d’Athènes,
philosophie chrétien [Paris: Beauchesne, 1989], 177-178). Humans and angels
can live virtuously or viciously: “This, says Ahenagoras, is a matter of free
choice, a free will given the creature by the creator” (David Rankin, Athenagoras: Philosopher and Theological [Surrey:
Ashgate, 2009], 180). Without free choice, the punishment or rewarding of both
humans and angels would be unjust.
In Peri
Pacha 326-388, Melito (ca. 175
CE) possibly surpassed any extant Chrisitan author in an extended description
depicting the devastation of Ada’s Fall (Stuart Hall, Melito of Sardis: On Pascha and Fragments in henry Chadwick, ed.
Oxford Early Christian Texts [Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978], xvi,
where The Petition to Antonius “is
now universally regarded as inauthentic.”) The scholar Lynn Cohick explained: “The
homilist leaves no doubt in the reader’s mind that humans have degenerated from
a pristine state in the garden of Eden, where they were morally innocent, to a
level of complete and utter perversion” (Lynn Cohick, The Peri Pascha Attributed to Melito of Sardis: Setting, Purpose, and
Sources [Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2009], 115). Despite this
profound depravity, all persons remain capable of believing in Christ through
their own God-given free choice. No special grace is needed. A cause and effect
relationship exists between human free choice and God’s response (P.P. 739-744). “There is no suggestion
that sinfulness is itself communicated to Adam’s progeny as a later Augustinian
teaching” (Hall [1978], xlii). (Ken Wilson, The
Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism [Regula Fidei Press, 2019], 21-24)
