Original
Sin: Historic Biblical Truth, or Gnostic Error as Alleged by Pelagians?
By Keith
Thompson
Sections:
-
Introduction
- Pre-Augustine Christians on Original Sin/Depravity and the Necessity of Grace
- A Few Early Christians Influenced by Paganism Retained Free Will in Spite of the Biblical Teaching (Justin Martyr et al)
- Significant and Substantial Differences Between Orthodox Original Sin and Predestination vs. Gnostic Views Contra Morrell
- Glaring Biblical Errors in Morrell’s Film
- Conclusion
- Pre-Augustine Christians on Original Sin/Depravity and the Necessity of Grace
- A Few Early Christians Influenced by Paganism Retained Free Will in Spite of the Biblical Teaching (Justin Martyr et al)
- Significant and Substantial Differences Between Orthodox Original Sin and Predestination vs. Gnostic Views Contra Morrell
- Glaring Biblical Errors in Morrell’s Film
- Conclusion
Introduction
For Part 2 of our reply click here.
In his fifty-four minute documentary film the Pelagian and Open Theist Jesse Morrell’s thesis is that St. Augustine’s orthodox biblical teaching on original sin (i.e., all men receive a sinful nature due to the fall of man as well as Adam’s guilt imputed) finds its roots in Manichaeism, Marcionism and earlier Gnostic teachings. He tries to show the early church before Augustine affirmed libertarian free will or man’s natural ability to seek and obey God apart from grace. This Morrell does to try to validate his Pelagian beliefs as historical. He attempts to prove the Reformed doctrine of man’s depravity due to original sin is ahistorical. Otherwise put, this film is nothing less than an assault on the historic doctrine of original sin. We will therefore critique his revisionist attempt at history and document how Morrell’s thesis is full of errors. We will prove he often quotes forgeries instead of the ancient authors’ real works. We will show the doctrine of original sin is the historic doctrine of the church and that Morrell’s unbiblical Pelagian view of man’s natural ability to choose and will good autonomously is akin to Paganism.
Morrell acknowledges that the early
historic councils of the Christian church condemned his Pelagian beliefs: again
the denial of original sin-nature and affirmation of man’s natural ability. For
example in A.D. 411 Pelagius’s student Caelestius was condemned by a local
synod of Christians in Carthage North Africa for his denial of original sin.
They also refused him ordination since he was unfit to lead as a heretic. This
was before Augustine even entered the debate on Pelagianism, free will and
original sin. Augustine was not at this council but would wait until the next
year to enter into the Pelagian debate through writing (Williston Walker, A History of the Christian Church, 4th
ed., [Scribner, 1985], pp. 207-208). Things like this help to refute the
picture Morrell tries to paint in his film. He makes it as though Augustine was
the one responsible for the doctrine of original sin entering the Church
thereby causing an alleged division in the church.
Contra Morrell’s crooked painting, Christians in Africa, and all over the word, long before Augustine held to original sin. That’s why they held to the practice of baptizing infants for example. The African Church writer Cyprian died in A.D. 258 long before Augustine was born. He affirmed infant baptism due to the fact that infants contract original sin. He stated the following in the context of rejecting the practice that infants should have to wait eight whole days before being baptized: “This recently born infant has not sinned except that, being born physically according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion/infection of the ancient death at his birth” (Cyprian, Letter 58.5). Although I disagree with infant baptism this does refute Morrell so it is relevant to note. We will go into more pre-Augustine material affirming original sin and man’s inability apart from grace in later.
Contra Morrell’s crooked painting, Christians in Africa, and all over the word, long before Augustine held to original sin. That’s why they held to the practice of baptizing infants for example. The African Church writer Cyprian died in A.D. 258 long before Augustine was born. He affirmed infant baptism due to the fact that infants contract original sin. He stated the following in the context of rejecting the practice that infants should have to wait eight whole days before being baptized: “This recently born infant has not sinned except that, being born physically according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion/infection of the ancient death at his birth” (Cyprian, Letter 58.5). Although I disagree with infant baptism this does refute Morrell so it is relevant to note. We will go into more pre-Augustine material affirming original sin and man’s inability apart from grace in later.
In A.D. 418 the Council of Carthage in Africa comprised of various Christian leaders condemned Pelagius and his student Caelestius for denying the biblical truth of original sin and man’s fallenness. Moreover, in A.D. 431 the council of Ephesus ratified this condemnation of Morrell’s Pelagian heresy. Later the council of Orange in A. D. 529 condemned semi-pelagianism which taught coming to God was possible by free will apart from grace, while remaining in God afterwards required grace. This was also denied as unbiblical error since Scripture is clear we don’t come to God freely but only by His assistance or grace since we’re corrupt by nature. Thus the church has been clear on this insofar as the early councils are concerned.
In light of this Morrell, in the
beginning of his film, asserts the Christian church got this issue wrong and he
even identifies the doctrine of original sin as heretical. He argues the church
went off track concerning original sin similar to a court trial giving a wrong
sentence or verdict. However, if Morrell is right then that would mean Jesus made
false promises and prophecies concerning His church not being overcome with
heresy and error. For, in Matthew 16:18 Jesus said the gates of hell would not
prevail against His church. In John 16:13 Jesus said “When the Spirit of truth
comes, he will guide you into all the truth (John 16:13),” thus affirming God’s
people will have the Spirit and be led to truth and not error. Finally, Jesus
said, “I am with you always, even unto the end of the world” (Matthew 28:20).
So, if Morrell is right about the church from early times until today being
overcome by major heresy on such a broad scale, then that would mean Jesus made
false promises and prophecies to His church. It would mean the gates of hell
prevailed over His Church and that Jesus was wrong about Him and His Spirit,
who leads into truth, being with the church until the end of time.
Within the first five minutes of his
film Morrell quotes two early 19th century authors I never heard of, James
Miller and John Murray (edit Jan. 27, 2013: Morrell's strange sourcing style
led me to think Miller and Murray wrote those works, but they actually
published them. Beausobre and W. F. Hook actually wrote them, never heard of
them either), writing as though the early church universally rejected
original sin and held to libertarian free will (libertarian free will meaning
man is free to act or choose apart from God’s eternal determinations or
constraints of nature). These authors claim it was the Manichean Gnostics who
were responsible for denying free will and teaching that man is fallen and
thereby in need of grace to obey God. This, again, is Morrell’s main contention
in the film.
If Morrell is correct on this point
then when we examine the writings of the many early orthodox Christians before
Augustine, we should not find that they believed original sin like he did. Nor
should we find that they taught the necessity of grace to obey God due to man’s
fallen condition like he did. After all, Augustine introduced these teachings
to the church which he got from Manichaean Gnostics, right? This is, however,
precisely what one does find in the pre-Augustine early church period contra
Morrell’s false revision of history. Once it is proven that original sin and
the necessity of grace to obey are pre-Augustinian orthodox Christian
doctrines, this will render erroneous Morrell’s entire premise that the early
Christians denied original sin and that Gnosticism is responsible for it.
Pre-Augustine Christians on Original Sin/Depravity and the
Necessity of Grace
In the film Morrell parrots the Pelagian accusation that Augustine adopted the doctrine of original sin and man’s fallenness from Manichaeism (a later form of Gnosticism) and not from church writers before him or the Bible. A young Pelagian named Julian who lived during Augustine’s time seems to be responsible for this obtuse accusation against Augustine. Julian wrote a four-volume work trying to defend the errors of his teacher Pelagius (Morrell’s teacher as well), refute Augustine and original sin, and prove Augustine’s teaching was akin to Gnosticism.
However Augustine responded with the
work titled Against Julian
sufficiently refuting all of Julian’s arguments. In it Augustine proved the
Christian church writers before him affirmed the doctrine of original sin and
man’s fallenness by pooling many of their writings. That utterly refuted any
attempt to credit this biblical doctrine to Gnosticism. So I don’t understand
why modern Pelagians of today such as Morrell continue in their quests of
revisionism on this issue. Thus I will appeal to Augustine’s citations of those
orthodox Christians before him for this paper. I will also appeal to John
Gill’s tome The Cause of God and Truth
which documents, among other doctrines, the teaching of original sin and human
depravity in the early church writers prior to Augustine. I will also appeal to
Philip Schaff’s monumental History of the
Christian Church, Gregg Allison’s recent tome Historical Theology which is a systematic theology of the early
church’s teachings, as well as J. N. D. Kelly’s classic work Early Christian Doctrines among other
works.
Right at the outset of his work Against
Julian Augustine stated something ironic which is fitting for this
situation: “I ask why you boast that you have at least externally replied to my
book when in your four books you have not even touched upon a quarter of my one
book to refute it” (Augustine, Against
Julian, Book I). It has always been a Pelagian trend to not address the
best of, and all of, the other side. In fact although Morrell presents himself
as addressing this issue sufficiently in his film, in reality he has not at all
addressed the case for original sin’s historicity offered by those works I mentioned
above. He has given a very one-sided error-ridden painting of history involving
much deception by omission. If he wanted to seriously engage this issue, his
film would have needed to interact with those serious works I mentioned.
Moreover, near the end of Book 4 of
Augustine’s reply he catches Julian dishonestly misquoting him and adding words
to past statements he said to try to make him say something he didn’t. Morrell
does something similar in the film since, as I mentioned, he quotes spurious sources
written in the name of early Christians and also longer versions of early
Christian writings which are only longer because a later forger added extra
words. We will prove this in a minute.
Contra Morrell, respected church
historian Philip Schaff noted that the Latin fathers before Augustine were
quite clear on the doctrine of original sin: “…the Latin fathers, especially
Tertullian, and Cyprian, Hilary and Ambrose…emphasized the hereditary sin and
hereditary guilt of man, and the sovereignty of God’s grace, without however,
denying freedom and individual accountability” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3,
[Hendrickson Publishers, 2011], p. 786). Augustine picked up on this biblical
and historical teaching later. So according to serious historians, it’s
erroneous for Morrell to argue Augustine introduced original sin to the church
from Gnosticism. That’s not at all true. The doctrine has a rich history in the
Christian church long before Augustine as I will now prove.
Clement of Rome
was an early Christian secretary for the Church at Rome. He died around A.D.
101. At 7:13 minutes Morrell quotes him as uttering the following in support of
free will and man’s natural ability: “For no other reason does God punish the
sinner either in the present or in the future world, except because he knows
that the sinner was able to conquer but neglected to gain the victory.” And the
source Morrell gives for this quote is “Recognitions of Clement of Rome 111.
23. V. 8, IX. 30.” However, it is well known the Recognitions are part
of the pseudo-Clementine literature. In other words it’s a late forgery not
actually written by Clement.
As textual scholar Bart Ehrman
notes: “Both the Recognitions and Homilies are forged in the name
of Clement himself…. The Recognitions are dated to 360-380 but survive
only in the Latin translation of Rufinus” (Bart Ehrman, Forgery and Counter-forgery: The Use of Literary Deceit in Early
Christian Polemics, [Oxford University Press, 2013], p. 312, n. 63). What
is more, in his work History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, chapter 13
in section 163 under the title “The Pseudo-Clementine Works” church historian
Philip Schaff lists the Recognitions Morrell quoted from. This
demonstrates Morrell has to use spurious writings to defend his revisionist
arguments against the primitive doctrine of original sin. In reality Clement
affirmed man’s fallen state and need for grace to obey God. In a work he
actually wrote called Letter to the Corinthians he remarked: “All
therefore are glorified and magnified, not by themselves or their own works of
righteous actions, which they have wrought out, but by his will”
(Clement, Letter to the Corinthians,
32. 3, quoted in John Gill, The Cause of
God and Truth, [The Baptist Standard Bearer, Inc. 1999], p. 715).
Ignatius of Antioch
was an early student of the Apostles such as John. From 7:38 to 8:08 minutes
Morrell quotes from what is known as the “long version” of his letter to the
Magnesians. It’s called the long version because there is also a short version
of the letter. Interestingly what Morrell quotes in support of free will and
man’s natural ability from chapter 5 of the long version is not contained in
the short version at all. The Problem is that as Bryan M. Litfin notes in his
work Getting to Know the Church Fathers: An Evangelical Introduction,
“The editors of the Ante-Nicene Fathers series have chosen to print two
different manuscript versions of the letters of Ignatius, which they call
‘longer’ and ‘shorter’ versions. As you read, simply ignore the ‘longer’
version, which has been determined by modern scholars not to be authentic. It
is the product of a later theologian putting words into Ignatius’s mouth. The
‘shorter’ version printed in the left-hand column of the ANF is what Ignatius
actually wrote” (Bryan M. Litfin, Getting
to Know the Church Fathers: An Evangelical Introduction, [Brazos Press,
2007], p. 271. n. 11). Thus, again we see Morrell either knowingly or
unknowingly misleading his viewers with spurious quotations. It’s interesting
that the later dishonest forgers of these works and Morrell are in agreement on
this doctrinal issue.
What Ignatius actually believed,
according to his actual writings, was that: “They that are carnal cannot
do the things that are spiritual, nor they that are spiritual do the things
that are carnal, as neither faith the things of unbelief, nor unbelief the
things of faith” (Ignatius, Epistle to the Ephesians, Ch. 8, quoted
in John Gill, The Cause of God and Truth, p. 717). He also notes that
God makes Christians and preserves them, we don’t make ourselves Christian
through natural ability: “The Christian is not the work of persuasion but of
greatness; that is, of the exceeding greatness of God’s power, which is
wonderfully displayed in making the Christian, in continuing, preserving, and
supporting him as such especially, as he observes, when he is hated by the
world” (Ignatius, Epistle to the Romans,
Ch. 3, quoted in John Gill, The Cause of
God and Truth, [The Baptist Standard Bearer, Inc. 1999], p. 717).
Tertullian
was an early African apologist born A.D. 160 died in A.D. 200. Morrell quotes
him as denying the heretic Marcion’s idea that men are either born good or bad.
And Tertullian believed if that were true then the one’s born bad by necessity
ought to not be punished. Morrell quotes him at 10:42 minutes: “But the reward
neither of good nor of evil could be paid to the man who should be found to
have been either good or evil through necessity and not choice” (Tertullian, Against Marcion, Book II. Ch. 6). Thus
what Tertullian combated was not that all men receive a fallen nature, nor did
he address the Reformed view of predestination which says everyone is born
sinful but some are elected to good (he doesn’t mention that). What he
challenges is the idea that some are born good and some not. Those who hold to
original sin or total depravity don’t believe that. We affirm everyone is born
bad and in need of grace. So there is no parallel. Morrell also quotes
Tertullian saying man is free to do obedience or disobedience in chapter 5 of
the same work.
However, his idea of human freedom
needs to be understood in light of his broader teaching on the natural
condition of man due to Adam’s sin. He very clearly taught original sin so
anyone who wishes to present him out of context as a Pelagian must interact
with the following. Gregg Allison quotes him: “We have indeed borne the image
of the earthly [the image of Adam], by our sharing in his transgression, by our
participation in his death, and by our banishment from paradise” (Tertullian, On the Resurrection of the Flesh, 49,
quoted in Gregg Allison, Historical
Theology, [Zondervan, 2011], p. 344). Moreover, Tertullian said human sin
is, “evil which arises from its [the soul’s] corrupt origin” (Tertullian, Treatise on the Soul, 41, quoted in
Gregg Allison, Historical Theology,
[Zondervan, 2011], p. 344). In sum church historian J. N. D. Kelly notes
Tertullian’s view of both original sin and free will, contra Morrell’s picture
which has Tertullian affirming free will and denying original sin: “Yet
free-will is not the only source of our misdeeds, account must be taken of the
bias towards sin in which Adam’s transgression has involved mankind” (J. N. D.
Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines,
[Harper One, 1978], p. 175).
With numerous errors like this
piling up already in the first eleven minutes of the film, it is clear that
Morrell’s grasp of church history is inadequate and he should not be assuming
the role of teacher on these important issues. For the rest of this section we
will focus on refuting his central thesis by proving early orthodox Christian
writers affirmed original sin (and hence denied man’s natural ability) thus
disproving the false idea that Augustine brought this in from Gnosticism (a
concept we will also address later in a fuller fashion).
Ambrose of Milan was an archbishop who lived from A.D. 330 – 397.
Augustine quotes him explicitly affirming original sin and man inheriting sin
nature thereby refuting any attempt to credit this teaching to Gnosticism.
Ambrose stated: “In Adam we all die, because through one man sin entered into
the world and through sin death, and thus it has passed unto all men; in whom
all have sinned. His guilt, therefore, is the death of all” (Ambrose, Expositio evangelii secundum Lucam 4:58,
quoted in Augustine, Against Julian,
Book I). He also stated, “For every man is a liar and no one is without sin
except God alone. It remains true, therefore, that from man and woman, that is,
through that union of bodies, no one may be seen to be without sin” (Ambrose, Expositio Isaiae prophetae, quoted in
Augustine, Against Julian, Book I).
Hilary of Poitiers
was an early bishop who lived from A.D. 300 to 368. John Gill quotes him
commenting on Psalm 51:5, “Who will boast that he has a pure heart before God?
No, not an infant, though but of one day, the original and law of sin remaining
in us” (Hilary, Euarr. in Psal. 58,
quoted in John Gill, The Cause of God and
Truth, [The Baptist Standard Bearer, Inc. 1999], p. 743). And: “He [David]
knew that he was born, under original sin, and under the law of sin” (Hilary, Commentary on Psalm 118, 22, quoted in
John Gill, The Cause of God and Truth,
[The Baptist Standard Bearer, Inc. 1999], p. 743).
Cyprian was an
early Christian writer. He died in A.D. 258. That he affirmed original sin and
denied man’s natural ability is clear from the statement above where we quoted
him. He also denied man’s natural ability stating: “Whatsoever is grateful, is
to be ascribed not to man’s power, but to God’s gift” (Cyprian, Epistle 1, 4, quoted in John Gill, The Cause of God and Truth, [The Baptist
Standard Bearer, Inc. 1999], p. 730). And concerning Cyprians overall view
church historian Gregg Allison notes, “For Cyprian, baptism of infants is
necessary not because newborn children have committed any personal sin, but
because they have inherited sin and death from their first father, Adam” (Gregg
Allison, Historical Theology,
[Zondervan, 2011], p. 344).
Lactantius
A.D. 240 – 320 affirmed the biblical truth of the impossibility of sinless
perfection in this life due to original sin – a truth the Pelagians deny and
scoff at. He stated, “No man can be without sin as long as he is burdened with
the clothing of the flesh, whose infirmity is subject three ways to the
dominion of sin, by deeds, words, and thoughts; therefore just men, who can
restrain themselves from every unjust work, yet sometimes are overcome through
frailty itself, that either they say that which is evil in anger, or upon sight
of things delightful, lust after them in secret thought” (Lactantius, Divin. Institut. 1. 6, c. 13, quoted in
John Gill, The Cause of God and Truth,
[The Baptist Standard Bearer, Inc. 1999], p. 734). He teaches the necessity of
God enabling fallen blind man who can not come to truth apart from God’s hand:
“We who before as blind men, and as shut up in the prison of folly, sat in
darkness, ignorant of God and truth, are enlightened
by God, who hath adopted us in his covenant, and being delivered from evil
bonds, and brought into the light of wisdom, he hath took into the inheritance
of the heavenly kingdom” (Lactantius, Divin.
Institut. 1. 4, c. 20, quoted in John Gill, The Cause of God and Truth, [The Baptist Standard Bearer, Inc.
1999], p. 734). On this same note he also said, “…man cannot himself come to
this knowledge, unless he is taught of God” (Lactantius, Divin. Institut. 1. 2, c. 3, John Gill, The Cause of God and Truth, [The Baptist Standard Bearer, Inc.
1999], p. 734).
All of these early Christians before
Augustine affirmed what Morrell claims Augustine introduced into the church
from Gnosticism. With respect to certain early fathers of the east affirming
free will, which is what Morrell focuses on quite a bit, J. N. D. Kelly notes
that although they affirmed a sense of free will, that does not mean they
denied original sin or man inheriting sin nature and guilt from Adam thereby
being in need of grace. He notes that the eastern fathers’ “tendency is to view
original sin as a wound inflicted on our nature” (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, [Harper One,
1978], p. 350) and he quotes various eastern fathers to establish that such as
Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus. Morrell rejects the biblical
teaching that original sin is a wound inflicted on our nature. He doesn’t
believe Adam’s sin inflicts our nature at all. His error is not taking into
account these same fathers’ teaching on original sin since he assumes their
understanding of free will negates any notion of original sin. That’s wrong,
however. So his exposition of the few fathers he selected is folly (we will
focus on Irenaeus and Justin Martyr later).
I could quote many more early
orthodox Christian writers which Augustine, Gill, Allison, and Kelly quote,
affirming man’s sinful nature and inability due to the fall, but that should be
sufficient to demonstrate that Augustine did not introduce this doctrine into
the church from Gnosticism.
Augustine stated the following to
the heretic Julian after refuting him historically:
“Have Pelagius and Celestius such power over you that you dare not only to desert, but even to call Manichaeans, so many great doctors and defenders of the Catholic [universal] faith, ancient and contemporary, from the rising of the sun to its setting, some fallen asleep and others still with us? I wonder how this can ever come from your mouth which the perverseness of your error yet compels you to proclaim” (Augustine, Against Julian, Book I, Ch. 5).
And:
“I have shown how many great and worthy men, defenders and teachers of the Catholic [universal] faith, you falsely make Manichaean’s” (Augustine, Against Julian, Book I, Ch. 8).
Now, to briefly answer the tone of
the film which has Augustine as some conspirator trying to infect the alleged
synergistic free will church with the doctrine of original sin and God’s
sovereignty over salvation, Philip Schaff explains why Augustine, the ancient
Latin Church (many in the east also did), and every modern Christian affirm
original sin and our need for God’s grace:
“…the Latin church, under the influence of Augustine, advanced to the system divine monergism, which gives God all the glory, and makes freedom itself a result of grace; while Pelagianism [Morrell’s heresy], on the contrary, represented the principle of a human monergism, which ascribes chief merit of conversion to man, and reduces grace to a mere external auxiliary” (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3, [Hendrickson Publishers, 2011], p. 786).
Indeed, if Scripture is wrong and
Morrell’s Pelagianism is right and man is not born with a sin nature in need of
grace to come to, and obey, God, then that means man deserves credit or glory
for coming to God. He can logically have that credit or glory in the Pelagian
system. In Pelagianism man can come to God and obey on his own because he has
no sinful nature. What happens in this system is that the glory God deserves
for granting man grace and taking him out of his fallen sinful state is given to
man.
Christians seek to glorify God and
give Him all glory for salvation. They make sure their system honours God’s
glory because the Bible tells us to. As Ephesians 2:8-9 states: “by grace you
have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift
of God, 9not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Ephesians 2:8-9).
Suffice it to say, in answer to the
question posed in Morrell’s video subtitle on youtube, “Did Augustine Corrupt
The Church With Gnostic Doctrine?” the answer much surely be answered in the
negative in light of the historical evidence.
A Few Early Christians Influenced by Paganism Retained Free
Will in Spite of the Biblical Teaching (Justin Martyr et al)
The question must now be asked: why
were a few early eastern Christian writers so adamant about man being free or
having a libertarian free will when clearly this teaching is unbiblical since
Holy Scripture presents man as dead in sin and in need of grace? From 9:30 to
10:26 minutes of the film Morrell quotes Justin Martyr (A. D. 100 – 165) as
affirming free will and man’s natural ability. He does this in the hopes of
convincing his viewers that the early church as a whole denied man’s sinful
nature and affirmed his natural ability or free will (though we already refuted
that position concerning the early church).
However, firstly, it’s well known
Justin Martyr came to Christianity from Paganism. Schaff and Walker both note
that Justin Martyr was an uncircumcised heathen or pagan before his conversion,
ignorant of Moses and the prophets, was into pagan philosophy and was part of
the pagan Platonist tradition (Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 2, [Hendrickson, 2011], p.
712; Williston Walker, A History of the
Christian Church, [Scribner, 1985], p. 54).
Well what is the relevance of noting
Justin was a pagan before converting to Christianity in regards to free will?
Robert A. Morey explains:
“The pagan worldview taught that man was autonomous in an absolute sense. He was totally and absolutely ‘free’ and even the gods could not violate this freedom. The Greek philosophers were the first to articulate the idea that man had a ‘free will’ and that no one, not even a god, could violate it. The Greek philosopher Epictetus wrote,Not even Zeus himself can get the better of my free will.216Who can any longer restrain or compel me, contrary to my own opinion? No more than Zeus.217In a contingent (i.e., chance-driven) universe in which no one was in control, not even the gods, man was totally free to be or do whatever he wanted….The pagan philosophers claimed that man had to be ‘free’ in order for man to be responsible because they assumed that man was the measure of all things including his responsibility . . . Man’s responsibility was thus limited by two things: ignorance and inability. . . .There was no concept in the pagan worldview that man’s responsibility meant accountability to his Creator who would one day judge him. Thus the pagan concept of man’s autonomous ‘free will’ was possible only in the context of that pagan polytheistic worldview.When pagans first professed to be ‘Christians,’ some of them retained much of their pagan worldview” (Robert A. Morey, The Bible, Natural Theology and Natural Law: Conflict or Compromise?, [Christian Scholars Press, e2010], pp. 192-193).
This is precisely the case with
Morrell’s quotation of Justin Martyr where Justin claims in order to be blamed
man must be free. This is pagan philosophy. The Bible never makes that argument
or gives that condition. It must be understood that the early Christians were
surrounded by paganism which taught the absolute free will of man. So it’s no
surprise that some early Christian writers influenced by dominant pagan thought
in their society assumed this heathen concept taking it for granted. So
although Morrell unsuccessfully tried to show that the biblical teaching of
original sin is a Gnostic teaching, the reality is that his libertarian free
will idea is a pagan teaching resulting from the minds of lost men in false
religions who never knew the true God.
When Morrell shows a few early
church writers who were influenced by paganism to affirm libertarian free will
in their writings, he does not establish that the church as a whole adopted
this pagan teaching he so boldly embraces. Those early writers were not truly
influenced by the biblical texts to affirm their idea of free will. Their pagan
past resulted in them teaching it, and reading Scripture through that pagan
lens, in spite of the biblical teaching of man’s deadness in sin and
subordination to God’s control.
Although positive things can be said about Justin Martyr, and I in no way wish to take away from the good which is contained in his works, the fact is that he was wrong about the idea of free will which he retained from his pagan past. In light of Justin being a former Platonist pagan, it’s interesting to note the scholar Leslie William Barnard’s words:
Although positive things can be said about Justin Martyr, and I in no way wish to take away from the good which is contained in his works, the fact is that he was wrong about the idea of free will which he retained from his pagan past. In light of Justin being a former Platonist pagan, it’s interesting to note the scholar Leslie William Barnard’s words:
“Justin is very close to both popular Judaism and Middle Platonism in his conviction that personal responsibility lies solely in one’s power of choice and that all persons are endowed with ability to choose the good if they so wish” (Leslie William Barnard, The First and Second Apologies, [Paulist Press, 1997], p. 156).
Significant and Substantial Differences Between Orthodox
Original Sin and Predestination vs. Gnostic Views Contra Morrell
From 21:04 to 21:25 minutes Morrell
quotes a person named David Bercot as an authority. Bercot claims the early church
believed free will and didn’t believe that man was fallen and in need of grace
to obey (an error we already addressed earlier). He also claims the group which
did affirm man was depraved were the Gnostics, allegedly.
However, first, Bercot is the same
careless person who, in the same book Morrell quotes, namely Will the Real Heretics Please Stand Up?,
falsely claims that Martin Luther taught Scripture is the only authority. He
also denies the Bible and early church teach justification by faith and that
works are evidence of salvation. This means he is a heretic who includes works
in salvation (David W. Bercot, Will the
Real Heretics Please Stand Up: A New Look at Today's Evangelical Church in the
Light of Early Christianity, [Scroll Publishing Co., 1989], pp. 57-68,
147). However, those are easily documentable errors. Luther believed Scripture
was the ultimate authority, not the only authority (“Among the
sixteenth-century reformers the principle of sola scriptura…meant that
scripture was the supreme authority over all other authorities” John A.
Maxfield, Luther's Lectures on Genesis
and the Formation of Evangelical Identity, [Truman State University Press,
2008], p. 43).
Moreover, the Bible and a strong
strand of patristic thought make it clear that we’re justified by faith alone
on the basis on Christ’s perfect work and that good works follow as evidence of
salvation. For proof of this teaching in the early church fathers see Thomas
Oden’s The Justification Reader and
Nick Needham’s essay in the book Justification
in Perspective. These are basic level errors serious writers don’t make. So
I question Morrell’s decision to cite Bercot as an authority.
Second, when one responsibly
compares the Christian ideas of original sin and predestination with the various
Gnostic views, the alleged connection between the two evaporates. We’ve already
proven the Christian tradition of original sin is not dependent on Augustine or
Manichaeism but can be found in early strands of patristic thought (one could
also go back further to the Bible and strands of pre-Christian Judaism but that
is for another paper). However, it’s still important to prove that the
Christian and Gnostic views are not at all the same contra Morrell.
Irenaeus is quoted from 8:24 to 9:22 minutes of the film saying man
has free will, is free from any compulsion of God, and that the alleged Gnostic
idea that some are good and some are bad due to the nature they’re born with is
wrong (keep in mind paganism’s surrounding cultural influence on Christianity
and Irenaeus being educated at Greek pagan institutions cf. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 2,
[Hendrickson, 2011], p. 747). Irenaeus’ writings against the Gnostics have led
older generations of scholars to understand Gnosticism as teaching that some
people are born with the material nature, others with psychic nature, and still
others with pneumatic nature. And because all material is evil in Gnosticism
the man with the material nature is corrupt and without hope. The psychic man possessed
a soul and free will, and the pneumatic or spiritual man possessed spirit and
was therefore saved by virtue of his nature since, again, in Gnosticism
spiritual is good and matter is evil (Michael Allen Williams, Rethinking "Gnosticism": An
Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category, [Princeton University Press,
1999], p. 190).
However first, even if this was the
early Gnostic view (which it wasn’t since, as I will argue, Irenaeus
misunderstood the Gnostic position according to many scholars) that concept is
nothing like the doctrine of original sin held by Christians. We don’t affirm
there are three possible natures one can be born with and, depending on which
one you receive, you are either damned, free or saved. No, we affirm every
human without exception is born fallen and corrupt, not because matter is evil,
but because Scripture overwhelmingly teaches we receive a sinful nature or
constitution from Adam at birth as well as his guilt. As Romans 5:19 says, “as
by the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners…” (Romans 5:19). And
we affirm that people are saved in spite of their nature, not because of it as
is the case in this Gnostic paradigm. So there is no real similarity between
the Gnostic ideas and the biblical and historical doctrine of original sin.
In this idea you’re destined based
on what nature you were born with. In biblical predestination you’re
predestined despite your future fallen nature based on the pleasure of God’s
unchanging eternal good will or choice (Ephesians 1:3-5). The only real
similarity is both believe a form of destiny. But then again, all traditions
alleging to be Christian have to have a form of destiny or predestination since
those words and concepts are found in Scripture (Acts 13:48; Romans 8:29-30; 1
Thessalonians 5:19; Ephesians 1:5, 11). So if biblical Christianity is in error
because both Gnosticism and it believe in some different forms of destiny and
predestination, then all Christian traditions are in error because they also
have forms of destiny and predestination in their systems – if they wish to
base their teaching on Scripture, that is. But as is clear the concepts are not
at all the same in Christianity and Gnosticism despite Morrell’s claims.
I don’t have the space to go into
fine detail but as I mentioned before, many scholars are moving toward the idea
that Irenaeus misunderstood Gnosticism since Gnosticism didn’t hold to the idea
that your nature determined your destiny. In a groundbreaking work published by
Princeton University Press the scholar Michael Allen Williams in the book Rethinking
‘Gnosticism’ has argued that older generations of scholars (i.e., like the
few Morrell appealed to) are guilty of misrepresenting Gnosticism based on
Irenaeus’ misunderstanding of it. On page 190 Williams explains the
understanding I spoke about earlier regarding your destiny being based on which
nature you’re born with. Then he remarks:
“However, an increasing number of voices in scholarship these days are expressing dissatisfaction with the above-mentioned inherited caricature and its rigidly deterministic understanding of humankind in terms of unalterable natures. For careful reading of both newly available texts such as the Nag Hammadi writings and older sources such as the heresiological reports brings into relief factors pertaining to social practice, religious doctrine, and mythological symbol that raise doubts about the caricature’s general validity and show that in some cases it most certainly is incorrect” (Michael Allen Williams, Rethinking "Gnosticism": An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category, [Princeton University Press, 1999], p. 190).
He then goes through the early
sources and argues Irenaeus and older scholarship were incorrect about
identifying Gnostics as destinarians based on nature or those who believed
people not born with the pneumatic nature were predisposed to immorality.
Williams challenges all of that with early source material.
So the point is even though the
parallel Morrell tries to push concerning the Christian idea of predestination
and original sin nature vs. the Gnostics views are not at all the same, there
is a growing number of scholars who don’t even believe the evidence shows the
Gnostics were destinarians based on nature etc.
This calls into question Morrell’s
reconstruction of history where at 24:40 to 25:39 minutes he claims that
Augustine defended free will against the Gnostic Manicheans he was once apart
of, but then rejected free will adopting their non-free will views when
debating the Pelagians later on. However, this is wrong.
First of all Manichaean’s did not
believe in total depravity or that every human is born corrupt due to their
fallen nature from Adam and thus not free. They believed, as Schaff notes,
“Every individual man is at once a son of light and of darkness, has a good
soul, and a body substantially evil, with an evil soul corresponding to it”
(Philip Schaff, History of the Christian
Church, Vol. 2, [Hendrickson Publishers], p. 504). Christians believe all men
are born corrupt: body, soul, mind etc., based on Adam’s sin passed down.
Manicheans believed the souls of all men were good but the flesh was evil since
matter is evil in their system. The Christian view is not derived from the
Manichaean view since, as I showed: 1.) they’re not even the same thing; and
2.) you can find early Christians affirming original sin nature before
Manichaeism’s founder Mani was even born in A.D. 215.
Moreover, concerning free will, it
is erroneous to say that Augustine’s later view of grace being required to
choose right and do right is based on Manichaeism, since 1.) Christians long
before Augustine affirmed grace is necessary and thus man is not absolutely
free; and 2.) Manichaeans did not hold to the view of grace which Augustine did
– a view which led him to reject free will. So it makes no sense to credit
Manichaeism with his rejection of free will and affirmation of necessary
grace.
Augustine’s mature later view of
grace he held when refuting Pelagians like Morrell was that, “everything which
man receives, including faith, is the unmerited and gracious gift of God”
(Carol Harrison, Augustine: Christian
Truth and Fractured Humanity, [Oxford University Press, 2000], pp. 27-28).
If Augustine got this biblical teaching from Manichaeanism, as alleged by
Morrell, why is it that Manichaeism believed man’s nature was divine and that
men do not need grace at all? (Lenka Karfíková, Grace and the Will According to Augustine, [BRILL, 2012], p. 311).
The Manicheans denied evil was a result of free choice, but instead a result of
the evil body (Lenka Karfíková, Grace and
the Will According to Augustine, [BRILL, 2012], p. 311), though they
affirmed man’s nature or soul was good. Christians who believe in original sin
don’t believe that. Augustine never believed that when refuting the Pelagians.
We affirm evil is a result of the will which is inclined to sin due to fallen
nature. So to say Augustine got his teaching from Manichaeism when in reality
they’re not the same and Manichaeism didn’t even teach grace was necessary to
obey like we do, it so distort history to suit one’s agenda.
Glaring Biblical Errors in Morrell’s Film
From 28:04 to 30:06 Morrell argues
that there are certain texts which allegedly presuppose man has a libertarian
free will since, as he says, “after the fall of Adam and Eve God continued to
speak to men as if they were free moral agents.” In other words because God says “do X and Y
will result” Morrell thinks that proves men do X freely (i.e., free from God’s
determinations and control, and free from any constraints of nature). He lists
imperative or prescriptive texts where God commands people to do things such as
Genesis 4:6-7, Deuteronomy 11:26-28, Joshua 24:15, Jeremiah 21:18, and Ezekiel
18:30-31.
The problem with this approach is
that although Morrell claims these texts prove man is free, they don’t actually
say or prove that. These texts simply have God commanding people to obey and do
things. They don’t explain if man’s choices or wills in these situations are
free from God or free from any constraint of nature. Christians who affirm
original sin believe men make choices and have wills so we agree with God
commanding people to do things. We have no problem with that. When, however, we
actually go to texts which address if our choices and wills are free from God
and any constraint of nature in connection with man being commanded to obey
God, we see that humans are not free as Morrell alleges.
As an example Morrell cites Ezekiel
18:30-31, and brother Chris Gautreau (fivepointbaptist) has already explained
this text long ago in his two hour defense of determinism, so I don’t know why Morrell made this argument; the text
states:
"9walks in my statutes, and keeps my rules by acting faithfully--he is righteous; he shall surely live, declares the Lord GOD…. 21 "But if a wicked person turns away from all his sins that he has committed and keeps all my statutes and does what is just and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. . . . 30Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, declares the Lord GOD. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin. 31Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel? (Ezekiel 18:9, 21, 30-31).
Synergists like Morrell see texts
like this and they assume man is free from God and free from constraint of
nature to be able to carry out God’s command. However, elsewhere in the same
book of Ezekiel, it is explained for us whether or not we carry out these
commands freely and why we are able to carry them out. Ezekiel 11:19-20 and
36:26-27 explain the reason we’re able to carry out these commands is because
God controls us and enables us to, not because we do it freely:
“19And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh: 20That they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine ordinances, and do them: and they shall be my people, and I will be their God . . . . 26A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 27And I will put my spirit within you, and CAUSE you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them” (Ezekiel 11:19-20; 36:26-27).
Thus every command Morrell says we
do freely are actually, according to the same author, things we do not do
freely. Those are things we do because of God’s hand on us and because of His
enabling power. This is because we can’t carry these things out freely – we’re
too corrupt. Thus, appealing to texts that command us to do things and then
assuming we do them freely is a false hermeneutic.
Another example of this can be seen
in the fact that although in 2 Chronicles 30:5-10 Israel is commanded to return
to and obey God, vv. 11-12 explain that only a few obeyed and the reason they
were able to was that God’s hand was on them to give them a heart to obey,
unlike the rest of the people who God didn’t enable:
“5So they decreed to make a proclamation throughout all Israel, from Beersheba to Dan, that the people should come and keep the Passover to the LORD, the God of Israel, at Jerusalem, for they had not kept it as often as prescribed. 6So couriers went throughout all Israel and Judah with letters from the king and his princes, as the king had commanded, saying, "O people of Israel, return to the LORD, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, that he may turn again to the remnant of you who have escaped from the hand of the kings of Assyria. 7Do not be like your fathers and your brothers, who were faithless to the LORD God of their fathers, so that he made them a desolation, as you see. 8Do not now be stiff-necked as your fathers were, but yield yourselves to the LORD and come to his sanctuary, which he has consecrated forever, and serve the LORD your God, that his fierce anger may turn away from you. 9For if you return to the LORD, your brothers and your children will find compassion with their captors and return to this land. For the LORD your God is gracious and merciful and will not turn away his face from you, if you return to him." 10So the couriers went from city to city through the country of Ephraim and Manasseh, and as far as Zebulun, but they laughed them to scorn and mocked them. 11However, some men of Asher, of Manasseh, and of Zebulun humbled themselves and came to Jerusalem. 12The hand of God was also on Judah to give them one heart to do what the king and the princes commanded by the word of the LORD” (2 Chronicles 30:5-12).
Conclusion
In conclusion I will have to give
the film 2 out of 10 stars. I would give it one star but the production value
was quite good. The content of the film was probably the worst in terms of
theological documentary films, however. The number of factual/historical
errors, misrepresentations, citing of forged texts, faulty biblical arguments
etc., were so numerous that a two star rating is all the film really deserves.
I pray that those under the
heretical influence of Morrell and his Pelagian system will be granted
repentance which leads to life (Acts 11:18; 2 Timothy 2:25) and flee his
man-glorifying teachings with an open heart towards biblical God-glorifying
doctrines of grace.
“No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day" (John 6:44).
For
a biblical defense of original sin and human depravity see:
A. W. Pink, The Doctrine of Human
Depravity (book)
Michael Horton, For Calvinism (book)
John Gill, The Cause of God and Truth (book)
Loraine Boettner, The Reformed
Doctrine of Predestination (book)
No comments:
Post a Comment