Did all of the early church fathers really agree on the idea that man had the ability to choose God? Remarkably — yes. In all of the known writings before Augustine in 411 AD, I have yet to find a single one that believed that God preordained salvation.
Justin Martyr has entire chapters dedicated to this, and he speaks as if he’s speaking on behalf of all of the Christians at the time (“we hold it to be true ,etc”), and doesn’t even consider that his fellow church members might believe in something different:
Justin Martyr’s Defense of Free Choice
“But lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand… 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…. 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…. For not like other things, as trees and quadrupeds, which cannot act by choice, did God make man: for neither would he be worthy of reward or praise did he not of himself choose the good…” — Justin Martyr, First Apology 43 (abridged)
Irenaeus also made strong statements affirming free will:
“This expression [of our Lord], “How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not,” set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free [agent] from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests (ad utendum sententia) of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will [towards us] is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man, as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves” — Irenaeus
Disciples of John, Peter, and Paul
Ignatius was a disciple of John and believed that we can choose to be a “man of God”, against our own nature:
“If any one is truly religious, he is a man of God; but if he is irreligious, he is a man of the devil, made such, not by nature, but by his own choice.” — Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35AD – 107AD)
Polycarp was also a disciple of John himself. He emphasizes our responsibility to actively choose to align with God’s will, and suggests that God will reward us for our obedience:
“If we please Him in this present world, we shall receive the future world, … and that if we live worthily of Him, ‘we shall also reign together with Him,’ provided only that we believe.” — Polycarp (c. 110–140 AD)
Clement was a disciple of both Peter and Paul and recognized a sinner’s own agency in his punishment:
“For no other reason does God punish the sinner either in the present or future world, except because He knows that the sinner was able to conquer but neglected to gain the victory.” — Clement of Rome (c. 140AD)
Church fathers for 350 years
So now we have the earliest writings from disciples of the Apostles themselves agreeing, and we can see that it continued for centuries:
Melito mentioned that we all have the free will to change:
“There is, therefore, nothing to hinder you from changing your evil manner to life, because you are a free man.” — Melito of Sardis, c. 170AD
Tatian compares our free will to that of angels:
“The Logos…before the creation of men, was the Framer of angels. And each of these two orders of creatures was made free to act as it pleased, not having the nature of good, which again is with God alone, but is brought to perfection in men through their freedom of choice, in order that the bad man may be justly punished…but the just man be deservedly praised…” — Tatian the Syrian (c. 110–172 AD)
Mathetes said that our “willingness” was what enables us to become imitators of God:
“And do not wonder that a man may become an imitator of God. He can, if he is willing.” — Mathetes (2nd century)
Shepherd of Hermas emphasized all of our free will:
“It is therefore in the power of every one, since man has been made possessed of free-will, whether he shall hear us to life, or the demons to destruction.” — Shepherd of Hermas (c. 130–140 AD)
Athenagoras also compared our free will to that of the angels:
“Just as with men, who have freedom of choice as to both virtue and vice, so it is among the angels…Some free agents, you will observe, such as they were created by God, continued in those things for which God had made and over which he had ordained them; but some outraged both the constitution of their nature and the government entrusted to them.” — Athenagoras of Athens (c. 133–190 AD)
Theophilus tells us that our free will can lead us to death:
“If, on the other hand, he would turn to the things of death, disobeying God, he would himself be the cause of death to himself. For God made man free, and with power of himself.” — Theophilus of Antioch (died c. 185 AD)
Clement attributes our salvation to voluntary choice:
“We…have believed and are saved by voluntary choice.” — Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215 AD)
Tertullian reinforces mankind’s free will:
“I find, then, that man was constituted free by God. He was master of his own will and power… Man is free, with a will either for obedience or resistance.” — Tertullian (c. 160–225 AD)
Hyppolytus believed in free will:
“Man is able to both will and not to will. He is endowed with power to do both.” — Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170–235 AD)
Origen makes the case that free will is “clearly defined in the teaching of the church”:
“This is also clearly defined in the teaching of the church, that every rational soul has free will and volition….we are not forced by any necessity to act either rightly or wrongly.” — Origen of Alexandria (c. 185–254 AD)
Cyprian uses the Old Testament to prove his point:
“The liberty of believing or not believing is placed in free choice. In Deuteronomy, it says, ‘Look! I have set before your face life and death, good and evil. Choose for yourself life, that you may live.’” — Cyprian of Carthage (c. 200–258 AD)
Novatian introduces free will and the consequences being God’s command:
“When he had given man all things for his service, he willed that man alone should be free. And lest an unbounded freedom would lead man into peril, He had laid down a command.” — Novatian (c. 200–258 AD)
Archelaus stresses free will:
“All the creatures that God made, He made very good. And He gave to every individual the sense of free will, by which standard He also instituted the law of judgment…. And certainly whoever will, may keep the commandments.” — Archelaus (3rd century)
Methodius acknowledges that the pagan view at the time was predestination, and he refutes and contrasts it with what Christians believe:
“Those [pagans] who decide that man does not have free will, but say that he is governed by the unavoidable necessities of fate, are guilty of impiety toward God Himself, making Him out to be the cause and author of human evils.” — Methodius (c. 260–312 AD)
Eusebius tells us that our nature is not to blame for our conduct, but rather our own decisions, made out of free will:
“Every rational soul has naturally a good free-will, formed for the choice of what is good. But when a man acts wrongly, nature is not to be blamed; for what is wrong, takes place not according to nature, but contrary to nature.” — Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 263–339 AD)
Arnobius makes it clear that God’s invitation is for everyone and that everyone has the power to come to God:
“Does He not free all alike who invites all alike? Or does He thrust back or repel any one from the kindness of the supreme, who gives to all alike the power of coming to Him.” — Arnobius (c. 297–303 AD)
Cyril claimed that the devil couldn’t overpower our own free will:
“The soul is self-governed: and though the devil can suggest, he has not the power to compel against the will.” — Cyril of Jerusalem (c. 312–386 AD)
The Calvinist Steelman
Some Calvinists argue that you can, in fact, find instances where early church fathers affirm predestination before Augustine. They would point to some quotes by Justin Martyr and Clement:
“Unless, therefore, a man by God’s great grace receives the power to understand what has been said and done by the prophets, the appearance of being able to repeat the words or the deeds will not profit him, if he cannot explain the argument of them.” — Justin Martyr
Nowhere in this quote does Justin reference salvation. He’s merely saying that it takes God’s grace to fully be able to understand the prophets and scripture.
“For a man by himself working and toiling at freedom from passion achieves nothing. But if he plainly shows himself very desirous and earnest about this, he attains it by the addition of the power of God.” — Clement
Once again, nothing here implies salvation. We need the power of God in order to free ourselves from lustful passions.
Calvinists might misread these as predestinarian because they mention God’s grace or power, but both Justin and Clement explicitly defend free will elsewhere, focusing on sanctification, not salvation.
I’ve searched extensively for more quotes, but I can’t find anything. These quotes are both from men who defended man’s free-will very explicitly and neither one of the quotes seem to reference salvation.
Then came Augustine
Augustine originally explored pagan religions like Manichaeism, which emphasized predestination. After converting to Christianity, he initially affirmed free will after his conversion in 386 AD. In De Libero Arbitrio (On Free Will, c. 387-395 AD), he wrote:
“For we do not say that sins are committed by necessity, but by free will…. Therefore, since God is just, it is certain that men sin by their will, not by necessity.” — Augustine, De Libero Arbitrio, Book 2, Chapter 2
Then, in 411, there was this British Monk named Pelagius who made the controversial stance that Christians could achieve righteousness without grace. Augustine began countering Pelagius, and his response was to swing the pendulum to the other side, asserting that mankind couldn’t even make the decision to choose God without grace. This progressed and by 429, Augustine seemed to have landed on his theological destination, suggesting that God predestined those to whom He would save. However, even in Augustine’s need to counter Pelagius, he still couldn’t concede the idea of dual predestination; that is, that God both wills those to Heaven AND Hell.
In the words of Brian Wagner:
“There seems to have been no exceptions among early Christian writers to the orthodox teaching that man has been granted by God a free will to choose his destiny, and that salvation is available to all. The opposing view, that man is controlled by fate, could only be found in the Greek philosophical schools, Gnosticism, and Eastern mysticism during the first 300 years of Christianity. It is no wonder that the man who introduced Greek fatalism into Christianity should come from a Gnostic and Neo-Platonic background. Augustine’s theory differed from the Greek philosophers mainly by naming the CAUSE of fate — God’s mysterious will which must not be questioned, and cannot be understood by mortals. The impact of Augustine’s teaching probably would not have been nearly so great if Pelagius had not gone to the opposite extreme in renouncing Augustine.”
Augustine faced a lot of pushback at the time
Augustine faced harsh criticism and pushback. Julian of Eclanum (a Bishop at the time) fiercely condemned Augustine’s stance and attributed Augustine’s predestination stance to his prior beliefs in Manichaeism:
“You [Augustine] make God the author of our sins by asserting that He predestines some to salvation and others to damnation, as if human will has no role in its own choices. This is nothing but Manichaean determinism dressed in Christian garb.” — Julian of Eclanum (421AD)
John Cassian’s pushback against Augustine verbalizes how most non-calvinists today see free will and grace:
“The grace of God always co-operates with our will… [and] sometimes even [requires] some efforts of good will from it….” — John Cassian (c. 425–429 AD)
For the next century or so after Augustine, the Western church wrestled with what became known as the “Semi-Pelagian controversy.” Many sought a middle path, affirming that salvation involves both God’s grace and a genuine free-will response. This debate came to a head at the Second Council of Orange (529 AD).
The council shows clear Augustinian influence. It strongly emphasized the necessity of prevenient grace (grace that must come first) due to the corruption of human free will after the Fall. For example:
“If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith.” — Second Council of Orange, Canon 8
This marked a noticeable shift from the earlier Fathers (such as Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Origen), who consistently portrayed free will as retaining the ability to initiate a response to God, even if weakened by sin.
At the same time, Orange deliberately moderated Augustine’s stronger predestinarian tendencies and rejected any notion of God predestining people to evil:
“We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema.” — Conclusion of the Second Council of Orange
And it affirmed ongoing human responsibility after grace is received:
“According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul.” — Conclusion of the Second Council of Orange
Christianity in the East never formally received or elevated the Council of Orange as authoritative (it was a regional Western gathering, later approved by a Western pope). Because of this, Eastern theology continued to emphasize an understanding of grace and free will that was consistent with the pre-Augustinian church fathers consensus and continues to this day, while Western theology became increasingly Augustinian overall, influencing medieval Catholicism and later Protestant Reformers like John Calvin, who drew heavily on Augustine.
Conclusion
I feel as if history can help provide some context and understanding on this topic. While I get that the early church wasn’t perfect (especially into the middle ages), it’s nearly impossible for me to believe that every church father, from disciples of the apostles themselves, to Cyril of Jerusalem (386AD) somehow missed the fundamental doctrine of free will, and then over 300 years after the New Testament (for context, it’s been 250 years since the signing of the Declaration of Independence), the real truth was revealed by a man who was clearly swinging a pendulum to counter a heresy at the time, and whose background was steeped in pagan determinism. And even Augustine couldn’t allow himself to go as far as to say that God predestines both Heaven and Hell — that concept would be left to a man born more than a century later (John Calvin).
While the early church fathers aren’t scripture or the final authority, it’s strange to me that in the 21st century we find ourselves quibbling over correct Greek translations of scriptures to prove or disprove the theology of a man who was separated from the source by more than a millennia (Calvin wrote Institutes of the Christian Religion, in 1536). We would be remiss to ignore the opinions of those who were immersed in the same culture and spoke the same language as Paul and the disciples, and who perceived and translated those original texts at the time. The fact that they all agreed seems very credible, and their consensus could not be more clear: mankind has always had the free will to choose God, and our salvation was never predestined.
