JAC Online

The Fall of the Human Will
by Lieutenant Xander Coleman

We believe that our first parents were created in a state of innocency, but by their disobedience they lost their purity and happiness, and that in consequence of their fall all men have become sinners, totally depraved, and as such are justly exposed to the wrath of God.                                                                        [Salvation Army Doctrine 5]

The Fall

'The Fall' refers to the concept that creation in general (and humanity in particular) is not what it God intended it to be (McGrath, 2001: 25), as The Salvation Army's fifth article of faith suggests.  It follows that a perfect God's creation must also be perfect.  'God's intention was that we would live in a state of love and harmony with him, with one another, and with the rest of creation' (The Salvation Army, 2010: 109).  Humanity, though, is manifestly not perfect, as evidenced by countless instances of cruelty on a macro and micro scale.  Hanson and Hanson argue that 'man's consciousness of moral failure or paralysis is one of the central facts of his existence, witnessed to by authors who have no connection with Christianity as well as by Christians and Jews' (1981: 132).  We know that things are not as they should be – 'the empirical evidence for that is impressive enough in all conscience!' (Milne, 1998: 129).  How does one deal with this discrepancy?  Many theologians point to the Genesis 3 narrative as a story of a Fall, whereby 'all Adam's posterity was permanently alienated from God', and certainly by the first century AD this was the main understanding of that text according to the rabbinic tradition (Hanson & Hanson, 1981: 128).  >Read Genesis 3

There is no room for sin in the will of a perfect God, and so the first sin must have been an exercise of human free will in rebellion against the will of God.  This understanding of 'our first parents' having a free will is consistent with the idea of a loving God, who 'made us free, wanting us to love him voluntarily, not as puppets' (The Salvation Army, 2010: 109)  When this freedom was misused unto sin, humanity fell.  Consequently we have this paradox whereby humanity is 'both specially created and willfully fallen' (The Salvation Army, 2010: 109); the nature and extent of the 'falleness' will be discussed shortly.

Total Depravity

The new state in which humanity exists as fallen in sometimes referred to as depraved, or totally depraved.  It has been called 'the moral condition of fallen humanity' (The Salvation Army, 2010: 113), and while one might assume that total depravity implies such evilness that there is no longer any good, this is not the case: the depravity that humanity experiences is total in that it extends to every part of being (Milne, 1998: 131).  'It is not concerned with the depth of sin, but rather about the breadth of the influence of sin in human life' (The Salvation Army, 2010: 114).  No part is untainted by sin; least of all, argues Augustine, the human will.  'We are wholly fallen and hence wholly in need of redemption' (Milne, 1998: 131).

The effects of this depravity are manifold, and perhaps an exhaustive list cannot be drawn up, but here are some:

1. Separation/estrangement from God: 'Adam's expulsion from the Garden of Eden gave geographical expression to our spiritual separation from God' (Milne, 1998: 133).  Isaiah observes, 'your iniquities have been barriers between you and your God, and your sins have hidden his face from you so that he does not hear' (Isaiah 59:2, NRSV).  Similarly aware of the effects of sin, the Psalmist writes in repentance, 'Do not cast me away from your presence, and do not take your holy spirit [sic] from me' (Psalm 51:11, NRSV).  He is well aware that in our sinful state we are unworthy and unfit to stand in God's presence or enjoy intimacy with him.
2. The Wrath of God: Not only does humanity's open rebellion against God distance them from him, but it attracts his ire.  Indeed, 'God's presence becomes a place of dread' as our sinful will encounters resistance and opposition from him (Milne, 1998: 133).  The sacrificial system in the Old Testament, and Jesus' final sacrifice for sins demonstrate the need for the wrath of God to be appeased by death – indeed, perhaps the animals that died to cover Adam and Eve's nakedness point to Christ's death to cover humanity's sinfulness.  Certainly, 'the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness' (Romans 1:18, NRSV), yet 'Jesus...rescues us from the wrath that is to come' (1 Thessalonians 1:10, NRSV).
3. Disharmony 'with the created universe' (The Salvation Army, 2010: 111).  In our fallen state we are at odds with creation, which is subjected to frustration on account of our fallenness and eagerly anticipates the redemption of the world (see Romans 8:19ff).  World systems perpetuate evil and oppression as the planet and its most vulnerable inhabitants are exploited by the powerful (Milne, 1998: 136) .  Interestingly, the Romans 8 passage implies that it is as humanity is redeemed that the created world 'will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God' (Romans 8:21, NRSV).
4. Slavery to sin: the human condition is such that our will is affected and we find ourselves doing that which we do not want to do (see Romans 7:19-20 for a picture of the frustration of this human condition).  The core of who we are is affected, so that Jesus can assert that 'it is from within, from the human heart, that evil intentions come: fornication, theft, murder, adultery, avarice, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, folly.  All these things come from within, and they defile a person' (Mark 7:21-23, NRSV).  'Like a narcotic addict trying to break free from the grip of heroin or cocaine', so is our futile attempt to break the stranglehold of sin in our lives (McGrath, 2001: 25).

Original Sin

Though 'original sin' is often used as a synonym for total depravity, Augustine held that the first 'original' sin effected an ontological change in humanity, permanently marring the image of God in us.  It created in us a propensity for sin; we don't just commit sins, but we exist in a state of sinfulness (the holiness movement, including Salvationist theology and kerygma, grasped hold of this distinction: 'So wondrously saving from sinning and sin' (Charles Coller, SASB 640)).  Augustine argued that this sinfulness was passed down from parent to child over the generations, which Hanson and Hanson suggest was an attempt 'to give what he thought was a scientific basis to his own psychological observation' (1981: 133).  That this original sin still affect and infects humanity is evidence of the power it has, despite some current theologians challenge to the doctrines of the Fall and Original Sin (Brian McLaren, for example, denies the validity of Augustine's Platonic-dualistic interpretation of Genesis 3 (2010, 45ff); Hanson and Hanson content that 'the sooner the Augustinian doctrine of original sin is buried in the sands of history the better... responsible Christians should be ashamed to reach such a doctrine' (1981, 133)).

Augustine used three analogies to communicate the concept of original sin, and how Christ can be seen to redeem:

1. A hereditary disease that spiritually weakens human beings, incurable by human means.  Christ comes as the Great Physician to heal (McGrath, 2001: 446).
2. A spiritual power that holds us captive, and from which we are unable to break free. 'Human free will is captivated by the power of sin and may only be liberated by grace.' Christ, the source of that grace, comes as the liberator (McGrath, 2001: 446).
3. A hereditary guilt – Christ brings forgiveness and pardon (McGrath, 2001: 446).

Pelagian Controversy

Pelagius, a 5^th century wannabe monk (Hill, 2003: 74), didn't believe in the Fall or original sin or total depravity.  Appalled at the way purportedly religious people justified their sinful lifestyles by appealing to their inherent depravity, Pelagius took a different view of the human condition to Augustine.  The freedom of human beings to choose either good or evil was at the heart of his theology.  He stressed the importance of human responsibility to choose morality (McGrath, 2001: 24): rather than being slaves to sin, human beings had all the internal resource to make good decisions (26).  Rather than being bound by an inheritance of fallenness, 'humanity possessed total freedom of the will, and was totally responsible for its own sins' (McGrath, 2001: 444).

Pelagius' argument makes some logical sense: God is perfectly just and would not 'command us to do what is beyond us, and then punish us when we fail' (Hill, 2003: 74).  If God has commanded it, then, it must be possible to obey that command.  Therefore, we must be able to choose to live upright lives, otherwise God is being unfair.  And if we are able to live morally good lives, we have the responsibility to do so, otherwise God is justified in condemning us.

Grace meant something different for Pelagius than it did for Augustine: the latter understood the concept as undeserved help and favour given as a gift, in much the same way we do today.  The former interpreted the grace of God to mean something else.  Firstly, it referred to the natural faculties given by God to everyone: free will, and the ability to choose to conform to his moral code.  Secondly, it referred to external enlightenment given to humankind to know how to live moral lives: for example, the ten commandments or the example of Jesus.  According to Pelagius, 'grace informs us what our moral duties are', but does not assist us to perform them (McGrath, 2001: 447).

Augustine of Hippo challenged Pelagius' theology and took a much different view on the human condition.  His thinking is still evident in mainstream contemporary orthodoxy, and will seem much more agreeable and familiar to present-day Christians.  Below is a chart comparing the different perspectives argued by Augustine and Pelagius (data taken from McGrath, 2001):

The Will

Augustine imagined the human will like a pair of scales which weighed up whether to behave in a good or evil way (McGrath, 2001: 444).  Before the fall they were equally balanced, but because of our depravity they are now biased toward evil, weighted scales.  They are not unable to tend toward goodness, but they are certainly not fair.  The human will, therefore, is depraved in that it always has a bias toward evil.

Pelagius, by contrast, rejected totally the notion of any fixing of the scales: they are in perfect working order and human beings are free to choose good or evil actions.

The Augustinian school of thought regarding depravity won out in the end and shaped the dominant Christian thought on the matter for centuries, whereas Pelagius was branded a heretic at the council of Cathage in 418 AD.  But his challenge to Augustine raises some pertinent questions:

To what degree is salvation a partnership between an individual and God rather than a divine act on an individual?  If salvation is God's grace from start to finish, why are some people saved and not others?  Can a person resist the grace of God and refuse salvation?

It took a thousand years before some of these questions were tackled by Martin Luther, then Jean Calvin, then Jacob Arminius, then John Wesley.  Wesley rejected the notion that salvation was available to a select few, whom God chose not to damn: it was inconsistent with the concept of a God of love.  However, he was well aware of the propensity of people to sin and of the need for God's grace to lead people to repentance and faith.  'Wesley held that because of their fallen nature, humans are powerless to choose good or evil solely on their own.  However, all humans benefit from God's prevenient grace' (The Salvation Army, 2010: 123), which is a precursor to saving grace.  Prevenient grace enables individuals to choose good, but can be resisted by free will (The Salvation Army, 2010: 124).

Discussion Questions

1. In what ways was Pelagius right?  Do his arguments have any merit?
2. What dangers might be associated with Augustine's understanding of the human condition?
3. Do human beings have free will?  To what extent?
4. Does God command us to do something we cannot do, then punish us when we fail?
5. Can you think of any other effects of the Fall?
6. Until the last century or so, many theologians assumed that the Genesis 3 narrative was a historical event, though with progressive scientific discoveries some hold that such a position is untenable.  What are the theological implications if the story of the fall is metaphorical?

Bibliography

2007     New Revised Standard Version Bible Anglicized Edition.  London, Collins

Hanson, A & Hanson, R

            1981     Reasonable Belief.  Oxford, University Press

Hill, Jonathan

            2003     The History of Christian Thought.  Oxford, Lion Hudson

McGrath, Alister E.

            2001     Christian Theology An Introduction.  Third Edition.  Oxford, Blackwell

McLaren, Brian D

            2010     A New Kind of Christianity.  London, Hodder & Stoughton

Milne, Bruce

            1998     Know The Truth.  Second Edition.  Leicester, IVP

Salvation Army, The

            2010     Handbook of Doctrine.  London, Salvation Books

            1986     The Song Book of The Salvation Army.  London, The Salvation Army