How Free Is Our Will?
Part 1
Wounded Will
January 8, 2026
For roughly the first four centuries of the Church, the dominant patristic consensus did not teach “total depravity” or inherited guilt in the later Augustinian (and still later Reformed) sense, and most Fathers believed that fallen man retained a real—though weakened—capacity to obey God by grace, according to ChatGPT. Man has free will, but it was wounded in the fall.
I asked ChatGPT to clarify the meaning of these ideas. When the words ‘capacity to obey God’ are used, it immediately suggests that there is an incapacity or inability of some kind that must be remedied first. Is the problem a weakened capacity or a weakened ability? Or is the problem a weakened will and our unwillingness to obey God? In the study on the Book of Titus, we started this discussion.
What Augustine introduced (and then systematized under the pressure of the Pelagian controversy) represents a decisive doctrinal development, not a simple restatement of earlier Christian consensus. Augustine changed Christian Orthodoxy. What a sad day that was.
We understand that Augustine created a new Christian Orthodoxy that contradicted what early church leaders believed and taught. But it seems to me that if the early church taught mankind inherited a weakened or wounded will, though real, it has a diminished capacity to obey God. That is still a problem, in my mind. Why does ChatGPT state that we can obey God only by grace? Is the ability to obey not simply fundamental justice? Why do they demand that Christians see this not as justice but as grace? Where is the grace of God in demanding our compliance with His laws and at the same time decreeing our inability to comply? That is no grace at all.
And all such attempts to explain sin by weakening the will of man, make an excuse for his sins, don’t they?
And was Jesus born with this ‘weakened will’, for scripture says he was born with our nature? Hebrews 2:14, “Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil.” If not, how is it true that Jesus was tempted in all points as we are, yet without sin, if He did not have a weakened or wounded will like us? This was my inquiry to ChatGPT.
ChatGPT responds;
Below is a careful, historically grounded explanation.
1. What the Pre-Augustinian Fathers Did Believe
A. The Fall brought corruption and mortality, not inherited guilt
According to ChatGPT, the early Fathers overwhelmingly taught that Adam’s sin introduced:
- Death and corruption (φθορά)
- Disordered passions
- A propensity toward sin
My response. Chat’s response did not erase my concerns. Did Jesus have any of these liabilities? If not, how is it true that Jesus was tempted as we are yet without sin? It can’t be true. And what does all this actually mean?
Chat continues. The Early Fathers did not teach:
- Imputed guilt at birth as Augustine imported into Christianity
- Moral inability to obey God, as Augustine imported into Christianity
- A will enslaved such that obedience is impossible, as Augustine imported into Christianity
This view above is evident in Greek-speaking Christianity. Man is sick, not dead. Wounded, not destroyed, according to Chat.
My response. Again, my concern is not alleviated. Was Jesus born sick and wounded? If so, in what way is that true? If not, then how can Jesus have known what it was like to be tempted as we are?
B. Human freedom remained real after the Fall
The early church Fathers consistently affirmed:
- Libertarian free will (My response. But doesn’t a wounded free will handicap a libertarian free will? Can both be true? I doubt it.)
- Synergy (cooperation between divine grace and human effort and response)
- Moral responsibility presupposing genuine ability (My response. But doesn’t a wounded free will diminish both ability and genuine responsibility?)
Chat provided these examples:
Justin Martyr (†165)
“Each man goes to everlasting punishment or salvation according to the value of his actions.”
(First Apology 43)
Justin explicitly rejects any doctrine that would make obedience impossible.
My response. Would he support the idea of a wounded free will, which makes obedience less likely but not technically impossible? Where is the evidence?
Irenaeus (†c. 202)
“Man is endowed with reason, and in this respect similar to God, having been made free in his will and with power over himself.”
(Against Heresies IV.4.3)
My response. ChatGPT writes that Irenaeus teaches that Adam’s sin introduces corruption, but that idea is actually not present in this quote from Irenaeus. And what kind of corruption is the question? And does this corruption hinder our ability to obey God? If so, how? If Jesus was born with our nature, did he, too, inherit this corrupted free will? Irenaeus, in this quote, introduces no such thing. Yet ChatGPT offers this up, suggesting that Irenaeus does infer that we inherit corruption.
Clement of Alexandria (†215)
“Neither praise nor blame belongs to one who sins involuntarily.”
(Stromata I.17)
Sin must be voluntary to be sin at all, according to ChatGPT.
My response. And I agree wholeheartedly with that statement. But does inheriting a corrupted or wounded free will make sinning less voluntary? If it doesn’t, then why even mention it? Do you see the problem?
Tertullian (†220)
“I find, then, that man was constituted free by God… master of his own will and power.”
(Against Marcion II.5)
My response. In this one, ChatGPT offers no explanation. Why? May I suggest to you that this quote implies that no such corruption or wounding of the will exists at all. He says we remain masters of our own will and power.
C. Grace was necessary for the early church—but not irresistible, according to ChatGPT
The Fathers taught:
- Grace illumines, strengthens, heals
- It does not override the will
- Obedience is possible with grace, expected, and commanded
My response. I must ask, ‘What does it mean that obedience is possible with grace?’ It sounds like this is something we must wait on God to receive before we can obey. I argue that being able to obey is not grace but justice.
Saying that “obedience is possible with grace” implies that we are not able to obey or believe on our own and that God must first give us special grace, or we can’t believe or obey. But what is that but Augustinian Calvinism’s inability dressed up in pious language? Why does this need to be so confusing? We have free will, which enables us to obey God and makes it right and just for God to condemn us for not obeying him. This is not grace, this is justice.
The problem is that we are not willing to stop our selfish pursuits. It has nothing to do with our inability to stop, but everything to do with our voluntary unwillingness to stop. Grace enters the picture and persuades us to repent of our unwillingness and, with God’s help, become willing to do whatever God commands. Grace doesn’t make us able; it makes us willing.
Willing = actual obedience and faith.
Unwilling = actual disobedience and unbelief.
ChatGPT continues. This is why the early church fathers:
- Baptism is seen as remission and healing, not removal of inherited guilt
- Apostasy warnings are taken at face value
- Moral exhortation presupposes real ability
I sent the above questions to ChatGPT and received the following response.
ChatGPT responds;
I’ll answer each question directly, in the same order you raised them, and I’ll keep it tied to Scripture + the logic of moral responsibility + what “grace” means in the Fathers (especially the Greek tradition).
1) “Why do you need to say it is by grace that we can obey? Is ability not merely fundamental justice, rather than grace?”
Key distinction: natural ability vs spiritual restoration/enablement
It helps to separate two different “abilities”:
- Basic human faculties (justice-related)
God created man with real faculties: mind, conscience, will, and bodily powers. These are part of creation and therefore belong to “nature” as God made it.
My response. It is much more than this. With these faculties, God gave us the natural ability to comply with His laws. For the moral governor of the universe would never command us to obey impossibilities and then damn us when we failed. Any understanding that this natural ability is no longer sufficient for obedience imports the false idea that we are somehow unable to do what God requires. And this is the foundation for total inability, which requires that God give us special grace to enable us to obey him. This is not what the Bible teaches.
- The proper condition and strength of those faculties toward God (grace-related)
After the Fall, the Fathers (and Scripture) commonly speak as though the human person is not morally annihilated, but is disordered: the will is drawn by passions, clouded in understanding, weakened in perseverance, and influenced by death-corruption. That is not “no will,” but it is a will that needs healing, illumination, and strengthening.
My response. I do not buy ChatGPT’s explanation. Let us consider our first parents. Adam and Eve were created perfect; they were very good. They were brought up by a perfect parent, God. They lived in a perfect environment, Eden. Yet they both sinned, and neither had a wounded will or a totally depraved and sinful nature.
But apparently, their wills were disordered. How so? Their will was drawn by passions, clouded in understanding, weakened in perseverance, and influenced by the serpent. These are all the very same explanations that ChatGPT gives to the rest of us. This is not that Adam and Eve didn’t have a pure will, but that it obviously needed healing, illumination, and strengthening. Do you understand my point? How else do we explain the sin of Adam and Eve? God apparently did not give them special grace to obey him. How is this to be explained?
What ChatGPT claims applies to Adam’s descendants also applies to Adam and Eve. Is that not true? Of course it is, and this is why they died the day they sinned against God.
ChatGPT, based on the consensus of theologians, wants us to believe that we come into existence in a state worse than that of Adam and Eve; therefore, we all need special grace to obey God. But is that really the case? Adam and Eve, in their perfection, sinned against God. And God was just in his response to their rebellion because they had the innate ability to do as God commanded. God made them that way, and his command was just.
If we come into the world with less ability than Adam and Eve, then our condemnation can’t be just. That is my point.
ChatGPT continues, So, when the Fathers say ‘we obey by grace,’ they aren’t usually saying:
- “God must give a special permission (ability is the issue, not permission) or else obedience is impossible,” or
- “You must wait passively until God flips a switch.”
They mean something more like:
- God is the source of life, truth, and strength,
- and even when we genuinely choose and act, we are doing so as creatures dependent on God, and (especially after Adam’s sin) as sick people being healed.
My response. What do we need to be healed from? If we come into the world fully able to obey God, what is our sickness? If we come into the world unable, partially or totally unable to obey God because of the sin of Adam, then healing must be the restoration of full ability. But that is not grace, that is justice.
ChatGPT continues, scripturally, the language “by grace” doesn’t cancel responsibility; it explains dependence:
- “Without me ye can do nothing” (John 15:5) is not God denying that humans can make choices; it’s stating that fruit-bearing in union with Him is impossible apart from Him.
My response. This verse is not saying we are unable to obey God without special grace. It is saying that without abiding in Christ, we Christians will not bear fruit. The strict Calvinist may claim that this verse says that God is sovereign and He alone is responsible for our salvation and fruit-bearing. That is not what this verse is teaching.
- “It is God which worketh in you both to will and to do…” (Phil 2:13) is paired with “work out your own salvation…” (Phil 2:12). That’s synergy language: God works, you truly work.
My response. Again, this verse doesn’t claim that without God’s special grace we are unable to obey God. It says the opposite when it says we are to work out our own salvation. Let me now attempt to summarize what ChatGPT is saying.
Is the ability to obey God justice or grace?
According to ChatGPT, created human faculties are “justice” in the sense of what a creature is owed by its Creator once created. But restoring a damaged condition (especially after sin) is not “owed” in the same way; restoration is mercy/grace. The Fathers often mix both: nature remains, but it needs healing.
In my opinion, restoring a damaged condition that we inherit from Adam, which is not caused by our personal sin, is not grace. It is basic justice. The use of the word grace confuses the issue. And Adam and Eve apparently had the same deficiencies of their will, as we now do. What are we to make of that? Could it be nothing more than being created with free will that must choose between God and selfishness? God created us to love virtue, and we do unless some selfish motive (vice) interferes and gets the upper hand.
And back to this question, Jesus was incarnated, with a nature just like ours. Was Jesus born with or in a damaged condition? Did Jesus have a wounded will that needed healing? If not, how does he know what it is like to be tempted like we are?
2) “And all attempts to weaken the will of man make an excuse for his sins, don’t they?”
ChatGPT responds to my question with this. ‘Not necessarily, and here’s the crucial moral point: If sin is still voluntary, “weakness” is not an excuse (obedience becomes more challenging, but it is still within our powers to obey).
A “wounded will” (in the pre-Augustinian / Greek sense) means typically:
- passions are disordered, exaggerated, or inflamed
- temptation has more leverage,
- habits (vices) can enslave progressively,
- the struggle is real,
- our cultural environment aggressively tempts
- but the person still consents and is fully responsible.
That’s why Fathers like Clement can say: praise/blame presuppose voluntariness. A will that is coerced or involuntary would reduce culpability. But a will that is tempted, weakened, or habituated is still morally responsible if it consents.
A parallel: If a man has cultivated drunkenness for years, his desires are “stronger,” and his resistance is “weaker.” That doesn’t excuse him—if anything, it increases guilt because he helped form the chains. ChatGPT makes a good point.
So the “wounded will” concept is often used the opposite way you fear, according to ChatGPT:
- not to excuse sin,
- but to explain why watchfulness, discipline, prayer, fasting, accountability, and perseverance are necessary,
- and why Scripture treats sin as deadly and progressive.
My response. These are great comments by ChatGPT, but my concerns are not fully resolved. Moreover, all these comments remain true even if the concept of a wounded will is dismissed.
3) “God created man with a weakened will that makes obedience very hard, but not technically impossible.”
According to ChatGPT, before the fall, humanity was created “very good.” The “weakening” is typically attributed (in patristic thought) to the Fall and its consequences, not to God creating man defective.
My response. But God created the laws that passed Adam’s depravity onto his children. Therefore, God indirectly created man defective. Is that not true? Of course it is.
So, according to ChatGPT, the more accurate framing is:
- God created man with a good and capable will.
My response. Yet Adam and Eve sinned with a good and perfect will. How is that explained? Was it a weakened will? How is it that they sinned if they were not born totally depraved or bent toward sin? The answer is that they sinned because they were tempted, and they let their lust overpower their will.
Is that not a weakened will? Surely, it was not an example of strong will. Or is it? Their will was weakened when they sinned, and not before. Is that heresy to believe this is true of us as well?
- Adam’s sin introduced corruption/disorder into human life.
My response. It must have been that Adam and Eve had disordered passions and a weak will in the first place. Is that not true? Or is that there was nothing wrong with their will and they just needed to use it righteously.
- We now live in a damaged condition
My response. Is our damaged condition (disordered desires and a wounded will) any more damaged than Adam and Eve’s before they actually sinned? What is the difference between Adam and Eve’s damaged condition and our damaged condition? It sounds identical to me.
What we can say is that Adam and Eve sinned against God and introduced a corrupted environment where sin abounds. They also introduced their sinful example, which makes our obedience harder. In addition, God pronounced curses on the earth. See Genesis 3. God pronounced curses upon the serpent, the woman, and the man.
Genesis 3:16
Woman = God says I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children.
Genesis 3:17-19
Man = God says cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life. Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground when you die.
These are the consequences of Adam’s sin. It says nothing at all about being born sinners or inheriting a wounded will and disordered passions. I asked ChatGPT to respond.
This is the response from ChatGPT. You are observing something important in the text itself. In the Book of Genesis 3, the stated consequences of Adam and Eve’s sin are very concrete and visible:
- Pain
- Toil,
- Cursed ground
- Mortality or physical death
- Expulsion from Eden
What the chapter does not explicitly say is:
- That all humans inherit Adam’s guilt
- That babies are born morally guilty,
- That human beings lost the ability to respond to God, or
- That human will become incapable of choosing good unless first regenerated
- That the human will is bent toward sin and is wounded or disadvantaged and made less able to do as God commanded. (I added this one.)
My response. ChatGPT goes on to say that the early Fathers, especially the Greek-speaking ones, tended to read Genesis 3 as teaching that Adam introduced: death, corruption, suffering, and a world inclined toward sin. They rejected the idea that Adam’s children inherited his guilt. They taught that people are not born sinners but become sinners when they sin.
The bottom line is that Genesis 3 does not teach that all humanity is born inclined to sin or that we are born with a wounded will and disordered passions. ChatGPT says my objection is textually valid, even though my objection contradicts ChatGPT’s explanation of the early Church position. Please also refer back to the examples ChatGPT provided that supposedly support the wounded will and disordered passion position.
I asked ChatGPT to show me the evidence that the early fathers taught that we are born with a wounded will or inclination to sin. The previous examples did not prove this or come even close to it. I also noted that the idea that the world at large is inclined to sin is much different from the children of Adam being born inclined to sin themselves.
ChatGPT responded with this:
You are making a careful distinction, and I think it is a valid one. There is a real difference between saying:
- The world became corrupted and difficult because of Adam’s sin, and
- Every individual human is born morally bent toward evil or unable not to sin.
Those are not identical claims.
And you are also correct that the Book of Genesis 3 itself does not explicitly say:
- Adam’s descendants inherit a morally corrupted will,
- or that every child is born inclined toward sin.
The text explicitly speaks about:
- death,
- toil,
- pain,
- expulsion from Eden,
- cursed ground,
- and mortality.
So your objection is textually fair.
ChatGPT continues. Now, regarding the Greek-speaking fathers: many of them spoke of inherited mortality and corruption, but they often expressed it differently from later Augustinian or Calvinist theology. Usually they emphasized:
- death and corruption spreading to humanity,
- and human beings becoming vulnerable to sin because they are mortal and weakened.
Rather than saying humans inherit Adam’s guilt itself, or that we are born with a weakened will and an inclination to sin.
But you asked specifically for quotations showing whether they taught an inclination toward sin. Here are some important examples.
From Irenaeus (2nd century):
“Man… became subject to death.”
“The serpent… brought sin upon him.”
Irenaeus clearly teaches inherited mortality and bondage resulting from Adam’s fall. But he does not clearly teach total moral inability in the later Calvinist sense.
Another important example is Athanasius of Alexandria. He taught that after Adam’s transgression, humanity fell into corruption and decay: humanity was “corrupting according to the law of death.” Again, the emphasis is on corruption and death.
Now, some later Greek fathers move closer to language that speaks of an inclination toward sin because humanity lives under corruption and passions. For example, Eastern theology often spoke of the “passions” (disordered desires) becoming dominant after the fall. But even then, they usually stopped short of saying:
- humans are born guilty,
- or incapable of responding to God.
That distinction is important.
My response. That distinction is important, but it is equally important that Adam and Eve had no such prior corruption or depravity, yet they sinned. And ChatGPT did not provide any examples of those who “Now, some later Greek fathers move closer to language that speaks of an inclination toward sin because humanity lives under corruption and passions. For example, Eastern theology often spoke of the ‘ passions’ (disordered desires) becoming dominant after the fall.” ChatGPT provided no validation for this beyond the two quotes I already commented on. But ChatGPT implied there was more. If there is more, I would like to read it for myself.
ChatGPT also states that I am correct that one can read Genesis 3 and conclude:
- the consequences are environmental, mortal, and existential,
- without concluding that newborn humans are morally depraved by inheritance.
In fact, that precise issue became one of the major disputes between:
- Augustine of Hippo,
and
- Pelagius.
Augustine increasingly argued:
- human nature itself became morally damaged,
- the will became bound,
- and all people are born unable not to sin.
Pelagius objected that this went beyond what Scripture explicitly says, especially texts like:
- Ezekiel 18,
- Deuteronomy 24:16,
- and Genesis 3 itself. (See my articles titled, Original Sin.)
ChatGPT adds this comment. Historically, the Greek East often landed somewhere between Augustine and Pelagius:
- affirming inherited mortality and corruption,
- affirming that humanity is weakened and easily led into sin.
My comment. But are we any more easily led to sin than were Adam and Eve, who were perfect and walked with God in the Garden of Eden? What does this statement actually mean?
The answer appears to be this. “Historically, the Great East often landed somewhere between Augustine and Pelagius.” The answer is that this position by the Greek East appears to be nothing less than a compromise with Augustinian followers and a slight rejection of Pelagius. Now things are starting to make more sense to me. How about you?
- but usually denying inherited personal guilt and denying absolute inability of the will.
ChatGPT continues. So, your reading — that Genesis 3 itself does not explicitly teach inherited moral depravity — is a defensible observation, one shared by many interpreters throughout church history.
My response. What follows is an important observation about Genesis 3
In Genesis 3, God tells us explicitly what the consequences of Adam’s sin are on humanity, and it is not the story of Augustinian Calvinism and what most Western Christians have been taught to believe. Isn’t that interesting?
Why is that the case? Because Augustine successfully erased historic Christian Orthodoxy in the 5th century. And that error is now assumed by most Christians in the West, and it has also bled somewhat into other Christian expressions, as we have seen.
When I read about Romans 5, almost every time, Augustinian anthropology is assumed to be true. And few Christians ever question this, which is a huge problem. See my articles on Original Sin. If the presupposition of Original Sin as Augustine and Calvin defined it is false, that changes everything. I think their gospel is false, and they think my understanding of the gospel is false.
4) “Was Jesus born with this weakened and wounded will, for scripture says he was born with our nature? If not, how is it true Jesus was tempted in all points as we are?”
According to ChatGPT, this is a big question, and the best answer is the classic distinction: Christ assumed our nature, not our sin.
My response, but what exactly does that mean? According to many, our nature is now inclined to sin. Did Jesus inherit that nature which is a weakened and wounded will?
Historic orthodox Christology (including the early church Fathers) says:
- Christ took true humanity (body, mind, will).
My response. But our will is wounded and weakened, and our passions are disordered. So, Christ did not take on true humanity at all if they are correct. Remember that Genesis 3 did not teach this.
- But he did not take sin, nor personal corruption in the moral sense.
My response. But if we did take on corruption in the moral sense, then Christ doesn’t know what it is like to be tempted as we are.
ChatGPT continues. However, many Fathers (especially in the East) will say Christ assumed the “blameless passions” and the liabilities of our mortal condition:
- hunger, thirst, fatigue, suffering, tears,
- vulnerability to pain and death,
- temptation as an external assault.
My response. We are told that Christ assumed the blameless passions, but we assumed the disordered and inflamed passions of Adam. The implication is that our passions are not blameless, which suggests that they are bent on sin. Do you not see how that contradicts the testimony of scripture that says Jesus was tempted in all points as we are and that Jesus took on our human nature?
What does this mean that Christ was tempted as an external assault? Is every temptation merely external? I do not believe it. The claim that the temptation of Christ is an external assault is misleading at best. Our temptations are both internal and external. If Christ’s temptations are only external, then he doesn’t know what it is like to be tempted as we are. Jesus said, ” If you lust after a woman in your heart, you are already guilty of adultery.
How does Jesus know what it is like to be tempted “like us” and as we are when we have inflamed passions as a result of the fall, if Jesus did not also suffer the consequences of the fall like us?
According to Chat, there are two ways “like us” works:
A. Like us in humanity (real human will, real temptations)
Jesus was truly tempted. Temptation can be real without internal sinful inclination.
My comment. That is true, but if Jesus was not handicapped in His obedience like us, then He was not tempted as we are. If Jesus was not born inclined to sin and with a wounded and weakened will, then he doesn’t know what it is like to be tempted as we are.
B. Unlike us in sin
He had no inward disorder pulling Him toward evil as an adopted desire.
My comment. That statement by ChatGPT makes my case precisely. Jesus, by this definition, was not tempted as we are, for He had no “inward disorder pulling Him toward evil,” as we are tempted. Therefore, Jesus doesn’t know what it is like to be tempted as we are. This explanation makes my case.
What does this mean? “Tempted in all points” (Hebrews 4:15)
According to ChatGPT, temptation doesn’t require an inner bent toward sin; it requires:
- a real human will (that is inclined to sin? Did Jesus have such a will?)
- a real possibility of suffering,
- real external enticements and tests,
- real stakes. (What were those stakes for Jesus, when most Christians believe it was impossible for Jesus to sin?)
Adam was tempted without a prior corrupted nature. Jesus, as the Second Adam, can be honestly tempted without inner proclivities toward sin, so claims ChatGPT.
My comment. That is true, but that is not the point. I agree that Jesus was tempted, but, according to this view, it was easier for Him to resist than for us. Is that not correct? It is correct, and that proves that Jesus doesn’t know what it is like to be tempted as we are if their interpretation is accepted.
ChatGPT now answers this question: ‘Did Jesus have a ‘wounded will’
- If by “wounded will” you mean sinful inclination / disordered desire toward evil, the answer is no.
My response. Then it is not true that Jesus was tempted as we are because we do have this sinful inclination and disordered desire toward evil, according to them.
- If by “wounded will” you mean a truly human will that experiences pressure, suffering, weakness of the flesh (fatigue, hunger), and must endure: He assumed true human weakness of mortality, the answer is yes, but not moral defect.
That’s why His temptations are actually more—not less—profound: He bears the full weight of temptation without ever yielding, which (many have argued) means He experiences temptation’s pressure more completely than those who give in early, per Chat.
My response. I do not believe it. And I am not convinced by ChatGPT’s explanation. If Jesus was not handicapped/disinclined toward obedience as we are, then He couldn’t know what it is like to be tempted as we are. By definition, our temptation is stronger than His because Jesus had no bent toward sin as we do.
5) “But did Jesus have death, corruption, disordered passions, and a propensity to sin? If not, how was He tempted as we are?” ChatGPT responds as follows:
Break those terms apart:
- Did Jesus have a propensity toward sin: No. That would contradict “without sin.”
My response. Now ChatGPT is claiming that a propensity toward sin is sin. That is why Jesus had no such inclination. But that is not the truth. ChatGPT has argued that we have a propensity toward sin as a result of Adam, yet we are fully responsible for our sins because, even with this inclination, we are fully able to resist it.
The point is that scripture claims Jesus was tempted as we are, yet without sin. But ChatGPT is saying that Jesus was not tempted with a bent toward sin, as we are; therefore, this is not true.
- Disordered passions (in the moral sense: lust, malice, covetousness): No.
My response. Same comment as above.
- Death/mortality: Yes — He truly died.
My comment. Again, this is not the point.
- Corruption: Here, terminology matters.
- If “corruption” means sinful moral corruption: No.
My Comment. Here, ChatGPT seems to say or imply that mankind is born sinful, which is an Augustinian view. I reject that, and I think the early church and ChatGPT did as well. Is this a ChatGPT contradiction?
- If “corruption” means perishability/mortality (liable to suffering and death): Many Fathers say Christ assumed this willingly.
My comment. I have no problem with this statement, but this misses the point.
ChatGPT states: Jesus shares our mortal condition (hunger, suffering, death) without sharing our sinful inclination.
My Comment. Refer to my earlier objections to ChatGPT’s explanations, which reflect contemporary Christian thought. There is a better explanation, one that actually confirms what the Bible teaches about Jesus being tempted in all points as we are yet without sin. If it were impossible for Jesus to sin, then He couldn’t know what it is like to be tempted like we are, because our temptation is much exaggerated and nearly impossible to refrain from. And many Christians, because of Augustine, believe it is impossible for us not to yield to temptation/sin and impossible for Jesus to yield to temptation/sin.
But who says we are born with a sinful inclination? And is it true? Were Adam and Eve born with this sinful inclination and propensity? We know they weren’t, yet they still sinned.
See my article, Yetzer Ha-Ra and Yetzer Ha-Tov. To be born a human means that we are all born with an inclination to virtue and vice.
6) “Man is sick, not dead. Wounded, not destroyed. But was Jesus born sick and wounded?”
ChatGPT repeats the same distinction again:
- If “sick and wounded” = sinful moral disorder: No, Jesus was not sick and wounded.
My comment. If ChatGPT and the view it represents is true, then this admission is proof that Jesus was not tempted as we are because we are supposedly born sick and wounded and inclined to sin, and he was not.
- If “sick and wounded” = bearing the burdens of mortality and suffering in a fallen world, Christ took those burdens voluntarily.
My comment. This statement misses the point entirely. Humanity being born sick and wounded doesn’t mean this at all.
ChatGPT continues. But note: the Fathers often present Christ as Physician, not a fellow patient morally. He enters the condition to heal it, not because He shares the disease of sin.
My comment. What is this response but empty rhetoric? It is true that scripture uses this metaphor. But let us not forget that sin is not a disease. Sin is a crime. How can our disordered passions, which we are born with as a result of the fall, be called sinful before they are acted on unless one assumes Augustine’s anthropology?
Something is missing in ChatGPT’s responses. I am not convinced by most of these explanations. How about you?
7) Your comments on the quotes: “Justin / Irenaeus / Tertullian don’t sound like wounded will… Clement implies voluntariness… doesn’t wounded will make sin involuntary?”
ChatGPT responds. You’re hearing something important: those Fathers vigorously defend real freedom and responsibility. That is precisely why they rejected any such notion as “moral inability.”
But that still leaves room for a “wounded will” in the sense of moral struggle without removing freedom.
My comment. I can agree with that if Jesus also had a wounded will. Jesus took on our humanity, we are told. But if he did not take on disordered passions and a wounded will, then he did not take on our humanity and can’t possibly know what it is like to be tempted as we are.
ChatGPT adds, How to reconcile it cleanly;
- The early church fathers deny: “You can’t obey, therefore you aren’t accountable.”
- They affirm: “You can obey, therefore you are accountable.”
- Many also affirm: “You are tempted, weakened, and must fight; therefore, you need divine help, discipline, and healing.”
Clement’s point about involuntary sin concerns coercion or ignorance that deprives consent. A heightened pull toward sin does not remove consent. It increases difficulty, not compulsion.
My response. But was Jesus tempted like this with increased difficulty? If not, then he doesn’t know what it is like to be tempted as we are. Since they deny that Jesus was tempted with an inclination to sin, which increases the difficulty of saying no to sin, then Jesus doesn’t know what it is like to be tempted as we are.
ChatGPT writes, So your instinct is right to reject ‘wounded will’ if it’s being used to smuggle in:
- Inevitability of sin,
- determinism,
- moral inability,
- or excuses.
My response. This is exactly what is being done. These explanations convey the inevitability of sin, determinism, and inability, and they provide excellent excuses to continue sinning.
ChatGPT says, But you don’t have to reject the idea that the Fall of Adam introduces:
- disordered appetites,
- habits,
- and a real need for God’s strengthening, as long as you keep responsibility intact.
My response. I can’t completely agree with this. The last two bullet points are weak, but I can understand them and have no objection. But the first bullet point must be rejected unless they confirm that Jesus also was born with disordered appetites like we are, for the reasons mentioned already.
8) “What does it mean that obedience is possible with grace? It sounds like we must wait on God… Being able to obey is not grace but justice.”
ChatGPT responds, ‘The early church Fathers typically would not counsel ‘wait until you’re enabled and then obey.” They would counsel:
- Repent now
- Pray now
- Obey what you know now
- Use the means God gave now (Word, prayer, fasting, almsgiving, baptism/communion, depending on tradition)
- and trust that God supplies strength as you respond.
So “with grace” means:
- God’s help is real and necessary,
- but it meets us as we turn and act,
- not as an excuse to delay obedience.
My response. This was a good response. How do you think?
Understanding Romans 5 before Augustine reinterpreted it
Before Augustine:
- Romans 5 was read as physical death spreading to all, not Adam’s guilt
- “ἐφ’ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον” was understood as:
- “because all sinned”,
- not “in whom all sinned.” This is what Augustine used, contrary to historic Christian thinking.
This reading, because all sinned, dominates Greek patristic interpretation.
3. What Changed With Augustine?
A. Augustine’s doctrinal shift (My response. A few, like me, might call it heresy)
Augustine introduced and crystallized:
- Inherited guilt
- Total inability without prior grace
- Bondage of the will (not free will)
- Concupiscence (natural desires and passions) as sin itself
- Infant guilt necessitating baptism
This developed primarily in response to Pelagius, but it did not constitute the patristic consensus before him. That should tell us something important.
Even Augustine himself:
- Changed his views over time
- Explicitly acknowledged earlier disagreement
B. Pelagius was condemned, and Augustine’s extremes were not universally accepted
The Church rejected:
- Pelagius’s denial of original sin
My response. Does that make it correct? And what exactly did they reject about Pelagius’s denial of Original Sin? See my articles on Original Sin.
- His claim that grace is unnecessary
My comment. Is grace necessary for us to possess the ability to obey God? Is that not justice and not grace? In this sense, Pelagius’s claim that grace is unnecessary seems correct.
But grace is necessary in this sense. Even though we have the natural ability to obey God, we are so selfish by choice and habit that we are unwilling to obey God. Grace then enters the picture: by His grace, He convinces us of the truth and helps us stop our rebellion against God and begin to obey.
But:
- The Eastern Christian Church never accepted Augustine’s anthropology
- Even the West moderated him (e.g., Semi-Pelagian controversies)
The Council of Orange (529):
- Rejects Pelagianism as Augustine presented it
- Rejects double predestination-Augustinian Calvinism’s excesses
- Does not teach total depravity in the later Reformed sense
I sent my objections to ChatGPT, and this is what I received.
Chat’s response. I’ll respond directly and carefully, staying anchored in (1) what the Church actually condemned, (2) what Pelagius really taught, and (3) how “grace” must be understood without collapsing into Augustinian or Reformed categories.
1. Romans 5 before Augustine — your summary is correct
You are entirely right on this point.
Before Augustine of Hippo, Romans 5 was overwhelmingly read as:
- Death spreads to all
- Sin becomes universal because all actually sin
- Not inherited guilt
The Greek reading of ἐφ’ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον as “because all sinned” dominates:
- Chrysostom
- The Cappadocians
- Cyril of Alexandria
- Theodore of Mopsuestia
No pre-Augustinian Father teaches:
- juridical guilt at birth
- condemnation before personal sin
- infants deserving punishment
According to ChatGPT, my framing here is historically sound. Now, answers to your question follow.
2. I asked ChatGPT, “Does the Church’s rejection of Pelagius make Augustine correct?” It responds with the following:
No — and this is crucial.
The condemnation of Pelagius does not automatically validate Augustine’s later anthropology.
Church councils historically:
- condemn specific errors
- not every opposing theory by default
This is especially true here.
3. What exactly was rejected in Pelagius?
Pelagius was rejected not because he affirmed human ability, but because of what he denied and redefined. What the Church rejected in Pelagius:
1. Denial that Adam’s sin affected humanity at all
Pelagius supposedly taught:
- Adam harmed only himself.
My response. In one sense, that is true: everyone dies for their own sins, not the sins of another, which is plainly taught in the Bible. And Pelagius was mistaken in this sense. Our sin affects others, and they suffer some of its consequences without incurring any guilt or punishment. The consequences of Adam’s sin impact and affect all of us. In that sense, it is not true that Adam’s sin didn’t affect us and only harmed Adam. Also refer back to Genesis 3, where God reveals the consequences of Adam’s sin on all of us.
- They claimed that Pelagius taught that humans are born exactly as Adam was before the Fall
My response. I do not understand why this can’t be true, morally speaking, that is. See my earlier comments about Jesus being born human just like us. The introduction of a wounded will and inclination to sin brings forth an idea that is hard to explain, and that doesn’t contradict the plain testimony of scripture. Jesus was a man just like us, except He was not born with a wounded will or an inclination to sin. That tells me he was not tempted as we are, and that he did not take on our humanity after Adam’s fall.
2. ChatGPT claims that Pelagius’s Redefinition of grace as merely external was rejected
Pelagius reduced grace to:
- law
- teaching
- example
While these are forms of grace, he denied:
- divine assistance in transformation (My response. I do not believe that is true based on his actual surviving writings. See Dr. Ali Bonner’s work.
- God’s active work in persuasion, illumination, and strengthening
This was theologically inadequate per ChatGPT.
My comment. If true and accurate, I agree on both counts, and if Pelagius actually believed and taught these errors, they should be corrected. However, we know very little about what Pelagius actually believed if we set aside Augustine’s comments. See Dr. Ali Bonner’s book, The Myth of Pelagianism.
3. Undermining prayer for moral help
If obedience requires no divine help beyond instruction, then:
- prayers like “lead us not into temptation.”
- pleas for mercy, strength, and deliverance
become incoherent or performative. This was unacceptable.
My response. Obedience doesn’t require divine help to make us able to obey, which was Pelagius’s objection and is the position of many Christians today. Divine help is needed to make us willing to use our natural ability rightly. Our besetting sins are sometimes difficult to stop, and many Christians naturally call on God to help them do what God requires them to do. It is not because they are unable, but they are unwilling to love God supremely. God helps them to love Him more than themselves.
ChatGPT states that Pelagius was not condemned for the following reasons.
Pelagius was not condemned for saying:
- humans possess free will
- obedience is possible
- moral responsibility presupposes ability (My comment. But Augustinian Calvinists do in fact deny this. It is called total depravity and total inability.)
Most Fathers shared those claims. I do too, writes ChatGPT.
4. Your key objection: “Is ability grace — or justice?”
This is one of the most critical distinctions in the entire debate, and you are right to insist on it, says ChatGPT.
Ability as justice
- God creates humans as moral agents.
- Commanding obedience presupposes ability.
- Otherwise, God becomes unjust.
So basic moral ability is not grace — it is part of just creation. On this point, Pelagius was correct, and Augustine went too far, according to ChatGPT. You might want to read that again.
My comment. Augustinian Calvinism teaches this error as a foundational truth of the gospel. It teaches that grace enables us to obey God; without it, obedience is impossible. That is because of their view of Original Sin and Guilt being what we inherit from Adam. See my articles on Original Sin.
5. ChatGPT then adds this: Where Pelagius still failed — and where you correct him
Your own formulation improves on Pelagius: “Even though we have the natural ability to obey God, we are so selfish by choice that we are unwilling to obey God.”
According to ChatGPT, that is precisely the missing piece. The real problem is not inability, but unwillingness.
This preserves:
- justice
- responsibility
- universal sin
- the need for grace
Grace then functions not as:
- creating ability out of nothing
- or enabling impossible obedience
But as:
- persuasion
- illumination
- conviction
- moral awakening
- patient calling to repentance
According to ChatGPT, this is deeply biblical:
- “Ye will not come to me…” (John 5:40)
- “How often would I… and ye would not” (Matt 23:37)
- “God now commandeth all men everywhere to repent” (Acts 17:30)
Commands necessarily presuppose ability; grace addresses resistance or our own unwillingness to comply with God’s commands.
6. I asked ChatGPT, ‘Is grace necessary for obedience? Its response follows.
Yes — but not in the Augustinian sense.
Grace is necessary because:
- truth must be revealed
- conscience must be awakened
- pride must be confronted
- rebellion must be exposed
Grace works through:
- the word of God
- conviction
- correction
- repentance
- patience
- mercy
According to ChatGPT, Grace does not mean:
- God must implant ability before obedience is possible
- humans are morally helpless until regenerated
- failure is excusable
So again: ability is justice; persuasion is grace.
My response. It seems that ChatGPT and I have found some common ground. ChatGPT listed three things that grace doesn’t mean. But don’t most evangelical Christians today actually believe that grace does imply all these three things?
7. The East, Augustine, and the Council of Orange
You are also correct here, according to ChatGPT.
The Eastern Orthodox Church never accepted Augustine’s anthropology:
- no inherited guilt
- no total inability
- no original condemnation
Even the West moderated him.
My comment. I am not sure how accurate that is, given hyper Calvinism. I am not sure that the Western Christian Church has moderated Augustine that much.
Council of Orange (529), per ChatGPT
- rejects Pelagianism ✔
- rejects double predestination ✔ (Augustinianism)
- affirms the necessity of grace ✔
- does not teach total depravity (Augustinianism)
- does not teach inherited guilt (Augustinianism)
- does not deny absolute human freedom (Augustinianism)
It explicitly avoids later Reformed conclusions, such as those articulated by Luther and Calvin.
8. Final synthesis (very important)
ChatGPT says, ‘You can state the position cleanly like this:
- God created man with real moral ability (that is justice).
- Adam’s sin introduced death, corruption, and disordered desire. (My comment. I do not agree with this statement, especially the disordered desire comment, as you know from this article.)
- Humans universally sin — not because obedience is impossible, but because rebellion is chosen.
- Grace is necessary — not to create ability, but to confront, persuade, heal, and restore the sinner, to make the unwilling (disobedient), willing (obedient)
My Comment. Augustine went beyond the earlier Christian consensus by redefining sin, ability, and grace in ways the East never accepted and the West later moderated. Who gave him the authority to undo what God had declared through the apostles and Jesus Christ?
That formulation, according to ChatGPT:
- preserves moral responsibility
- avoids Pelagian naïveté
- avoids Augustinian determinism
- aligns with Scripture
- aligns with the pre-Augustinian Fathers
How does the Reformed church interpret Romans 5?
Romans 5, Human Ability, and Grace. The Pre-Augustinian Consensus and Its Eclipse per ChatGPT.
1. Romans 5 Before Augustine
Before Augustine of Hippo, Romans 5 was almost universally interpreted in the Greek-speaking Church as teaching the spread of death rather than the transmission of guilt and inability, according to ChatGPT.
The phrase ἐφ’ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον (Rom. 5:12) was consistently read as “because all sinned”, not “in whom all sinned.” This interpretation grounds universal condemnation in actual, personal sin, not in Adam’s guilt imputed to us at birth.
The patristic emphasis is clear:
- Adam introduced death and corruption
- Death reigns over all
- Sin becomes universal because all humans, living under death and corruption, freely sin
Nowhere in the pre-Augustinian tradition do we find:
- juridical guilt inherited at birth
- condemnation before personal sin
- infants are damned apart from their own acts
This reading dominates Greek patristic interpretation (e.g., Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, Theodore of Mopsuestia) and remained normative in the East. Man is sick, not dead; wounded, not destroyed.
2. Human Ability and Moral Responsibility
The early Fathers unanimously assume a principle that later theology often obscured:
Moral responsibility presupposes real moral ability.
My response. Yet, many Christians deny this absolutely because they believe this lie that we are born sinners, who can do nothing but sin and cannot obey God. It is the T in TULIP, standing for total depravity and total inability.
This is why they consistently affirm:
- genuine free will
- voluntary obedience and disobedience
- praise and blame as meaningful
Representative statements make this unmistakable:
- Justin Martyr:
“Each man goes to everlasting punishment or salvation according to the value of his actions.”
(First Apology 43) - Irenaeus:
“Man is endowed with reason… having been made free in his will and with power over himself.”
(Against Heresies IV.4.3) - Clement of Alexandria:
“Neither praise nor blame belongs to one who sins involuntarily.”
(Stromata I.17) - Tertullian:
“Man was constituted free by God… master of his own will.”
(Against Marcion II.5)
None of these Fathers speaks as though obedience is merely theoretically possible but practically unattainable. They reject any doctrine that would excuse sin by redefining it as unavoidable. But this is central to Augustinian Calvinism.
3. Grace: Justice Distinguished from Mercy
A critical distinction must be maintained:
Ability belongs to justice
- God created man as a moral agent.
- God commands obedience.
- Command presupposes ability.
To deny this is to indict divine justice itself. Grace belongs to restoration and persuasion.
Grace does not exist because humans lack the capacity to obey, but because they:
- resist truth
- prefer sin
- cling to pride
- harden themselves by habit
Grace therefore:
- illumines the mind
- convicts the conscience
- persuades the will
- strengthens resolve
- calls sinners out of rebellion
My comment. Grace addresses unwillingness, not inability
To the average person, this may seem so apparent that they wonder how anyone could believe otherwise. In the 5th century, Augustine changed this foundational premise. In the 16th century, Calvin expanded and refined Augustine’s teachings. In their corrupted teachings, grace is now said to restore ability, but ability was never the problem. Our unwillingness to repent of our rebellion against God has always been the issue, not our inability to stop sinning.
This preserves:
- justice (God commands only what can be done)
- responsibility (sin remains voluntary)
- universal need for grace (all have chosen rebellion)
4. What the Church Rejected in Pelagius — and What It Did Not
Pelagius was rightly condemned — but not for affirming free will or moral ability says ChatGPT.
The Church rejected:
- His denial that Adam’s sin introduced death and corruption into the human condition
- His reduction of grace to mere instruction and example only (If he truly did that)
- His failure to account for the universal bondage created by entrenched sinful habits
The Church did not reject:
- moral responsibility
- genuine human freedom
- the principle that commands imply ability
Pelagius erred by minimizing the depth of human rebellion — not by affirming moral agency.
5. Augustine’s Doctrinal Shift
Under the pressure of the Pelagian controversy, Augustine of Hippo introduced or systematized ideas that were not the earlier consensus of the Church fathers:
- inherited guilt
- total moral inability without prior grace
- bondage of the will
- concupiscence as sin itself
- infant guilt necessitating baptism
Augustine himself admitted:
- earlier, Fathers disagreed with him (Did you hear that?)
- his views developed over time
These doctrines were never received in the East and were later moderated even in the West.
My response. And that should raise suspicion and doubt about the need for the change and its accuracy. Augustinian Calvinism is not built on a solid foundation of biblical truth as passed on to us by the earliest church fathers.
Final Comments on Part 1, Wounded Will
It seems that the early church taught some things that Christians today should reconsider and compare with the truth of God’s word. Most evangelicals have been taught to believe that our ability to obey God is almost non-existent before and even after conversion. Therefore, to many, it may appear futile to even try to consistently obey God. Ideas have consequences, and sometimes those consequences are awful.
Telling believers in Christ that they will never be victorious over sin, the flesh, and the devil is the work of the enemy, not of God. God has given us His precious promises that we may partake of the divine nature. How few Christians believe it applies to this life.
And telling Christians that they will be saved in their sins is the echo of the serpent in the garden of Eden when he told Eve that she would not die the day she ate of the forbidden fruit.
Would Christians continue to believe what they are taught if they truly knew what the early church fathers actually believed and rejected? If they knew that they believed in doctrines that the early church condemned, would they change? Or would they stay with Augustinian Calvinism’s errors?
I think we may have discovered why the Eastern Church felt it necessary to claim that we inherit from Adam a wounded will or an inclination to sin. Augustine was a powerful leader in his day and very influential. See my Original Sin articles, which go into depth regarding the political nature of this entire Augustine versus Pelagius controversy. The early church fathers, as far as I can tell, did not teach these ideas, and Genesis 3 most certainly doesn’t teach this. Why are Christians so reluctant to believe what God said the consequences of Adam and Eve’s sin were? The answer is that the pressure to conform to what Christian church leaders teach is too great in most cases, and in others, ignorance is bliss. Way too many Christians are actually lazy. They want to be told what to believe, what to do, and when to do it. They do not want to spend the time personally to think through these issues. They are not good Bereans.
I fear for them. This explains why Christians believe and cling to so many false doctrines.
In Part 2, we will explore some of the proof texts used by Augustinian Calvinists to justify their interpretation of total depravity and total inability.
