Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 5
Multiple early Christian quotes are used to argue that free will is necessary for God’s judgment to be just (Justin: “without excuse,” Clement: “God is without blame,” Tertullian: law implies ability); which of these arguments most directly confronts common modern assumptions about God’s sovereignty, and what objections do you feel rising up as you hear them?
Another way to ask: Which early Christian argument best shows why real choice matters for God’s judgment to be fair? As you hear it, what pushback or questions come up for you about God’s sovereignty?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
In the teacher’s presentation, Tertullian’s “law implies ability” and Clement’s “God is without blame” most directly confront modern assumptions that God’s sovereignty can include determining human sin without moral consequence. These arguments force the question: if people cannot obey, how can judgment be just and God remain blameless?
- Justin Martyr: God made humans with “power… of choosing… so that all men are without excuse before God.”
- Clement: “Each one… who sins with his own free will chooses punishment… God is without blame.”
- Tertullian: “a law would not be imposed upon one who did not have it in his power” to obey; otherwise “the penalty of death” would be unjust.
- The teacher summarizes the thrust: free will means “we can’t blame God for how we live and how we end up.”
- He adds Origen’s point: God’s “just judgment… couldn’t be just if he made us that way… made us a vessel of destruction regardless of our own choices.”
- He reads Sirach reinforcing it: “Do not say… ‘I fell away because of the Lord’… ‘It was he who led me astray.’”