evil, which simply means that humans act according to their
We reject coercion in the will, as it contradicts its nature.
However, we deny that human choice is genuinely free in the fullest sense, as the will is bound by sin and therefore necessarily inclined toward evil. This bondage to sin brings a necessity to act wickedly, yet it is a voluntary bondage, as people act according to their corrupted desires, not by external compulsion.
In short, while the will is self-directed and not coerced, it is "bound" by its sinful nature and, therefore, can only act within that corrupted state. This distinction between necessity and coercion clarifies that sinful actions stem from a voluntary, yet deeply enslaved, will.
Pighius attempts to prove that the early church Fathers universally support the idea of free choice. However, he misinterprets their teachings, as they often speak about human will in its original, uncorrupted state as created by God, rather than its fallen, sinful condition after the fall. Let's consider the key Fathers Pighius cites:
1. Origen – Origen says that humans are not forced into good or evil, which simply means that humans act according to their will, not under compulsion. This aligns with our view that, while people act willingly, their will is now corrupted by sin. However, Origen doesn't clearly explain the extent of human freedom after the fall into sin. When Origen talks about free choice, he mainly addresses humanity's original condition, not our fallen state, which is crucial to the discussion.
2. Clement – Pighius uses Clement's works to bolster his argument, but those writings are unreliable, as they often represent a mix of opinions not necessarily reflective of the true