The Problem of Sin and Free Will

In A Reformed Catholic, Perkins’s first charge against Rome, which he notes is not the principal issue, is that the Roman communion has corrupted the doctrine of sin. It comes under the heading of free will, which he defined thus:

Free-will both by them and us, is taken for a mixed power in the mind and will of man; whereby discerning what is good and what is evil, he doth accordingly choose or refuse the same.

He identified three aspects of free will: natural, human, and spiritual. The question is whether after the fall humans have this power. He began to address this question the same way Augustine began with the Pelagians (and semi-Pelagians) and Thomas Boston would after Perkins—with the fourfold state of humanity:

Man must be considered in a four-fold estate, as he was created, as he was corrupted, as he is renewed, as he shall be glorified. In the first estate, we ascribe to man’s will liberty of nature, in which he could will or not nill [to be unwilling] either good or evil: in the third, liberty of grace: in the last, liberty of glory. All the doubt is of the second estate: and yet therein also we agree.

“All the doubt is of the second estate.” The issue between Rome and Protestants is what the effects of the fall are. How sinful are we? The great attraction of semi-Pelagians has always been that they avoid the obvious and gross error of the Pelagians, who deny any legal or spiritual connection between Adam and us. They affirm that in Adam’s fall sinned we all, but they deny what Paul, Augustine, the medieval neo-Augustinians, and the Protestants affirm—that the effect of Adam’s sin is extensive and intensive. According to the semi-Pelagians, whether in Rome or out, we are not that sinful. In this case, they assert we are not so sinful that we cannot do our part in cooperation with grace, which is said to make it possible.

Perkins distinguished between different aspects of human freedom. On the question of what Luther and Melanchthon called “external freedom”—that is, the lack of compulsion, there is no disagreement:

Human actions are such as are common to all men good and bad, as to speak, and use reason, the practice of mechanical and liberal arts, and the outward performance of civil and ecclesiastical duties; [such] as to come to [the] church, to speak and preach the Word, to reach out the hand to receive the Sacrament, and to lend the ear to listen outwardly to that which is taught. And hither we may refer the outward actions of civil virtues: as namely, justice, temperance, gentleness, and liberality.

The Augustinian and Protestant doctrine of corruption (pravitas) does not teach that humans are as wicked as they could be. In the providence of God, by which the Spirit restrains evil, humans are capable of civil, outward, virtues.

Protestants agree with Rome that when fallen humans sin, they do so without compulsion.

In these we likewise join with the Papists, and teach, that in sins or evil actions men have freedom of will.

On Free Will and Regeneration

Perkins says that we Protestants even agree with Rome, in part, on a second part of spiritual willing.

We likewise in part join with the Church of Rome, and say, that in the first conversion of a sinner, man’s free-will concurs with God’s grace, as a fellow or co-worker in some sort. For in the conversion of a sinner three things are required: the Word, God’s spirit, and man’s will, for man’s will is not passive in all and every respect, but has an action in the best conversion and change of the soul. When any man is converted, this work of God is not done by compulsion, but he is converted willingly: and at the very time when he is converted, by God’s grace he wills his conversion.

The point of discussion is what we now call regeneration, not sanctification as much as the moment of awakening from death to life. Perkins quoted Augustine to the effect that when God gives quickening grace, he also gives “a desire and will” simultaneously. We will freely, but we do so with a renewed, Spirit-given will. When he gives faith, the Spirit gives a new will, causing the will to “desire faith and to willingly receive the gift of believing.” So even in regeneration, we do not act under compulsion because, as Perkins noted, “no man can receive grace utterly against his will, considering [that] will constrained is no will.”

On free will, the difference between confessional Protestants and Rome is the effect of the fall.

The Papists say, man’s will concurs and works with God’s graces in the first conversion of a sinner, by itself, and by its own natural power: and is only helped by the Holy Ghost. We say, that man’s will works with grace in the first conversion: yet not of itself, but by grace. Or thus: They say, will has a natural cooperation: we deny it, and say it has cooperation only by grace, being in itself not active but passive, willing well only as it is moved by grace, whereby it must first be acted and moved, before it can act or will.

The difference between Rome and Protestants is illustrated by the different analogies we use. Rome uses the analogy of prison and prisoners, who are said to be bound and weak, who are “but living in part”—that is, “not wholly dead”—and therefore “yet ha[ve] ability to stir.” On this image, if the warden [the Holy Spirit] “do but untie his bands, and reach him his hand of grace, then can [the prisoner] stand of himself, and will his own salvation, or any thing else that is good.”

Protestants, however, use a different image to describe the human condition after the fall: death. Perkins wrote that we must describe the prisoner as he actually is, “even stark dead” and “one that lies rotten in the grave, not having any ability or power to move or stir: and therefore he cannot so much as desire to do any thing that is truly good of himself” who is utterly dependent on the Spirit, who

must first come and put a new soul into him, even the spirit of grace to quicken and revive him: and then being thus revived, the will begins to will good things at the very same time, when God by his spirit first infuses grace.

This is, as Perkins wrote, “the true difference between us and the Church of Rome in this point of free will.” The issue is not whether we sinned in Adam but whether, as Perkins put it, “after baptism…how far forth it remains after baptism.” In other words, after baptism, how sinful are we? This is important because, as he wrote, “hereupon depend many points of Popery.”

The Reformed and Romanists agree that after baptism “natural corruption” is abolished, but we disagree as to what extent. For Perkins there were three things in original sin:

1. The punishment (the first and second death)
2. Guiltiness (the binding up of the creature unto punishment)
3. The fault (offending of God)

Under the third heading he addressed our guilt in Adam, the corruption of the heart—that is, a natural inclination and proclivity to “any thing that is evil or against the law of God.”

According to Perkins, for the regenerate, in baptism, “the punishment of original sin is taken away” because “there is no condemnation (saith the Apostle) to them that be in Jesus Christ, Rom 8:1.”

Working backward, guilt is also taken away in the regenerate (those given new life). He cautioned that this is true of the person regenerate but not of the “sin in the person.” His clear intent was to restrict these benefits to the regenerate, and he did not attribute the power of regeneration (new life) to the sacrament of baptism. In effect he was saying that baptism is the sign and seal to the regenerate of what is promised in the gospel. He continued to explain that the corruption of sin remains until death.

Where he differs with Rome, however, concerns “the manner, and the measure of the abolishment of this sin.” Rome teaches, he argued, that in baptism original sin is “taken away” so completely that “it ceases to be a sin properly” so that it is now, after baptism, only a “want, a defect, a weakness” that leaves the potential of sin “like tinder” that is ready to burst into flames. Romanists take this position in order to make it possible for them to “uphold some gross opinions of theirs namely, that a man in this life may fulfill the law of God: and do good works void of sin: that he may stand righteous at the bar of God’s judgement by them.”

In contrast, the Reformed teach that though “original sin be taken away in the regenerate,” nevertheless it remains in them after baptism not only as “a want and weakness” but “as sin.”

He appealed to Romans 7:17. Sin, not mere want or weakness, dwells in baptized believers. Further, baptized infants “die the bodily death before they come to the years of discretion.” If baptism removes original sin the way Rome claims, there would be no cause of death. Third, concupiscence (sinful desire) remains after baptism (Gal 5:17; Jas 1:14). Finally, under this heading Perkins appealed to Augustine (Epistle 29), where he argued that in baptism the reigning power of sin is broken, but not that there is no sin whatsoever.

Perkins concluded this section by addressing four objections, the essence of which has to do with defining sin. According to Perkins, Rome is Pelagianizing. Rome’s account of sin does not match the biblical doctrine of sin, and it does not square with Augustine’s (mature) doctrine of sin against the Pelagians and semi-Pelagians. Rome is implicitly perfectionist. Once again, according to Rome, in Adam we are sinful, but we are not so sinful (depraved) that we cannot do our part, cooperate with grace unto sanctification and thence to justification.

Assurance of Salvation

Perkins’s third point against Rome concerns the assurance of salvation. According to Perkins, the Protestants and Rome agree on the following:

1. A man in this life may be certain of salvation; and the same thing does the Church of Rome teach and hold.
2. A man is to put a certain trust [“affiance”] in God’s mercy in Christ for the salvation of his soul.
3. Assurance of salvation in our hearts is joined doubting, and there is no man so assured of his salvation, but he sometimes doubts.
4. A man may be certain of the salvation of men or of the church by Catholic faith, and so say we.
5. A man by faith may be assured of his own salvation through extraordinary revelation, as Abraham and others were, and so do we.

The disagreements between the Reformed faith and Rome on assurance are quite substantial. Perkins wrote,

We hold that a man may be certain of his salvation in his own conscience even in this life, and that by ordinary and special faith. They hold that a man is certain of his salvation only by hope: both of us hold a certainty, we by faith, they by hope.

There have been some Reformed writers who made assurance a second blessing. There are some who continue to teach that assurance may be had only by a special work of the Spirit. This is closer to the Roman dogma than to the confessional Reformed faith. According to Roman dogma, assurance is “only probable.” Further, by contrast we “hold and avouch that our certainty by true faith is infallible.”

The Heidelberg Catechism (1563), which had been widely used in Latin and English by the time Perkins wrote, confessed that assurance is of the essence of saving faith. The first question begins with “trust” (German) or “consolation” (Latin). Our comfort, trust, consolation is that we belong to Christ. It is not that we might belong or we belong if we meet a test. Our comfort is that we cannot be separated from Christ.

According to the Heidelberg Catechism, true faith is “a certain knowledge and a hearty trust” (following the German text). The Latin text, with which Perkins was certainly familiar, defined faith as not only knowledge (notitia) “by which we firmly assent to all things, which God works in us by his Word, but also a certain trust (certa fiducia) kindled (accensa) in my heart by the Holy Spirit through the gospel.” In fact, the Catechism refers to certainty no fewer than nine times.

Perkins summarized the difference between Rome and the Reformed thus:

Our confidence comes from certain and ordinary faith: theirs from hope, ministering (as they say) but a conjectural certainty.

He anticipates three objections from Rome:

1. Where there is no Word, there is no faith, for these two are relatives: but there is no Word of God, saying, Cornelius believe thou, Peter believe thou, and thou shalt be saved.
2. It is no article of the Creed, that a man must believe his own salvation: and therefore no man is bound thereto.
3. We are taught to pray for the pardon of our sins day by day, Matt 6:12. and all this were needless, if we could be assured of pardon in this life.

Perkins replied:

It is true. God does not speak to men particularly, “Believe and you shall be saved.” But yet does he that which is answerable hereunto, in that he gives a general promise, with a commandment to apply the same: and has ordained the holy ministry of the Word to apply the same to the persons of the hearers in his own name: and that is as much as if the Lord himself should speak to men particularly. To speak more plainly: in the Scripture the promises of salvation be indefinitely propounded: it does not say any where, “If John will believe, he shall be saved;” or “if Peter will believe, he shall be saved;” but “whosoever believes shall be saved.” Now then comes the minister of the Word, who standing in the room of God, and in the stead of Christ himself, takes the indefinite promises of the Gospel, and lays them to the hearts of every particular man: and this in effect is as much as if Christ himself should say, “Cornelius believe thou, and thou shalt be saved: Peter believe thou, and thou shalt be saved.”

These promises are not for “hypocrites, heretics, and unrepentant persons.” They are presumptuous, not believing. “Nevertheless it is true in all the elect having the spirit of grace, and prayer: for when God, in the ministry of the Word, being his own ordinance, says, ‘Seek ye my face,’ the heart of God’s children truly answers, ‘O Lord, I will seek thy face’ (Ps 27:8).” When the offer of the gospel comes, they believe by divine grace.

Rome Does Not Understand the Creed

For in that which is commonly called the Apostles’ Creed, every article implies in it this particular faith. And in the first article, “I believe in God,” are three things contained: the first, to believe that there is a God, the second, to believe the same God to be my God, the third, to put my confidence in him for my salvation: and so much contain the other articles, which are concerning God.

Finally, to the objection that we cannot have assurance since that denies the fourth petition in the Lord’s Prayer, which asks for the forgiveness of sins:

The fourth petition must be understood not so much of our old debts or sins, as of our present and new sins: for as we go on from day to day, so we add sin to sin: and for the pardon of them must we humble ourselves and pray. I answer again, that we pray for the pardon of our sins; not because we have no assurance thereof, but because assurance is weak and small: we grow on from grace to grace in Christ, as children do to man’s estate by little and little.

According to Perkins “true faith” is “both an infallible assurance, and a particular assurance of the remission of sins, and of life everlasting.” True faith is not simply a categorical faith that certain things are true of believers but a particular faith—that things are true of oneself. He appealed to Matthew 14:31, our Lord’s rebuke of the disciples’ unbelief. To doubt is not to believe. To believe is to trust. As Perkins says, “To be certain and to give assurance is of the nature of faith.” He also quoted Romans 4:20, 22. Abraham, he reminds us, “did not doubt” God’s promise but believed. The “property of faith is to apprehend and apply the promise, and the thing promised, Christ with his benefits” (John 1:12).

The very act of communion presupposes a personal, particular assurance:

He sets forth his best hearers, as eaters of his body and drinkers of his blood; and . . . he intends to prove this conclusion, that to eat his body and to drink his blood, and to believe in him, are all one. Now then, if Christ be as food, and if to eat and drink the body and blood of Christ, be to believe in him, then must there be a proportion between eating and believing.

Perkins also argued that the “Holy Ghost particularly testifies to us our adoption, the remission of our sins, and the salvation of our soul. Therefore, we may and must particularly and certainly by faith believe the same.” Rome says that the Spirit does witness to us about our adoption, but they reduce it to a “bare sense” or mere “comfortable feeling of God’s love and favor,” but it is weak “and oftentimes deceitful.”

©R. Scott Clark. All Rights Reserved.

Editor’s Note: This article was originally published on the Heidelblog in 2012.

You can find the whole series here. 

---

RESOURCES

• Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
• Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
• Browse the Heidelshop!
• The Heidelblog Resource Page
• Heidelmedia Resources
• The Ecumenical Creeds
• The Reformed Confessions
• The Heidelberg Catechism
• The Heidelberg Catechism: A Historical, Theological, & Pastoral Commentary (Lexham Press, 2025)
• Recovering the Reformed Confession (P&R Publishing, 2008)
• Why I Am A Christian
• What Must A Christian Believe?
• Heidelblog Contributors
• Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to

Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization

---

Post authored by:

• R. Scott Clark

  

  R.Scott Clark is the President of the Heidelberg Reformation Association, the author and editor of, and contributor to several books and the author of many articles. He is professor emeritus of church history and historical theology at Westminster Seminary California, where he taught for 29 years. He also taught at Wheaton College, Reformed Theological Seminary, and Concordia University. He has hosted the Heidelblog since 2007 and the Heidelcast since 2009.

  More by R. Scott Clark ›