The question of predestination and freewill were never a central issue until the controversy of Pelegius. Until that time almost all energy was spend on defining the position of Jesus. The mystery of the incarnation and its relation to God was the problem. As such most early fathers tacitly assumed that freedom of will was part of the image of God conferred onto every human being, saved or unsaved, and that they are therefore accountable to God. Accountability was always associated with this freedom. Machines are not accountable – only human beings are. Predestination was also not an issue because the concept of God ordaining every detail was never assumed. History and future always unfolded as a Markov chain for the early fathers. They are dependent on the past and the present. They are being continuously created by human beings. God can control it but he never imposes on anybody. Laws are binding on matter because they are inanimate. Laws are not binding on conscious beings. That is what made the consciousness different from matter. Moral laws are given to man depending on the historic situation. Man is free to follow it and be saved or reject it and reap the consequence. History of mankind is a series of events in this interaction of moral sphere. A casual look at the history of the Kings and Chronicles will give that concept clearly. Prophets taught the concept that God directs history to its final goal. The prophets were never fortunetellers who told the future. They were forthtellers who told people and nations to what direction they are heading and if they were heading for destruction they were called to repentance. If they did they were saved otherwise they went into slavery. But that the lives of every person is laid out in detail before the creation was never assumed because it assumes preexistence of souls. Souls come into existence as and when they were historically necessary. But future was always in existence as a possibility. Hence we have the picture of the lamb slain before the creation of the world. As for the future of the believers beyond this age we have very little prophecy. The few that we have are cryptic indicating that we cannot know the glory. Again this being in future is to unfold in time and does not exist nor are they predetermined. A question that remains is whether man will have freewill after they are living with God in heaven. If yes there is a chance of fall in other levels of existence in the future. Existence implies movement, which implies time. On the other hand if we assume omniscience and sovereignty of God to imply predestination, there is no way we can get out of the labyrinth that man is simply a sophisticated robot and with - not double but - multistate predestination.

Having given this introductory remark let us see the development of this thought through history.

Origen seemed to emphasize human freedom, but he did not believe in it as Arminius and Wesley later taught. His model was actually based on the story of the Prodigal Son. He believed that we are so free that we can choose our road back to God and the length of time it will take to get back to God. But we are not free to choose never to be redeemed. However he did not affirm that all would be redeemed within human history. His redemptive process goes beyond this age. His assumption is based on the fundamental character of God, which is love, and God being the Father as shown by Jesus.

Arnobius believed in the total free will of man so that man could wander away from God. Since every man is a son, God could not stand seeing him in a hell of fire without hope he annihilated him from existence. To Arnobius this age is the only age, which decide this fate. Second death or eternal death is simply going out of existence. First death is the separation of body from soul.

Most early fathers believed in the freedom of will of man. Since this never was an issue no serious apology was developed. Tertullian, Cyprian, Chrysostom, Irenaeus and Athanasius fall in this group. They never grappled with those problems.

The whole issue flared up with Pelagius, Coelestius, who questioned the ongoing sin within the church on the excuse of human frailty. They took the position of Judaism (after all Apostles and the early Christians followed the Judaic thought pattern) which denied original sin resulting from Adam's fall. Adam’s sin was his error and his progeny did not have to pay for Adam’s error. In fact they believed that Adam was reinstated after he repented. Hence there was no need of redemption of mankind as a whole.

Augustine of Hippo (354-430) believed in the total depravity of man and in predestination. Yet as far as man is concerned he is free. Every freedom is bounded. So is the freedom of will. Each person produces his or her own boundaries. This is the strand that was taken over by Luther and Calvin.

The Second Council of Orange (AD 529) made an official decision for the Catholic Church. It taught that we lost our freedom through the fall, and man is born a sinner. But when a child is baptized he or she is restored to the original free state as Adam. Hence baptism has regenerative powers if administered by a Church Official in the proper ceremonial form with proper incantations. This is the position of the Roman Catholic Church even today.

Erasmus was a freedomist and was opposed by Martin Luther in The Bondage of the Will. Melanchthon, a close associate of with Luther, later came to preach human freedom and conditional predestination in his last years (Caspar Brandt, The Life of James Arminius, London: Ward, 1858, 30ff)

Anabaptists, the fore runners of Mennonites, taught the universal provision for redemption in Christ's atonement and that we humans cast the deciding vote on whether we will be damned or redeemed.

The Thirty-nine Articles of 1563 (and 1571) of the Church of England took no position on the matter of human freedom-allowing, in the future, either Calvinism or Arminianism among its adherents (See Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, 3:486-512).

Calvin and Luther believed in total depravity and total predestination. They believed that the fallen man has no freedom of will except to continue to sin and go into damnation. Natural man now has no ability to do good unless God calls him. This is totally predestined without any reason or merit on the part of the nominees. The unconditional election and total depravity were challenged by many contemporary theologians of his period such as Bullinger , Jerome Bolsec and Charles Perrot. The Thirty-nine Articles of 1563 and later of 1571 of the Church of England took a stand similar to the Eastern Churches by taking no positive stand on this matter.

James Arminius taught human freedom during his 15-year pastorate at Amsterdam (1588-1603) and during his tenure as a professor at the University of Leiden (1603-9). He was not Pelagian, and emphasized original sin and its dire consequences. "In this state [of original sin], the freewill of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed . . . but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost". "The mind, in this state, is dark, destitute of the saving knowledge of God, and, according to the Apostle, incapable of those things which belong to the Spirit of God. For 'the animal man has no perception of the things of the spirit of God' (1 Cor. 2:14) He taught that in the fallen nature man cannot exercise his free will with the prevenient grace given by God. In this sense God is the one who initiates salvation. But this grace is given to all without regard to person. Commenting on John 8:36, Arminius wrote, "It follows that our will is not free from the first fall; … unless it be made free by the Son through his spirit."

John Goodwin taught Arminianism in England in the middle of the 17th century and directly influenced John Wesley. John Wesley’s argument was essentially based on the relation between freedom and accountability. "Indeed, if man were not free, he could not be accountable either for his thoughts, words, or actions. If he were not free, he would not be capable either of reward or punishment; he would be incapable either of virtue or vice, of being either morally good or bad" (John Wesley, "On Predestination," Sermon 58 in Works, 6:227). Adam's sin brought in a major crisis in history. "I believe that Adam, before his fall, has such freedom of will, that he might choose either good or evil; but that, since the fall, no child of man has a natural power to choose anything that is truly good" . I believe that Adam, before his fall, has such freedom of will, that he might choose either good or evil; but that, since the fall, no child of man has a natural power to choose anything that is truly good" Hence Wesley believed that a measure of free-will was supernaturally restored to every man so that they can respond to the call of the gospel. (John Wesley, "Predestination Calmly Considered," 10:229-30). , This he termed as prevenient grace. We can either accept Christ or reject Him-and our eternal destiny depends upon our free response to God's offer of salvation.