Handbook on Faith, Hope, & Love (Updated Translation)

Book Summary

Augustine's "Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Love" (Enchiridion de Fide, Spe et Caritate), written around 420 AD, presents a concise yet profound summary of Christian doctrine and practice. Written at the request of a Roman layman named Laurentius, the work aims to explain what is essential for Christian faith and life in a clear, systematic manner.

The treatise begins with faith, grounding all Christian belief in the Apostles' Creed. Augustine methodically explains each article of faith, addressing fundamental questions about God's nature, creation, the fall of humanity, and Christ's redemptive work. He emphasizes that true faith must be more than mere intellectual assent, involving trust in God's promises and submission to divine authority.

In discussing hope, Augustine focuses primarily on the Lord's Prayer as the model for Christian hope and petition. He explains how each petition expresses proper Christian desires and expectations, emphasizing that all legitimate hope is ultimately grounded in God's promises. The section carefully distinguishes between proper Christian hope and presumption or despair.

The work's treatment of love provides a profound exploration of Christian charity. Augustine argues that all moral behavior must flow from proper love – love of God above all things and love of neighbor as oneself. He explains how all sins result from disordered love, while virtue comes from properly ordered affections.

Throughout the text, Augustine addresses practical questions about sin, baptism, the church, and the resurrection. He tackles difficult theological issues such as predestination and free will, offering careful explanations that balance divine sovereignty with human responsibility.

The handbook demonstrates Augustine's pastoral heart, combining deep theological insight with practical wisdom for Christian living. While addressing complex doctrinal matters, he maintains focus on the essential goal of Christian life: growing in faith, hope, and love toward God and neighbor.

This work remains significant as one of the first systematic presentations of Christian theology for lay readers, demonstrating how complex doctrine can be explained clearly without sacrificing depth. Its influence on subsequent Christian theological and devotional writing has been profound.

Handbook on Faith, Hope, Love (Modern, Updated Translation)

Support more translations by picking up a copy of this book on Amazon.

Buy Book on Amazon

Free Book Preview (Modern English Translation)

Chapter #1: The Reason and Goal of this "Guide"

1. I can't express, my dear son Laurence, how much your learning makes me happy and how much I want you to be wise—not like those about whom it is said: "Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputant of this world? Hasn't God made the wisdom of this world foolish?" (1 Cor. 1:20). Instead, you should be like those of whom it is written, "The multitude of the wise is the health of the world" (Wisdom 6:24); and also, you should be the kind of person the apostle wants those people to be when he said, "I would have you be wise in goodness and simple in evil" (Rom. 16:19).

2. Human wisdom is about being devoted to God. You can find this in the book of Job, where it says that Wisdom herself told man, "Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom" (Job 28:28). If you wonder what kind of devotion she meant, it's more clearly described by the Greek word theosebeia, which means "the service of God." The Greeks have another word for "piety," ensebeia, which also means "proper service." This mainly refers to serving God. But the best term is theosebeia, as it clearly shows that serving God is the source of human wisdom.

When you ask me to be brief, you don't expect me to talk about big issues in just a few sentences, do you? Isn't this more like what you want: a short summary or a quick guide on the right way to worship God?

3. If I said, "God should be worshipped with faith, hope, and love," you might say this is too short and ask for a brief explanation of what each of these three means: What should be believed, what should be hoped for, and what should be loved? If I answered these questions, you would have everything you asked for in your letter. If you kept a copy of it, you can easily look at it. If not, remember your questions as I talk about them.

4. You want me to write a book for you, like a handbook, to help with your questions. What should we seek above everything else? What should we avoid, especially with all the different heresies? How does reason support religion, or what happens to reason when it's just about faith? What is the start and end of our efforts? What is the most complete explanation? What is the sure and unique foundation of the Catholic faith? You would know the answers if you understood what a person should believe, hope for, and love. These are the main things—really, the only things—to look for in religion. Anyone who turns away from them is either not a Christian at all or is a heretic. Things we experience with our senses or analyze with our minds can be proven by reason. But for things beyond our physical senses, which we can't figure out on our own, we must believe, without doubt, the testimony of those who wrote the Scriptures, who were divinely helped in their senses and minds to see and even predict the things they talk about.

5. As this faith, which works through love, starts to fill the soul, it begins to change into sight through the power of goodness. This allows those who are holy and pure in heart to catch glimpses of that indescribable beauty, which is our greatest happiness. So, here's the answer to your question about the start and end of our journey. We start with faith and are completed in sight. This is the most complete explanation. The solid foundation of the Catholic faith is Christ. The apostle said, "For other foundation can no man lay save that which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus" (1 Cor. 3:11). We shouldn't deny that this is the unique basis of the Catholic faith, even though it seems to be shared with some heretics. If we think carefully about the meaning of Christ, we'll see that some heretics who want to be called Christians honor the name of Christ, but they don't have the true essence of Christ. Explaining all this would take too long because we would have to go through all the heresies that have existed, those that exist now, and those that could exist under the name "Christian," and show that what we said applies to each of them. Such a discussion would require so many volumes that it would seem endless.

6. You've asked for a handbook, something you can carry with you, not just a book for your shelf. So, let's go back to the three ways we said God should be served: faith, hope, and love. It's easy to say what we should believe, hope for, and love. But defending our beliefs against the criticisms of those who think differently is a harder and more detailed job. To have this wisdom, it's not enough to just have a handbook in your hand. You also need to have a strong passion in your heart.

Chapter #2: The Creed and the Lord's Prayer as Guides to Understanding the Theological Virtues of Faith, Hope, and Love

7. Let's start with the Creed and the Lord's Prayer. What could be shorter to hear or read? What is easier to remember? Since humanity was heavily burdened by sin and in desperate need of mercy, a prophet, speaking about the time of God's grace, said, "And it shall be that all who invoke the Lord's name will be saved" (Joel 2:32). That's why we have the Lord's Prayer. Later, the apostle, wanting to highlight this same grace, recalled this prophetic message and quickly added, "But how shall they invoke him in whom they have not believed?" (Rom. 10:14). That's why we have the Creed. In these two, we see the three theological virtues working together: faith believes; hope and love pray. Yet without faith, nothing else is possible; so faith also prays. This is what is meant by the saying, "How shall they invoke him in whom they have not believed?"

8. Now, can we hope for something we don't believe in? We can believe in something without hoping for it. For example, who among the faithful doesn't believe in the punishment of the wicked? But they don't hope for it. If someone believes that such punishment is coming for them and is scared of it, it's more accurate to say they fear it rather than hope for it. A poet, explaining the difference between these two feelings, said,

"Let those who are afraid be allowed to hope,"

But another poet, and a better one, didn't say it correctly:

"Here, if I could have hoped for meaning, foreseen"

such a terrible blow . . ."

Some grammar experts use this as an example of incorrect language and say, "He said 'to hope' when he should have said 'to fear.'"

So, faith can relate to both bad and good things because we believe in both. But faith itself is good, not bad. Also, faith involves things from the past, present, and future. We believe that Christ died; that's a past event. We believe he is sitting at the Father's right hand; that's present. We believe he will come as our judge; that's future. Faith also concerns our own matters and those of others. Everyone believes, about themselves and others—and even about things—that they started to exist at some point and haven't existed forever. So, not just about people, but even about angels, we believe many things related to religion.

But hope is only about good things, and only about things that are in the future and matter to the person who has hope. Because of this, faith and hope are different: they are different words and ideas. Yet, faith and hope share something: they both relate to things that are not seen, whether these things are believed in or hoped for. In the Letter to the Hebrews, which is used by those who defend the Catholic faith, faith is described as "the conviction of things not seen" (Heb. 11:1). However, if someone says that their faith is based on the evidence of what they currently experience, they should not be called foolish or told, "You have seen; therefore you have not believed." It doesn't mean that if something is seen, it can't be believed. Still, it's better for us to use the word "faith," as we learn in "the sacred eloquence," to talk about things not seen. And for hope, the apostle says: "Hope that is seen is not hope. For if a man sees a thing, why does he hope for it? If, however, we hope for what we do not see, we then wait for it in patience" (Rom. 8:24-25). So, when we believe our good is in the future, it is the same as hoping for it.

What, then, can I say about love, without which faith can't do anything? There can't be true hope without love. In fact, as the apostle James says, "Even the demons believe and tremble" (James 2:19).

Yet they neither hope nor love. Instead, believing like we do that what we hope for and love is happening, they are afraid. So, the apostle Paul supports and praises the faith that works through love and cannot exist without hope. This means that love is not without hope, hope is not without love, and neither hope nor love exist without faith.

Chapter #3: God Created Everything; and Everything He Made is Good

9. So, when we ask what we should believe in religious matters, we shouldn't look for answers by studying the nature of things like the people the Greeks called "physicists." We shouldn't worry if Christians don't know about the properties and number of basic elements in nature, or about the movement, order, and paths of the stars, the layout of the heavens, or the types and nature of animals, plants, stones, springs, rivers, and mountains. We also shouldn't be concerned about their knowledge of the divisions of space and time, signs of upcoming storms, and the many other things these "physicists" have figured out or think they have. Even these people, with their great insight, passion for study, and plenty of free time, have explored some of these things through human guesswork and others through historical research, but they still haven't learned everything there is to know. In fact, many things they are proud to have discovered are often more opinions than proven facts.

For Christians, it's enough to believe that everything created, whether in heaven or on earth, visible or invisible, comes from the goodness of the Creator, who is the one true God. Additionally, Christians believe that nothing exists except God himself and what comes from him. They believe that God is triune, meaning the Father, the Son who is born of the Father, and the Holy Spirit who comes from the same Father, but is the same Spirit of the Father and the Son.

10. All things were created by this Trinity, which is supremely, equally, and unchangeably good. However, the things created were not made to be supremely, equally, or unchangeably good. Yet, each created thing is good on its own, and when considered all together, they are very good because they form a universe of amazing beauty.

11. In this universe, even what we call evil, when it's properly ordered and kept in its place, highlights the good even more, because good things are more enjoyable and praiseworthy when compared to bad things. The all-powerful God, whom even non-believers recognize as the highest power over everything, wouldn't allow any evil in his works unless, in his power and goodness, he can bring good out of evil. What is anything we call evil except the absence of good? In bodies, for example, sickness and wounds are just the absence of health. When healing happens, the sickness and wounds don't move somewhere else; they simply stop existing. This is because evil isn't a substance; the wound or disease is a flaw in the body's substance, which, as a substance, is good. Evil, then, is an accident, or a lack of the good we call health. So, any flaws in a soul are the absence of a natural good. When healing happens, these flaws don't go elsewhere; they just stop existing because they are no longer present in the state of health.

10. By this Trinity, supremely and equally and immutably good, were all things created. But they were not created supremely, equally, nor immutably good. Still, each single created thing is good, and taken as a whole they are very good, because together they constitute a universe of admirable beauty.

11. In this universe, even what is called evil, when it is rightly ordered and kept in its place, commends the good more eminently, since good things yield greater pleasure and praise when compared to the bad things. For the Omnipotent God, whom even the heathen acknowledge as the Supreme Power over all, would not allow any evil in his works, unless in his omnipotence and goodness, as the Supreme Good, he is able to bring forth good out of evil. What, after all, is anything we call evil except the privation of good? In animal bodies, for instance, sickness and wounds are nothing but the privation of health. When a cure is effected, the evils which were present (i.e., the sickness and the wounds) do not retreat and go elsewhere. Rather, they simply do not exist any more. For such evil is not a substance; the wound or the disease is a defect of the bodily substance which, as a substance, is good. Evil, then, is an accident, i.e., a privation of that good which is called health. Thus, whatever defects there are in a soul are privations of a natural good. When a cure takes place, they are not transferred elsewhere but, since they are no longer present in the state of health, they no longer exist at all. 

Chapter #4: The Problem of Evil

12. All of nature is good because the Creator of everything is supremely good. But nature isn't as perfectly and unchangeably good as its Creator. The goodness in created things can be lessened or increased. When good is lessened, that's evil; but no matter how much it's reduced, something of its original nature must remain as long as it exists. No matter how small or insignificant something is, the good that is its "nature" can't be destroyed without destroying the thing itself. That's why it's reasonable to praise something that isn't corrupted, and if it were something that couldn't be destroyed, it would be even more worthy of praise. However, when something is corrupted, its corruption is evil because it means losing some of the good. Where there's no loss of good, there's no evil. Where there's evil, there's a corresponding loss of good. So, as long as something is being corrupted, there's good in it that's being taken away; and if something remains that can't be further corrupted, this will then be an incorruptible entity, and it will have reached this great good through the process of corruption. But even if the corruption isn't stopped, it still has some good that can't be completely taken away. If the corruption becomes total, there's no good left because it's no longer an entity at all. Therefore, corruption can't destroy the good without also destroying the thing itself. Every actual entity is good; a greater good if it can't be corrupted, a lesser good if it can be. Yet only the foolish and ignorant can deny that it's still good even when corrupted. When something is completely consumed by corruption, not even the corruption remains, because it is nothing in itself, having no real existence.

13. From this, we can see that there can't be anything called evil if there is nothing good. Something that is completely good has no evil in it. If there is some evil in something, then its goodness is lacking or can be lacking. So, there can't be any evil without something good. This leads us to a surprising idea: since everything that exists is good, if we say something flawed is bad, it seems like we're saying that what is evil is good, that only what is good can be evil, and that there is no evil without something good. This is because everything that actually exists is good. Nothing evil exists by itself, but only as an evil part of something that exists. Therefore, there can be nothing evil except something good. Even though this sounds strange, the logic of the argument forces us to accept it. At the same time, we must be careful not to fall under the warning in the prophecy: "Woe to those who call evil good and good evil: who call darkness light and light darkness; who call the bitter sweet and the sweet bitter" (Isa. 5:20). Moreover, the Lord himself says: "An evil man brings forth evil out of the evil treasure of his heart" (Luke 6:45). So, what is an evil man but an evil being, since a man is a being? Now, if a man is something good because he exists, what is a bad man except an evil good? When we look at these two ideas, we find that the bad man is not bad because he is a man, nor is he good because he is wicked. Instead, he is a good being because he is a man, and evil because he is wicked. Therefore, if anyone says that just being a man is evil, or that being a wicked man is good, he rightly falls under the prophetic judgment: "Woe to him who calls evil good and good evil." This is like criticizing God's work, because man is something God created. It also means we are praising the flaws in this man because he is wicked. So, every being, even if it is flawed, is good because it exists. It is evil because it is flawed.

14. Actually, when we talk about what we call evil and good, the usual logic rules don't apply. No weather is both dark and bright at the same time; no food or drink is both sweet and sour at the same time; no body is, at the same time and place, both white and black, nor deformed and well-formed at the same time. This principle is found to apply in almost all situations: two opposites cannot exist in a single thing. However, while everyone agrees that good and evil are opposites, they can not only exist together, but evil cannot exist at all without good, or in something that is not good. On the other hand, good can exist without evil. For a person or an angel could exist and not be wicked, but there cannot be wickedness except in a person or an angel. It is good to be a person, good to be an angel; but evil to be wicked. These two opposites are thus coexistent, so that if there were no good in what is evil, then the evil simply could not be, since it can have no way to exist, nor any source from which corruption springs, unless it is something that can be corrupted. Unless this something is good, it cannot be corrupted, because corruption is nothing more than the loss of the good. Evils, therefore, have their source in the good, and unless they depend on something good, they are not anything at all. There is no other source from which an evil thing can come to be. If this is the case, then, as far as a thing is an entity, it is unquestionably good. If it is an incorruptible entity, it is a great good. But even if it is a corruptible entity, it still has no way of existing except as a part of something that is good. Only by corrupting something good can corruption cause harm.

15. When we say that evil comes from good, don't think this goes against our Lord's words: "A good tree cannot bear evil fruit" (Matt. 7:18). This is true, as the Truth himself says: "Men do not gather grapes from thorns," because thorns can't produce grapes. However, from good soil, both vines and thorns can grow. In the same way, just as a bad tree doesn't produce good fruit, an evil will doesn't lead to good actions. From human nature, which is good by itself, a good or evil will can arise. There was no other source for evil to come from initially except from the nature—good in itself—of an angel or a person. This is clearly shown by our Lord in the passage about trees and fruits, where he said: "Make the tree good and the fruits will be good, or make the tree bad and its fruits will be bad" (Matt. 12:33). This is a clear warning that bad fruit can't grow on a good tree, nor can good fruit grow on a bad one. Yet from the same earth he was talking about, both kinds of trees can grow.

Chapter #5: The Types and Levels of Mistakes

16. Given this situation, when that line from Maro makes us happy,

"Happy is he who can understand the causes of things".

It still doesn't mean that our happiness depends on knowing the causes of the big physical processes in the world, which are hidden in the secret maze of nature.

"Where do earthquakes come from, which make the sea rise and flood?"

so that they overflow their limits and then calm down again," (Job 38:11)

and other similar things like this.

But we should know why good and bad things happen, at least as much as we can in this life, which is full of mistakes and troubles, so we can avoid them. We should always aim for true happiness where misery doesn't bother us, and mistakes don't lead us astray. If it's good to understand why things move, then nothing is more important in these matters than understanding our own health. But when we don't know these things, we look for a doctor, who understands that the mysteries of heaven and earth are still hidden from us, and how we must be patient in not knowing.

17. Even though we should try to avoid mistakes whenever we can, both in big and small things, it's impossible to know everything. But just because we don't know something doesn't mean we're making a mistake. If someone thinks they know something they don't, or if they believe something false is true, that's what we call an error. Obviously, the importance of the mistake depends on the question at hand. In any situation, we naturally prefer someone knowledgeable over someone who doesn't know, and an expert over someone who makes mistakes, and this makes sense. In a complicated issue, when one person knows one thing and another person knows something else, if the first person's knowledge is more helpful and the second person's is less helpful or even harmful, who wouldn't prefer ignorance in the second case? There are some things that are better not to know. Similarly, sometimes making a mistake can be beneficial—like on a journey, but not in moral matters. This happened to us once when we took the wrong path at a crossroads and avoided a place where a group of armed Donatists was waiting to ambush us. We eventually reached our destination, but by a longer route, and when we found out about the ambush, we were glad we made the mistake and thanked God for it. Who wouldn't agree that the traveler who made the mistake is better off than the bandit who didn't? This might explain what our greatest poet meant when he spoke for an unhappy lover:

"When I saw her, I was overwhelmed."

and a terrible mistake led me astray,"

There is something called a lucky mistake, which not only doesn't cause any harm but actually does some good.

Now let's take a closer look at the truth in this matter. To make a mistake means judging something as true when it's actually false, or as false when it's true. It means being sure about things that are uncertain and unsure about things that are certain, whether they are definitely true or definitely false. This kind of mistake in thinking is wrong and inappropriate because the right thing would be to be able to say, in words or judgment: "Yes, yes. No, no." (Matt. 5:37) The difficult lives we lead partly come from this: sometimes, to avoid complete loss, mistakes are unavoidable. It's different in that higher life where Truth itself is the life of our souls, where no one deceives and no one is deceived. In this life, people deceive and are deceived, and it's actually worse when they deceive by lying than when they are deceived by believing lies. Yet our rational mind avoids falsehood and naturally tries to avoid mistakes as much as possible, so even a deceiver doesn't want to be deceived by someone else. The liar thinks he doesn't deceive himself and only deceives those who believe him. Indeed, he doesn't make a mistake in his lying if he knows what the truth is. But he is wrong in thinking that his lie doesn't harm him, because every sin harms the one who commits it more than it harms the one who suffers from it.

Chapter #6: The Issue of Lying

18. Here we face a very tough and complicated issue that I once addressed in a long book, answering the pressing question of whether a good person should ever lie. Some people argue that in matters related to worshiping God or understanding God's nature, it can sometimes be good and religious to lie. However, I believe that every lie is a sin, though there is a big difference based on why and what the lie is about. Someone who lies to try to help isn't as sinful as someone who lies with bad intentions. And someone who lies and sends a traveler the wrong way doesn't do as much harm as someone who lies and misguides a person's life. Clearly, someone isn't a liar if they say something false while truly believing it's true, because they aren't trying to deceive; they're just mistaken. Similarly, a person isn't a liar, even if they could be called reckless, when they carelessly believe something false is true. On the other hand, someone is a liar in their own mind if they speak the truth thinking it's a lie. For their soul, since they didn't say what they believed, they didn't tell the truth, even if what they said was true. Also, a person isn't free from being called a liar if they accidentally speak the truth while intending to lie. If we only look at the speaker's intentions, the person who unknowingly says something false—because they think it's true—is better than the one who unknowingly speaks the truth while trying to deceive. The first person doesn't have a different intention in their heart than in their words, while the other, no matter the facts, still "has one thought locked in his heart, another ready on his tongue," which is the core of lying. But when we consider what is being talked about, it matters a lot what someone is deceived about or lies about. Being deceived is less bad than lying, in terms of intentions. But it's much more acceptable for someone to lie about things not related to religion than to be deceived about things where faith and knowledge are needed to properly serve God. For example, if one person lies by saying a dead person is alive, and another person, being deceived, believes that Christ will die again in the future—wouldn't it be much better to lie in the first case than to be deceived in the second? And wouldn't it be a lesser evil to lead someone into the first mistake than to be led by someone into the second?

19. Sometimes we make big mistakes, and other times, small ones. Some mistakes don't cause harm, while others can even lead to something good. It's a serious problem if someone is misled into not believing what leads to eternal life or what leads to eternal death. But it's a minor issue if someone believes a lie as the truth in a situation where they only face a temporary setback, which can be turned into something positive by being patient and faithful. For example, if someone thinks a person is good but they are actually bad, and then suffers because of it. Or if someone believes a bad person is good but doesn't get harmed by them. This isn't a serious mistake, nor would they be condemned by the saying, "Woe to those who call evil good" (Isa. 5:20). This saying refers to actions, not people. So, if someone calls adultery good, they can be rightly criticized. But if they think a person is good because they believe them to be chaste, not knowing they are an adulterer, they aren't wrong about what is good or bad, just about the person's actions. They call the person good based on what they think, which is a good intention. They still believe adultery is bad and chastity is good. But they mistakenly think this person is good, not knowing they are an adulterer. Similarly, if someone avoids harm because of a mistake, like I did on that journey, something good can come from the mistake. But when I say someone can be mistaken without harm or even gain something from it, I'm not saying the mistake itself is good. I'm talking about the harm that didn't happen or the good that did happen because of the mistake, not caused by it. Mistakes, whether big or small, are always bad. Who would deny that it's bad to believe something false as true, or to reject the truth as false, or to treat something certain as uncertain, or something uncertain as certain? It's one thing to think a bad person is good—that's a mistake. It's another thing not to be harmed if the bad person we thought was good doesn't harm us. It's one thing to think a road is the right one when it isn't. It's another thing if, because of this mistake—which is bad—something good happens, like being saved from danger.

Chapter #7: Questions About the Limits of Knowledge and Certainty in Different Matters

20. I'm not sure if mistakes like these should be called sins—when someone thinks well of a bad person without knowing their true character, or when we have experiences in our mind instead of through our senses (like when the apostle Peter thought he was seeing a vision but was actually being freed from chains by an angel, as in Acts 12:9). Or when we have sensory illusions, like thinking something is smooth when it's rough, sweet when it's bitter, fragrant when it's rotten, or mistaking the sound of thunder for a passing wagon. Or when we confuse one person for another, especially when two people look alike, like twins—our poet even mentions "a pleasant error for parents." I'm saying I don't know if these and similar mistakes should be called sins.

Right now, I'm not trying to tackle the toughest question that puzzled the smartest people of the Academy: Should a wise person ever state anything for sure, in case they end up claiming something false as true? They say all questions are either hidden or uncertain. I wrote three books about this early in my conversion because these kinds of objections were blocking my understanding. It was important to overcome the feeling that finding the truth was impossible, which is what their arguments seemed to suggest. They believe every mistake is a sin, and the only way to avoid it is by not agreeing with anything too strongly. They argue it's a mistake to believe in something uncertain. For them, nothing in human experience is certain because falsehood can look so much like the truth. Even if something seems true and actually is true, they will still argue against it with sharp and even bold arguments.

Among us, "the righteous man lives by faith" (Rom. 1:17). If you take away positive affirmation, you take away faith, because without positive affirmation, nothing is believed. There are truths about things we can't see, and unless we believe them, we can't reach a happy life, which is eternal life. We might wonder if we should argue with those who claim they don't know about the eternity to come or even about their current existence, because they argue that they don't know what they can't help knowing. No one can "not know" that they are alive. If someone isn't alive, they can't "not know" about it or anything else, because knowing or "not knowing" means being alive. By not affirming that they are alive, skeptics try to avoid appearing wrong, but they make mistakes just by being alive; only someone alive can make mistakes. So, knowing that we live is not only true but also completely certain. There are many things that are true and certain, and if we don't positively agree with them, it shouldn't be seen as greater wisdom but rather a kind of madness.

21. When it comes to things that don't affect our journey to God's Kingdom, it doesn't really matter if we believe them or not, or if they're true or just thought to be true or false. Making mistakes in these areas, like confusing one thing for another, isn't considered a sin, or if it is, it's a minor one. In short, no matter what kind or how big these mistakes are, they don't affect the path to God, which is the faith in Christ that works through love. This way of life wasn't abandoned in the mistake parents made about the twins. Nor did the apostle Peter stray from this path when he thought he was seeing a vision and got things mixed up, only realizing the truth after the angel who freed him had left (Acts 12:9-11). Similarly, the patriarch Jacob didn't stray from this path when he believed his son, who was actually alive, had been eaten by a wild animal (Gen. 37:33-35). We can make errors like these without losing our faith in God, and we don't leave the path that leads us to Him. Still, these mistakes, even if they're not sins, are part of the troubles of this life, where we often mistake false for true, reject true for false, and doubt what's actually certain. Even though these errors don't affect the faith that helps us move towards truth and eternal happiness, they are connected to the struggles we still face. In reality, we wouldn't be deceived at all, either in our minds or senses, if we were already experiencing true and complete happiness.

22. Every lie should be considered a sin because everyone should speak what's truly in their heart—not only when they know the truth but even when they make mistakes or are misled. This applies whether what they believe is true or just seems true when it isn't. But a person who lies says the opposite of what's in their heart, intending to deceive. Clearly, language was originally created not for people to deceive each other but as a way for someone to share their thoughts with others. Therefore, using language to deceive, instead of for its intended purpose, is a sin.

We shouldn't think that lying is ever not a sin, even if we think it might help someone. For example, we could help by stealing, like secretly taking from a rich person who doesn't notice the loss and giving it to a poor person who really needs it. But no one would say that stealing isn't a sin. Similarly, we could "help" by committing adultery, if someone seemed to be dying from unrequited love and might repent if they lived. But it's clear that such adultery would be a sin. If we value chastity so highly, why do we think it's okay to violate truth by lying, even though we wouldn't violate chastity for any reason? It's true that people have made progress when they only lie for human reasons. But what should be praised in such progress is their good intentions, not their deceit. The deceit might be forgiven, but it shouldn't be praised, especially among those who follow the New Covenant, where it is said, "Let your speech be yes, yes; no, no: for what is more than this comes from evil" (Matt. 5:37). Yet, because of the evil that constantly challenges us, even those who share in Christ's inheritance pray, "Forgive us our debts" (Matt. 6:12).

Chapter #8: The Situation of Humanity After the Fall

23. With this much said, in the short space of this kind of writing, about what we need to know about the causes of good and evil—enough to guide us toward the Kingdom, where there will be life without death, truth without mistakes, happiness without worry—we should not doubt that the cause of everything good is nothing other than the generous goodness of God himself. The cause of evil is the turning away of the will of a being who is changeably good from the Good which is unchangeable. This first happened with the angels and, later, with humans.

24. The first mistake of a rational being was losing the good. After this, without even wanting it, ignorance about what is right and a desire for harmful things sneaked in. These brought along error and misery. When these two problems seem close, the soul's reaction to escape them is called fear. Also, when the soul's desires are fulfilled by harmful or pointless things—and it doesn't see its mistakes—it falls into unhealthy pleasures or gets excited by empty joys. From these negative actions—driven by desire rather than satisfaction—comes all the misery that rational beings now experience.

25. Even when it's in a bad state, such a nature still wants happiness. These are the evils that both humans and angels share, and God has justly punished them for their wickedness. But humans have a special punishment too: they are also punished by the death of the body. God had warned humans about death as a penalty if they sinned. He gave them free will so that He could guide them with reason and warn them with the threat of death. He even placed them in the happiness of paradise, a safe place in life, where by being good and righteous, they could achieve greater things.

26. After he sinned, man was kicked out of this state, and because of his sin, he brought punishment and damnation to his descendants. He had deeply corrupted them through his own sinning. Because of this, all who came from him and his wife, who encouraged him to sin and was condemned with him, were born through physical desire and faced the same penalty for disobedience. They inherited original sin. This led them, through various mistakes and sufferings, along with the rebellious angels who corrupted and accompanied them, to eternal punishment. "Thus by one man, sin entered into the world and death through sin; and thus death came upon all men, since all men have sinned" (Rom. 5:12). By "the world," the apostle is referring to the entire human race.

27. So, here's the situation: the entire human race was condemned, stuck in ruin and evil, moving from one bad thing to another. They had joined with the angels who sinned and were facing the deserved punishment for leaving God. God's anger justly rests on the actions of the wicked, who act in blind and uncontrolled desire, and this is shown in the punishments they face, both openly and secretly. Yet, God's goodness continues to keep life going even in the evil angels, because if He withdrew this support, they would simply stop existing. As for humans, even though they come from a corrupted and condemned origin, they still have the ability to create life, control their bodies, use their senses, and provide nourishment. God decided it was better to bring good out of evil than to not allow any evil at all. And if He had decided that humans couldn't be reformed, like the wicked angels, wouldn't it have been fair if the nature that left God and misused its powers, breaking the Creator's rules—which could have been easily followed—had been abandoned by God completely and forever, facing the eternal punishment it deserved? Clearly, God would have done this if He were only just and not also merciful, and if He hadn't wanted to show even more evidence of His mercy by forgiving some who didn't deserve it.

Chapter #9: Replacing the Fallen Angels with Chosen Humans (28-30); The Need for Grace (30-32)

28. Some of the angels left God in sinful pride and were thrown into deep darkness from their bright heavenly home. The rest of the angels stayed with God in eternal happiness and holiness. These faithful angels didn't come from a single fallen and condemned angel. So, they weren't trapped by inherited guilt or handed over to deserved punishment like humans are. Instead, when the one who became the devil first rebelled with his sinful group and was then brought down with them, the other angels remained faithful to the Lord. They received something the others didn't have—a sure knowledge of their everlasting safety in God's unwavering faithfulness.

29. So, it pleased God, the Creator and Ruler of the universe, that since not all the angels turned away from Him, those who did would stay in their downfall forever. But those who stayed loyal during the rebellion would continue to be happy, knowing they would be blessed forever. From the other part of rational creation—humans—although they all fell because of sins and punishments, both inherited and personal, God decided that some of them would be saved and would make up for the loss caused by the devil's disaster in the angelic community. This is the promise to the saints at the resurrection, that they will be equal to the angels of God (Luke 20:36).

So, the heavenly Jerusalem, our mother and God's community, will not be short of her full number of citizens. In fact, she might even have more. We don't know how many holy people or evil demons there are, whose places will be taken by the children of the holy mother. She seemed childless on earth, but her children will live forever in the peace that demons lost. The number of these citizens, whether those who are part of it now or those who will be in the future, is known to the Creator, "who calls into existence things which are not, as though they were" (Rom. 4:17) and "orders all things in measure and number and weight" (Wis. 11:20).

30. But now, can the part of humanity to whom God has promised rescue and a place in the eternal Kingdom be saved through their own good deeds? Of course not! What good deeds could a lost soul do unless they were first saved from being lost? Could they do this by their own free will? Of course not! It was through the misuse of free will that humans destroyed themselves and their will at the same time. Just like a person who is alive when they kill themselves but cannot bring themselves back to life after they are dead—sin, which comes from the misuse of free will, ends up defeating the will and destroying free will. "By whom a man is overcome, to this one he then is bound as slave" (2 Pet. 2:19). This is clearly what the apostle Peter says. And since this is true, I ask you, what kind of freedom can someone have who is bound as a slave, except the freedom that loves to sin?

A person serves freely when they willingly do what their master wants. So, someone who is a slave to sin is free to sin. But after that, they won't be free to do what's right unless they are freed from the control of sin and start serving righteousness. This is true freedom: the joy that comes from doing what is right. At the same time, it is also dedicated service in following righteous commands.