Middle Augustine and Semi-Predestinationism.
While he later hardened his views, Augustine was at one time a semi-predestinationist. This post is a much more in-depth look at Augustine’s “Letter to Simplician,” a few weeks back, I took a glance at it and gave my first impressions. In a few days I will put of a synopsis on how his views changed from his writing of “On Free Choice of the Will,” through “Letter to Simplician,” and on to his “Retractions.” I think there is an interesting progression of thought there.
The Unsound Argument ” Blog Archive ” Augustine’s Letter of Semi-Predestinationism
It has been shown how Augustine views the salvation process as outlined in this letter is election → birth → calling → belief → grace → justification → power to do good works. God first elected, or decided, for a person to be given grace before the dawn of time. That soul comes into the world and its condition, because of its “chain to Adam,” is one of complete depravity, or lack of the ability to turn towards God. Due to this, it was necessary for God to free the will of the called so that they were able to turn towards or away from God. A number of the called will turn towards God, while others will not. God knows beforehand which will and which will not. Thus, God employs predestination and foreknowledge when it comes to the salvation of the saints. This mixture of foreknowledge and predestination is most aptly termed “semi-predestinationism.” This semi-predestinationism was how Augustine was able to cope with the seemingly injustice of God in selecting the saved and the damned. It also signals a development in the thought of Augustine, from a purely libertarian view of will in salvation to what will end up as total commitment to predestination of the saints.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
I think that Augustine would see grace as fixed on a person at the election (before time) and administered via the sacraments.
That’s true. But Luther wrote a sermon, The Babylonian Captivity of the Catholic Church, in which he denounced that sacremental system. Luther would look to 2 Timothy 1:9 and that we were saved by the grace before the ages began, which is what Augustine seems to be saying in your post, but not administered through the sacrements. Luther would just leave it at that and probably go to Ephesians 2:8 and through faith as the administrator of the grace to be received. I’m just saying that most people need to see the distinction between Augustine who was very much as Roman Catholic Theologian where as the Reformers were rejecting much of the Roman Catholic Theology that they didn’t see in Scrtpture.
It is amazing to see a semi-predesination view. It is something that no one really puts forth that I figured people would do more. Many people like both arguments, hence the 2-, 3-, 4-pointers in the world. I am shocked that no one points to this as the middle ground.
I really enjoyed your take on Augustine’s letter and his views on predestination. It was very intriguing and stimulating.
I hear you. What I think is important to make a distinction between Augustine’s personal views, the views of the Church at his time and the views of the Church over a thousand years later.
What I thought was interesting is how they had the same agreement on the nature of salvation and those processes, but merely had a difference (in this particular topic of the disagreement as a whole) view of how the starting points are worked out. This does not touch on some of the other aspects of the split and I must say I don’t know much about Luther’s exact position nor the exact positions of the Catholic Church in his day.
With that said, I just don’t think people know they are semi-p’s. I am trying to also (in my personal time) formulate how Gareth Reece looks at this. He is a guy who I very much respect his method and give him great authority even though he is heavy handed and ends up exclusivitic of other denominations at times. He is very intelligent and knows his stuff. When tackling him, you need to bring lots of paper and lots of time.
Anyway, he seems to favor the historical determination of people in history and maintains that people have free will, but cannot escape God’s plans. Like pharaoh had the open choice to let the people go and it was God’s plan that pharaoh was to be used to show God’s glory in his submission and humbleness. Pharaoh decided to reject God’s calling but God used him anyway, now as an instrument of God’s judgment.
He, in his commentary on Romans, which I have only spent about an hour on, he talks in the same way about Jacob and Esau and maintains that “hate” was merely “favored less” and spoke more about the lineage of the messiah than personal salvation. He notes that the context of the quote about “Jacob I have loved but Esau I have hated” was referring to the peoples of Israel and of Esau.
But, I am not nearly representing his argument to the extent that one can accurately criticize it.
I plan on looking into it more when school is out and I have turned in the grades for my classes.
You had posted earlier wondering about the dependence of the Reformers on Augustine and whether they fall with the church Father or not. This shows where Luther and Calvin and Zwingli and the rest do not see grace in terms of the sacrements. Also, they would most likely put grace before faith. However one can see how the Reformers were very well versed in Augustine’s theology, Luther was an Augustinian monk.