This post looks very briefly at Augustine’s letter “To Simplician ” On Various Questions,” with the hope of gaining some insight on Augustine’s turn away from a libertarian view of salvation. I am not trying to set forth an all-inclusive view of TULIPS, but instead to simply get a view of the development of Augustine’s thought.
In the letter, “To Simplician ” On Various Questions,” Augustine wrestles with the question of why Esau was rejected by God and Jacob was accepted by God in conjunctions with Paul”s treatment in Romans 9.10-29. This creates a whole heaping mound of confusion for Augustine, but does lead him to several important doctrines, or at least lays some of the foundations of later doctrines. It is absolutely fundamental that humans are saved solely by God, so that none may boast. Augustine beings with the idea that God hated Esau and loved Jacob from before the time they were born. He then presents arguments on why this could not have been due to any deeds that they did, because the calling preceded their birth. Similarly, it was not done on account of their faith, for the same reason. Augustine then examines if God based the calling on his foreknowledge of either”s works. This cannot be the case, for this would imply that God does choose on the merit of the individual. It also could not have been a result of God”s foreknowledge of faith because grace precedes belief. For Augustine, the path of salvation follows the following sequence:
Calling → Birth → Grace → Hearing → Believing → Faith → Justification → Power to do good works
Augustine cannot find any reason for God to choose one over the other. He can find no reason for God to reject on over another. They are twins, so there is no ontological difference between the two. Augustine does maintain that God can have mercy on who he decides to have mercy on. There is a freedom there because all persons are sinners. He concludes that while there is a reason that God chose to love Jacob and not Esau, it is left unknown to humans. There is some discussion about God calling more than are chosen, but I was not able to ascertain his final position on the matter. The question here is, “Can a person reject the calling of God?” Augustine seems to think that a person can reject the calling, but not being chosen. How this works out exactly, I am not sure. The last section of the latter deals with the idea that the only people with true free will (the will to do good) are those that God elects. No other humans are able to truly do good works.
Update I have added a purpose line to the top of the post to avoid confusion of what I am doing here.
5 Comments
Well, since I find myself in the reformed camp, I would say this directly relates to what is known as the I in the TULIP acronymn: irresistable grace.
The term ‘irresistable’ is misleading. I believe that men can and do resist the grace of God. The question is “Can the grace of regeneration fail to accomplish its purposes?
God’s grace is resistable in the sense that we can and do resist it. It is irresistable in tthe sense that it achieves its purpose. With this in mind, I prefer the term effectual grace.
In regeneration, God creates in us a desire for himself. And when we have that desire planted in us, we will act according to that desire. When God makes us spiritually alive, we become spiritually alive; he doesn’t make the possibility that we will become spiritually alive. That would leave authority outside of His hands and make him less sovereign and ultimately strip of his sovereignty.
It should be said that Calvinism does not teach that God brings people kicking and screaming into the kingdom AND has ever excluded anyone who wanted to be there.
Remember that predestination rests on the biblical teaching of man’s spiritual death. Natural man does not want Christ. He will only want Christ is God plants that desire for Christ in his heart. Once that desire is planted, those who come to Christ come on their own wills.
The whole point of irresistable or effectual grace is that rebirth quickens someone to spiritual life in such a way that Jesus is now seen in his irresistable sweetness.
The scripture that has ministered to me about this doctrine is John 6:37:
All whom the Father gives to Christ come to Christ.
I was merely in the beginning phases of studying the document by itself, not attempting any kind of evaluative post.
understood…
Reformed theologians make a distinction between the calls of God.
1)General Call. This is the call that goes out to the whole world that men should worship God as their Lord. Whether this is from the testimony of nature or from those preaching the good news of Christ all have this call. This call is rejectable and will be non-effective without the quickening grace of the Spirit.
2)The effectual call. This is the call God bestows only on His elect, in which He takes the general call and opens the sinners eyes to accept the messsage. This call is not rejectable and will always produce faith in the sinner. I would compare it as Edwards does to tasting honey, if people taste honey and it does not seem desireable to them what’s the remedy? New tastebuds.
Yes, but how did Augustine treat this at this point in his life. His views vary wildly from his more libertarian early Christian life to the turn that one sees in this letter, to the well developed predestination/OS/pre-calvinistic that one sees in the Pelegius controversy.
At times he seems to advocate that the calling that regenerates the will can reject God, but the choosing of God cannot be rejected. That was what was confusing. I have only read through it one and gave an overview of it once. In a few weeks, I will be presenting it in depth, so I hope to have some of these questions sorted out by then.