Henry Imler December 8th, 2006

This paper will seek to plot out the relationship between the will, the salvific process and predestination in Augustine’s letter to Simplician, “De Diversis Quaestionibus Ad Simplicianum :”(I am using the translation by John H. S. Burleigh, Regius that was published in Augustine: Earlier Writings, Volume VI of the Library of Christian Classics, Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1953. I have taken this translation from “Aggiornamento” on 10/5/2006. From here on out in the paper I will refer to this document as “Letter to Simplician.” )”: . ” The letter was a response to Simplician’s questions on the content of Romans 9.10-29. In Augustine’s exegesis, he wrestled with the question of why Esau was rejected and Jacob was accepted by God. There was a sense that Augustine is troubled by his conclusions; this was evident by his careful back and forth of objections and explanations. While a bit troublesome, it did lead to his final formulation of several important doctrines, or at least laid their foundations. His conclusion changed the way he and as a corollary, the Catholic Church and many of the Reformers, viewed salvation and free will. While his conclusions may have seemed in contrast to some of his earlier works:”(Augustine’s earlier work, On the Free Choice of the Will, suggests a libertarian view of free will that says that in order for there to be true love of God, there must be a choice to love or reject God. When this precept is taken to its conclusion, it excludes a pre-determining of human salvation.)”: , Augustine was committed to discovering the truth, even if it means admitting he was wrong:”(This is evidenced by the very existence of his work, Reconsiderations, where he goes through all of his previous works and makes corrections.)”:. This paper will show how Augustine came to modify his stance on libertarian free will and come to the conclusion that there was a consequence to Adam’s sin, namely that the will was unable to choose God. God selected some to have their wills amended so that they are free to choose him or not; of those enabled few, God had the foreknowledge of who will choose Him and who will not.

Augustine’s fist task in his exegesis was to state the central theme, or purpose of Romans:”(Augustine of Hippo, “Letter to Simplician,” chapter 2.)”: . It was Augustine’s conclusion that humans are saved solely by God’s grace and not by any human effort was the central theme of Romans. Augustine used this theme as a prism to view the passage at hand. Because of this, no person could boast or count salvation to his or her credit:”(Ibid, chapter 3.)”: . This idea was the driving force for Augustine in this exegesis. This first brought into question how faith and works related, and later how the will of humans and God were related.

Augustine said that the emphasis was on grace preceding and allowing good works instead of a denial of either:”(Ibid, chapter 2.)”: . This was the first glimpse of Augustine’s view of salvation, that grace precedes good works, or grace → good works. It is worth noting that the only real good works for Augustine were those done with the right motive. One can only have the right motive if they have grace. He explains this with more clarity in chapter three.

“Fire is not hot in order that it may burn, but because it burns. A wheel does not run nicely in order that it may be round, but because it is round. So no one does good works in order that he may receive grace, but because he has received grace. :”(Ibid, chapter 3.)”: ”

So while a person who does not have grace may do the same works with seemingly the same intent as a person with grace; it was impossible for him to have the right intention because he was not even able to turn towards God. Grace was a prerequisite for turning towards God, as implied in the above quote. Augustine made this point explicit later on in the letter.

“…the good will does not precede calling, not calling precedes the good will, the fact that we have a good will is rightly attributed to God who calls us, and the fact that we are called cannot be attributed to ourselves. :”(Ibid, chapter 12.)”: ”

Thus, it is clear that for Augustine, humans could do no good works apart from God.

What was the nature of grace? When does a human begin to receive grace? In this discussion, Augustine allowed the reader to be privy of the salvific steps. For Augustine, it was immediately after the human began to believe in God:”(Ibid, chapter 2.)”: . After reading this, one can add belief in to the salvation equation: belief → grace → good works. Right after stating this, Augustine clarified how this grace was incorporated into the human. He said, “[t]he fullness and evidentness of the infusion of grace depends on temporal junctures and on sacramental rites:”(Ibid.)”: .” In this, Augustine detailed that grace was not a one-stop-shop, as some later theologians would interpret it. Instead, it was meted out over time:”(Grace was not only meted out over time, but in time. It did not occur from and to eternities past and future. It happened in the temporal world.)”: , via the sacraments. In other words, it was a continual process; the administration of grace spanned the entire life after conversion.

Later on in the second chapter, Augustine dealt with the case of Cornelius, the Roman centurion who was the first Gentile convert. During this section of chapter 2, Augustine established his thoughts on what is necessary for one to enter into salvation. Again, he maintained that good works, while possible for non-believers, were useless unless they were preceded by grace. In effect, they were not even good works, since they did not come from a regenerated person. Augustine’s claim of the existence of partial grace that derives from partial knowledge is an oddity in this passage. He alludes to it in his depiction of the fullness of grace; while Cornelius eventually obtained the fullness through the sacraments, the implication was that there are those who never obtain full grace. In the absence of being “born again of water and Holy Spirit:”(Ibid.)”: ,” having the knowledge, belief, and grace is like being conceived, but not born:”(Ibid.)”: . What happened to those that are merely conceived? In the absence of Augustine’s words on what happened upon death, it was implied that these people perish – eternally. Augustine’s main point, as it related to the salvific process, was that justification, or the use of the sacraments, came after belief, and not before or along with belief. The salvific chart reads at this point, grace → belief → justification → good works.

All of this begged the following questions. How were people called?:”(Election and calling are so far to be understood at one and the same.)”: How did they come to believe? For an in-depth analysis of this, Augustine looked at the case of Esau and Jacob. It was fundamental to Augustine that humans were saved solely by God, so that none could boast:”(Ibid, chapter 3.)”: . Augustine began with the idea that God hated Esau and loved Jacob from before the time they were born:”(Ibid.)”: . He then explored the various possibilities of why God might have chosen Jacob instead of Esau to be called to grace. For Augustine, the calling was not for the historical mission of the lineage of the Messiah as some have suggested:”(Gareth Reese, New Testament Epistles:Romans, p 386.)”: , but this is merely an example were God had picked one person for grace and picked another person not to receive grace. This was indicated by the general theme of Romans and the quote from Malachi 1.2-3, “Jacob I have loved; but Esau I have hated.”

The calling could not have been from any deed they did in life, for the reader is told that God’s decree predated their birth. Augustine noted “[w]hen the promise was made that they should be this they did not as yet exist and so could have merited nothing:”(Augustine, ibid, chapter 3.)”: .” Augustine therefore placed the calling before birth, which would place it before belief. The salvation process is to be amended to reflect these changes: calling → birth → belief → grace → justification → power to do good works.

Nor could the calling have been due to any genetic difference between the two men. They were from the same father and mother; as twins, they shared the very same DNA, or being as Augustine would have called it. Augustine found it important to note that they were born under the exact same astrological sign, as to dispel any notion that fate derived from the reading of stars. He then dived into a small polemic into his distaste for astrology that some have found humorous:”( …such as myself.)”: .

“They can easily learn that if they will that the replies that they sell to poor deluded folk have no basis in scientific knowledge, but only in chance guesswork. :”(Ibid.)”: ”

Returning to the task, Augustine examined if God based the calling on his foreknowledge of either’s works. Perhaps it was the case that God used his omniscience and foresaw the good each person would do and on this, he based his callings. Augustine quickly concluded that this could not be the case, for this would imply that God did choose on the merit of the individual. Then perhaps God used the same foreknowledge to foretell a person’s belief. It also could not have been a result of God’s foreknowledge of faith because grace precedes belief:”(Ibid, chapter 7.)”: . This argument illuminated why it was very important for Augustine to chart out the order of the salvific process. Otherwise, his argument might have reached an impasse here.

The last consideration before Augustine reached his conclusion on the matter was that perhaps the evil deeds of Esau set God against him. So far, Augustine had only considered the merits of Jacob; possibly, it was not a case of merit on Jacob’s part, instead there was a deficiency on the part of Esau. Once again, Augustine was quick to note that the call took place before any of the actions took place. Despite the fact that the calling preceded the acts of evil, it was at least possible that God had foreknowledge of Esau’s actions. Once again, Augustine employed the same reasoning that he used for the merit of Jacob and came to the same conclusion; it is impossible for Esau to be rejected due to any deficiency on his part because that would have implied that it was a lack of works that earned him his position. If one were to accept that, one would also be forced to accept the proposition that Jacob was chosen on the difference between the two; on Jacob’s merits, Jacob was chosen. Since this option was clearly rejected, then so too must the idea that it was deficiencies on Esau’s part that lead God to reject him.

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. He has run out of options for a rational explanation for God’s choice. He has ruled out their future deeds and their natures. :”(Ibid, chapter 4.)”:

“Who could support such a conclusion [that there was a difference in nature between the two brothers], seeing that they sprang from one father, one mother, one act of intercourse? ” :”(Ibid.)”:

Thus, Augustine was forced to conclude that God had, has, and will have mercy:”(Or grace)”: on those he decided to have mercy with no respect to the person.

This conclusion led Augustine to question the justice in such an act. One can almost hear the lament in his words.

“If Esau was rejected for no fault of his own because he too was not born and had done nothing when it was said, ‘The elder shall serve the younger,’ how can his rejection be said to be just? How are we to understand what follows if we judge according to the standards of equity?:”(Ibid, chapter 4.)”: ”

In answering this charge, Augustine turned to First Corinthians 15:22, “In Adam all die.” All humans are sinful; as a consequent, all humans deserve the hatred of God. There was a freedom or God, the creditor, to choose whose debts he will forgive. :”(Ibid, chapter 16.)”:

“He decides who are not to be offered mercy by a standard of equity which is most secret and far removed from human powers of understanding.” :”(Ibid.)”:

Augustine still maintained that there was a “standard of equity,” or justice, behind God’s actions, but that it was left unknown to humans.

After Augustine had answered the question of how and why people are called, he turned towards an examination of the nature of God’s call. The central question that comes to mind here is, “How does Augustine square the calling of God with his prior libertarian stance on free will? “ In this letter, Augustine clung to his proposition that, “…none can believe against his will. :”(Ibid, chapter 10.)”: ” He explicitly stated that no one can frustrate God’s plan when he said, “to be sure, no one resists his will. :”(Ibid, chapter 16.)”: ” He also maintained that “…not all believe who have been called. :”(Ibid, chapter 10.)”:” Augustine solved this conundrum by appealing to a divergence in the words “calling” and “election. :”(Election can also mean choosing.)”: ” When God called someone, he enabled the will to choose God or to reject God, “[t]here are two things God gives us [i.e. those that are called], the power to will and the thing that we actually will. :”(Ibid.)”: ” However, God’s calling is specifically worded, so to speak; thus, it will only convince the elect to choose him. Those that are called but not elect will end up rejecting the call. At this point one can finalize Augustine’s process of salvation. Now that “calling” from earlier in the letter has been broken up into “election” and “calling,” one can arrange the chart as follows, election → birth → calling → belief → grace → justification → power to do good works. The calling now refers to the temporal call of God to the human that enables his or her belief, while election refers to the choice that God makes of who will eventually choose him. This is how Augustine can maintain his view that humans freely choose God while still allowing for the sovereignty of God.

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. :”(Books could be written on this subject. This is merely meant to be an outline of the process.)”: 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, :”(In the Confessions, Augustine used the phrase, “chained to Adam” to describe the effect and cause of original sin.)”: ” 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:”(That is, the foreknowledge of God in knowing who will and will not accept Him.)”: 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 :”(For a synopsis of this early view, see On the Free Choice of the Will, book 3.)”: to what will end up as total commitment to predestination of the saints.

Works Cited
Hippo, Augustine of. “De Diversis Quaestionibus Ad Simplicianum.” 396 C.E. http://www.romancatholicism.org. 06 10 2006 .
—. On Free Choice of the Will. Translated by Thomas Williams. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 1993.
Reese, Gareth L. New Testament Epistles:Romans. Moberly: Scripture Exposition Books, 1987.

• Christianity , Religion
• Comments(2)