Henry Imler January 19th, 2007

Was Augustine’s transition from a libertarian to a determinist?

Abstract:

This post is taken from a paper submitted for my class on the life and works of Augustine. It posits a forum where three people are invited to give their interpretations of Augustine’s works. The papers are then followed up by a discussion on how or if Augustine’s thought developed throught his life.

Henry:

The Necessity of a Will that is Free
In the opening section of On Free Choice of the Will, Augustine oriented the necessity of free choice as a requirement of a just penalty for sin. He said that, “Evil deeds are punished by the justice of God. They would not be punished justly if they had not been preformed voluntarily. ” :”(Augustine, Aurelius. On Free Choice of the Will. Translated by Thomas Williams. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1993. Page 1.)”: Thus it is required for his framework that God be a completely just God. Augustine accepted this right out in book three when he states that, “…it would be foolish to doubt the omnipotence and justice of God…:”(Ibid. page 107.)”: ” Therefore, since God was just, and evil deeds were punished :”(Ibid. page 106.)”:, there was such a thing as voluntary acts. This is Augustine’s basic reasoning for the proof that there must exist in humans a will that is free. Towards the end of On Free Choice of the Will Augustine made it explicit that free will was a necessary condition for a perfect universe.

“What is necessary to the perfection of the universe is not our sins or our unhappiness, but the existence of souls that, simply because they are souls, sin if they so will and become unhappy if they sin. :”(Ibid. page 89.)”: ”

The Effects of the Fall
Since humans must have free moral will, was it possible that there could exist a human that was able to never choose sin? Was this not the very thing that Augustine railed against in his disagreements with Pelagius? Augustine condemned the following doctrine of Coelestuis and Pelagius in A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin.

“That Adam’s sin injured only Adam himself, and not the human race; and that infants at their birth are in the same state that Adam was in before his transgression.:”(Augustine, Aurelius. “A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin.” 418 C.E. http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/. 10/17/2006 .)”: ”

Yet, it seemed that Augustine, in his early writings, supported the same position that he would later attack. Was this the case? This was the case only at first glance. Augustine made it quite clear in On Free Choice of the Will that the Fall had drastic effects on humankind.

Augustine made a distinction in two ways one can address human nature; it could either refer to the nature of humans before the fall of humankind, or it could refer to human nature under the penalty of the Fall:”(Augustine. On Free Choice of the Will. page 108.)”:. What was the difference between these two besides the context? Augustine was adamant that the first sense, human’s pre-fall nature is the same as the post-fall nature. For if human nature had changed into a purely sinful nature, one that could not help but to sin and had no choice in the matter, it would not be held guilty by a just God for those sinful actions. This was evidenced when Augustine said, “…for if they were the result of our nature… they would not be sins. If we were made to act this way naturally, so that we could be not better, we would merely be acting as we ought.:”(Ibid. page 106. )”: ” So, if it was not our natures that force us to sin, what was it? Augustine maintained that it was the penalty of the original sin, the sin of Adam and Eve, not a change in the nature of humans.

“…[T]o struggle against the pain of carnal bondage and not be able to refrain from acts of inordinate desire: these do not belong to the nature that human beings were created with; they are the penalty of the condemned prisoner :”(Ibid. page 107.)”:.” .

Augustine described the penalty a few paragraphs earlier, “…we cannot [act rightly] because of the resistance of carnal habit, which develops almost naturally because of the unruliness of our moral inheritance (emphasis added):”(Ibid. page 106.)”: .” Augustine made it clear that he viewed our carnal habit, our tendency to sin as a result of the fall of humankind. This was merely a habit passed down from Adam and did not completely affect our ability to choose or reject God, although it set us turned away from God.

The Post-Fall Power of Choice and the Power of God
While Augustine maintained that it was just for God to sentence the offspring of humankind to be under the effects of the first that fell:”(Ibid. page 108.)”: , the offspring “could overcome the nature they were born with:”(Ibid.)”: .” Here Augustine meant “nature” as the nature of human beings after the Fall, not as the innate nature of humans. It was the combination of our unchanging nature plus the “carnal habit” that was the penalty of the Fall as described in the previous section. We were oriented away from God. That was our natural disadvantage. However, despite the disadvantaged orientation away from God, it was still within a human’s power to change their orientation. Augustine referred to this ability multiple times in On Free Choice of the Will. His clearest expression of this idea, that the disoriented soul was free to choose God was located in the third book. He stated, “For although it was born into ignorance and difficulty, no necessity forces it to remain there.:”(Ibid. page 109.)”: ”

There was still a lingering charge that while humankind’s will appears to be free, it was really not free because God had absolute foreknowledge. The result of this was a fixing of all events. After all, if God knew everything, then God already knew what one was going to do. If God knew what one was going to do, then one could not change what one was going to do. If one could not change what one was going to do, then one did not have a free choice of the will. Augustine dismantled this argument by attacking the second link, that if God knew what one was going to do, then one could not change what one was going to do. Augustine went through great lengths to argue that “you do not force someone to sin just because you foreknow that he is going to sin.:”(Ibid. page 78.)”: ” Augustine asked if human foreknowledge of an action determined it. This foreknowledge would have to have been certain, otherwise it would not have been actual foreknowledge. Thus, a humans foreknowledge of event A was the same as God’s foreknowledge of event A. The only difference was that God had foreknowledge of all events, were as humans could not have foreknowledge of all events. If a human had foreknowledge of another person’s future act of sin, did that equate to the person with the foreknowledge causing the sin of the other person? Augustine maintained that it did not. It merely spoke to the knowledge of such an event, not the causation of it. Since this human foreknowledge was the same as God’s foreknowledge, God too did not cause the person to sin. Augustine concluded his argument with a charge to remember that “God foreknows everything that he causes but does not cause everything he foreknows.:”(Ibid.)”: ”

Conclusion
It has been demonstrated that Augustine maintained a libertarian view of free will in his early work. For Augustine, there was a consequence of Adam’s sin, namely that the flesh was sinful and drug everyone into sin, but all humans were free at all times to choose God. God had the foreknowledge of who will end up turning towards him. Thus, while all were mired in sin, all had a chance at turning towards God.

Case Study: Jacob and Esau
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 Jacob was accepted by God. 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.)”:. What was the nature of grace? How were people called?:”(Election and calling are so far to be understood as 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 was 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 was 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. 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 being, or essence.

If the difference between the two had nothing to do with their being, 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.)”:.

Lastly, it might have been that 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 was 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.

Thus, Augustine cannot find any reason for God to choose one over the other. He has run out of options for a rational explanation for God’s choice. 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.

God’s Calling
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. In this letter, Augustine clung to his proposition that, “…none can believe against his will. :”(Ibid, chapter 10.)”:” He explicitly stated that no one could frustrate God’s plan when he said, “to be sure, no one resists his will.:”(Ibid, chapter 30.)”: ” 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 was specifically worded:”(Ibid, chapter 13.)”: , so to speak; thus, it will only convince the elect to choose him. Those that were called but not elected will end up rejecting the call. At this point, the calling referred to the temporal call of God to the human that enabled his or her belief, while election referred to the choice that God made of who will eventually choose him. This was how Augustine can maintain his view that humans freely choose God while still allowing for the sovereignty of God.

Conclusion
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.)”: ,” was 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 knew beforehand which will and which will not. Thus, God employed predestination and foreknowledge when it comes to the salvation of the saints.

Thus, in Augustine’s “Letter to Simplician” 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 were free to choose him or to reject him. Of these enabled few, God had the foreknowledge of who will choose Him and who will not. Those that he did not choose for this had no hope in turning their wills towards God.

Possidius:

The Absolute Authority and Mercy of God
The first change that Augustine had from his letter to Simplician was that he placed more of an emphasis on the complete sovereignty of God. Augustine returns to the words of Paul, “Not of works [are humans saved], lest any man should boast…:”(Augustine, Aurelius. A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints. 23 October 2006. chapter 18.)”: ” Because of this, the salvation of a human must be by God’s efforts alone, and not by any work done by man. God was now seen as the sole cause of the salvation of humans.

“God does what he will in the hearts of [humans], either by assistance or judgment so that, even through their means, may be fulfilled what his hand and counsel have predestined to be done :”(Ibid. chapter 41.)”: .”

Notice how radical a departure this was from the first work presented on, On Free Choice of the Will. No longer was there talk about the soul turning towards God on its own accord. Instead, the focus in salvation was solely on the actions of God.

On Belief
Augustine still mentioned, as he did in the letter to Simplician, that “the capacity to have faith:”(Belief is equated with faith in the same passage and elsewhere in the work.)”: … belong to [human’s] nature :”(Ibid. chapter 10.)”:” So all humans have in their nature the capacity to have belief. However, Augustine maintained that belief was a gift from God:”(Ibid. chapter 2.)”:. It was not a free act of the will, for if it were, it would been on the merit of a human that a person was saved, whereas Augustine was adamant at this stage to deny anything that resembled such a notion. This was a departure from the previous paper on Augustine’s letter to Simplician. In that letter Augustine maintained that God enabled the called to choose or reject God. There was limited freedom for humanity on who would be the elect. However, in his later works, Augustine moved away from this idea, concluding that even belief was a gift of God to humans. Those that were not given the belief are completely unable to choose God. Thus, in his later works, Augustine maintained that there was a consequence to Adam’s sin, namely that the will was unable to choose God. God selects some to receive grace and belief, or faith, in God. Those that he does not choose for this have no hope in turning their wills towards God.

Evodius:

Marcellina:

Henry:

Possidius:

Henry:

Possidius:

Evodius:

Possidius:

Marcellina:

Possidius:

 
Works Cited
Augustine, Aurelius. “A Treatise on the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin.” 418 C.E. http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/. 17 10 2006.
—. “A Treatise on the Predestination of the Saints”. 23 October 2006.
—. Augustine of Hippo: “To Simplician – On Various Questions”. 4 December 2006.
—. On Free Choice of the Will. Translated by Thomas Williams. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 1993.
—. The Confessions. Translated by Henry Chadwick. New York: Oxford University Press, 1998.
—. The Retractions. Translated by R.S.M. PH.D Sister Mary Inex Bogan. Washington DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 1968.
Brown, Peter. Augustine of Hippo. Berkley: University of California Press, 2000.
Case, Shirley Jackson. “Review: The Intellectual Development of Augustine.” The American Journal of Theology July 1920: 468-470.

• Christianity , Religion
• Comments(3)