Augustine's Calvinism: The Doctrines of Grace in Augustine's Writings By C. Matthew McMahon

[reformedbonhidalgo]

“We should not love unless He had first loved us
and made us to love Him!”
–Augustine​

Introduction

St. Augustine was a Calvinist and John Calvin was an Augustinian. That is to say that both Augustine and Calvin adhered to the Gospel of Jesus Christ found in the Bible even though they lived over a millennia apart. The material contained in their systems of thought surrounding justification, the atonement, sovereignty, grace, perseverance and the like, was the same. They taught the same doctrines of God’s sovereignty and free grace that “Calvinism“ has taught for hundreds of years, no thousands of years. Why? The terms Augustinian or Calvinist simply refer to a system of thought that has at its center the complete and utter sovereignty of God in salvation. That is to say that salvation is monergisitic. It is accomplished by God on behalf of man. As the Psalmist so eloquently stated, “But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased.” (Psa. 115:3). God is the Author and Finisher of the faith for those whom Christ died and gave His life as a ransom. God initiates salvation, gives the gift of salvation and preserves the Christian in salvation. He is the all in all. This is not a new concept or a new-fangled idea. It is old time religion of the Gospel of Jesus Christ taught from the Garden of Eden in Genesis 3:15, throughout the history of God’s chosen people, through the ministry of the Incarnate Word Jesus Christ, the ministry of the apostles, the ministry of the early church fathers, and yes, the ministry and voluminous teaching of St. Augustine.

The Augustinian or Calvinistic system does not solely refer to what has become commonly known as the Doctrines of Grace. These biblical systems of theological thought extend to all facets of biblical and systematic theology. One would not rightly be a Calvinist who solely held to the doctrines of grace. They could not, for example, believe in the five points and not believe in the sacramentology of the Calvinistic system. Calvinists, or Augustinians, were those who held to what Augustine or Calvin actually taught. They do not hold to a “piece” of what Calvin or Augustine taught. Christian doctrine in this way is not a smorgasbord. However, in recent days the term “Calvinistic” has come to refer to the single systematic package of the doctrines of grace. It has been so more frequently due to the modernization and popularity of grace infiltrating more denominations that many not necessarily subscribe to the entirety of the Reformed Faith. Many sectarians have come to believe and understand grace in the five points of Calvinism which to them means that they are Calvinists. Though it is spiritually great that various denominations across the globe are continuing to hold to the free grace of God in salvation (the only Gospel) it is also bad historically speaking in that they are stigmatizing the term Calvinist as that which only surrounds grace, when in fact Calvinism, or Augustinianism, houses more than simply five points on grace. They have in fact not treaded the paths Calvinism has to offer in the systematized work of The Institutes of the Christian Religion penned by Calvin. Instead, they are holding to the work that Augustinians and Calvinists formulated later in the consensus of the Synod of Dordt which expelled the Pelagian and Arminian systems in the 17th century. It would be, then, much better to call those who only hold to the doctrines of grace Dordtians than Augustinians, or Calvinists.

The filtered systematization of the five points of Calvinism which have been brought to the modern church as the doctrines of grace were originally systematized and widely written on, not by Calvin, but by Augustine. This is why one finds that every four pages written in the Institutes of the Christian Religion John Calvin quoted Augustine. Calvin, for this reason, would deem himself not a Calvinist, but an Augustinian. And both Augustine and Calvin would really deem themselves children at the feet of Jesus Christ and the teachings of the Bible, especially quoting their favorites passages from the Apostle Paul over and over again. They are Pauline, and bibline, to the glory of Jesus Christ. To work backwards, then, one moves from the doctrines of grace today, to the Synod of Dordt, to the Institutes of the Christian Religion by Calvin, to the writings of Augustine, to the Bible. The biblical record is the foundation for all that came after concerning grace. It is no wonder why Augustine, even in his own day, was deemed the “Doctor of Grace.” Here we turn to him for this study.

This work is concerned with the writings of Augustine to determine Augustine’s views on the doctrines of grace (or what has become to be known as Calvinism or TULIP) and if his views are the same as John Calvin‘s, or for that matter the Synod of Dordt, the Westminster Confession and other reformed viewpoints on the Gospel that have been since penned. Knowing that the Bible does not change, and the matters of faith and practice in the Bible do not change, one should find Augustine’s words and thoughts about grace lying within the same veins as any reformer who believed the Gospel of grace, or any Puritan afterwards. It is easy to see where the Reformers or Puritans believed these doctrines. Again, those who believe these doctrines are referred to as “Calvinists.” But why are they not referred to as Augustinians? This is the scope of the study. Is it determinable that instead of calling one who believes the doctrines of grace a Christian Calvinist, should they be more likely deemed an Augustinian Calvinist? Are those terms interchangeable? Did Augustine believe these doctrines in the same way that Calvin, or the later Puritans did, or even Calvinists today?

Defining the Doctrines of Grace​

What are the Doctrines of Grace? The term “doctrines of grace” is not a relatively new term. It has been used at certain junctures and times through the history of the church, even dating back to the time just after the disciples. Augustine refers to the phrase twice, some of the early church fathers make use of it, and certainly later, at the dawn of the Reformation with the magisterial Reformers and of the puritans after them, the term was quite widely used. Today it is the synonym for those unfamiliar with historical theology to simply refer to being Calvinistic. Specifically it refers to the systematic formulation of those biblical concepts which teach and describe God’s sovereign work in salvation in five important areas: Gods work in rescuing sinners from the curse and depravity of original sin, God’s choice of saving sinners unconditionally through Jesus Christ, God’s means by which sinners are saved which is only through the death and sacrifice of Christ, the manner in which God saves men irresistibly through the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit, and the final perseverance of those He saves in Christ being preserved to the end by the gift of grace. Such passages as Exodus 33:19, Ephesians 1:3-10, Romans 5:1ff, 9:1-32 and John chapters 6 and 10 come to mind as succinct hallmarks of the doctrines of grace. These doctrines, or teachings, resulting from a responsible survey and exegesis of the Bible, construct the heart of the Gospel. They are the precise teachings of the Gospel and of saving grace. Augustine said,

“The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord must be understood as follows: grace is the only thing that delivers human beings from evil; without it, they do absolutely nothing good, whether in thought, or in will and emotion, or in action. Grace not only makes known to people what they ought to do, but also enables them to perform with love the duty that they know…The apostle Paul certainly asked God to inspire the Corinthians with this good will and action when he said, ‘Now we pray to God that you do no evil, not that we should appear to be approved, but that you should do what is good’ (2 Cor.13:7). Who can hear this and not wake up and confess that the Lord God is the One who turns us away from evil so that we do good? For the apostle does not say, “We admonish, we teach, we exhort, we rebuke.” He says, “We pray to God that you do no evil, but that you should do what is good.” Of course, he was also in the habit of speaking to them, and doing all those things which I have mentioned — he admonished, he taught, he exhorted, he rebuked. But he knew that all these things which he was openly doing in the way of planting and watering were of no avail, unless He who secretly gives the increase answered his prayer on the Corinthians’ behalf. For as the same teacher of the Gentiles says, “Neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase” (1 Cor.3:7).”

Augustine’s concept of grace extends to the sovereign God who is the one which “maketh thee to differ.” The grace of God, then is the “only thing” that delivers a human being from the evils of the fall and of human depravity which, without such grace, would render men an eternal condemnation in hell.

Pinpointing the most concise and helpful declaration of the doctrines of God’s grace by post-biblical theologians and writers is not difficult to do. One could look to the early church writings of Clement of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Basil the Great, Ignatius, Justin the Martyr, Irenaeus, and others who wrote extensively on grace throughout their various early church documents. Skipping Augustine for the moment, we could turn to the doctrines of grace and see in the writings of the middle ages with men such as Smaragdus, Ambrose Rupert, Alcuin, Agobard of Lyons, and Gottschalk of Orbais who wrote precisely about these biblical truths. In the interim period between the Middle Ages and the reformation one has to simply glance at the writings of Aquinas’ Suma Theologica, or Wycliffe’s works, or the writings of John Huss to see all the facets of the doctrines of grace housed in their writings. Interestingly enough, when surveying the theological landscape of the Reformation, one finds the reformers relying little on the Middle Ages, and less on the early church writers, while extensively upon Augustine. John Calvin quotes St. Augustine over 400 times in the Institutes of the Christian Religion within its 1500 theologically rich pages. Again, one time every four pages Calvin quotes Augustine in the most widely read Reformation document ever penned. If Augustine and Calvin were so “far off” from one another, it is unlikely, even absurd, for Calvin to rely so heavily on Augustine. If Augustine’s doctrines on grace were deviant from Calvin’s or so immature in comparison to Calvin’s it would again be equally absurd for Calvin to rely so heavily on him. Thus, pinpointing a formulation of the doctrines of grace in Augustine’s writings should be relatively easy to do; and it is.

The Doctrines of Grace Formally Defined​

It was not until the early 17th century that a concise and formal document of these doctrines was set down in a systematized fashion. This document arose sometime after the famous Synod of Dordtrecht (or Dordt) convened, and subsequently decades after the Institutes were penned by John Calvin. The Netherlands’ churches, after much deliberation over the period of a year, with constituents from other countries, finalized a document called The Articles of the Synod of Dordtrecht which summed up the church’s confessional position on the doctrines of God’s graciousness against the rise of certain heretical doctrines plaguing the church at the time. These articles have become to be known as the “doctrines of grace” formally, and were later summed up in the acronym T.U.L.I.P. T.U.L.I.P. stands for Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace, and Perseverance of the Saints. It has been said that this acronym itself came to light at the Synod itself, but this is not accurate. The acronym itself developed later, though the five points which make up the acronym were readily distinguished in the 5 articles, or heads, of Dordt’s formulation of the doctrines of grace which are subsequently found strewn throughout Calvin’s works, and as will be seen, through Augustine’s voluminous works as well.

T.U.L.I.P. was a formulation of what was already believed, but restated concisely in reaction to heresy intruding into the church. It is almost always the case that such formulations, creeds and confessions arise out of such need. It may be helpful, though, to retrace some of the more important facts concerning the rise of these articles and the later innovation of T.U.L.I.P. as a confession of the Reformed churches before looking at the works of Augustine.

 

[reformedbonhidalgo]

Pelagius’ Influence

How did the formulation of the doctrines of grace come about in such a defined form? There are a number of factors for this. It is important to be reminded of Pelagius, the British monk who rose up against the doctrines of grace when Augustine was Bishop of Hippo in Africa. In some flagrant ecstasy Pelagius thought Augustine would agree with him that men, in and of themselves, could, without the help of grace, please God in keeping His commandments and come to saving faith. Augustine vehemently denied this, and penned some of the most helpful insights into the destruction of this heresy which Christendom has in print. Pelagius taught that grace is helpful, but not necessarily needed. He could not reconcile the commands for men to repent, if they could not repent on their own, by their own power. He thought that since God commands certain stipulations to be obeyed, then man, yes even fallen man, has the ability to fulfill those commands. Pelagius’ problem was that he did not understand how to reconcile God’s commands to man’s depravity. It did not make sense to Pelagius that God would command men to do something that they could not fulfill.

Later, other lesser-known men have arrived on the scene of church history to offer their deviant ideas concerning salvation. They were known as semi-Pelagians. They mediated an ideal between Pelagius and Augustine. However, one cannot call them “semi-Augustinians,” since, as will be seen, Augustine’s writings do not confer with any form of Pelagianism, no matter how watered down. Their ideas are espoused to Pelagius, not Augustine. If they were Augustine’s progeny, they would plainly be called Augustinians. Semi-Pelagians believed (and believe today) that the Fall in the Garden did affect all of Adam‘s progeny, but not fully. Men are not dead in sin, but sick in sin. They are “kind of alive” but never completely dead rendering their “free wills” quite able to choose either good or evil. One man named Cassian of Marseilles was a Semi-Pelagian of the 5th Century; but he was not a popular fellow and did not gather a large following. Another man named Bolsec was in Geneva around 1552 and propagated Semi-Pelagianism. He taught the same doctrines but was not heeded because of his immoral lifestyle. A third man by the name of Corvinus attempted to stir Holland in 1560 with the same ideas, but it never came to a full fruition. It was not until an intelligent servant boy in a nearby inn was given the chance to attend the state University that Semi-Pelagianism would come to its height in the church. His name is James Harmensen.

James Harmensen was born in 1560. This is his Dutch name, but the name most historians that are acquainted with church history know him by (within theological circles) is his Latin derivation – James Arminius. While a young teen, as a servant in a public inn, a patron noticed his wit and keen intellect even for someone at such a young age. Having this caliber of intelligence as a boy this patron decided to offer him the chance at schooling in the University of Utrecht. This patron supported Arminius until his death, and then another picked up the tab where he left off. Arminius was then able to attend the University of Marpurg, in Hess, and then finally the University in Leyden. He was even sent to Geneva while Theodore Beza presided there, but indulged in insubordination and a spirit of self-sufficiency. He spoke privately to the other students against the teachers there and was ultimately thrown out of the University. After leaving Geneva, he toured Italy and then came back to Geneva, and had a wide following of people at this time. It is unfortunate that charismatic personalities are able to influence so many people in such a short amount of time, for when he returned, and people began to take notice of him in this manner, the secular state decided to make him a minister of Amsterdam.

After serving as minister for some time, he was then called to the University of Amsterdam to teach but on the condition that he would adhere to the Belgic Confession. The Belgic Confession was a rigidly Calvinistic document. To hold to it would mean that Arminius did not believe his own positions which were strongly anti-Calvinistic. Interestingly, Arminius pledged loyalty to the confession when entering this new professorship. One of the Belgic articles asserts the following: “Article 16 – We believe that, all the posterity of Adam being thus fallen into perdition and ruin by the sin of our first parents, God then did manifest Himself such as He is; that is to say, merciful and just: merciful, since He delivers and preserves from this perdition all whom He in His eternal and unchangeable counsel of mere goodness has elected in Christ Jesus our Lord, without any respect to their works; just, in leaving others in the fall and perdition wherein they have involved themselves.” It was this kind of teaching, solid Reformed teaching after the manner of the Bible, Augustine, Calvin, and Turretin to come, that Arminius gave allegiance to, even though he really did not believe it. He was a scandalous, double-minded shadowy individual. It is the opinion of this writer that Arminius was a tool of the devil to infiltrate the Reformed church and attempt to overturn the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

After a year or two he was found to be a scandalous man. It was his practice to teach the doctrines of grace in alignment with the Confession in class, but then distributed private confidential manuscripts among his pupils which taught his real position which denied the Augustinian tradition. By this “double-mindedness” he was able to continue in his popularity, while at the same time he was infecting the students under him of the same errors of “Arminianism“ which he really and actually believed.

Having caught wind that this distribution of “other documents to the students” was occurring secretly, the States General of the Netherlands sent deputies of the Churches to question him on this, and to discover whether the rumors were true. This would involve an open debate and discussion, and then the consequences of the discussion would be taken back to the National Synod to be discussed further as to what ecclesiastical action should take place. Arminius denied the “rumors” about this (in reality this was simply a lie to cover up his outrageous wrongdoing) and he agreed to meet with the council on one condition: if they found anything wrong, they would not report him to the synod. What ploy was this? The entire point of the deputies’ investigation here was to do just that – expose the errors of a false Gospel and train up the future ministers of the church in the Reformed Tradition. So the deputies, in view of his subtle refusal, refused themselves, to pursue this discussion believing that Arminius was not being honest and forthright with them, or agreeing to this under a guise of integrity. Instead, sometime later, they summoned him to council with a man named Classis, a reformed theologian. He declined and would not subject himself to an open synod. This was his mind from this time forth. Arminius’ strategy then changed to win over the secular men of the state and university to have enough backing before going “public” on his “new and radical” views. These new views were nothing more than the heresy of Pelagianism repackaged which Augustine fought in the fourth to fifth century. This is important to note since Pelagianism and Arminianism are the secular man’s salvation. The unregenerate find “works-righteousness“ appealing because they are able to contribute what their conscience dictates to salvation. So, when heresy arises it is never frank and open. Such heretical groups are almost never honest and candid as a party until they gain strength enough to be sure of some degree of popularity. Such was the case with Arius, Pelagius, Arminius, Amyraut, the Unitarians, etc.

Arminius’ goal was to unite all Christians, except the papists, under one common form of doctrinal brotherhood. If this was truly the case, why was it so difficult for him to be “tried” theologically in an open forum? His agenda and motives prove that his goal is true, but not for the good of the church. In his views (which are unorthodox and heretical) he agreed substantially in the five doctrines set forth by his predecessors in a more refined manner. He died in 1609 before he could ever be brought openly before a public Synod. Most hoped that with the death of Arminius that Arminianism would die quickly. Unfortunately, his infectious doctrine had overwhelmed too many younger students and a group called the Remonstrants arose soon after.

In 1610 the Remonstrants organized into a body and set forth a “Remonstrance” to the States General of Holland, Denmark, Belgium and the Netherlands. The word “Remonstrance” means “vigorously objecting or opposing.” These men were persuaded to continue Arminius’ teaching in a precise and ordered form. Their goal was to solicit the favor of the government, and to secure protection against the ecclesiastical censures to which they felt themselves exposed. They vehemently tried to raise up a man named Vorstius, a hero to their newfound party, to be given the chair of theology at Leyden. When King James the First found this out (the same King James of the KJV of the Bible in England) he exhorted the States General by letter not to admit such a man to the chair having such errors and being an enemy of the Gospel. Vorstius was prevented, barely, but another, Episcopius, rose up soon after. Arminianism was spreading at this time quite rapidly because it was easier to stomach and believe than the true Gospel.

As much as it may be deplorable to some that the secular State involves itself in the affairs of the church today, in days of old the practice was quite different. God has placed magistrates in seats of government to control the secularism of the world on its effect on the church. Prince Maurice of Orange, the prince of the day for the region, was opposed to the work of the Remonstrants and desired a National Synod against them. As a result of Prince Maurice’s determination to rid the Netherlands of Arminianism, on November 13, 1618 a national council commenced in the city of Dordtrecht (also abbreviated as “Dort” or “Dordt”.) The synod consisted of thirty-nine pastors and eighteen ruling elders from Belgic churches, and five professors of the University of Holland. There were also delegates from Reformed churches through the region. At least four ministers and two elders from each province attended the Synod: men from France, Switzerland, the Republic of Geneva, Bremen and Embden, as well as varied deputies of the Belgic church, some English Puritans such as Joseph Hall and John Davenant, and delegates from Scotland. With such a sublime gathering, Joseph Hall was compelled to say that, “There was no place upon earth so like heaven as the Synod of Dordt, and where he should be more willing to dwell.”

The Synod of Dort (Dordt, or Dordtrecht) convened to examine the Arminian’s Remonstrance as well as their Christian walk. Both their doctrine and life were “on trial.” Both doctrine and the life of a professing believer under church discipline are exceedingly important since such immoral behaviour had already befallen Arminius and these men were propagating the same teachings. It is regrettable, but the Remonstrants thought themselves ill-treated as a result of this, and did not attend the meetings except to submit their propositions in the form of five articles at the beginning. These five articles of the Arminian Remonstrant made up the summary of Arminian doctrine. This council was held for over a year to thoroughly investigate both the doctrine held in the articles, and respond to them either favorably, or via correction and rejection. It was the latter that occurred.

After the Synod convened in 1619, they gave the following censure by unanimous decision – for they seriously and responsibly examined the Arminian tenants, “condemned them as unscriptural, pestilential errors,” and pronounced those who held and published them to be “enemies of the faith of the Belgic churches, and corrupters of the true religion.” They also deposed the Arminian ministers, excluded them and their followers from the communion of the church, suppressed their religious assemblies, and by the aid of the civil government, which confirmed all their acts, sent a number of the clergy of that party, and those who adhered to them, into banishment, as Samuel Miller points out in his introductory essay to Dordt’s articles. They did not treat them as reprobate, but under ecclesiastical discipline unless they would repent.

For some years Arminian theology was suppressed, but not dead. The Remonstrants, after a lapse of a few years, were relieved. Prince Maurice died in 1625 and so the ban was lifted on them by the States General, even to the point where some Arminians were restored to their position in the churches. Though the States General was commissioned to reconvene every three years to discuss the articles of the Synod – the orthodox articles – but they failed to do so, and it turned into a more “dutiful” act than a religiously helpful responsibility before Jesus Christ. Though this is a sad ending, the Synod was a great help to the Christian Reformation. The Synod has furnished the Christian religion with one of the most excellent and helpful religious documents in the history of the church concerning salvation and the Gospel. It expounded the five points concerning grace which had previously been taught by Calvin in the Institutes and subsequently by Augustine in his writings; especially those Pelagian teachings which dealt with many of the same errors that the Synod rejected when dealing with Arminius.

The Remonstrance further defined their points from the original five articles to demonstrate their resolve of returning to the religion of Roman Catholicism rather than the Gospel. Arminianism is the status quo in most churches through 21st century Christendom and the articles of such as the Synod of Dordt are the minority report. This has not always been the case, but the free doctrines of God’s grace are again growing and on the rise. However, most people today do not believe the truth of the Synod’s articles that profess Christianity. They are far more persuaded by certain aspects of Arminius‘ teaching that the death of Christ is actually for all; that all are not dead in sin, but simply sick in sin; that election is based on men’s faith and God’s knowledge of that faith; and that the saints can ultimately fall away from grace. Yet, even in such adherence to blatant false doctrine, “Arminians” today cannot rightly be called “Arminians” as those of the 17th century. Most of what the church believes today is an amalgamation of various doctrinal positions, somewhat eclectic and hardly complimentary in harmony and synthesis. The Arminianism today is a shadow of what it once was, though certain points are certainly the same. That does not make twenty-first century Arminianism right, or acceptable, but simply more confused. It is only through the teachings of the Bible and the doctrines of Grace that will alleviate these misconceptions and the errors that have been propagated for the last three hundred years. It is only going back to the basic teachings of the Gospel of grace that will strengthen the church and save souls for the glory of Jesus Christ and the covenant of God.

What does this have to do with Augustine?
It is important to understand that the Synod of Dordt grew out of the confessions and belief of the Reformed Churches against Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism. If Dordt formulated the doctrines of grace formally, and they relied on the Bible and the writings of the Reformation, particularly Calvin and the Genevan Ministers, and Calvin relied on the Bible and Augustine for much of his thought, and Augustine relied on the Bible for his thought, it is important to see Augustine’s influence in the history of Reformed Theology. Though Augustine has been deemed the Doctor Gratiae, Augustine would have given that title to the Apostle Paul.

The doctrines of grace originate with the Bible, but were extensively honed throughout the writings of Augustine; and keep in mind, Augustine lives only three and a half centuries after Jesus Christ. In many passages of reading Augustine one would believe they were reading Calvin, or the Puritans, or some later well construed Reformed confessional document. This is why the introduction introduced Augustine as a Calvinist and that John Calvin was an Augustinian. It is a fundamental principle of biblical truth, and the nature of the God of that truth, which states that the message of God does not change no matter what point of history one looks to find the Gospel preached faithfully. It is with the Prophet Isaiah that this work is set and will demonstrate that in opposition to deviant ideas surrounding the Gospel, that the true Gospel stands forever in every age of the church, even in the time of Augustine. “The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.” Isa. 40:8. Thus, the message of the Word of God must remain consistent in the confession of the church and the theologians of church history who hold to orthodoxy. If this is true, and it is, then the same doctrines of grace found in the Bible, will then be found in the writings of Augustine, as they are found in the writings of Calvin, or any truly Reformed or Reformation document such as the honed document of the Synod of Dordt and their articles rejoicing in the free grace of God and rejecting any other view that does not line up with the Biblical truth.