The Five Dilemmas of Calvinism Part 2

Augustine: The Greatest Theologian?

I have decided to take my time with this book as there is so much that Mr. Brown gets wrong in my opinion.  Much of this series will interact only briefly with the content of the book and use certain comments as springboards for interaction and reflection.  One thing I just can’t get past is Mr. Brown’s unqualified claim that Augustine was the greatest theologian of the early church.  This seems false to me on several levels.

First, we must wonder why this claim is made.  It is rather well known that Calvinism is a developed form of Augustinian theology.  Calvin was a huge fan of Augustine and essentially systemized his theology.  He called Augustine “…the best and most faithful witness in all antiquity.” Some Calvinists even prefer to call themselves Augustinians.  Luther was an Augustinian monk and also drew heavily from Augustine in developing his theology.  So there is a real sense in which Augustine might be called the father of the Reformation based solely on the influence his writings had on some of the key figures of the Reformation (though not all reformers followed Augustine).  It makes sense then that a Calvinist like Mr. Brown would think of Augustine as the greatest theologian of the early church.  But there are several problems with such a claim.

Augustine may well be said to have been the most influential theologian on later developments of Christian thought, but being influential does not necessarily equate to greatness.  Augustine also had a great influence on the Roman Catholic Church.  In fact, he has been called the father of Roman ecclesiasticism.  Many of the doctrines that the reformers found unacceptable in Rome had either their origin in Augustine or were embraced by Augustine as sound doctrine:

– No salvation outside of the Catholic Church

– The merit of penance for earning forgiveness

– Perpetual virginity of Mary (Augustine called those who oppose this teaching heretical)

– Mary was innocent of actual sin

– Marion worship

– Purgatory

– Saints as intercessors

And unfortunately some of the reformers followed Augustine in Catholic doctrines such as the divine right to persecute heretics and make converts by force (Augustine used Luke 14:23 as justification for these doctrines, and was followed in actual practice by reformers like John Calvin), and the belief that all unbaptized children who died in infancy would be consigned to eternal fire (based largely on Augustine’s belief that salvation was impossible outside of the Catholic church).  Based on these historical facts we conclude with Anderson (quoted by Samuel Fisk),

Sir Robert Anderson, in The Bible and the Church, declares that nearly all the errors prevalent in Romanism can be traced back to Augustine.  He says, “The Roman church was molded by Augustine into the form it has ever since maintained.  Of all the errors that later centuries developed in her teaching there is scarcely one that cannot be found in embryo in his writings.” (Calvinistic Paths Retraced, pg. 95)

Augustine: Theologian of the early church?

Mr. Brown calls Augustine “the greatest theologian of the early church” (pg. 15 emphasis mine).  This can be misleading as Augustine converted to Catholicism in AD 387.  Prior to this time he was for nine years a member of the Gnostic Manichaean sect.  As a young convert Augustine embraced those doctrines which had universally been held by the early church. Among these doctrines was the belief that man was endowed with a measure of free will in the strict libertarian sense.  Augustine strongly defended the freedom of the will in many of his writings.  This was nothing novel as all of the church fathers before him also held that man was endowed with libertarian free will (though they would not have called it “libertarian” free will) by God and that without this freedom of the will moral accountability was impossible.

Pelagius followed all of the church fathers before him in affirming the freedom of the will but sadly took the doctrine too far in insisting that man could live a sinless life apart from the grace and power of God and turn to God of his own will without God’s initial intervention.  Augustine opposed Pelagius and his followers and likewise went too far in the other direction in order to win the debate.  Augustine slowly began to promote a deterministic theology which essentially denied free will altogether.  The later Augustine continued to develop these doctrines and in so doing came to advocate the idea of irresistible grace and unconditional election.  These doctrines were novel and unheard of among the Ante-Nicene fathers .  Yet such teachings were evident in the Gnostic heretics that the Ante-Nicene fathers wrote against.

It didn’t escape Pelagius’ notice that Augustine seemed to be falling back into the philosophies of the Gnostic sect he once embraced in order to deny free will.  He accused Augustine of smuggling in Manichaean beliefs of fatalism and unconditional predestination into his theology.  It has been argued that Augustine basically molded the two gods of Manichaean philosophy (one good god and one evil god) into one God who determined and caused all that is both good and evil.  While the Pelagian and semi-Pelagian teaching that one can turn to God apart from God’s prevenient grace was condemned in later church councils, so were the deterministic features of Augustine’s later theological developments.

It becomes clear then that Augustine did not represent the teachings of the earliest church fathers in his theological developments which would later be embraced and systematized by John Calvin.  The earliest church fathers, some of whom were taught by the apostles themselves, rejected determinism, irresistible grace, unconditional election, and inevitable perseverance as features of Gnostic heresies rather than the apostolic teachings of the church. Only after Calvin (following Augustine) did such teachings begin to be readily embraced by professing Christians as orthodoxy. 

Calvin held Augustine in the highest esteem and often relied upon his writings whenever he encountered difficulties in interpreting Scripture. Augustine, however, was not a strong exegete of Scripture and was ignorant of the original languages of the Old and New Testament (Greek and Hebrew).  Some of his strange doctrinal developments may be directly related to faulty translations of the latin Vulgate that Augustine relied on and studied.  It is significant that the earliest church fathers, many of whom spoke Greek as their native language, never found the doctrines of determinism, unconditional election, limited atonement, or inevitable perseverance in the teachings of the apostles and word of God as a whole.  Rather, they used those same Scriptures to rigorously oppose the “heretics” who promoted many of the same teachings that Augustine and Calvin later came to hold as orthodoxy.  Based on these facts it seems safe to say that Mr. Brown has overstated things just a bit when he writes,

Augustine was the greatest theologian of the early church.  He spent much of his life defending the orthodox or true faith against heresies.  Fighting these battles helped him codify the doctrines that were taught by Jesus and Paul in Scriptures (pg. 15).

The irony is obvious.  While Brown tells us that Augustine preserved the Christian faith against heresies, history seems to tell quite a different story.  It might have been more accurate if Brown had said something like this,

Augustine was one of the most influential theologians of the fourth and fifth century.  He spent most of his life developing Catholic doctrines that the later reformers found abhorrent and have been rejected by Protestant believers throughout the centuries.  In his battles with the Pelagians he introduced strange doctrines to the church which were held by the earliest Christian writers and disciples of the apostles to be heretical.  Augustine’s theology of determinism, irresistible grace, and unconditional election misrepresented and perverted the teachings of Jesus and Paul in Scriptures.

So it seems that Mr. Brown is either largely ignorant of much of church history or he has deliberately painted Augustine in a positive light for the sake of promoting his Calvinism as the purest form of historical Christianity.  In our next post we will examine Mr. Brown’s many misrepresentations of Arminian theology.

[For an excellent treatment of the philosophical reasoning that lead Augustine to embrace novel doctrines and the negative influence these doctrines had on later theological developments see God’s Strategy in Human History by Forster and Marston.]

Go to Part 1

Go to Part 3

Advertisements

11 Responses

  1. Hello,

    I just finished reading a book by Orthodox theologian John Romanides called “The Ancestral Sin”. He refutes that same notion that it wasn’t until Augustine that a theologian finally understood what Paul meant in this epistles about sin, death and salvation. He clearly shows how Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and a few other early Christian writers had viewed the epistles of Paul and explained his theology and how Augustine taught contra to the works of his predecessors.

  2. John,

    Thanks for stopping by and thanks for the info. I will have to check that book out sometime.

    God Bless,
    Ben

  3. Hi Ben,

    Roger Olson argues in “The Story of Christian Theology” that Augustine is also much to blame for the later east/west schism. The EO went on a different trajectory and rejected most of Augustine’s line of thinking.

    Augustine also had a belief called ensoulment – that fetuses don’t receive a soul until some time after conception (40 days for men 90 days for women). He borrowed this from Greek philosophy. Recently Nancy Pelosi used a quote from him on this topic to justify abortion of all things.

    I’m am a little suspicious of Anderson’s claim that “nearly all the errors prevalent in Romanism can be traced back to Augustine.” No doubt he contributed to them, but some were already in development (like Mariology for example).

    Anyway, very informative post, thanks! And good luck to your Steelers.

  4. Kevin,

    You might very well be right that Anderson’s comment is somewhat of an over statement. The point I was trying to make was that much of what the reformers rebelled against in the RC was either originated, developed, or endorsed in Augustines writings. I wasn’t even suggesting that since Augustine was wrong (from a Protestant perspective) about such Catholic doctrines that he couldn’t possibly be right about anything else (as some seem to suggest). I was just pointing out that Mr. Brown’s statements concerning Augustine were grossly unqualified and the negative influence of Augustine on Christian thought (even from a Calvinist perspective) was being conveniently ignored.

    To read Brown’s comments without knowing anything else about Augustine would lead one to believe that he perfectly represented early Christian thought dating back to the apostles and fought to maintain those early Christian convictions. This is historically inaccurate and misleading. It easily leads one into grave misunderstandings concerning church history and the developement of Calvinist thought. This does not comport well with Brown’s claims that he is concerned with filling knowledge gaps and clearing up misunderstandings.

    Augustine was also far more of a Christian philosopher than anything else. While Calvin was more of an exegete he relied heavily on Augustine’s philosophies in interpreting Scripture. Augustine’s thought and theology is often presupposed by Calvin when approaching certain texts. This is very interesting to me in light of the common Calvinist claim that Arminian theology is philosophically based while Calvinist theology is exegetically based. That is simply not the case.

    God Bless,
    Ben

  5. Hi Ben, I agree with your point. The sad thing is that many C’s know very little about the early church fathers, and probably don’t care to learn more than what they read in Brown’s book. Augustine is no saint by any means. Well, okay he is, but that’s besides the point. 🙂

  6. Thank you for a really good read this afternoon!

  7. Apropos five dilemmas. I recently started another blog committed to refuting calvinism on the basis of its five chief scriptural pillars. (Probably other scriptures will follow)
    One of these being Rom.8:28-30, which I just posted. Feel free to visit. 🙂

  8. Hi there – I appreciate the time your taking on this book, however I would like to politely suggest that you are spending too much time with “he said she said” banter. While there are of course exceptions, many Calvinists as well as many Arminians, especially on a scholarly level, are simply trying to understand the scriptures as God intended them to be read. Whether or not you agree with Calvin, it is certainly clear upon reading his work that he was extremely concerned with God’s truth revealed in scripture. Thus, at the end of the day, you will need to take the relevant biblical passages… all of them… and show us how to make sense of them. For just as when Calvinists point to certain “election” passages to prove their point, it is equally unhelpful for Arminians to pick out others (e.g. Hebrews 6:4-6) to fight for their own point. At a surface level, evidence for both sides exist. The meat of the discussion is what each group does with the “other” passages. And to that end, I look forward to seeing what you have to say.

    Steve

  9. Steve,

    You seem to be missing the point of this series. It is a review and critique of what has become a popular little book that is often used by Calvinists to indoctrinate non-Calvinists. The book claims to be concerned with clearing up misconceptions, but it is riddled with historical and philosophical inaccuracies, as well as misrepresentations of the opposing view (Arminianism). Are you suggesting that error and inaccuracies should be ignored and not addressed? Is the God of truth not concerned about truth?

    I do intend to address the numerous “proof texts” that Mr. Brown lists in his book as support for Calvinism, but for now I am concerned with the accuracy of his many claims and the soundness of his reasoning. As far as dealing with passages that “prove” the Calvinists point, you can find such treatments in numerous places on this blog. For example, I have a 13 part series on the warning passages in which I spend a lot of time on context and language to show that these passages do indeed teach that true believers can fall away from the faith and perish. You can find the entire series here:

    https://arminianperspectives.wordpress.com/category/perseverance-series/

    Part 12 in the series deals with passages that Calvinists claim teach unconditional eternal security. That would be “the meat” of the discussion, according to you, in which I deal with the “other passages”. There are many other links and posts here that do the same. Feel free to look around.

    God Bless,
    Ben

  10. …I would like to poitely suggest that you are spending too much time with “he said she said” banter.

    What exactly are you talking about, Steve? I can’t make sense of that statement. Why exactly shouldn’t dubious claims within a book on theology be called into question?

  11. […] noted in Part 2, Augustine misinterpreted Paul, introducing doctrines into the church that were unheard of prior to […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: