Augustine's Controversy: Grace And Free Will
Doctrinal Development Essay – Part 5 – Christina Hillesheim
An important historic doctrine of the fifth century dealt with grace and free will. The church father, theologian, and bishop Augustine began the conversation in his work Confessions and continued it during the Pelagian controversy. Augustine’s conversion was unexpected and overwhelming to the point that it caused “a radical break with his past life and a transformation that left him hardly the same person as before (pp. 258).” After this dramatic conversion, Augustine placed a great emphasis on the grace and power of God in salvation, because he felt that he could not really resist God. “He did not choose God; God chose him (pp. 267).” This helplessness in regards to salvation and …show more content…
the focus on the grace and power of God is what Augustine began to preach.
This came to a head when Pelagius visited Rome and found Christians living morally indecent lives. He believed that the root of this problem was Augustine’s beliefs of grace and free will. “If Christians became convinced that they could not be continent (abstaining from immorality) unless God gave them that gift, then it should not surprise anyone if they practice incontinence (pp. 267).” Pelagius was concerned with promoting strong moral attitudes and behavior in the church. In regards to free will and sin, he rejected the notion of original sin. “He believed fervently in free will and the necessity of grace for salvation, but he viewed part of grace as a human person’s natural equipment and part as the divine revelation of God’s will through the law (pp. 268).”
It appeared that Pelagius “taught that human beings can indeed simply choose to obey God all of the time and never sin willfully and guiltily (pp. 268).” This caused Augustine and his followers to accuse Pelagius of heresy on three accounts: (1) denied original sin, (2) denied that God’s grace is essential for salvation, and (3) preached sinless perfection through free will apart from grace. Pelagius denied Augustine’s view of original sin as inherited guilt and followed an incubator model of original sin. This model focused on sin being learned and not being born with us. “We are all born into a world corrupted by sin and we all tend to sin due to the bad examples shown us by our parents and peers (pp. 269).” Thus, we choose to sin, not because we are predisposed to sin, but it is our free will and decision to do so. All that is needed for Christians to do good, instead of evil, is their own conscience and the grace of God’s Word, specifically the law.
“Forgiveness is there if one stumbles and falls into sin or even if one sins willfully, but Pelagius considered that unnecessary if a person would live rightly by free will according to the light given in God’s Word and in conscience (pp. 270).” However, even though Pelagius affirmed that mankind has the potential to live a sinless life, it was more theoretical than an actual possibility. He hinted that only Jesus Christ and no other had actually achieved this perfection. These strong teachings from Pelagius lead to Augustine developing his theology on human depravity and God’s sovereignty and grace.
Augustine’s basis of an orthodox doctrine of salvation was monergism. This is “the idea and belief that human agency is entirely passive and God’s agency is all-determining in both universal history and individual salvation (pp. 255-256).” This concept of soteriology combines the absolute and total depravity of human beings after the Fall with the absolute and total power and sovereignty of God. All of mankind are damned by God due to the sin of Adam and the inherited fallen nature from him. This idea of original sin is contrary to that of Pelagius who thought sin was learned; whereas, Augustine thought sin was inherited.
Augustine’s doctrine of original sin has been called “seminal identity” in that a person of any age is corrupt and guilty of damnation. Baptism can break the connection of mankind with Adam’s sin temporarily, but once the person sins the connection is restored. “This process of transforming grace could include genuine progress so that a person might ... enjoy a life of unbroken fellowship with God ..., but such a life would be entirely a work of God’s grace and in no way a product of human effort or free will apart from assisting grace (pp. 272).”
Due to the nature of sin, mankind is incapable of not sinning, because man’s free will is turned to sin.
Before the Fall, mankind had the power and the possibility to not sin. After the Fall, this changed and now due to the corruption of sin it is not possible not to sin. Thus, sin is now inevitable in the world; whereas before it was not. One thing to note, Augustine did not believe that mankind has lost all free will due to the Fall. He “argued that human beings retain free will ... but that free will is conditioned by sin so that it is always turned toward disobedience unless God’s grace intervenes and turns the will in another direction (pp. …show more content…
273).”
This understanding of free will is very different from Pelagius’ view of free will. Pelagius viewed free will as the ability to do otherwise; whereas Augustine viewed it as the ability to do what one wants to do. Augustine would argue that people sin, because that is what they want to do. “The Fall has so corrupted their motives and desires that sinning is all they want to do apart from God’s intervening grace (pp. 273).” However, Pelagius would argue that this is not free will, because a person is only free if they have a choice to sin or not to sin. This fundamental parting directly affected both men’s final understanding of salvation.
Pelagius’ view culminated in his condemnation as a heretic by the bishop of Rome in 417 and 418 and by the Council of Ephesus in 431. Whereas, Augustine’s view lead to monergism and “what later generations of theologians would come to call ‘unconditional election’ and ‘irresistible grace’ (p. 274).” This doctrine and the others presented by Augustine became the touchstone of catholic orthodoxy.
The doctrine of grace and free will is one that I never really thought about in-depth before coming to seminary. My conversion experience was very different than Augustine’s. I could tell that God’s hand was at work and felt drawn towards him, but at the same time I knew it was my choice and I could say no. I did not feel that I could not resist God as Augustine had. It also took me some time to accept God’s call of repentance and grace. Unlike Augustine, I had not gotten to an acceptance of God intellectually or emotionally at that time. The experience helped me move closer emotionally, but I still wasn’t ready to make God my Lord and Savior.
Now in regards to the doctrine or grace and free will, I find this to be an all-encompassing doctrine in that what you believe here directly affects your daily walk, how you share the Gospel, how you view salvation, and how you view your purpose on Earth. In regards to salvation, I feel as if it is like the chicken or the egg riddle, which comes first is hard to tell and may differ depending on the person. God has the ability and power to pour his sovereignty and grace upon the hardest of hearts and make them feel forced to repent and follow him. This would be similar to Augustine’s situation. However, Augustine was already open to godly things and was considered a seeker. If the person is hard hearted and not open, then after the experience they could fall back into their old ways due to their free will. I think there is a balance between free will and God’s power in salvation. God provides his grace to those that are ready for it meaning they are open to him. Now how open that needs to be and the amount of grace he provides depends on the person, but God wants us to choose him. He doesn’t want people to just follow him because they were forced. He wants humankind to freely accept his offer of salvation and make him their Lord and Savior, because they want to out of love and obedience not force.
The doctrine of grace and free will are very relevant to the Gospel.
If one believes Augustine’s monergism, than salvation is in the hands of God and not humankind. This could cause many people to question the need for evangelism and sharing of the Gospel. This is very similar to what happened to some Calvinists who felt that those who were predestined would come regardless of what they preached. However, if this were the case then the Great Commission in Matthew would be pointless. Jesus Christ would not command us to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you (Matt. 28: 19-20, NIV).” He would only give us this command if doing so would make a difference and aid in fulfilling his purpose. Thus, humankind’s free will must have some impact on salvation and worthy of Christians sharing the Gospel to unbelievers. However, on the flip side Christians need to understand God’s power and grace in salvation. By understanding the role that he plays, it removes some of the pressure off of the Christian when sharing the Gospel. It is both free will and grace that come together during the salvation experience. We are simply God’s
vessels.
Lastly, the doctrine of grace and free will play a large role in the health of the local church in a contemporary context. As mentioned earlier, the controversy between Augustine and Pelagius began when Pelagius saw many Christians living immoral and indecent lives. He believed this was due to their understanding of free will. If Christians at that time thought that their free will had no impact on their salvation and that we are all swayed to doing evil, then this could be the same thoughts of contemporary Christians. If the church is to be a role model and beacon to unbelievers then Christians need to stand out and behave differently than those around them. However, this understanding of free will gives them no reason to behave differently and in some regards gives them an excuse to behave poorly. Pastors and theologians of the contemporary context need to be sure that an orthodox understanding of free will and grace is understood by their church, so that the church is healthy and a proper example.
An important historic doctrine of the fifth century dealt with grace and free will. The church father, theologian, and bishop Augustine began the conversation in his work Confessions and continued it during the Pelagian controversy. Augustine’s conversion was unexpected and overwhelming to the point that it caused “a radical break with his past life and a transformation that left him hardly the same person as before (pp. 258).” After this dramatic conversion, Augustine placed a great emphasis on the grace and power of God in salvation, because he felt that he could not really resist God. “He did not choose God; God chose him (pp. 267).” This helplessness in regards to salvation and …show more content…
the focus on the grace and power of God is what Augustine began to preach.
This came to a head when Pelagius visited Rome and found Christians living morally indecent lives. He believed that the root of this problem was Augustine’s beliefs of grace and free will. “If Christians became convinced that they could not be continent (abstaining from immorality) unless God gave them that gift, then it should not surprise anyone if they practice incontinence (pp. 267).” Pelagius was concerned with promoting strong moral attitudes and behavior in the church. In regards to free will and sin, he rejected the notion of original sin. “He believed fervently in free will and the necessity of grace for salvation, but he viewed part of grace as a human person’s natural equipment and part as the divine revelation of God’s will through the law (pp. 268).”
It appeared that Pelagius “taught that human beings can indeed simply choose to obey God all of the time and never sin willfully and guiltily (pp. 268).” This caused Augustine and his followers to accuse Pelagius of heresy on three accounts: (1) denied original sin, (2) denied that God’s grace is essential for salvation, and (3) preached sinless perfection through free will apart from grace. Pelagius denied Augustine’s view of original sin as inherited guilt and followed an incubator model of original sin. This model focused on sin being learned and not being born with us. “We are all born into a world corrupted by sin and we all tend to sin due to the bad examples shown us by our parents and peers (pp. 269).” Thus, we choose to sin, not because we are predisposed to sin, but it is our free will and decision to do so. All that is needed for Christians to do good, instead of evil, is their own conscience and the grace of God’s Word, specifically the law.
“Forgiveness is there if one stumbles and falls into sin or even if one sins willfully, but Pelagius considered that unnecessary if a person would live rightly by free will according to the light given in God’s Word and in conscience (pp. 270).” However, even though Pelagius affirmed that mankind has the potential to live a sinless life, it was more theoretical than an actual possibility. He hinted that only Jesus Christ and no other had actually achieved this perfection. These strong teachings from Pelagius lead to Augustine developing his theology on human depravity and God’s sovereignty and grace.
Augustine’s basis of an orthodox doctrine of salvation was monergism. This is “the idea and belief that human agency is entirely passive and God’s agency is all-determining in both universal history and individual salvation (pp. 255-256).” This concept of soteriology combines the absolute and total depravity of human beings after the Fall with the absolute and total power and sovereignty of God. All of mankind are damned by God due to the sin of Adam and the inherited fallen nature from him. This idea of original sin is contrary to that of Pelagius who thought sin was learned; whereas, Augustine thought sin was inherited.
Augustine’s doctrine of original sin has been called “seminal identity” in that a person of any age is corrupt and guilty of damnation. Baptism can break the connection of mankind with Adam’s sin temporarily, but once the person sins the connection is restored. “This process of transforming grace could include genuine progress so that a person might ... enjoy a life of unbroken fellowship with God ..., but such a life would be entirely a work of God’s grace and in no way a product of human effort or free will apart from assisting grace (pp. 272).”
Due to the nature of sin, mankind is incapable of not sinning, because man’s free will is turned to sin.
Before the Fall, mankind had the power and the possibility to not sin. After the Fall, this changed and now due to the corruption of sin it is not possible not to sin. Thus, sin is now inevitable in the world; whereas before it was not. One thing to note, Augustine did not believe that mankind has lost all free will due to the Fall. He “argued that human beings retain free will ... but that free will is conditioned by sin so that it is always turned toward disobedience unless God’s grace intervenes and turns the will in another direction (pp. …show more content…
273).”
This understanding of free will is very different from Pelagius’ view of free will. Pelagius viewed free will as the ability to do otherwise; whereas Augustine viewed it as the ability to do what one wants to do. Augustine would argue that people sin, because that is what they want to do. “The Fall has so corrupted their motives and desires that sinning is all they want to do apart from God’s intervening grace (pp. 273).” However, Pelagius would argue that this is not free will, because a person is only free if they have a choice to sin or not to sin. This fundamental parting directly affected both men’s final understanding of salvation.
Pelagius’ view culminated in his condemnation as a heretic by the bishop of Rome in 417 and 418 and by the Council of Ephesus in 431. Whereas, Augustine’s view lead to monergism and “what later generations of theologians would come to call ‘unconditional election’ and ‘irresistible grace’ (p. 274).” This doctrine and the others presented by Augustine became the touchstone of catholic orthodoxy.
The doctrine of grace and free will is one that I never really thought about in-depth before coming to seminary. My conversion experience was very different than Augustine’s. I could tell that God’s hand was at work and felt drawn towards him, but at the same time I knew it was my choice and I could say no. I did not feel that I could not resist God as Augustine had. It also took me some time to accept God’s call of repentance and grace. Unlike Augustine, I had not gotten to an acceptance of God intellectually or emotionally at that time. The experience helped me move closer emotionally, but I still wasn’t ready to make God my Lord and Savior.
Now in regards to the doctrine or grace and free will, I find this to be an all-encompassing doctrine in that what you believe here directly affects your daily walk, how you share the Gospel, how you view salvation, and how you view your purpose on Earth. In regards to salvation, I feel as if it is like the chicken or the egg riddle, which comes first is hard to tell and may differ depending on the person. God has the ability and power to pour his sovereignty and grace upon the hardest of hearts and make them feel forced to repent and follow him. This would be similar to Augustine’s situation. However, Augustine was already open to godly things and was considered a seeker. If the person is hard hearted and not open, then after the experience they could fall back into their old ways due to their free will. I think there is a balance between free will and God’s power in salvation. God provides his grace to those that are ready for it meaning they are open to him. Now how open that needs to be and the amount of grace he provides depends on the person, but God wants us to choose him. He doesn’t want people to just follow him because they were forced. He wants humankind to freely accept his offer of salvation and make him their Lord and Savior, because they want to out of love and obedience not force.
The doctrine of grace and free will are very relevant to the Gospel.
If one believes Augustine’s monergism, than salvation is in the hands of God and not humankind. This could cause many people to question the need for evangelism and sharing of the Gospel. This is very similar to what happened to some Calvinists who felt that those who were predestined would come regardless of what they preached. However, if this were the case then the Great Commission in Matthew would be pointless. Jesus Christ would not command us to “go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you (Matt. 28: 19-20, NIV).” He would only give us this command if doing so would make a difference and aid in fulfilling his purpose. Thus, humankind’s free will must have some impact on salvation and worthy of Christians sharing the Gospel to unbelievers. However, on the flip side Christians need to understand God’s power and grace in salvation. By understanding the role that he plays, it removes some of the pressure off of the Christian when sharing the Gospel. It is both free will and grace that come together during the salvation experience. We are simply God’s
vessels.
Lastly, the doctrine of grace and free will play a large role in the health of the local church in a contemporary context. As mentioned earlier, the controversy between Augustine and Pelagius began when Pelagius saw many Christians living immoral and indecent lives. He believed this was due to their understanding of free will. If Christians at that time thought that their free will had no impact on their salvation and that we are all swayed to doing evil, then this could be the same thoughts of contemporary Christians. If the church is to be a role model and beacon to unbelievers then Christians need to stand out and behave differently than those around them. However, this understanding of free will gives them no reason to behave differently and in some regards gives them an excuse to behave poorly. Pastors and theologians of the contemporary context need to be sure that an orthodox understanding of free will and grace is understood by their church, so that the church is healthy and a proper example.