Augustine Diagnoses His Problem

 

            Augustine’s internal struggles have been recounted in detail because they demonstrate that, from his perspective, something has gone drastically wrong with the human situation. For Augustine, the fundamental problem with the human condition and the cause of his own twisted and wretched condition prior to his conversion was the direct result of sin: 

 

In my own case, as I deliberated about serving my Lord God which I had long been disposed to do, the self which willed to serve was identical with the self which was unwilling. It was I. I was neither wholly willing nor wholly unwilling. So I was in conflict with myself and was dissociated from myself. The dissociation came about against my will. Yet this was not a manifestation of the nature of an alien mind but the punishment suffered in my own mind. And it was ‘not I’ that brought this about ‘but sin which dwelt in me’, sin resulting from the punishment of a more freely chosen sin, because I was a son of Adam.[1] (Italics added) 

 

            And, according to Augustine, sin is something that is pervasive and that has not left one person unaffected by its influence. Replete with sin, Augustine describes humanity as a massa—a lump of humanity that has been negatively affected by Original Sin.[2] Lohse comments on Augustine’s profound understanding of sin, saying, “It is clear that Augustine imparted to the traditional doctrine of sin a profundity which it had not had before. For him sin is not merely this or that wrongful deed. Hence sin is not something which can be removed by a mere appeal to the good man, or through instruction. Sin is, rather, the wrong orientation of all human existence since Adam’s fall, an orientation from which no one can free himself. It is the form of existence in which we, as humans, find ourselves.”[3] And because of his own experiences with sin, this “wrong orientation” is something with which Augustine was very familiar.

 

            For Augustine, it is precisely because humankind is bound by sin that it cannot possess free will in the libertarian sense. He makes this clear when he describes his internal conflict as something he did not desire: “The dissociation came about against my will” (above; italics added). Recall that for one to hold to a libertarian understanding of free will, one must possess absolutely the power to choose the contrary. But this absolute power to choose the contrary is impossible if sin is as powerful as Augustine claims it to be. Because Augustine believes that the human will is bound by sin and unable to choose the contrary, it can be concluded at this point that Augustine holds to some form of theological determinism. But to determine exactly what kind of determinism (‘hard’ or ‘soft’), further exploration will be required.

 

Enter Pelagius

 

            While Augustine knew what his personal experiences taught him about Original Sin and its deleterious effects on the will, he would soon find himself having to defend his views against others who did not share them. The most famous of these opponents was a native of the British Isles named Pelagius. Pelagius had a more optimistic view of human nature than did Augustine, and he did not believe that humankind had a natural propensity to sin that stemmed from the fall of the first humans in the Garden.[4] In his work On Free Will he argues that “evil is not born with us, and we are procreated without fault.”[5] Rather than blame sin on the Fall, Pelagius argues that by their own free will humans can actually live without sin.[6] He thought that it was easy for humans to live without sin[7] and was himself “an unqualified advocate of ethical perfectionism as a requirement of the gospel.”[8] Consequently, his high views of human moral ability made it difficult for him to tolerate any suggestion that humankind’s fallen nature made sin necessary.   

 

            The first recorded contact between Pelagius and Augustine’s theology took place in A.D. 405. The events that unfolded as a result of this contact demonstrate Pelagius’s intolerance for Augustine’s understanding of sin. While visiting Rome, Pelagius heard the following portion of Augustine’s Confessions being read by a local Bishop:

 

My entire hope is exclusively in your very great mercy. Grant what you command, and command what you will. You require continence. A certain writer has said: “As I knew that no one can be continent except God grants it, and this very thing is part of wisdom, to know whose gift this is.” By continence we are collected together and brought to the unity from which we disintegrated into multiplicity. He loves you less who together with you loves something which he does not love for your sake. O Love, you ever burn and are never extinguished. O charity, my God, set me on fire. You command continence; grant what you command, and command what you will.[9]

 

Upon hearing “grant what you command, and command what you will,” Pelagius became so outraged that he cried out, “I cannot bear it!” and a brawl nearly broke out between him and the Roman Bishop.[10] Pelagius disagreed with Augustine’s claim that one needed to rely on God in order to live justly, and thought that this kind of theology only served to justify the sexually immoral lifestyle that he saw exhibited in many of the nominal Christians in Rome.[11] He was also reacting against determinism and an underlying contention that he had with the morally deterministic beliefs of the Manichees.[12]

 

            In addition to Pelagius’s denial of Original Sin, he also thought that Augustine’s rejection of absolute free will made it impossible for humans to accept responsibility for their actions. For Pelagius, “If we sin, it is because we choose willfully and knowingly to sin, and it always a matter of free will if we are held accountable for it.” [13] Peterson and Williams give a helpful summary of the Pelagian position: “The central commitment that shaped Pelagius’s response to Augustine was Pelagius’s affirmation that human beings possess unconditionally free will as well as moral responsibility. If human beings do not possess the inherent ability to obey the commands of God, then it would be unjust for God to demand obedience and hold people accountable for not obeying.”[14] Not unlike the objections of modern libertarians, then, Pelagius maintains that responsibility demands absolute (‘libertarian’) freedom.

 

Augustine’s Arguments Against the Semi-Pelagians[15]

 

            Augustine continued to argue with Pelagius, his followers, and others who held to some form of Pelagian thinking (e.g. Semi-Pelagians) for the rest of his life. And although Pelagius’s views were officially condemned in 418 as a result of a general council of more than two hundred African bishops,[16] one of Pelagius’s most zealous followers, Julian of Eclanum, continued to maintain the Pelagian cause and argued vehemently against Augustine. His ongoing debate with Augustine only caused Augustine to promulgate his views on the human will more vigorously than he had in the past.[17] Julian’s prodding caused Augustine to write more about his views on predestination against those he referred to as “the new Pelagian heretics.”[18] These views were given expression in a letter to Sixtus, the presbyter of the Church at Rome in 418.[19] Eight or nine years later in 426 or 427 this letter came into the hands of a monk named Florus in Byzacena who, although he appreciated it, admitted that it caused great conflict with the brethren in his monastery because some in his community thought that it destroyed free will.[20] To resolve the matter, three members of the community, Cresconius, Felix, and another Felix in Hippo, spent Easter with Augustine in order that they might learn about Augustine's views on the will in more detail.[21] After spending time with Augustine, he sent his friends home with two letters[22] and a book entitled On Grace and Free Will.[23]

 

            In this book Augustine relies heavily on Scripture to argue against the Semi-Pelagian belief that the human will is absolutely free. He argues, “if this divine record [the Scriptures] be looked into carefully it shows us that…those which follow the world are so entirely at the disposal of God, that He turns them whithersoever He wills, and whensoever He wills….”[24] Indeed, Augustine attempts to ground his argument so heavily in Scripture that he concludes, “I think, too, that I have so discussed the subject that it is not so much I myself as the inspired Scripture which has spoken to you….”[25] For example, Augustine argues against absolute free will by appealing to Rom 9:22 which speaks of “vessels of wrath” that were “fitted to destruction.”[26] He also speaks about God’s hardening of Pharaoh’s heart (Ex 7:3; 10:1); he also appeals to Josh 7:4 and 12 where Israel is said to have fled from their enemies in fear in order that God might fulfill the word that he spoke to them when he said, “‘The children of Israel shall not be able to stand before the face of their enemies.’”[27] Augustine comments on this text saying, “What is the meaning of, ‘They shall not be able to stand’? Now, why did they not stand by free will, but with a will perplexed by fear, took to flight, were it not that God has the lordship even over men’s wills, and when He is angry turns to fear whomsoever He pleases?”[28] Augustine goes on to adduce many more Scriptural examples of God’s working in the human will and concludes, “From these statements of the inspired word, and from similar passages which it would take too long to quote in full, it is, I think, sufficiently clear that God works in the hearts of men to incline their wills whithersoever He wills, whether to good deeds according to His mercy, or to evil after their own deserts.”[29] For Augustine, then, the Scriptures were a strong ally in his fight against the Semi-Pelagian claim that humans possessed absolute free will.

---