Augustine botches doctrine of rengeration?

[abacabb3]

I ran across this in my reading of Augustine's On the Perseverance of the Saints:

What, I ask, is the meaning of, They were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would certainly have continued with us? Were not both created by God— both born of Adam— both made from the earth, and given from Him who said, I have created all breath, souls of one and the same nature?Lastly, had not both been called, and followed Him that called them? And had not both become, from wicked men, justified men, and both been renewed by the laver of regeneration? But if he were to hear this who beyond all doubt knew what he was saying, he might answer and say: These things are true. In respect of all these things, they were of us. Nevertheless, in respect of a certain other distinction, they were not of us, for if they had been of us, they certainly would have continued with us. What then is this distinction? God's books lie open, let us not turn away our view; the divine Scripture cries aloud, let us give it a hearing. They were not of them, because they had not been called according to the purpose; they had not been chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world; they had not gained a lot in Him; they had not been predestinated according to His purpose who works all things. For if they had been this, they would have been of them, and without doubt they would have continued with them (Chapter 21).

The underlined is where he would be in error and the emboldened is where he is accurate. Can someone explain why Augustine would argue that both men were actually justified and regenerated, but God only meant it for only one of them to persevere due to His hidden counsel?

 

[abacabb3]

Just thought a little bit. Because of Augustine's doctrine on baptismal regeneration, he will force himself into a happy contradiction concerning this point. So sad.

 

[AMR]

I think you misunderstand the quote. Augustine argues that the two men, both apparently professing, were actually comprised of one man actually called and the other "had not been called according to the purpose". Augustine offers up the argument of an interlocutor who claims "Were not both....etc.?" and answers accordingly correcting the popular view of those that would claim one can lose that which they had no claim upon in the first place.

No contradiction here.

See also:
Phillip Schaff, editor, Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, s.1, v. 01 (05), Ages Software, Master Christian Library Volume 8. Aurelius Augustine, A Treatise on Rebuke and Grace, and Enchiridion (Albany, Oregon: 1996-1997).

For a nice summary of Augustine's views of the doctrines of grace see:
http://www.amazon.com/Augustines-Calvinism-Doctrines-Grace-Writings-ebook/dp/B0082ZG91O

 

[abacabb3]

Augustine states that both men were "regenerated," just as he taught that all infants that are baptized are also regenerated. However, not all infants that are baptized grow up to persevere in the faith. Hence, in Augustine's worldview, regeneration is an act of God that is a separate gift from perseverance, and not all who are regenerated persevere.

So, even if we infer that Augustine is quoting a theoretical critic ("And had not both come, from wicked men..."), his theology on this point would still break with ours, because of the preceding point. Correct me if I'm wrong on this.

 

[AMR]

Augustine states that both men were "regenerated," just as he taught that all infants that are baptized are also regenerated. However, not all infants that are baptized grow up to persevere in the faith. Hence, in Augustine's worldview, regeneration is an act of God that is a separate gift from perseverance, and not all who are regenerated persevere.

So, even if we infer that Augustine is quoting a theoretical critic ("And had not both come, from wicked men..."), his theology on this point would still break with ours, because of the preceding point. Correct me if I'm wrong on this.

You are moving the goal posts by bringing baptism into the picture. The quote in question is perspicuously reformed orthodoxy as relates to perseverance.

Perhaps given his reliance upon the Vulgate and its unfortunate Latin translation of justification to imply "make righteous" (versus the Greek "declare righteous") Augustine viewed regeneration, justification and sanctification as one on-going process and thus tended to confound them. And, yes, he affirmed baptismal regeneration.

 

[abacabb3]

You are moving the goal posts by bringing baptism into the picture. The quote in question is perspicuously reformed orthodoxy as relates to perseverance.

Perhaps given his reliance upon the Vulgate and its unfortunate Latin translation of justification to imply "make righteous" (versus the Greek "declare righteous") Augustine viewed regeneration, justification and sanctification as one on-going process and thus tended to confound them. And, yes, he affirmed baptismal regeneration.

I am having some problems reading him on this topic. FOr example, in CHapter 32:

They [the Pelagians], however, who will not say that any one who has died is judged according to those things which God foreknew that he would have done if he had lived, considering with how manifest a falsehood and how great an absurdity this would be said, have no further reason to say, what the Church condemned in the Pelagians, and caused to be condemned by Pelagius himself—that the grace of God, namely, is given according to our merits,— when they [the Pelagians] see some infants not regenerated taken from this life to eternal death, and others regenerated, to eternal life; and those themselves that are regenerated, some going hence, persevering even to the end, and others kept in this life even until they fall, who certainly would not have fallen if they had departed hence before their lapse; and again some falling, but not departing from this life until they return, who certainly would have perished if they had departed before their return.

It appears that Augustine is saying that to posit like some Pelagians did that those who day without hearing the Gospel are judged according to what would have occurred that they kept living are wrong. His evidence of this is when "they" observe some of the unbaptized with no hope and amongst the baptized some that persevere and some that do not. He appears to handwave away the contention of the Pelagians by saying, "Look, God takes some and not others." That, or he is restating the point of the Pelagians, but does not really go anywhere in refuting it.

Being that he invokes Tyre and Sidon as evidence that God knows those who may repent and believe from their own free will when given the chance, but did not will their salvation so did not show them miracles, the former interpretation appears more consistent with Augustine's overall argument. God can take away the life of some before they would have sinner, or prolong it so they fall away of their own free will, so that His election may stand.

I am not confident of any of these interpretations. I find this work the most confusing one of his that I have read (The COnfessions, On Grace and Free Will, On Predestination of the Saints, Handbook..., I can't remember any others.)

 

[hedrick]

I'm not an expert on Augustine, but from what I've been able to read, he treats perseverance as a second gift. Thus he believes that people who have real faith and have been generated can fall away. He believes they were predestined to be part of the Church for a time. Their initial regeneration was a result of grace, but they were not given the grace of perseverence.

Some of this is terminology. But regeneration and justification mean different things to Augustine and to us. But Luther's discovery of justification does have consequences, and Augustine -- despite his merits -- didn't benefit from them.

The Reformed tradition, of course, views those who fall away as not elect in the first place. Part of this is because of the new concept of justification, stemming from Luther. Justification is based on a union with Christ, and we can trust it, even during periods when we fall away.

The disadvantage of the Reformed position is that there's often no visible difference in the faith of those who persevere and those who don't, and denying that the faith of some is justifying at times looks like an artificial distinction.

It's perhaps best to differentiate between our viewpoint and God's. From our viewpoint, two people may look alike even though will persevere and the other will not. God, however, sees the whole course of their lives, and realizes that what looks to us like a real conversion was a temporary stage on a journey which he knows was always headed towards a bad end.

 

[abacabb3]

Well said Hedrick.

 

[abacabb3]

etting aside, then, this great act of favor, whence commences man's restoration, and in which all our guilt, both original and actual, is washed away, the rest of our life from the time that we have the use of reason provides constant occasion for the remission of sins, however great may be our advance in righteousness (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Love, Chapter 64).

[T]hose who govern the Church have rightly appointed times of penitence, that the Church in which the sins are remitted may be satisfied; and outside the Church sins are not remitted. For the Church alone has received the pledge of the Holy Spirit, without which there is no remission of sins— such, at least, as brings the pardoned to eternal life (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Love, Chapter 65).

So that we see even infants, after baptism and regeneration, suffering from the infliction of various evils: and thus we are given to understand, that all that is set forth in the sacraments of salvation refers rather to the hope of future good, than to the retaining or attaining of present blessings (Handbook on Faith, Hope, and Love, Chapter 66).


It appears that Augustine presupposes the "age of accountability" and that those regenerated thereby have the opportunity to repent and be in right standing before God. This shows that the EO and RCC understanding where continual works are necessary to maintain a saved state mesh quite well with a view of baptismal regeneration. Otherwise, how does one differentiate between the masses of "regenerate" people that live like demons and those that actually live faithfully?

Just makes me think about how horrid a doctrine infant baptism is, as it gives rise to such a notion in which assurance really is not assured (how do you know you taking enough occasion to seek the remission of one's sins?). And if we are not assured, and we must constantly work to merit our salvation, there is a very fine between working out one's salvation in fear and trembling knowing it is God that works in us, and working out one's salvation deluding ourselves that we are the ones doing the work.

I suppose the criticism goes both ways. The "one saved always saved" can assure many a man who's life is totally contrary to that of a saved man.

 

[abacabb3]

Having read some more of Augustine's thoughts in the same book, it appears that his view of baptismal regeneration screws everything up. He believes we are regenerated after baptism. He also believes we accrue merits and demerits according to what we do after baptism, and are judged by these things.

Now, Augustine unlike modern RCCs believed that every good act we do is by God's grace, so those who accrue merits always do so by the grace of God, and it is in effect God giving them the gift to persevere. So, we are not really saved but what we do, but solely by the work of GOd.

However, my opinion is if that regeneration comes from baptism, it guts the cross. For me, God's work in me has already been finished, I am under no compulsion to become more righteous in fear that I cannot be saved otherwise. If by God's grace He makes me more righteous, then I am grateful for then I am that much more like the perfected self I will be in heaven.