Augustine, Manichaeism and the Good

[Pavel Mosko]

I've always suspected that saint Augustines Manichean past was the reason why he so emphasized predestination over the other Church Fathers and this disertation lays out a good explanation for why that would be.




Augustine, Manichaeism and the Good

A dissertation was written to explore the potential Gnostic influence on Augustine’s (354-430) doctrine of Predestination. John Calvin (1509-1564) admits that his theology was already developed by Augustine, so the question is then: How did Augustine arrive at his view of Predestination, which is quite the opposite of what was publicly taught within the church for the first 300 years of early church history. It should be noted that Augustine was himself a Gnostic Manichaean for nearly a decade before converting to Catholicism. Generally, it is thought that Augustine developed his theology on predestination after debating with Pelagius (354-420/440), but Kam-lun E. Lee suggests that it was developed from Augustine’s debates with the Manichaeans, in terms of the inevitability of personal evil and divine cosmic ordering (or divine sovereignty, if you will).
The Manichaeans represent the Persian branch of Gnosticism, and they taught both determinism and total depravity. However, their determinism was based upon dualistic mythology (p.128, 209), and also maintained a carnal outlook on bodily pleasure.

Lee writes: “It is evident that the preceding discourse reflects Augustine’s conscious effort to seek an alternative explanation of the phenomenon of what the Manichees believe to be caused by a metaphysical evil principle (xxiii.44), and only in De uera religione has he embarked on developing a full theory.” (p.117)

The determistic Manichaeans had a dualistic view of the origin of sin, while Augustinian determinism had a monistic view of the origin of sin. Therefore, determinism is the common root between Gnosticism and Augustinianism.

Lee writes: “[The] concept of the inevitability of personal evil is fundamental to the development of his doctrine of predestination. Therefore, from this consideration, we may say that Manichaeism has contributed to the doctrine by drawing Augustine to wrestle with the issue of the evil principle in the context of the Manichaean concept of the Good as the Beautiful.” (p.139)

Lee writes: “We will show that Augustine’s consideration of cosmic order as beautiful is his address to the Manichaean view of the universe.” (p.140)

Lee writes: “The notion of cosmic order is actually the framework of Augustine’s doctrine of predestination, and is his response to the Manichaean view of the universe as a mixture of good and evil.” (p.144)

Lee writes: “...Augustine’s concern is to affirm the initiative of God, the summe esse, to preserve the existence of the universe by maintaining its proper order.” (p.147)

Lee writes: “Manichaeism, as understood by Augustine, seeks to answer the question unde sit malum? (mor. II.ii.2) and arrives at a dualistic solution well reflected in its cosmogony which is constituted in three Moments: the pristine universe, the present world order, and the eschatological restoration.” (p.149)

Lee writes: “...the Manichees arrive at the conclusion that the present universe is a mixture of both good and evil. Augustine, reasoning along similar lines, concludes differently. He argues that an individual creature is good because of the harmonious congruence of its parts, just as the universe is good by reason of its harmonious order(mon. II.v.7-ix.18).” (p.153)

Lee writes: “But since, according to Augustine, God is good and he is the only ground of existence, then how can something evil come out of the good God? In the affirmation of a Trinitarian monism, Augustine is faced with the challenge of explaining the total goodness of the universe despite the presence of evil in it. To put it in Manichaean terms, Augustine must show that the universe is wholly beautiful.” (p.154)

Is the origin of evil, one’s voluntary defection from God? Or, is the origin of evil, God’s pre-determination that evil is a creation of God that is to be manifested, in order for God to display the sum total of His various attributes?

Lee writes: “In the preceding discussion, we have shown the first part of Manichaean influence on Augustine’s doctrine of predestination by demonstrating that the doctrine assumes a two-tiered framework of cosmic order, which is his response to the Manichaean view of the universe. While the Manichees believe that the universe is an admixture of both good and evil, Augustine thinks that it is good, therefore beautiful, as a whole.” (p.163)

So what should we say, it’s all good, because it comes from God?

Lee writes: “[Augustine] draws on the Manichees for insights of experience of personal evil, borrowing from them the double notion of ‘wickedness’ and ‘mortality,’ although he has substantially transformed these simplistic ideas into an elaborate theory that eventually does away with dualism.” (p.169)

Lee writes: “It is recognized that in Contra Fortunatum (392) Augustine, due to Fortunatus’ invocation of Pualine support for the notion of the inevitability of evil, is forced to focus on Paul’s notion of the flesh as an intrinsic principle rebellious to what is instituted by God.” (p.172)

Fortunatus was a Manichaean Gnostic, with whom Augustine had been debating, and Fortunatus had appealed to the writings of the Apostle Paul. But the Gnostics did not correctly teach Pauline theology. So what exactly did Augustine learn from them?

Lee writes: “As Augustine focuses more on the Pauline writings, the shift of attention from consuetudo to concupiscentia hinted at in De sermone domine in monte I becomes more apparent in his first systematic commentary on the Book of Romans.” (p.177)

So what other biblical proof-texts did Augustine witness of the Gnostics in their debates? Virtually all of the familiar proof-texts evident in the Calvinist vs. Arminianism debates of today, were present in Augustine’s fully developed view of predestination.

Lee writes: “...Augustine’s emphasis on the hiddenness of divine ordering at this point signals a gradual shift toward a more predestinarian view. The idea of hiddenness of divine judgment indeed reflects his attempt to incorporate the notion of election into the hidden divine operation of the cosmic order. The fact that Augustine is giving up his theory of election by divine foreknowledge is also reflected in his explanation of selective calling.” (p.189)

Lee writes: “...as soon as Augustine is convinced of the total inability of the human initiative and the total hiddenness of divine judgment, the formulation of his mature view is just a matter of time.” (p.190)

Lee writes: “...the only other factor needed besides the notion of concupiscentia for Augustine to arrive at his mature view of grace is the notion of limited salvation....” (p.191)

Lee writes: “The final transition to the mature view is marked by the phasing out of the idea of election by foreknowledge. ... As Augustine diminishes the place of human initiative, increasingly he ascribes election to the hiddenness of divine judgment.” (p.194)

Lee writes: “Thus, considered psychologically, the human will is free, but the outcome of the willing is divinely arranged and therefore guaranteed.” (p.198)

Lee writes: “But for a solution as to why one is chosen and another not, Augustine has to appeal to God’s secret arrangement....” (p.198)

Lee writes: “From Augustine’s perspective, God’s administering of his hidden arrangement to confer grace and pass judgment is an ordering of good and evil (Faus. XXI.2-3). It then seems logical for him to make God’s secret administration of salvation part of the grand cosmic order....” (p.199)

Lee writes: “While the outcome of the individual salvation in the former case is not predetermined, the latter case reflects the determinism that is inherent in the notion of effectual calling.” (p.200)

Lee writes: “...by grace, some are set apart from rest of the sinful mass...whom God has already secretly called at the beginning of the world...each one’s destiny is fixed in the eternal plan of God...which could well be a part of the cosmic ordering.” (p.202)

Lee writes: “As such, the determinism inspired by the Manichaean notion of the Good in terms of the concepts of consuetudo and concupiscentia, under the aspect of limited salvation, is brought to its logical conclusion.” (p.204)

In summary, Lee writes: “Augustine borrowed from the Manichees their dual notion of evil as ‘wickedness’ and as ‘mortality.’ These were considered evil because they are the antithesis of tranquil pleasure at the spiritual and the physical levels of existence. He shared with the Manichees the view that these aspects of evil are inevitable so long as life is lived in this world. Together, these borrowed approaches to evil helped Augustine to formulate an alterative explanation of the principle of personal evil....” (p.205)

Lee writes: “...the framework of cosmic order within which Augustine developed his doctrine is a result of his response to the Manichaean view of the universe as a mixture of good and evil. In this response, he again employs the Manichaean idea of the Good to affirm that the whole universe is beautiful despite the presence of evil. So long as evil is put in its proper place, the cosmic harmony is preserved.” (p.206)

But was this kind of “cosmic order” in support of, or in contradiction to, the theology of the first 300 years of church history? “...the theological climate in Augustine’s time fostered free will and responsibility. Determinism would have gone against the tide.” (p.207)

Lee writes: “The Manichaean explanation for the cause of personal evil is relatively straightforward. One cannot escape from moral evil because there is a metaphysical evil principle at work behind the soul. In other words, one sins involuntarily. Considered cosmologically, the human soul is thrown into the predicament of constant struggle with evil not by its own choice but by the determination of an external factor. According to the Manichaean myth, this factor is the good principle or the God who sends the good soul to be mixed with evil in order to block the invasion of an advancing enemy (mor. II.xii.25; Faus XX.17, XXII.22; Fort. 7; nat. bon. xlii).” (pp.208-209)

Lee writes: “...once he began responding to the Manichaean view regarding the macrocosm, he could not avoid the issue of determinism. In his alternative proposal, divine cosmic ordering, Augustine had to address the question of what ultimately determines an individual’s place in the universal order. Since the more deeply one is bonded to evil, the less one is able to control one’s destiny, the belief in the inevitability of personal evil would then imply a view that the determination is made by the God who orders the cosmos. Expressed in the language of predestination, this view means that God has the power to elect from the massa damnata those who receive salvation and to leave the rest in damnation.” (p.210)

So the question is this: Did Augustine take the mythology of Gnostic determism, and bring it under the pale of Christian orthodoxy, simply by tinkering with it, by removing the mythological, dualistic component, and making the cause of evil, entirely the product of monistic, divine cosmic ordering, or otherwise stated, divine sovereignty? Is Augustinian predestination the “Christian” link to Gnosticism? Insofar as theological determinism, that appears to be the case. Who among the early Church theologians, prior to Augustine, taught Augustinian predestination? It appears to be a theology that was born out of Augustine’s research of Gnosticism.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Some points:

Firstly, Manicheism does not equal Gnosticism, unless you define Gnosticism so broadly that it loses utility as a descriptor of religious usage. The Gnostic sects like Valentinianism were about Secret Knowledge, hence gnosis, that lead to salvation. This was usually handed down via secretive chains of master to pupil, to the initiated - often invoking the meat of Paul as opposed to the milk. In contrast, Manichaeism was an open religion, whose founder in fact wrote texts and translated them to aid understanding, going so far as to make a picture book. So if you label Manichaeism as Gnostic based on the requirement of knowledge of your origin in the world of Light being required, than how can Christianity itself not be Gnostic, as it spreads the Good News, the Evangelion, of Salvation via belief in Jesus Christ?
Manichaeism did not attain Salvation merely by knowledge, but by painstakingly trying to isolate your good light nature from your dark nature, so its practice entailed a lot of fasting, meditation, introspection, etc. which is why it was sometimes associated with Buddhism - in fact, Mani was often transformed to a Buddha of Light in China; which is how some originally Manichee temples survive to this day, in that they became Buddhist shrines. One of the major Manichee deities was the Call to return to the world of Light, but he was not the salvific deity, which was the Manichean 'Radiant Jesus', via Mind, Thought, Reason, Intelligence and Understanding. It is true that Christian polemics castigated them for being passive in that only 'knowledge' or gnosis was needed for salvation - as opposed to Sacraments or Works: We are merely seeing the beginning of that Western infatuation with Faith vs Works, and the first stirrings of Faith Alone being deemed insufficient, or prone to passivity soteriologically - or worse, as carte blanche to sin and then repent, as Augustine himself said he flattered himself to think some Other was responsible for his sins, instead of himself, while a Manichee.

Secondly, there is perhaps confusion on what is meant by determinism. Titus of Bostra called Manichaeism deterministic, but he did not mean that things were predetermined thereby. The argument from the Manichees was that depending what proportion of your being originated in the world of Light, that would be how 'good' you were. Your moral character was thus somewhat predetermined by your proportion of light and dark origins, in the mixture of the world. This did not mean your salvation or such ultimately was - as all have some dark origins to the Manichee, all are somewhat depraved. Titus was trying to argue against Manichaeism on the grounds of it being immoral in the Greco-Roman Virtue ethic, which argued on the grounds of free choices made (Nurture, as opposed to Nature, in modern parlance). He was being a bit disingenuous, as the Manichees argued man had both Light and Dark natures, and that the Light side should be cultivated and the Dark supressed, not that our actions were wholely determined thereby - meaning it was perhaps easier for some and harder for others.

Augustine understood this, but he defined Good as 'of God' and God as the Form of the Good. This meant that if anything Good is of God, that means what is not 'of God' was bad - hence man is innately depraved due to the Fall, which separated man from direct apprehension of God, of the Form of the Good. His debate with Pelagianism is at play here, that argued man could by himself try to attain Good, which makes no sense if God himself is that Good.

Thirdly, Augustine used to be a Manichee, and more than that, a convert to and then away from Manichaeism. Obviously it had influence on his thought therefore, either as synthesis with later Christian ideas or in antithesis to it. However, the reason Augustine became a Manichee in the first place, was because he was interested in Why some people sin and others not, why the world divides morally as it does. I don't think we can subscribe this to his Manichaeism, rather he had become a Manichee previously as this had been a concern of his. If anything, I think his failure to bring his Greek philosophy and his Manichaeism into synthesis had played a significant part in his conversion to Christianity during his stay in Northern Italy. His concern on why some people are saved and others not, along with his understanding of Greco-Roman philosophic concepts of Forms in later Neoplatonism and the tendency to Monism, is sufficient to account for his Theology without need to invoke Manichaeism - though that undoubtedly played a part in the process, but I find the idea that it is brute reaction to it, ludicrous. Neoplatonic thought already had the One with emanations of Nous or mind ordering it, in the form of Logos or the word, so the idea of cosmic ordering was innate to the Greco-Roman mileau, that stressed the harmony of the heavenly spheres and such. Manichaeism and Christianity bucks this trend to some extent in ascribing malevolent action to devils and such, and Augustine's solution of the problem is ingenious - hence his enduring influence in Western Christianity.

I am not one to argue with Mr Lee by proxy, but I haven't read his dissertation. The way it is presented here, seems to be pushing the argument for his Manicheaism a bit far. He was a hearer after all, never part of the actual Manichee Perfecti/Elect/Sangha higher tier of devotees. I think it can be accounted for satisfactorily without it, and his Manicheaism is a symptom or modifier, rather than an agent.

Did Augustine take the mythology of Gnostic determism, and bring it under the pale of Christian orthodoxy, simply by tinkering with it, by removing the mythological, dualistic component, and making the cause of evil, entirely the product of monistic, divine cosmic ordering, or otherwise stated, divine sovereignty? Is Augustinian predestination the “Christian” link to Gnosticism? Insofar as theological determinism, that appears to be the case. Who among the early Church theologians, prior to Augustine, taught Augustinian predestination? It appears to be a theology that was born out of Augustine’s research of Gnosticism.

Did Augustine take the mythology of Gnostic Determinism and bring it into Christian Orthodoxy, et al.? No, he didn't. There are anyway significant differences, so even if we would concede for the sake of argument, the end result is wholly other, not just 'tinkering'. We are dealing with a complex and cogent piece of Theology here, after all, on which Augustine and many Theologians thereafter literally wrote heavy tomes. Augustine clearly developed a Christian Theology, he did not baptise a Manichaean one.

Is it a link to Gnosticism? What do you mean by Gnosticism? If we mean Salvation by Knowledge, then no.

Besides, no one taught Augustinian Predestination prior to Augustine - else it wouldn't be called Augustinian. In like manner, no one taught Thomism prior to Aquinas, or Palamism prior to Gregory. That does not mean the germ of the ideas weren't there, nor that it sprung wholely from that root.

There was already an idea of Predestination in Second Temple Judaism, as Josephus notes the Essenes and Pharisees thought as much (with the latter maybe being a bit more Arminian about it, one could say), so one could argue it was there incipient from the start.

Further, Paul is teaching Predestination in Romans 8-11, speaking of the sovereignty of God, His choosing Elect from amongst the nations, His predestining them to conform to the Son. Granted it isn't as fleshed out as Augustine's, but where do you think he got it in the first place?

Anyway, many early apologist wrote against the Gnostics and others like Titus of Bostra or Alexander of Lykopolis wrote against the Manichees. That hardly ballooned into arguments on Predestination. Augustine was trying to come to grips with a deep problem of existence, about why we sin when we know it is wrong or bad for us, why God would allow us to do so, how God's sovereignty and Authority can render the world as we see it, etc. Fact is, trying to hang this on a peg of Manichaeism is a tad simplistic to my mind, if not a motte-and-bailey fallacy. I don't really understand why someone would argue thus. Cui Bono? Augustine is a great Church Father, acknowledged by both East and West, though more important to the latter. While the Catholic/Protestant divide is often said humorously to be a difference in interpretation of Augustine, that is no reason to try and throw the baby out with the bathwater.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Thanks for the lengthy and thoughtful response. I take my time and respond back to some of your different points.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Firstly, Manicheism does not equal Gnosticism, unless you define Gnosticism so broadly that it loses utility as a descriptor of religious usage.

Well I guess I and most people are guilty of that and that includes most contemporary Gnostics like Bishop Hoeller of Ecclesia Gnostica of Los Angeles. While I recognize it as its own thing, I think it does get lumped into the category thematically.

Secondly, there is perhaps confusion on what is meant by determinism. Titus of Bostra called Manichaeism deterministic, but he did not mean that things were predetermined thereby. The argument from the Manichees was that depending what proportion of your being originated in the world of Light, that would be how 'good' you were. Your moral character was thus somewhat predetermined by your proportion of light and dark origins, in the mixture of the world. This did not mean your salvation or such ultimately was - as all have some dark origins to the Manichee, all are somewhat depraved. Titus was trying to argue against Manichaeism on the grounds of it being immoral in the Greco-Roman Virtue ethic, which argued on the grounds of free choices made (Nurture, as opposed to Nature, in modern parlance). He was being a bit disingenuous, as the Manichees argued man had both Light and Dark natures, and that the Light side should be cultivated and the Dark supressed, not that our actions were wholely determined thereby - meaning it was perhaps easier for some and harder for others.

That's very informative. I can see how some of the light skinned Persians and upper caste Indians might have liked that.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

There was already an idea of Predestination in Second Temple Judaism, as Josephus notes the Essenes and Pharisees thought as much (with the latter maybe being a bit more Arminian about it, one could say), so one could argue it was there incipient from the start.

That's a good reminder I've been slowly getting into Second Temple Judaism especially as it relates to developmental theology of the Godhead and antecedents of the Trinity.

I however doubt this was a big factor because of the view of Ancestral Sin in the Church prior to Augustine. After Augustine, Original Sin becomes the norm in the West etc. while the older view remains the norm elsewhere.

Cui Bono?

My high school Latin is rusty and never good in the day, but I believe your asking what is the point or advantage of this? There are some things off between the East and the West. I for example would be a synerigst on Soteriology something that is often claimed to be semi-Pelagian by some folks due to the Faith and Works divide construct . While some of that, I attribute to Augustine influence on the Church and especially in the West, I have just read today on Pelagianism that it largely died out 2 years after after the Counsel of Ephesus in the East so maybe that is the reason why the West is so Augustinian compared to the Greeks, Syrians etc.

 

[FireDragon76]

I've always suspected that saint Augustines Manichean past was the reason why he so emphasized predestination over the other Church Fathers and this disertation lays out a good explanation for why that would be.




Augustine, Manichaeism and the Good

A dissertation was written to explore the potential Gnostic influence on Augustine’s (354-430) doctrine of Predestination. John Calvin (1509-1564) admits that his theology was already developed by Augustine, so the question is then: How did Augustine arrive at his view of Predestination, which is quite the opposite of what was publicly taught within the church for the first 300 years of early church history. It should be noted that Augustine was himself a Gnostic Manichaean for nearly a decade before converting to Catholicism. Generally, it is thought that Augustine developed his theology on predestination after debating with Pelagius (354-420/440), but Kam-lun E. Lee suggests that it was developed from Augustine’s debates with the Manichaeans, in terms of the inevitability of personal evil and divine cosmic ordering (or divine sovereignty, if you will).
The Manichaeans represent the Persian branch of Gnosticism, and they taught both determinism and total depravity. However, their determinism was based upon dualistic mythology (p.128, 209), and also maintained a carnal outlook on bodily pleasure.

Lee writes: “It is evident that the preceding discourse reflects Augustine’s conscious effort to seek an alternative explanation of the phenomenon of what the Manichees believe to be caused by a metaphysical evil principle (xxiii.44), and only in De uera religione has he embarked on developing a full theory.” (p.117)

The determistic Manichaeans had a dualistic view of the origin of sin, while Augustinian determinism had a monistic view of the origin of sin. Therefore, determinism is the common root between Gnosticism and Augustinianism.

Lee writes: “[The] concept of the inevitability of personal evil is fundamental to the development of his doctrine of predestination. Therefore, from this consideration, we may say that Manichaeism has contributed to the doctrine by drawing Augustine to wrestle with the issue of the evil principle in the context of the Manichaean concept of the Good as the Beautiful.” (p.139)

Lee writes: “We will show that Augustine’s consideration of cosmic order as beautiful is his address to the Manichaean view of the universe.” (p.140)

Lee writes: “The notion of cosmic order is actually the framework of Augustine’s doctrine of predestination, and is his response to the Manichaean view of the universe as a mixture of good and evil.” (p.144)

Lee writes: “...Augustine’s concern is to affirm the initiative of God, the summe esse, to preserve the existence of the universe by maintaining its proper order.” (p.147)

Lee writes: “Manichaeism, as understood by Augustine, seeks to answer the question unde sit malum? (mor. II.ii.2) and arrives at a dualistic solution well reflected in its cosmogony which is constituted in three Moments: the pristine universe, the present world order, and the eschatological restoration.” (p.149)

Lee writes: “...the Manichees arrive at the conclusion that the present universe is a mixture of both good and evil. Augustine, reasoning along similar lines, concludes differently. He argues that an individual creature is good because of the harmonious congruence of its parts, just as the universe is good by reason of its harmonious order(mon. II.v.7-ix.18).” (p.153)

Lee writes: “But since, according to Augustine, God is good and he is the only ground of existence, then how can something evil come out of the good God? In the affirmation of a Trinitarian monism, Augustine is faced with the challenge of explaining the total goodness of the universe despite the presence of evil in it. To put it in Manichaean terms, Augustine must show that the universe is wholly beautiful.” (p.154)

Is the origin of evil, one’s voluntary defection from God? Or, is the origin of evil, God’s pre-determination that evil is a creation of God that is to be manifested, in order for God to display the sum total of His various attributes?

Lee writes: “In the preceding discussion, we have shown the first part of Manichaean influence on Augustine’s doctrine of predestination by demonstrating that the doctrine assumes a two-tiered framework of cosmic order, which is his response to the Manichaean view of the universe. While the Manichees believe that the universe is an admixture of both good and evil, Augustine thinks that it is good, therefore beautiful, as a whole.” (p.163)

So what should we say, it’s all good, because it comes from God?

Lee writes: “[Augustine] draws on the Manichees for insights of experience of personal evil, borrowing from them the double notion of ‘wickedness’ and ‘mortality,’ although he has substantially transformed these simplistic ideas into an elaborate theory that eventually does away with dualism.” (p.169)

Lee writes: “It is recognized that in Contra Fortunatum (392) Augustine, due to Fortunatus’ invocation of Pualine support for the notion of the inevitability of evil, is forced to focus on Paul’s notion of the flesh as an intrinsic principle rebellious to what is instituted by God.” (p.172)

Fortunatus was a Manichaean Gnostic, with whom Augustine had been debating, and Fortunatus had appealed to the writings of the Apostle Paul. But the Gnostics did not correctly teach Pauline theology. So what exactly did Augustine learn from them?

Lee writes: “As Augustine focuses more on the Pauline writings, the shift of attention from consuetudo to concupiscentia hinted at in De sermone domine in monte I becomes more apparent in his first systematic commentary on the Book of Romans.” (p.177)

So what other biblical proof-texts did Augustine witness of the Gnostics in their debates? Virtually all of the familiar proof-texts evident in the Calvinist vs. Arminianism debates of today, were present in Augustine’s fully developed view of predestination.

Lee writes: “...Augustine’s emphasis on the hiddenness of divine ordering at this point signals a gradual shift toward a more predestinarian view. The idea of hiddenness of divine judgment indeed reflects his attempt to incorporate the notion of election into the hidden divine operation of the cosmic order. The fact that Augustine is giving up his theory of election by divine foreknowledge is also reflected in his explanation of selective calling.” (p.189)

Lee writes: “...as soon as Augustine is convinced of the total inability of the human initiative and the total hiddenness of divine judgment, the formulation of his mature view is just a matter of time.” (p.190)

Lee writes: “...the only other factor needed besides the notion of concupiscentia for Augustine to arrive at his mature view of grace is the notion of limited salvation....” (p.191)

Lee writes: “The final transition to the mature view is marked by the phasing out of the idea of election by foreknowledge. ... As Augustine diminishes the place of human initiative, increasingly he ascribes election to the hiddenness of divine judgment.” (p.194)

Lee writes: “Thus, considered psychologically, the human will is free, but the outcome of the willing is divinely arranged and therefore guaranteed.” (p.198)

Lee writes: “But for a solution as to why one is chosen and another not, Augustine has to appeal to God’s secret arrangement....” (p.198)

Lee writes: “From Augustine’s perspective, God’s administering of his hidden arrangement to confer grace and pass judgment is an ordering of good and evil (Faus. XXI.2-3). It then seems logical for him to make God’s secret administration of salvation part of the grand cosmic order....” (p.199)

Lee writes: “While the outcome of the individual salvation in the former case is not predetermined, the latter case reflects the determinism that is inherent in the notion of effectual calling.” (p.200)

Lee writes: “...by grace, some are set apart from rest of the sinful mass...whom God has already secretly called at the beginning of the world...each one’s destiny is fixed in the eternal plan of God...which could well be a part of the cosmic ordering.” (p.202)

Lee writes: “As such, the determinism inspired by the Manichaean notion of the Good in terms of the concepts of consuetudo and concupiscentia, under the aspect of limited salvation, is brought to its logical conclusion.” (p.204)

In summary, Lee writes: “Augustine borrowed from the Manichees their dual notion of evil as ‘wickedness’ and as ‘mortality.’ These were considered evil because they are the antithesis of tranquil pleasure at the spiritual and the physical levels of existence. He shared with the Manichees the view that these aspects of evil are inevitable so long as life is lived in this world. Together, these borrowed approaches to evil helped Augustine to formulate an alterative explanation of the principle of personal evil....” (p.205)

Lee writes: “...the framework of cosmic order within which Augustine developed his doctrine is a result of his response to the Manichaean view of the universe as a mixture of good and evil. In this response, he again employs the Manichaean idea of the Good to affirm that the whole universe is beautiful despite the presence of evil. So long as evil is put in its proper place, the cosmic harmony is preserved.” (p.206)

But was this kind of “cosmic order” in support of, or in contradiction to, the theology of the first 300 years of church history? “...the theological climate in Augustine’s time fostered free will and responsibility. Determinism would have gone against the tide.” (p.207)

Lee writes: “The Manichaean explanation for the cause of personal evil is relatively straightforward. One cannot escape from moral evil because there is a metaphysical evil principle at work behind the soul. In other words, one sins involuntarily. Considered cosmologically, the human soul is thrown into the predicament of constant struggle with evil not by its own choice but by the determination of an external factor. According to the Manichaean myth, this factor is the good principle or the God who sends the good soul to be mixed with evil in order to block the invasion of an advancing enemy (mor. II.xii.25; Faus XX.17, XXII.22; Fort. 7; nat. bon. xlii).” (pp.208-209)

Lee writes: “...once he began responding to the Manichaean view regarding the macrocosm, he could not avoid the issue of determinism. In his alternative proposal, divine cosmic ordering, Augustine had to address the question of what ultimately determines an individual’s place in the universal order. Since the more deeply one is bonded to evil, the less one is able to control one’s destiny, the belief in the inevitability of personal evil would then imply a view that the determination is made by the God who orders the cosmos. Expressed in the language of predestination, this view means that God has the power to elect from the massa damnata those who receive salvation and to leave the rest in damnation.” (p.210)

So the question is this: Did Augustine take the mythology of Gnostic determism, and bring it under the pale of Christian orthodoxy, simply by tinkering with it, by removing the mythological, dualistic component, and making the cause of evil, entirely the product of monistic, divine cosmic ordering, or otherwise stated, divine sovereignty? Is Augustinian predestination the “Christian” link to Gnosticism? Insofar as theological determinism, that appears to be the case. Who among the early Church theologians, prior to Augustine, taught Augustinian predestination? It appears to be a theology that was born out of Augustine’s research of Gnosticism.

Interesting idea... but why is "determinism" also part of Islam, then?

 

[FireDragon76]

Some points:

Firstly, Manicheism does not equal Gnosticism, unless you define Gnosticism so broadly that it loses utility as a descriptor of religious usage.

Yeah, Manicheanism was a world religion influenced by the civilizations of the Silk Road and their religious ethoi, particularly Zoroastrianism, Buddhism and the sramanic religions of India. In fact in China there was a great deal of exchange of symbols between Buddhism and Manicheanism, and Manicheanism survived in China until the Middle Ages.

It is true that Christian polemics castigated them for being passive in that only 'knowledge' or gnosis was needed for salvation - as opposed to Sacraments or Works: We are merely seeing the beginning of that Western infatuation with Faith vs Works, and the first stirrings of Faith Alone being deemed insufficient, or prone to passivity soteriologically - or worse, as carte blanche to sin and then repent, as Augustine himself said he flattered himself to think some Other was responsible for his sins, instead of himself, while a Manichee.

Good insights.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Interesting idea... but why is "determinism" also part of Islam, then?

Actually a number of folks had some of that pagan religions like the Greeks and the Norse. I guess I would be tempted to made find some psychological reason like a coping mechanism. On some issues, I find God sovereignty comforting (accepting bad situations that you cannot change etc.)

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Well I guess I and most people are guilty of that and that includes most contemporary Gnostics like Bishop Hoeller of Ecclesia Gnostica of Los Angeles. While I recognize it as its own thing, I think it does get lumped into the category thematically.

Latter day recreationists and syncretists adopting something is hardly an argument. Most scholars treat Manichaeism and Gnosticism proper as separate traditions nowadays, though Gnosticism has always been highly syncretic.

That's very informative. I can see how some of the light skinned Persians and upper caste Indians might have liked that.

I don't actually know if the light and dark of Manichaeism was reflected in skin tones. I'd have to look into it. Regardless, its heartland was always Persia and then Central Asia (Transoxiana and the Takla Makan) and it did well amongst the Pathans, so skin colour probably mattered little amongst the former.

That's a good reminder I've been slowly getting into Second Temple Judaism especially as it relates to developmental theology of the Godhead and antecedents of the Trinity.

I however doubt this was a big factor because of the view of Ancestral Sin in the Church prior to Augustine. After Augustine, Original Sin becomes the norm in the West etc. while the older view remains the norm elsewhere.

I don't think you can really call it the 'older view'. I don't think the idea of Adamic sin was as fleshed out, and perhaps Ancestral Sin as opposed to Original Sin is just another example of an ancient unity of ideas that became disentangled. I have another thread where I was asking on the concept of universal responsibility for all sin in Orthodoxy, which leads me back to Adam and inherited sin, that I really have difficulty distinguishing. The difference perhaps is a focus on individual sin vs collective sin as descendants of Adam.

Monastic formula on all having sinned

My high school Latin is rusty and never good in the day, but I believe your asking what is the point or advantage of this? There are some things off between the East and the West. I for example would be a synerigst on Soteriology something that is often claimed to be semi-Pelagian by some folks due to the Faith and Works divide construct . While some of that, I attribute to Augustine influence on the Church and especially in the West, I have just read today on Pelagianism that it largely died out 2 years after after the Counsel of Ephesus in the East so maybe that is the reason why the West is so Augustinian compared to the Greeks, Syrians etc.

I happen to disagree with Pelagianism quite vehemently. To me it makes sense that all that is Good is obviously of God. The way I see it, the East never addressed the issue of Faith and Works in like manner, so left them bound together without issue or primacy established. Perhaps that was a better way, but the box has already been opened. Trying to ?undermine Augustine looks counter-productive to me. So your goal is to try and establish soteriological Ecumenism? Augustine runs deep in Western Christianity's blood, so I fear that would sow more discord than resolve anything, nor would this undermine the validity of anything he said. Just because he may have been somewhat influenced by Manichaeism, hardly means he was therefore wrong, after all.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Actually a number of folks had some of that pagan religions like the Greeks and the Norse. I guess I would be tempted to made find some psychological reason like a coping mechanism. On some issues, I find God sovereignty comforting (accepting bad situations that you cannot change etc.)

There was a strong tradition of Fatalism in Greco-Roman, in fact most Indo-European, religions. The Fates, Moerae, Norns, the Logos of the Stoics, the Zurvanites of Persia, etc. I alluded to this as how Augustine had no reason to go looking for Mani to find Determinism.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

There was a strong tradition of Fatalism in Greco-Roman, in fact most Indo-European, religions. The Fates, Moerae, Norns, the Logos of the Stoics, the Zurvanites of Persia, etc. I alluded to this as how Augustine had no reason to go looking for Mani to find Determinism.

I guess on that I would disagree.

Conflict and controversy tends to drive Church dogmatic teaching and formulations. This was true not just in the time of the New Testament (Why epistles were written etc.) but is especially true when it comes Ecumenical Counsels, creeds etc. Like the big Phiolioque controversy, the phrase was added to the creed of Nicene Creed of Spain because of all the lingering influence of Arianism (And yes I do think the Philioque is overblown among the EO).

 

[FireDragon76]

There was a strong tradition of Fatalism in Greco-Roman, in fact most Indo-European, religions. The Fates, Moerae, Norns, the Logos of the Stoics, the Zurvanites of Persia, etc. I alluded to this as how Augustine had no reason to go looking for Mani to find Determinism.

Renaissance humanism seemed to have the bone of contention with fatalism in the modern world. Christian apologists used fatalism against the pagans, but once paganism was finished... they went back to doing what religious people have always done, finding comfort in resignation.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

Renaissance humanism seemed to have the bone of contention with fatalism in the modern world. Christian apologists used fatalism against the pagans, but once paganism was finished... they went back to doing what religious people have always done, finding comfort in resignation.

The stronghold of Determinism seems to be Atheism and Naturalism, nowadays. It is odd, but there are always those that need their course set - if not by their stars, then by irrational cascades of matter and DNA, or an authorial divine Hand. It is not however, the religious finding comfort in resignation, but in God: Thy will be done, of the Lord's Prayer or Gethsemane.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I guess on that I would disagree.

Conflict and controversy tends to drive Church dogmatic teaching and formulations. This was true not just in the time of the New Testament (Why epistles were written etc.) but is especially true when it comes Ecumenical Counsels, creeds etc. Like the big Phiolioque controversy, the phrase was added to the creed of Nicene Creed of Spain because of all the lingering influence of Arianism (And yes I do think the Philioque is overblown among the EO).

Oh, you misconstrue. I agree that conflict drives resolution of dogma, as for instance Protestantism was the catalyst for pronouncements on the canonicity of the deuterocanon. My point is though, that Manichaeism wasn't that deterministic, and Augustine need not have formulated his system in opposition to it. In my opinion, his Magnum Opus is City of God - which is subtitled, Against the Pagans. The big driver was perhaps Pelagianism, not Manichaeism, which had never become a major religious group in the West. Nor is his flirtation with the Manichees a requirement to have crafted the system he did, and I think going to look for its origins there is a tad overblown. Predestination is outlined in his books on Predestination and Christian Doctrine, not his debates with Fortunatus or Faustus or such, after all. His book on Free Will does have an anti-Manichaean flair, but again, expected considering the nature as conceived by them, but that hardly amounts to Predestination.

You are free to disagree, I haven't read Mr Lee's book - but I like history, have read some of Augustine, and find Manichaeism fascinating - as a strange step-child of Christianity. This is my impression of the facts, therefore. If I run across it and have the time, I'd certainly take a look at it.

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Well this thread has made me want to read more on Manicheanism beyond the general stuff that is out on the web. I was looking for something on Amazon to wish list for when they have Amazon prime day in mid month but the only really good book they have is one used book on the subject....