The Predestination of the Saints
““Unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ not only to believe on Him, but also to suffer for His sake.” [Paul] shows that both are the gifts of God, because he said that both were given. And he does not say, “to believe on Him more fully and perfectly,” but, “to believe on Him.” Neither does he say that he himself had obtained mercy to be more faithful, but “to be faithful,” because he knew that he had not first given the beginning of his faith to God, and had its increase given back to him again by Him; but that he had been made faithful by God, who also had made him an apostle.” (Chapter 4)
Throughout The Predestination of the Saints, Augustine’s designed to show that there is no binding principle on the will of God in His election of men. God did not choose men because they believed nor God did not choose men because they are holy, for the simple reason that it is by God’s predestining grace itself that men become believers and holy.
So, when in the above excerpt Augustine writes that Paul understood the beginning of belief to have been given to him, he is not merely saying that Paul was given the capacity to believe, he is not implying that such a hypothetical capacity is given to all men, and he is not further implying that Paul himself determined the fact that he was elected for his use of such a hypothetical capacity. Several obvious reasons this cannot be the case is that Augustine believed no fallen man is born with the capacity to do anything spiritually good, he believed soteric grace was effectual, and he believed that such grace was not given to all men. Paul couldn’t believe until he was regenerated, at which point he necessarily believed. The fact Paul was regenerated and others were not itself implies that election is unconditioned, for the regenerative grace is not predicated upon one’s response to it but rather determines one’s response (viz. belief). A paraphrase of this can be found a little later in the same book:
““Why,” say they, “does He not teach all men?” If we should say that they whom He does not teach are unwilling to learn, we shall be met with the answer: And what becomes of what is said to Him, “O God, Thou wilt turn us again, and quicken us”? Orif God does not make men willing who were not willing, on what principle does the Church pray, according to the Lord’s commandment, for her persecutors?” (Chapter 15)
If God regenerated only those whom He knew would respond positively to regeneration – leaving aside the problem regarding how one could know an autonomous choice prior to the actuation of said choice – Augustine points out that biblically based prayers for God to convert men would be ridiculous, for the power to convert would not be in God’s control but in man’s.
Thus, Augustine concludes that election is not conditioned on faith, but that faith is conditioned on election:
“…when it is said, “For who maketh thee to differ? and what hast thou that thou receivedst not?” if any one dare to say, “I have faith of myself, I did not, therefore, receive it,” he directly contradicts this most manifest truth, not because it is not in the choice of man’s will to believe or not to believe, but because in the elect the will is prepared by the Lord. Thus, moreover, the passage, “For who maketh thee to differ? and what hast thou that thou receivedst not?” refers to that very faith which is in the will of man.” (Chapter 10)
Election not only makes faith possible, but actual, so that it is evident that not all men can have been elected:
“God indeed calls many predestinated children of His, to make them members of His only predestinated Son, not with that calling with which they were called who would not come to the marriage, since with that calling were called also the Jews, to whom Christ crucified is an offence, and the Gentiles, to whom Christ crucified is foolishness; but with that calling He calls the predestinated which the apostle distinguished when he said that he preached Christ, the wisdom of God and the power of God, to them that were called, Jews as well as Greeks. For thus he says “But unto them which are called,” in order to show that there were some who were not called; knowing that there is a certain sure calling of those who are called according to God’s purpose, whom He has foreknown and predestinated before to be conformed to the image of His Son. And it was this calling he meant when he said, “Not of works, but of Him that calleth; it was said unto her, That the elder shall serve the younger.” Did he say, “Not of works, but of him that believeth”? Rather, he actually took this away from man, that he might give the whole to God. Therefore he said, “But of Him that calleth,” not with any sort of calling whatever, but with that calling wherewith a man is made a believer.” (Chapter 32)
And again:
“He chose us, not because we believed, but that we might believe, lest we should be said first to have chosen Him, and so His word be false (which be it far from us to think possible), “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” Neither are we called because we believed, but that we may believe; and by that calling which is without repentance it is effected and carried through that we should believe.” (Chapter 38)
Election is gracious and unmerited, so it cannot be conditioned on belief, nor can it be conditioned on foreseen belief:
“Let us, then, understand the calling whereby they become elected, not those who are elected because they have believed, but who are elected that they may believe. For the Lord Himself also sufficiently explains this calling when He says, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” For if they had been elected because they had believed, they themselves would certainly have first chosen Him by believing in Him, so that they should deserve to be elected. But He takes away this supposition altogether when He says, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you.” And yet they themselves, beyond a doubt, chose Him when they believed on Him. Whence it is not for any other reason that He says, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you,” than because they did not choose Him that He should choose them, but He chose them that they might choose Him; because His mercy preceded them according to grace, not according to debt. Therefore He chose them out of the world while He was wearing flesh, but as those who were already chosen in Himself before the foundation of the world. This is the changeless truth concerning predestination and grace. For what is it that the apostle says, “As He hath chosen us in Himself before the foundation of the world”? And assuredly, if this were said because God foreknew that they would believe, not because He Himself would make them believers, the Son is speaking against such a foreknowledge as that when He says, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you;” when God should rather have foreknown this very thing, that they themselves would have chosen Him, so that they might deserve to be chosen by Him. Therefore they were elected before the foundation of the world with that predestination in which God foreknew what He Himself would do; but they were elected out of the world with that calling whereby God fulfilled that which He predestinated. For whom He predestinated, them He also called, with that calling, to wit, which is according to the purpose. Not others, therefore, but those whom He predestinated, them He also called; nor others, but those whom He so called, them He also justified; nor others, but those whom He predestinated, called, and justified, them He also glorified; assuredly to that end which has no end. Therefore God elected believers; but He chose them that they might be so, not because they were already so. The Apostle James says: “Has not God chosen the poor in this world, rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which God hath promised to them that love Him?” By choosing them, therefore; He makes them rich in faith, as He makes them heirs of the kingdom; because He is rightly said to choose that in them, in order to make which in them He chose them. I ask, who can hear the Lord saying, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you,” and can dare to say that men believe in order to be elected, when they are rather elected to believe; lest against the judgment of truth they be found to have first chosen Christ to whom Christ says, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you”?” (Chapter 34)
Similarly, election is not conditioned on holiness, but rather holiness on election:
“God chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world, predestinating us to the adoption of children, not because we were going to be of ourselves holy and immaculate, but He chose and predestinated us that we might be so.” (Chapter 37)
What left is there to say? If election is not conditioned on man’s belief or man’s holiness, then on what is it conditioned except that sovereignty of God by which He turns both the wills of the righteous and the wicked whithersoever He desires? If it is not this alone that determines how God’s soteric, effectual grace is dispensed, but some will of man, what is it?
Enchiridion
In chapters 98-99 of Enchiridion, Augustine exegetes Romans 9:13-18:
“…who would be so impiously foolish as to say that God cannot turn the evil wills of men – as he willeth, when he willeth, and where he willeth – toward the good? But, when he acteth, he acteth through mercy; when he doth not act, it is through justice. For, "he hath mercy on whom he willeth; and whom he willeth, he hardeneth."
Now when the apostle said this, he was commending grace, of which he had just spoken in connection with the twin children in Rebecca's womb: "Before they had yet been born, or had done anything good or bad, in order that the electing purpose of God might continue – not through works but through the divine calling – it was said of them, 'The elder shall serve the younger.' "Accordingly, he refers to another prophetic witness, where it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau have I hated." Then, realizing how what he said could disturb those whose understanding could not penetrate to this depth of grace, he adds: "What therefore shall we say to this? Is there unrighteousness in God? God forbid!" Yet it does seem unfair that, without any merit derived from good works or bad, God should love the one and hate the other. Now, if the apostle had wished us to understand that there were future good deeds of the one, and evil deeds of the other – which God, of course, foreknew – he would never have said "not of good works" but rather "of future works." Thus he would have solved the difficulty; or, rather, he would have left no difficulty to be solved. As it is, however, when he went on to exclaim, "God forbid!" – that is, "God forbid that there should be unfairness in God" – he proceeds immediately to add (to prove that no unfairness in God is involved here), "For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will show pity to whom I will show pity.'" Now, who but a fool would think God unfair either when he imposes penal judgment on the deserving or when he shows mercy to the undeserving? Finally, the apostle concludes and says, "Therefore, it is not a question of him who wills nor of him who runs but of God's showing mercy."
Thus, both the twins were "by nature children of wrath," not because of any works of their own, but because they were both bound in the fetters of damnation originally forged by Adam. But He who said, "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy," loved Jacob in unmerited mercy, yet hated Esau with merited justice. Since this judgment [of wrath] was due them both, the former learned from what happened to the other that the fact that he had not, with equal merit, incurred the same penalty gave him no ground to boast of his own distinctive merits – but, instead, that he should glory in the abundance of divine grace, because "it is not a question of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God's showing mercy." And, indeed, the whole visage of Scripture and, if I may speak so, the lineaments of its countenance, are found to exhibit a mystery, most profound and salutary, to admonish all who carefully look thereupon "that he who glories, should glory in the Lord."
Now, after the apostle had commended God's mercy in saying, "So then, there is no question of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God's showing mercy," next in order he intends to speak also of his judgment—for where his mercy is not shown, it is not unfairness but justice. For with God there is no injustice. Thus, he immediately added, "For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, 'For this very purpose I raised you up, that I may show through you my power, and that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth." Then, having said this, he draws a conclusion that looks both ways, that is, toward mercy and toward judgment: "Therefore," he says, "he hath mercy on whom he willeth, and whom he willeth he hardeneth." He showeth mercy out of his great goodness; he hardeneth out of no unfairness at all. In this way, neither does he who is saved have a basis for glorying in any merit of his own; nor does the man who is damned have a basis for complaining of anything except what he has fully merited. For grace alone separates the redeemed from the lost, all having been mingled together in the one mass of perdition, arising from a common cause which leads back to their common origin.”
The final observations we can make from this exegesis is that foresight of future works – just like foresight of future faith – is not the basis upon which God elects, for works – like faith – are that unto which we are elected. Thus, grace is unmerited. If election were merited (conditional on man’s will), then there would be no reason for Paul to ask whether or not God is unrighteous for loving Jacob and hating Esau. The meaning of “it is not of Him who wills or Him who runs but God who shows mercy,” then, is that God alone can and does turn the wills of fallen men to Him, so it is truly God’s unconditional, electing grace which separates the redeemed from the lost.
Summary
Augustine believed:
1. “[Paul] knew that he had not first given the beginning of his faith to God, and had its increase given back to him again by Him; but that he had been made faithful by God, who also had made him an apostle.”
2. “if any one dare to say, “I have faith of myself, I did not, therefore, receive it,” he directly contradicts this most manifest truth, not because it is not in the choice of man’s will to believe or not to believe, but because in the elect the will is prepared by the Lord.”
3. “God indeed calls many predestinated children of His, to make them members of His only predestinated Son, not with that calling with which they were called who would not come to the marriage, since with that calling were called also the Jews, to whom Christ crucified is an offence, and the Gentiles, to whom Christ crucified is foolishness; but with that calling He calls the predestinated which the apostle distinguished when he said that he preached Christ, the wisdom of God and the power of God, to them that were called, Jews as well as Greeks… [that is,] with that calling wherewith a man is made a believer.”
4. “...we [are not] called because we believed… [or because] we were going to be of ourselves holy and immaculate, but He chose and predestinated us that we might be so.”
5. “...if they had been elected because they had believed, they themselves would certainly have first chosen Him by believing in Him, so that they should deserve to be elected.”
6. “...if [‘He hath chosen us in Himself before the foundation of the world’] were said because God foreknew that they would believe, not because He Himself would make them believers, the Son is speaking against such a foreknowledge as that when He says, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you;” when God should rather have foreknown this very thing, that they themselves would have chosen Him, so that they might deserve to be chosen by Him.”
7. “…who can hear the Lord saying, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you,” and can dare to say that men believe in order to be elected, when they are rather elected to believe; lest against the judgment of truth they be found to have first chosen Christ to whom Christ says, “Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you”?”
8. “...if the apostle had wished us to understand that there were future good deeds of the one, and evil deeds of the other – which God, of course, foreknew – he would never have said "not of good works" but rather "of future works."”
9. “Since this judgment [of wrath] was due them both, [Jacob] learned from what happened [Esau] that the fact that he had not, with equal merit, incurred the same penalty gave him no ground to boast of his own distinctive merits – but, instead, that he should glory in the abundance of divine grace, because "it is not a question of him who wills nor of him who runs, but of God's showing mercy."“
No comments:
Post a Comment