I. Introduction
Did Augustine, in his later years, deny that God wills the salvation of all men? There is no question that Augustine taught that God’s will is ultimately invincible, and that God only wills to effect the eternal salvation of those he has predestined to final perseverance. But, in addition to that, did he yet maintain that there is a sense in which God wishes or wills the salvation of all men?
Here is some of the history regarding the dispute.
1. Examples of Those Who Think Augustine Denied God’s Universal Salvific Will.
Some scholars have maintained that Augustine, and even surprisingly Prosper of Aquitaine, did not believe God wills the salvation of all men.
Odilo [Otto] Rottmanner (1841–1907), a German Benedictine, librarian, theologian and monastery preacher, toward the end of his book Der Augustinismus. Eine dogmengeschichtliche Studie (München, 1892), presents Augustine as denying God’s universal salvific will and supplies many quotes. However, he does not deal with Augustine’s view on the extent of Christ’s death, nor does he consider any of the quotes below that present contrary evidence.
Prudent De Letter (1904–1988), a Belgian Jesuit priest, said that Augustine denied God’s universal salvific will. See Prosper of Aquitaine, Defense of St. Augustine, trans. P. De letter (New York: Newman Press, 1963), 201n72, 203n6, 225n47, 224n21.
John Norman Davidson Kelly (1909–1997) thought that because Augustine believed “The number of the elect is strictly limited, being neither more nor less than is required to replace the fallen angels [De civ. dei 22, 1, 2; enchir. 29; 62], Augustine “has to twist [De corrept. et grat. 44; enchir. 103] the text ‘God wills all men to be saved’ (1 Tim. 2:4), making it mean that He wills the salvation of all the elect, among whom men of every race and type are represented. See J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, Fifth, Revised (Bloomsbury, 1977), 368–69. This seems to suggest that, in his view, Augustine, at least at some point, categorically abandoned the view that God wills the salvation of all men.
While in several places William G. Most (1914–1999) dogmatically claims that Augustine denied God’s universal saving will (see Grace, Predestination, and the Salvific Will of God: New Answers to Old Questions [Christendom Press, 1997], 279 [§206], 280 [§206], 281 [§206], 282–83 [§206], 284 [§206]), elsewhere he is less dogmatic and says, “Augustine was predisposed to deny the salvific will” (Most, Grace, Predestination, and the Salvific Will of God, 284 [§206]; emphasis mine). On some passages, Most even grants that “Augustine seems to suppose that the salvific will is really sincere and universal” (Most, Grace, Predestination, and the Salvific Will of God, 298, n. 128 [§211]). Most’s presentation amounts to this: Augustine’s view seems to entail a denial of God’s universal saving will, so he did deny it, even though there are no places where Augustine repudiates it categorically or explicitly, or ever retracts prior affirmations of God’s voluntas salvifica universalis. In other words, since Most thinks Augustine’s various P-statements imply a denial of Q, it must be (or it is at least highly plausible) that Augustine actually denied Q. It is just the case that Most did not put it in that obviously fallacious manner.
Henry Chadwick (1920–2008) suggests that the later Prosper of Aquitaine changed from being a “hyper-Augustinian enthusiast,” and so later “modified the stern rigour of his doctrine.” He thinks that perhaps under the moderating influence of Pope Leo I, Prosper “withdrew from the full-blooded predestinarianism of Augustine’s later years,” so that, “By 450 Prosper appeared as an advocate of the doctrine that when St Paul said ‘God wills all men to be saved’ he meant what he said.” And so he pits the later Prosper against the later Augustine on that topic. See Henry Chadwick, The Early Church (Eerdmans, 1968), 234.
For others who say Augustine denied God’s universal salvific will, see Mathijs Lamberigts, “Predestination,” in Augustine Through the Ages: An Encylopedia, ed. Allan D. Fitzgerald (Eerdmans, 1999), 679, claiming that about Augustine; and see D. F. Wright, “Semi-Pelagianism,” in New Dictionary of Theology, eds. S. B. Ferguson, D. F. Wright, and J. I. Packer (IVP, 1988), 636, claiming that about both Augustine and, surprisingly, even Prosper; J. Patout Burns, The Development of Augustine's Doctrine of Operative Grace (Études Augustiniennes, 1980), 178; Thomas P. Scheck, “Introduction,” in St. Jerome, Exegetical Epistles, trans. Thomas P. Scheck, vol. 1, The Fathers of the Church (The Catholic University of America Press, 2023), 48, who opposes Jerome’s affirmation of it to Augustine’s alleged denial; William J. Collinge, “Introduction,” in Augustine of Hippo, “On the Predestination of the Saints and On the Gift of Perseverance,” in Four Anti-Pelagian Writings, ed. Thomas P. Halton, trans. John A. Mourant and William J. Collinge, vol. 86, The Fathers of the Church (The Catholic University of America Press, 1992), 191, who puts Prosper in agreement with Cassian as over against Augustine.
These scholars make that claim mostly—if not entirely—because of Augustine’s later interpretation of 1 Tim 2:4.
2. Examples Those Who Think Augustine Did Not Deny God’s Universal Salvific Will.
Other scholars claim otherwise. Some early modern examples include Denis Pétau (Dionysius Petavius, S.J.; 1583–1652), Jean Daillé (1594–1670), and Robert Baron (1596–1639).
Some additional early modern names are listed below.
In the late modern era, Carlo Passaglia (1812–1887), an Italian Jesuit and theologian, said that Augustine affirmed God’s universal salvific will. See Karoli Passaglia,
Commentariorum theologicorum: Pars tertia, De partitione divinae voluntatis in primam et secundam deque universali reparati ordinis amplitudine (Romae: Ex typ. Bonarum Artium, 1850–1851),
XXX,
XXXII,
XXXVI,
XLVI,
LIV,
LIX,
LXII,
LXIII,
LXVIII, and
CV. Against Pasquier Quesnel’s (1634–1719) view and in support of his own perspective, Passaglia lists Denis Petau (
De Deo lib. X), Juan Martínez de Ripalda (1594–1648;
De ente supernat. T. II. disput. CXI), Joseph Tricassinus (d. 1681;
De necessaria ad salutem gratia omnibus et singulis data), Alphonse Le Moyne (b. c.1596–1659;
De dono orandi, sive de gratia ad orandum sufficiente, cap. II), Scipione Maffei (1675– 1755;
Hist. Theolog. de gratia, lib XVI), Bernardus Désirant (1656–1725; In opere inscripto,
s. Augustinus vindicatus contra centum et unam damnatas Paschalis Quesnelli propositiones), and Jean Le Porcq (1636–1722; In opere, cui titulum fecit,
Les sentiments de saint Augustin sur la grâce opposez à ceux de Jansenius). See Passaglia,
Commentariorum theologicorum: Pars tertia,
113 (LIV).
Eugène Portalié (1852–1909), a French Jesuit who was admittedly very eager to argue that Augustine was mostly in line with Catholic teaching, stated that,
It is regarded as incontestable today that the system of Augustine was complete in his mind from the year 397—that is, from the beginning of his episcopate, when he wrote his answers to the “quæstiones Diversæ” of Simplician. It is to this book that Augustine, in his last years, refers the Semipelagians for the explanation of his real thought. This important fact, to which for a long time no attention was paid, has been recognized by Neander and established by Gangaut, and also by recent critics, such as Loofs, Reuter, Turmel, Jules Martin (see also Cunningham, St. Austin, 1886, pp. 80 and 175). It will not, therefore, be possible to deny the authority of these texts on the pretext that Augustine in his old age adopted a system more antagonistic to liberty.
He said that Augustine’s view that “the eternal choice of the elect by God … does not destroy the Divine will to save all men, which, moreover, is not realized except by the human liberty that leaves to the elect full power to fall and to the non-elect full power to rise.” Portalié, “Teaching of St. Augustine of Hippo,” in The Catholic Encyclopedia, 2:97.
This decree falls in line with the Catholic dogma or with “the very sincere will of God to give to all men the power of saving themselves and the power of damning themselves.” Indeed,
According to Augustine, God, in his creative decree, has expressly excluded every order of things in which grace would deprive man of his liberty, every situation in which man would not have the power to resist sin, and thus Augustine brushes aside that predestinationism which has been attributed to him. Listen to him speaking to the Manichæans: “All can be saved if they wish”; and in his “Retractations” (I, x), far from correcting this assertion, he confirms it emphatically: “It is true, entirely true, that all men can, if they wish.” But he always goes back to the providential preparation. In his sermons he says to all: “It depends on you to be elect” (In Ps. cxx, n. 11, etc.); “Who are the elect? You, if you wish it” (In Ps. lxxiii, n. 5).
Portalié, “Teaching of St. Augustine of Hippo,” in The Catholic Encyclopedia, 2:98. Again,
The doctrine of the Divine will to save all men and the universality of redemption was thus consecrated by the public teaching of the Church. In the Middle Ages these two truths are developed by the great Doctors of the Church. Faithful to the principles of Augustinism, they place in especial relief his theory on Divine Providence, which prepares at its pleasure the determinations of the will by exterior events and interior inspirations.
Portalié, “Teaching of St. Augustine of Hippo,” in The Catholic Encyclopedia, 2:100. While admitting some shortcomings in Augustine about this matter, Portalié said,
Secondly, such consoling and fundamental truths as God’s desire to save all men, and the redeeming death of Christ which was really offered and accepted for all peoples and all individuals—these truths, which Augustine never denied, but which he left too much in the background and as it were hidden under the terrible formulas of the doctrine of predestination, have been placed in the full light, have been developed [by the Roman Catholic Church], and applied to infidel nations, and have at last entered into the ordinary teaching of theology.
Portalié, “Teaching of St. Augustine of Hippo,” in
The Catholic Encyclopedia, 2:101. In his very extensive entry on Saint Augustine in the DTC, Portalié documents that Augustine taught universal redemption.
f) L’étendue de la rédemption du Christ, d’après Augustin, est universelle et ne souffre pas d’exception: Sanguis innocens fusus delevit OMNIA PECCATA nocentium, pretium tantum datum redemit OMNES CAPTIVOS… In Ps. CXXIX, n. 2, P. L., t. XXXVII, col. 1697. Ainsi: a. Tous les péchés sont expiés, même ceux commis après le baptême, qui, d’après Scheel, op. cit., p. 313, ne seraient point compris dans la rédemption.—b. Tous les captifs sont rachetés, même les enfants qui meurent sans recevoir le baptême. Augustin l’affirme expressément. Cont. Jul., l. III, c. XXV, n. 58, P. L., t. XLIV, col. 732. Il faut même remarquer l’argumentation d’Augustin qui ferme toute échappatoire aux jansénistes. Au l. VI Cont. Jul., c. IV, n. 8, ibid., col. 825, et dans l’Op. imperf. cont. Jul., l. II, n. 175, ibid., col. 1217, il raisonne ainsi: Jésus-Christ est mort pour tous sans exception, donc tous sans exception sont pécheurs: omnes itaque mortui sunt in peccatis, NEMINE PRORSUS EXCEPTO, et pro omnibus mortuis vivus mortuus est unus. De civit., l. XX, c. VI, P. L., t. XLI, col. 665. Voilà la pensée des dernières années d’Augustin. On sera donc bien forcé, quand il restreindra aux élus les effets de la rédemption, de l’entendre des grâces efficaces qui ne sont pas données à tous. Les sermons de saint Augustin ne peuvent laisser aucun doute; après le R. P. O. Rottmanner, Scheel l’a remarqué, op. cit., p. 455. Serm., CCCXLIV, n. 4, P. L., t. XXXIX, col. 1515: Sanguis Domini tui, SI VIS, datus est pro te, SI NOLUERIS esse, non est datus pro te… Hoc est magnum quia semel et PRO OMNIBUS DEDIT. Sanguis Christi volenti est salus, nolenti supplicium. Serm., CCXCII, n. 4, P. L., t. XXXVIII, col. 1322: APOSTOLICA ET VERA SENTENTIA EST, QUA CHRISTUS SALVATOR OMNIUM HOMINUM. Cf. J.-B. Faure, ad cap. XLVII Enchir.; Stentrup, De Verbo incarnato, Soteriologia, th. XXXIII, t. I, p. 387–416. Voir plus loin la doctrine de la grâce.—Quant aux anges, Augustin eût craint de favoriser la croyance origéniste au salut final des démons, s’il ne les laissait en dehors de la rédemption. Il signale seulement, Enchirid., c. LXI–LXII, P. L., t. XL, col. 260–261, que la mort du Christ a réuni hommes justes et bons anges en une même cité de Dieu, dans laquelle les élus remplaceront les anges déchus.
AI (Google) Translation:
f) According to Augustine, the extent of Christ’s redemption is universal and admits of no exception: “The innocent blood that was shed blotted out ALL THE SINS of the guilty; the price that was paid redeemed ALL THE CAPTIVES…” (On Psalm 129, no. 2, Patrologia Latina, vol. 37, col. 1697). Thus: a. All sins are expiated, even those committed after baptism, which, according to [Otto] Scheel (op. cit., p. 313), would not be included in redemption. b. All captives are redeemed, including children who die without receiving baptism. Augustine expressly affirms this (Against Julian, Book III, ch. 25, no. 58, Patrologia Latina, vol. 44, col. 697). 732. We must also take note of Augustine’s argument, which leaves the Jansenists no avenue of escape. In Book VI of Against Julian, Chapter IV, No. 8 (ibid., col. 825), and in Unfinished Work against Julian, Book II, No. 175 (ibid., col. 1217), he reasons as follows: “Therefore, ALL HAVE DIED IN SINS, WITHOUT ABSOLUTELY ANYONE BEING EXCLUDED, and the One who was alive died for all those who had died.” (The City of God, Book XX, ch. 6, Patrologia Latina, vol. 41, col. 665). This represents the thinking of Augustine’s later years. We shall therefore be compelled, when he restricts the effects of redemption to the elect, to understand him as referring to efficacious graces, which are not given to everyone. The sermons of Saint Augustine leave no room for doubt on this matter. Father O[dilo] Rottmanner had already observed this, and [Otto] Scheel subsequently noted it as well (op. cit., p. 455). Sermon 344, no. 4, Patrologia Latina, vol. 39, col. 1515: “The blood of your Lord was given for you, IF YOU WISH; if you do not wish to belong to Him, it was not given for you.… This is the great thing: that He gave it once and FOR ALL. The blood of Christ is salvation for the one who wills it, but punishment for the one who does not will it.” Sermon 292, no. 4, Patrologia Latina, vol. 38, col. 1322: “IT IS AN APOSTOLIC AND TRUE DECLARATION THAT CHRIST IS THE SAVIOR OF ALL MEN.” Compare J.-B. [Ioanne Baptista] Faure, commentary on Chapter XLVII of the Enchiridion; [Ferdinand Alois] Stentrup, On the Incarnate Word, Soteriology, Thesis XXXIII, vol. I, pp. 387–416. See further below on the doctrine of grace. As for the angels, Augustine would have feared giving support to the Origenist belief in the final salvation of demons had he not excluded them from redemption. He merely observes, in the Enchiridion, Chapters LXI–LXII, Patrologia Latina, vol. 40, cols. 260–261, that Christ’s death united righteous men and good angels in the same City of God, in which the elect will take the place of the fallen angels.
Eugène Portalié,
“AUGUSTINE (SAINT),” in The Dictionnaire de théologie catholique: contenant l'exposé des doctrines de la théologie catholique, leurs preuves et leur histoire, ed. Jean Michel Alfred Vacant, Eugène Mangenot, and Émile Amann, 15 vols. (Paris: Letouzey et Ané, 1899–1950 [1909]), 1/2:2370.
Joseph Pohle (1852–1922), a member of the founding faculty of the Catholic University in America and a frequent contributor to the
Catholic Encyclopedia (wherein he wrote 21 articles), argued for Augustine’s affirmation of God’s universal saving will. He even gave an explanation of how Augustine’s reading of 1 Tim 2:4 can be read along the lines of the ancient distinction between God’s antecedent and consequent will. See Joseph Pohle,
Grace, Actual and Habitual: A Dogmatic Treatise, ed. Arthur Preuss, 6th ed. (B. Herder, 1955), 160–62.
Joseph Tixeront (1856–1925), a French Sulpician theologian, educator, and patrologist, said that Augustine by no means denied God’s universal salvific will, and that in a good many passages he assumes it to be evident, especially when he affirms that Jesus Christ died for all and offers sufficient graces to all. Referencing Denis Pétau, Tixeront lists Augustine’s
De catechizandis rudibus, 52;
Epistula CLXXXV, 49;
Enarratio in psalmum LXXIII,
sermo II, 11;
Retractationes, I, 10, 2;
Contra Iulianum, VI, 8;
Contra Iulianum opus imperfectum, II, 174, 175, with the classic passage being found in
De spiritu et littera, 58. See Joseph Tixeront,
Histoire Des Dogmes Dans L’antiquité Chrétienne II: De Saint Athanase a Saint Augustin (314–430) (Victor Lecoffre, 1924), 505–6.
Garrigou-Lagrange (1877–1964) wrote:
Some Pelagians put a wrong construction upon St. Paul’s text that “God will have all men to be saved,”30 and claimed that God wills equally the salvation of all. In reply to these heretics St. Augustine, arguing from the fact that all men are not saved and from the principle of the infallible efficacy of the divine will, had repeatedly spoken of a restricted will to save. By this he meant the infallibly efficacious will that leads the elect to eternal life. St. Prosper, replying to the objections made against the teaching of his master, insists upon another aspect of this doctrine. St. Augustine had clearly affirmed that “God does not command what is impossible, but in commanding admonishes thee to do what thou canst and to ask for what thou canst not do.”31 God never commands what is impossible, otherwise no one could avoid committing actual sin, which in this case would no longer be a sin, and the divine chastisements inflicted for such would be a manifest injustice. To say that God never commands the impossible means that He wills to make it really possible for all to comply with the precepts imposed upon them and to do so when they are imposed. Thus He wills to make their salvation really possible, though He does not lead them all efficaciously to eternal life. Moreover, St. Augustine again and again, without adding any restrictions, explained St. Paul’s text that “Christ dies for all.”32
True to the teaching of his master, St. Prosper wrote as follows: “We must most sincerely believe and profess that God wills all men to be saved. For this, indeed, is the mind of the Apostle, who most urgently commands, what is a most devout custom in all the churches, that suppliant prayers be offered to God for all men. That many of these perish is the fault of those who perish: that many are saved is the gift of Him who saves.”33
_______________
30 I Tim. 2:4
31 De natura et gratia, PL, XLIII, 50; XLIV, 271.
32 II Cor. 5:15; cf. PL, XLIV, 825; XLV, 1217.
33 PL, LI, 179; cf. Resp. ad 8 obj. Gallorum vincent., ibid., 162.
Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange,
Predestination, trans. Dom Bede Rose (B. Herder Book Co., 1953), 45–46.
Henri Rondet, S.J. (1898–1979), a professor of theology at Fourvière Hill in Lyon, France, who was sympathetic to Semi-Pelagianism, thought that “Augustine becomes confused in discussing the universality of God’s salvific will. Not that he principally wants to restrict that will. But he tries to excite gratitude in those who have been drawn out of the condemned mass, to make them understand with what incomparable love they have been loved.” Nevertheless, Rondet said that a “faithful Augustinian can “read the
De correptione et gratia and the
De predestinatione sanctorum in the light of the
Confessions, the
City of God, and the letters and sermons of this great apostle.
In these works, they will read that God desires the salvation of all men and that Christ poured out his blood for the entire human race, not simply for the just of the African church, as the Donatists would have it.
They will read that this blood shed for all men is shed also for each one of us, if we only wish it to be so.” “
In his fight against Pelagian thinking, Augustine denies none of the theses established against the Donatists.” See Henri Rondet, S.J.,
The Grace of Christ: A Brief History of the Theology of Grace, trans. Tad W. Guzie, S.J. (Newman Press, 1967), 141–42,
143.
Also, while noting the complexity of Augustine’s teaching on predestination, the will of God, and the death of Christ,
John W. Rettig (1931–2012), of Xavier University in Cincinnati, Ohio, said:
That God foreknows that some are condemned poses a theological problem in view of the orthodox teaching that Christ died for all and by his death and resurrection redeemed all. As in all matters touching predestination, Augustine’s view is complex, difficult, and somewhat obscure. It would appear that he holds that God does will the salvation of all men and in a general sense he does so by providing all with the power and the means for salvation. But he also, for his own reasons, gives men the freedom to choose or refuse salvation and then he foreknows that some will choose salvation and some damnation. He could intervene, but wills not to do so; were he to intervene freedom of will would be meaningless. Since he foreknows that some will refuse redemption and does not intervene, then in an absolute sense he wills the damnation of some. Why he chooses this kind of world over the many possible dispositions of creation is a mystery. See Browne, 29.1238–46, and E. Portalie, A Guide to the Thought of Saint Augustine, 215–23. But the situation is probably more complex than this, as all men’s acts are the results of freely given, unmerited graces. Why are some not given graces to enable their perseverance? Augustine, then, would seem to take a rather rigid view of predestination: that God, for his own reasons, in fact wills the damnation of some. This tractate seems to support such a view. See J. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrine, 366–69, for a good, brief account of the latter position.
See Augustine of Hippo,
Tractates on the Gospel of John 28–54, ed. Thomas P. Halton, trans. John W. Rettig, vol. 88, The Fathers of the Church (The Catholic University of America Press, 1993), 230, n. 12; Tractate 48.4; italics original.
While Henri Blocher (b. 1937) thinks that Augustine’s line of thought leads to so-called definite atonement, he also said that,
Augustine’s case is complex, and no unified doctrine of atonement stands out clearly in his writings. His emphasis on the divine desire that all should be saved is repetitious, but other lines would lead to definite atonement.
Henri A. G. Blocher, “Jesus Christ the Man: Toward a Systematic Theology of Definite Atonement,” in
From Heaven He Came and Sought Her: Definite Atonement in Historical, Biblical, Theological, and Pastoral Perspective, ed. David Gibson and Jonathan Gibson (Crossway, 2013), 549.
Segundo Folgado and Nello Cipriani seem to agree that Augustine affirmed God’s universal salvific will, but just say Prosper “knew how to proclaim the universality of God’s salvific will with greater clarity than his teacher Augustine.” See Segundo Folgado and Nello Cipriani, “Predestination,” in Encyclopedia of Ancient Christianity, ed. Angelo Di Berardino and James Hoover, trans. Joseph T. Papa, Erik A. Koenke, and Eric E. Hewett (IVP Academic; InterVarsity Press, 2014), 296. When it comes to the time Augustine wrote On the Spirit and the Letter (c. AD 412), Teske said Augustine believed that “God wills that all be saved, but not so that he deprives anyone of free choice. Whether one believes or refuses to believe, the will of God remains undefeated, since unbelievers do not escape God’s just punishment (paragraph 58). At this point in the development of his thinking on grace, Augustine seems to take God’s universal salvific will as found in 1 Timothy 2:4 without any restriction and to situate the will to believe or not to believe in the free choice of the individual, given God’s call.” See Roland J. Teske, S.J., “The Spirit and the Letter: Introduction,” in Saint Augustine, Answer to the Pelagians, ed. John E. Rotelle, trans. Roland J. Teske, vol. 23, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (New City Press, 1997), 142. Josephine Lombardi (b. 1968), Associate Professor of Systematic and Pastoral Theology at St. Augustine’s Seminary, while seeing that Augustine taught exclusivism, she says that he did teach God’s universal salvific will. See Josephine Lombardi, The Universal Salvific Will of God in Official Documents of the Roman Catholic Church (The Edin Mellen Press, 2007), 28–31; What Are They Saying About the Universal Salvific Will of God? (Paulist Press, 2008), 16.
As we shall see in the following quotes, Augustine did indeed believe in God’s will, wish, and desire for the salvation of all men. Keep in mind that it is not only these quotes that are relevant to the subject, but also those many statements in Augustine where he said Christ was crucified for all and redeemed all mankind. If Christ did that, then certainly Christ desires the salvation of all men. Also, Augustine never retracted what he said about these matters.
It must also be understood that just because a theologian takes a decretal or limited view of one of the controversial passages on the will of God (e.g., 1 Tim 2:4 or 2 Pet 3:9), it does not follow that they denied that God, in principle, or categorically, wills the salvation of all men. Take W. G. T. Shedd, for example. He viewed 2 Pet 3:9 as referring to God’s effectual will, and thus taught that the verse concerns the elect, and yet Shedd strongly affirmed that God desires the salvation of all men in His revealed will, as did John Murray, who took 2 Pet 3:9 to refer to all men, like Calvin. Moreover, while Charles Spurgeon took 1 Tim 2:4 to refer to God’s revealed desire for the salvation of all men, I am fairly sure that Phil Johnson, who highly respects Spurgeon, takes that verse to refer to all kinds of the elect, yet both Spurgeon and Johnson believe God desires the salvation of all men in principle, or categorically. The point is this: Among Augustinians, the Reformed, and mainstream Calvinists, there may be hermeneutical disagreements, but there is categorical agreement on God’s revealed desire for the salvation of all men. A failure to understand this principle has led so many historians astray, not only the subject of God’s will, but also on the extent of the atonement.
With that said, here is some of the material from Augustine:
II. The Primary Sources
FROM THE EXPOSITION OF THE PSALMS (AD 396–420):
Psalm 111:2: God does not will that we sin, but rather wills to spare the sinner that he may return and live.
Coxe Translation:
“These are the great works of the Lord, sought out unto all His wills” (ver. 2): through which mercy forsaketh none who confesseth, no man’s wickedness is unpunished … Let man choose for himself what he listeth: the works of the Lord are not so constituted, that the creature, having free discretion allowed him, should transcend the will of the Creator, even though he act contrary to His will. God willeth not that thou shouldest sin; for He forbiddeth it: yet if thou hast sinned, imagine not that the man hath done what he willed, and that hath happened to God which He willed not. For as He would that man would not sin, so would He spare the sinner, that he may return and live; He so willeth finally to punish him who persisteth in his sin, that the rebellious cannot escape the power of justice. Thus whatever choice thou hast made, the Almighty will not be at a loss to fulfill His will concerning thee.
Augustine, “Exposition on the Book of Psalms,” trans. A. Cleveland Coxe, in
NPNF, 1st Series, ed. by Philip Schaff (Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), 8:545; Ps 111:2. Augustine’s meaning in the highlighted portion above is this: In the sense that God doesn’t want man to sin (but rather to obey), in that sense (i.e. according to the revealed will) he wishes to spare the sinner, that he may return and live. He is alluding to Ezek 18:32 and 33:11, as the Boulding translation indicates.
Boulding Translation:
Great are the works of the Lord to be seen on that day. They are finely wrought to fulfill all his purposes. What he wills is that no one who confesses shall be bereft of mercy and no one’s iniquity go unpunished, for he whips even his children, every one whom he acknowledges as his (Heb 12:6). But if the just are barely saved, where will there be room for the sinner and the unbeliever (1 Pet 4:18)? Let men and women choose as they wish; the works of the Lord are not so wrought that a creature endowed with freedom of choice can override the will of the creator, even by acting contrary to his will. God does not want you to sin, and he forbids you to do so; but if you have sinned, do not delude yourself that a human being has done what he wanted, while God has had to suffer what he did not want. No: just as he wills human beings not to sin, he also wills to pardon the sinner so that he or she may turn back again and live (Ezek 18:23; 33:11), but so too does he will in the end to punish one who perseveres in sin, that no defiant sinner may evade the power of his justice. It follows that whatever you choose, the Almighty will not lack the means to carry out completely his will in your regard, for great are the works of the Lord; they are finely wrought to fulfill all his purposes.
Saint Augustine,
Expositions of the Psalms 99–120, ed. Boniface Ramsey, trans. Maria Boulding, vol. 19, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (New City Press, 2003), 287; Ps 111.2; italics original.
FROM DE CATECHIZANDIS RUDIBUS (AD 400)
Canning Translation:
19,31. “And we should not allow ourselves to be disturbed by the fact that so many people go along with the devil and so few follow God, for, in comparison with the chaff, the quantity of grain is also much smaller. But, just as the farmer knows what to do with the huge pile of chaff, so too God: the great number of sinners is nothing to him and he knows how to act in their regard, so that the government of his kingdom may in no way be disrupted or brought into disrepute. Nor must we think that the devil has gained the ascendancy because he has dragged so many along him; he, with them, will be brought low by just a few.
“So we see two cities—one of the wicked, the other of the saints130—existing from the beginning of the human race right through to the end of time. At present they are mixed together in body but separated in will, though, on the day of judgment, they are to be separated in body as well. Indeed, all those people who, with empty pride and haughty display, find pleasure in disdaining others and lording it over them in this world, and all those spirits who have a predilection for such things and strive to obtain glory for themselves by making slaves of human beings, are closed up together in the one community. And, though they often fight among themselves for the sake of acquiring these things, they are all hurled down into the same abyss by the same weight of immoderate desire, and they find themselves yoked together by the similarity of their practices and their demerits. On the other hand, all those people and all those spirits who humbly seek God’s glory, not their own,131 and who wait upon him with due reverence, belong to one community. For all that, God is extraordinarily merciful: he shows forbearance to the wicked and gives them scope for repentance and reform.132
19,32. “This happened, for example, when God destroyed all humankind in the Flood, making an exception of the one righteous man and his family, whom he wanted to be safe in the ark.133 God certainly knew that people were not going to mend their ways. Nevertheless, during the hundred years that the ark took to build,134 they had it made known to them again and again that God’s anger was about to descend on them.135 And, if they had turned to God, he would have spared them in the same way that at a later time he spared the city of Nineveh, which set about doing penance when its imminent destruction was foretold through the prophet.136 Now, if God gives time to repent even to those people who he knows will remain obstinate in their wickedness, he does this in order to exercise our patience and mold it by his example. So, we should learn with what great forbearance we, who have no knowledge of the kind of people they may later turn out to be, ought to endure the wicked, since God, from whom nothing in the future is hidden, spares them and lets them live.
_______________
130 As early as 389–391, in True Religion 25, Augustine referred to the whole human race as divided into two classes, the wicked and those devoted to God. Here, for the first time, he uses the term “cities” (civitates) of these two classes. The contrast between the two cities is drawn most fully in The City of God, where it is famously summarized in XIV,28; there the cities are distinguished on the basis of the loves on which they are founded—the earthly city on a distorted self-love and the heavenly city on love for God.
131 See Ps 115:1; Jn 7:18.
132 See Rom 2:4.
133 See Gn 6:11–7:16.
134 Noah is said to have been 500 years old when he became the father of Shem, Ham and Japheth, and 600 years old when the Flood began. See Gn 5:32; 7:6.
135 Scripture says nothing about these warnings; this is Augustine’s eisegesis.
136 See Jon 3.
Augustine of Hippo, “Instructing Beginners in Faith,” in
Morality and Christian Asceticism, ed. Boniface Ramsey, trans. Raymond Canning, vol. 10, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (New City Press, 2023), 207–8;
De catechizandis rudibus, c. 19.
26,52. “Truly, brother, the great and true blessedness is that which is promised to the saints in the world to come. All visible things, however, pass from existence, and the ostentatious display of this world and its allurements and its curiosity will all come to nothing,281 and they will drag their lovers down with them in ruins.
“From these ruins—that is to say, from eternal punishment—God in his compassion wished to free human beings, provided that they do not prove enemies to themselves and struggle against their creator. So he sent his only-begotten Son—that is to say, his Word, equal to himself, through whom he created all things.282 The Son, to be sure, remained in his divine state; he did not leave the Father’s side, nor was he in any way changed. Yet he took on a man283 and came among human beings, making himself visible to human beings in mortal flesh. Just as death entered into the human race through one man,284 the first to be created—that is, Adam—and this came about because he joined his wife, who had been led astray by the devil, in transgressing God’s commandment,285 in the same way, too, through one man, who is also God, the Son of God, Jesus Christ, all the sins of the past would be wiped away and all who believe in him would enter into eternal life.
_______________
281 See 1 Jn 2:16–17. “Curiosity” here is equivalent to “concupiscence of the eyes.” For Augustine’s highly negative assessment of curiosity see Confessions X,35,54–57.
282 See Jn 1:3.
283 “He took on a man”: assumendo … hominem. See 20,36 above and the relevant note.
284 See Rom 5:12.
285 See Gn 3:1–6; 1 Tim 2:14.
Augustine of Hippo, “Instructing Beginners in Faith,” in
Morality and Christian Asceticism, ed. Boniface Ramsey, trans. Raymond Canning, vol. 10, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (New City Press, 2023), 229–30;
De catechizandis rudibus, c. 26, 52.
FROM THE TRACTATES ON JOHN’S GOSPEL (AD 406–430):
Tractate 89: Christ came to that the Jews might believe, or to enlist the faith of the Jews.
Gibb and Innes Translation:
What, then, does He mean by the words, “If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin”? Was it that the Jews were without sin before Christ came to them in the flesh? Who, though he were the greatest fool, would say so? But it is some great sin, and not every sin, that He would have to be understood, as it were, under the general designation. For this is the sin wherein all sins are included; and whosoever is free from it, has all his sins forgiven him: and this it is, that they believed not on Christ, who came for the very purpose of enlisting their faith. From this sin, had He not come, they would certainly have been free. His advent has become as much fraught with destruction to unbelievers, as it is with salvation to those that believe; for He, the Head and Prince of the apostles, has Himself, as it were, become what they declared of themselves, “to some, indeed, the savour of life unto life; and to some the savor of death unto death”(2 Cor 2:16).
Augustine of Hippo, “Lectures or Tractates on the Gospel according to St. John,” in
St. Augustin: Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homilies on the First Epistle of John, Soliloquies, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. John Gibb and James Innes, vol. 7, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series (Christian Literature Company, 1888), 357–58; Tractate LXXXIX.
Rettig Translation:
(3) What, then, does it mean, “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not have sin”? Were the Jews without sin before Christ had come to them in the flesh? Who, even [if he were] very stupid, would say this? But he intended to be understood a particularly great sin, not every sin, under the general term, as it were. For this is the sin by which one holds fast to all sins; for if anyone should not have this [sin], all sins are forgiven him. Now, this sin is that they did not believe in Christ, who came for this precise reason, that there be belief in him. This sin, if he had not come, they assuredly would not have. For his coming, as salutary as it was made for those who believe, so deadly was it made for those who believe not, as though he also, the Head and Prince of the Apostles, had shown himself to be the very thing they themselves said of themselves, “to some indeed the odor of life unto life, but to some the odor of death unto death” (2 Cor 2:16).
Augustine of Hippo,
Tractates on the Gospel of John 55–111, ed. Thomas P. Halton, trans. John W. Rettig, vol. 90, The Fathers of the Church (The Catholic University of America Press, 1994), 156; Tractate 89.
Hill Translation:
What does this mean, then: If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin? Were the Jews without sin before Christ came to them in the flesh? Who would be so very foolish as to say that? But he wants a certain great sin, not every sin, to be understood, as it were, under this general term. For this is the sin by which all sins are retained. If someone doesn’t have this sin, all his sins are forgiven him.1 This one, though, is that they didn’t believe in Christ, who came so that he would be believed in.2 If he hadn’t come, they certainly wouldn’t have had this sin. Indeed, just as his coming has been salvific for those who believe, so it has been turned into ruin for those who don’t believe, as though he, the head and prince of the apostles, came to be what they said about themselves: For some, indeed, the fragrance of life unto life, but for others the fragrance of death unto death (2 Cor 2:16).
_______________
1 See Homilies 38, 7; 53, 10; Sermon 144, 1.
2 See Sermons 71, 11; 143, 2.
Saint Augustine,
Homilies on the Gospel of John 41–124, ed. Allan D. Fitzgerald and Boniface Ramsey, trans. Edmund Hill, vol. 13, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (New City Press, 2020), 319–20.
FROM THE LETTERS (EPISTULAE):
Letter 105 (AD 409): God is beseeching, threatening, chastising, begging, and rebuking the Donatists because he does not wish or want them to be lost.
Parsons Translation:
Be at peace with us, brothers. We love you; we wish the same for you as we do for ourselves. If you hate us so deeply because we do not allow you to go astray and be lost, say so to God, whose threats to the faithless shepherds we fear, when He says: ‘That which was driven away you have not brought again, neither have you sought that which was lost’ (Ezek 34:4). This is what God Himself does for you through us, either by beseeching or threatening or chastising; by loss or trouble; by His secret warnings or trials; or by the laws of secular powers. Understand what is being done to you: God does not wish you [the Donatists] to be lost, cut off from your mother, the Catholic Church, in the midst of a sacrilegious dissension. You have not at any time been able to prove anything against us. When your bishops were called together by us, would they confer peaceably with us, or did they avoid converse with us as if we were sinners? Could anyone endure such pride? As if Paul the Apostle did not converse with sinners, and with quite abandoned ones! Read the Acts of the Apostles and see. As if the Lord Himself did not hold speech with the Jews by whom He was crucified, and answer them courteously! Finally, the Devil is the chief of all sinners, since it will never be possible for him to be converted to goodness, yet the Lord Himself did not disdain to answer him about the Law (Matt 4:1–10), by which you may know that the Donatists refuse to confer with us because they know that their case is lost.
Augustine of Hippo, “Letter 105. Augustine, Catholic Bishop, to the Donatists (409),” in
Letters (83–130), ed. Roy Joseph Deferrari, trans. Wilfrid Parsons, vol. 18, The Fathers of the Church (The Catholic University of America Press, 1953), 205–6.
Teske Translation:
4, 13. Be reconciled with us, brothers; we love you; we want for you what we want for ourselves. If you hate us more deeply because we do not allow you to go astray and to be lost, tell this to God whom we fear, when he threatens bad shepherds and says, You have not called back what has gone astray, and you have not sought what was lost (34:4). God himself does this to you through us by begging, by threatening or by rebuking, by fines or by penalties, through his hidden warning or chastisements or through the laws of temporal authorities. Understand what he is doing with you; God does not want you to be lost, separated from your Catholic mother in your sacrilegious discord. You were unable at any time to prove anything against us. When your bishops were invited by us to a conference, they always refused to confer peacefully with us, as if they did not want to speak with sinners. Who would put up with this pride? As if the apostle Paul did not converse with sinners and with quite sacrilegious persons! Read the Acts of the Apostles and see. As if the Lord himself did not have discussions about the law with the Jews, by whom he was crucified, and did not answer them appropriately! Finally, the devil is the first of all sinners; he will never be able to be converted to righteousness, and still the Lord did not refuse to reply to him concerning the law (Matt 4:1–10). All this was done so that you might understand that those bishops of yours refused to confer with us because they knew that theirs was a lost cause.
Saint Augustine,
Letters (Epistulae) 100–155, ed. Boniface Ramsey, trans. Roland Teske, vol. II/2, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (New City Press, 2003), 60–61; Letter 105.
Letter 185 (c. AD 417):
Parsons Translation:
Chapter 49
Let us, then, understand that this does not apply to every sin, but to a certain sin against the Holy Spirit, which will not be forgiven. In the same way, when He said: ‘If I had not come, they would not have sin’ (John 15:22), He manifestly did not intend us to understand every sin, for indeed they were guilty of many great sins, but that, if they did not have a certain special sin, all the others which they had could be forgiven them; and that sin was that they did not believe in Him when He came—they would not have had this sin if He had not come—so also when He said: ‘He that shall sin against the Holy Spirit or shall speak a word against the Holy Spirit,’ it is plain that He did not mean every sin committed against the Holy Spirit by deed or word, but a certain particular sin. This sin is a hardness of heart persisted in until the end of this life, by which a man refuses to accept remission for his sins in the unity of the body of Christ, to which the Holy Spirit gives life. For, when He had said to His disciples: ‘Receive ye the Holy Spirit,’ He immediately added: ‘Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; whose sins you shall retain, they are retained’ (John 20:22, 23). Therefore, whoever shall resist this gift of the grace of God, and shall oppose it or shall in any way be estranged from it until the end of this temporal life, ‘It shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the world to come,’ for, obviously, this is so great a sin that all other sins are comprised in it; but it is not committed by anyone until he has left the body. As long as he lives, as the Apostle says: ‘The patience of God leadeth him to do penance,’ but, if the sinner remains in his persistent wickedness, then, as the Apostle adds at once: ‘According to the hardness of his heart and his impenitent heart,’ he treasures up for himself ‘wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the just judgment of God’(Rom. 2:4, 5), and ‘it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world nor in the world to come.’
Augustine of Hippo,
Letters (165–203), ed. Hermigild Dressler, trans. Wilfrid Parsons, vol. 30, The Fathers of the Church (The Catholic University of America Press, 1955), 188–89;
Epistulae, 185, c. 49.
Teske Translation:
49. Let them, therefore, understand that it is not every sin but a particular one that is meant by the sin against the Holy Spirit that absolutely will not be forgiven. For when he said, If I had not come, they would have no sin (Jn 15:22), he certainly did not want us to understand every sin, since they were filled with many great sins, but a particular sin which, if they did not have, all those that they had could be forgiven them, that is, the sin of not believing in him. For they would not have this sin if he had not come. In the same way, when he said, He who sins against the Holy Spirit, or, He who says a word against the Holy Spirit, he did not want us to understand every sin that is committed against the Holy Spirit by word or deed but a specific and particular sin. This sin is a hardness of heart up to the end of this life by which a person refuses to receive the forgiveness of sins in the unity of the body of Christ, to which the Holy Spirit gives life. For, after he said to his disciples, Receive the Holy Spirit, he immediately added, If you forgive the sins of anyone, they will be forgiven him; if you retain the sins of anyone, they will be retained (Jn 20:22–23). Whoever, then, resists and refuses this gift of the grace of God or is somehow apart from it up to the end of this temporal life, it will not be forgiven him either in this world or in the world to come, that is, this sin that is so great that all sins are retained by it and that is not proved to have been committed by anyone until he leaves the body. Yet as long as he lives here, as the apostle says, the patience of God leads to repentance (Rom 2:4). But if with most obdurate iniquity, as the apostle goes on, he stores up for himself in accord with his hard and unrepentant heart anger for the day of anger and of the revelation of the just judgment of God (Rom 2:5), it will not be forgiven him either in this world or in the world to come (Mt 12:32).
Saint Augustine,
Letters (Epistulae) 156–210, trans. Roland Teske, ed. Boniface Ramsey, vol. II/3, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (New City Press, 2004), 205–6;
Epistulae, 185, c. 49; italics original.
FROM THE SPIRIT AND THE LETTER (AD 412):Chapter 58: God wills and wishes all men to be saved. Jean Daillé (1594–1670) cited this from Augustine to show that Augustine believed that God wills all men to be saved.
Latin edition:33. 58. Prius igitur illud dicamus et videamus utrum huic satisfaciat quaestioni, quod liberum arbitrium naturaliter adtributum a Creatore animae rationali illa media vis est, quae vel intendi ad fidem, vel inclinari ad infidelitatem potest et ideo nec istam voluntatem, qua credit Deo, dici potest homo habere quam non acceperit, quando quidem vocante Deo surgit de libero arbitrio, quod naturaliter cum crearetur accepit. Vult autem Deus omnes homines salvos fieri et in agnitionem veritatis venire, non sic tamen, ut eis adimat liberum arbitrium, quo vel bene vel male utentes iustissime iudicentur.
Quod cum fit, infideles quidem contra voluntatem Dei faciunt, cum eius Evangelio non credunt, nec ideo tamen eam vincunt, verum se ipsos fraudant magno et summo bono malisque poenalibus implicant experturi in suppliciis potestatem eius, cuius in donis misericordiam contempserunt. Ita voluntas Dei semper invicta est; vinceretur autem, si non inveniret quid de contemptoribus faceret aut ullo modo possent evadere quod de talibus ille constituit. Qui enim dicit verbi gratia: “Volo ut hi omnes servi mei operentur in vinea et post laborem requiescentes epulentur, ita ut quisquis eorum hoc noluerit, in pistrino semper molat”, videtur quidem quicumque contempserit contra voluntatem Domini sui facere, sed tunc eam vincet, si et pistrinum contemnens effugerit, quod nullo modo fieri potest sub Dei potestate. Unde scriptum est: Semel locutus est Deus, hoc est, incommutabiliter, quamquam et de unico Verbo possit intellegi. Deinde subiungens quid incommutabiliter sit locutus: Duo haec, inquit, audivi, quoniam potestas Dei est, et tibi, Domine, misericordia, qui reddes unicuique secundum opera sua. Ille igitur reus erit addamnationem sub potestate eius, qui contempserit ad credendum misericordiam eius. Quisquis autem crediderit eique se a peccatis omnibus absolvendum et ab omnibus vitiis sanandum et calore ac lumine eius accendendum illuminandumque commiserit, habebit ex eius gratia opera bona, ex quibus etiam secundum corpus a mortis corruptione redimatur, coronetur bonisque satietur non temporalibus, sed aeternis, supra quam petimus et intellegimus.
Holmes, Wallace, Warfield Translation:
Let us then, first of all, lay down this proposition, and see whether it satisfies the question before us: that free will, naturally assigned by the Creator to our rational soul, is such a neutral4 power, as can either incline towards faith, or turn towards unbelief. Consequently a man cannot be said to have even that will with which he believes in God, without having received it; since this rises at the call of God out of the free will which he received naturally when he was created. God no doubt wishes all men to be saved5 and to come into the knowledge of the truth; but yet not so as to take away from them free will, for the good or the evil use of which they may be most righteously judged. This being the case, unbelievers indeed do contrary to the will of God when they do not believe His gospel; nevertheless they do not therefore overcome His will, but rob their own selves of the great, nay, the very greatest, good, and implicate themselves in penalties of punishment, destined to experience the power of Him in punishments whose mercy in His gifts they despised. Thus God’s will is for ever invincible; but it would be vanquished, unless it devised what to do with such as despised it, or if these despises could in any way escape from the retribution which He has appointed for such as they. Suppose a master, for example, who should say to his servants, I wish you to labour in my vineyard, and, after your work is done, to feast and take your rest; but who, at the same time, should require any who refused to work to grind in the mill ever after. Whoever neglected such a command would evidently act contrary to the master’s will; but he would do more than that,—he would vanquish that will, if he also escaped the mill. This, however, cannot possibly happen under the government of God. Whence it is written, “God hath spoken once,”—that is, irrevocably,—although the passage may refer also to His one only Word.6 He then adds what it is which He had irrevocably uttered, saying: “Twice have I heard this, that power belongeth unto God. Also unto Thee, O Lord, doth mercy belong: because Thou wilt render to every man according to his work.”7 He therefore will be guilty unto condemnation under God’s power, who shall think too contemptuously of His mercy to believe in Him. But whosoever shall put his trust in Him, and yield himself up to Him, for the forgiveness of all his sins, for the cure of all his corruption, and for the kindling and illumination of his soul by His warmth and light, shall have good works by his grace; and by them8 he shall be even in his body redeemed from the corruption of death, crowned, satisfied with blessings,—not temporal, but eternal,—above what we can ask or understand.
________________
4 [“Media vis,” a “midway power,” as Dr. Bright translates it; i.e., it is indifferent in itself, and neither good nor bad, but may be used for either.—W.]
5 1 Tim. 2:4.
6 John 1:1.
7 Ps. 62:11, 12.
8 Ex quibus.
Augustine,
“A Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter: Chapter 58,” trans. Peter Holmes, Robert Ernest Wallace, and B. B. Warfield, in NPNF, 1st Series, ed. Philip Schaff (Hendrickson Publishers, 2004), 5:109;
De spiritu et littera, c. 58.
Burnaby Translation:
58. Here the first point to be made, as a possible solution of the difficulty, is that the freedom of choice which the Creator has conferred in the way of nature upon the rational soul is a neutral power, which can either be exerted to faith or sink into unbelief. Accordingly it cannot be said that in the act of will whereby a man believes God, he possesses what he has not received, since it arises at God’s call from the freedom of choice which he received in the way of nature at his creation. God wills all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth; but not so as to deprive them of that freedom of choice, for the good or evil use of which they are subjected to the judgment of absolute Justice. By that judgment, the unbelieving act against God's will when they disbelieve his gospel; yet what they do is not to defeat his will but to cheat themselves of a supreme good and fall into the distress of punishment: in which they must lie under the power of him whose mercy in his gifts they have despised.98 Thus the will of God is ever undefeated: which would not be, had he no way of dealing with his despisers, or were there any escape for them from his sentence upon such. Suppose a master say: “I will that all these my servants work in the vineyard, and after their labour rest and feast; provided that any who will not so work shall grind for ever in the mill.” It might appear that one who should despise the order is acting 'against his master's will; but he will only defeat it if in his master's despite he escapes also from the mill. And that under the power of God is altogether impossible. So it is written: “God spoke once”—which we understand in the sense of “unchangeably,” though it might also be taken to mean a single utterance—and then we hear the matter of this unchangeable word: “these two things have I heard, that power belongeth unto God, and that mercy is thine, O Lord, who wilt render to every man according to his works” (Ps 62:11f). The despiser of his mercy, which calls for belief, must bear under his power the sentence of condemnation. But whosoever believes, and trusts himself to God for the absolution of all his sins, for the healing of all his sicknesses, for kindling and illumination by the warmth and light of God, shall have by his grace those good works which lead to deliverance even in the body from the corruption of death, to crowning and satisfaction with the good things which are not temporal but eternal, above all that we ask or think (Eph 3:20).
Augustine,
“The Spirit and the Letter, in Later Works, trans. John Burnaby, LCC 8 (Westminster Press, 1955), 242–43. In footnote #97, Burnaby said, “Note that in this treatise Augustine does not find it necessary, as he did later, to explain away this text (cf.
Enchrid., 103).
Teske Translation:
58. Let us, then, first set forth this idea and see whether it provides a satisfactory answer to our question. The free choice which the creator has given to the rational soul as part of its nature is a neutral power that can either turn to faith or fall into unbelief. Therefore, human beings cannot be said to have this will by which they believe God unless they have received it, when at God’s call it arises from the free choice which they received as part of their nature when they were created. God wills that all human beings be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim 2:4), but not so that he deprives them of free choice, since they will be judged with perfect justice according to their good or bad use of it. Consequently, unbelievers act against the will of God when they do not believe his gospel, but they do not on that account defeat his will. Rather, they deprive themselves of the great and supreme good and plunge themselves into evils which are punishments. They are destined to experience in punishment the power of the God whose mercy they held in contempt in his gifts. Thus the will of God is never defeated, but it would be defeated, if it could not find something to do with those who hold him in contempt or if they could somehow escape what he has appointed for them. He says, for example, I will that all these servants of mine work in the vineyard and that, after their labor, they rest and feast. But if any of them refuse to do this, they will forever grind grain at the millstone. Any who held him in contempt would seem to act against the will of their lord, but they would defeat it if they took flight from the millstone out of contempt—something that could never happen under God’s power. Hence, scripture said, God has spoken once, that is, immutably—though one could also understand this with regard to the only Word. Then, adding what he spoke immutably, it says, These two things have I heard: that power belongs to God and to you, Lord, belongs mercy; you repay all according to their works (Ps 62:12–13). Therefore, they will be liable to condemnation under his power who, with regard to believing, have held his mercy in contempt. But those who believe and entrust themselves to God to be forgiven all their sins and to be healed from all their wounds and to be enkindled and enlightened by warmth and light will have good works as a result of his grace. By them they will be redeemed from the corruption of bodily death; they will be crowned and satisfied with goods—not temporal ones, but eternal ones, beyond what we ask for and understand (Eph 3:20).
Saint Augustine, “The Spirit and the Letter,” in
Answer to the Pelagians, ed. John E. Rotelle, trans. Roland J. Teske, vol. 23, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (New City Press, 1997), 182–83;
De spiritu et littera, c. 33, 58; italics original.
FROM CONTRA JULIANUM (AD 420)
Teske Translation:
4, 14. You write, “The apostle said, The goodness of God draws you to repentance” (Rom 2:4). That is true; I agree. But he draws to repentance those he has predestined, even if by the stubbornness of their unrepentant heart, insofar as it is up to them, they store up anger for themselves on the day of anger and of the revelation of the just judgment of God who will repay all according to their works.14 After all, regardless of the amount of patience he shows, who will do penance, unless he gives them that gift? Have you forgotten that the very same teacher said, In case God may grant them penance to know the truth and they withdraw from the snares of the devil (2 Tm 2:25–26)? But his judgments are a great abyss.
Surely, if we permit those who are under our power to commit crimes before our eyes, we will be guilty along with them. Yet he [God] permits countless crimes to take place before his eyes, though he would on no account permit them, if he did not want to. He is, nonetheless, just and good. By showing patience he allows room for repentance, since he does not want anyone to perish.15
_______________
14 See Rom 2:4–6.
15 See 2 Pt 3:9.
Saint Augustine, “Answer to Julian,” in
Answer to the Pelagians, II, ed. John E. Rotelle, trans. Roland J. Teske, vol. 24, The Works of Saint Augustine: A Translation for the 21st Century (New City Press, 1998), 442; italics original;
Contra Iulianum, 5.3.4, 14.
FROM THE ENCHIRIDION (AD 421–422)
III. THE ISSUE OF HIS INTERPRETATION OF 1 TIM 2:4
To be continued...
Post Joseph Pohle, Grace, Actual and Habitual: A Dogmatic Treatise, ed. Arthur Preuss, 5th ed. (B. Herder, 1924), 160–62 and his explanation of Augustine on 1 Tim 2:4 involving the distinction between God’s antecedent and consequent will.
Examine Alexander Y. Hwang, “Augustine’s Interpretations of 1 Tim. 2:4 in the Context of His Developing Views of Grace,” Studia Patristica 43 (2006): 137–41; and Roland Teske, S.J., “1 Timothy 2:4 and the Beginnings of the Massalian Controversy,” in Grace for Grace: The Debates After Augustine and Pelagius, ed. Alexander Y. Hwang, Brian J. Matz, and Augustine Casiday (The Catholic University of America Press, 2014), 14–34.
IV. AN ANALYSIS OF JEAN DAILLÉ’S CASE
To be continued...
V. THE VIEWS OF AUGUSTINE’S EARLY DISCIPLES
Prosper, Quodvultdeus, Paulus Orosius of Braga, Fulgentius, Caesarius of Arles, et al.
To be continued...
VI. THE VIEWS OF AUGUSTINE’S LATER DISCIPLES
Florus of Lyon, Remigius of Lyon, Gottschalk, Aquinas, Hugh of Saint Victor, Jansen, et al.
To be continued...
