(This was posted originally at theologicalsharpening.blogspot.com)
by Danny Pelichowski
Introduction
I read Augustine’s treatise ‘On Nature and Grace’ for my final primary resource reading assignment for my church history class. It has been a breath of fresh air because I was able to read with excitement and agreement more than being critical and in constant disagreement as I was with my past readings. For example Justin Martyr’s ‘first apology’ was very helpful from a historical perspective however I could not help but constantly disagree with many statements that he made throughout his writings due to his blending of platonic thought with Christianity, confused soteriology (baptismal regeneration, works righteousness, libertarian free will), inclusivistic beliefs about the philosopher’s eternal destiny, and his denial of the exclusivity of Christ. Surprisingly, there was also much to be cautious about in my second reading: Athanasius’ ‘On the Incarnation of the Word.’ Athanasius taught that God had to redeem fallen humanity from their “non-existent” evil state (contrary to Augustine) and restore the lost image or nature of God to man. He even goes so far as stating that God would be unjust if He had not become incarnate and redeem fallen humanity. Athanasius writes, “Surely it would have been better never to have been created at all than, having been created, to be neglected and perish; and, besides that, such indifference to the ruin of His own work before His very eyes would argue not goodness in God but limitation, and that far more than if He had never created men at all. It was impossible, therefore, that God should leave man to be carried off by corruption, because it would be unfitting and unworthy of Himself”. Athanasius was dead wrong in concluding that God must have redeemed people or else he would be morally in question because it is due to God’s unmerited grace alone that he chose to save anyone to begin with. My third reading report was Thomas Aquinas’ ‘Summa Theologica’ which was more Aristotelian than it was Christian and his natural reasoning for the existence of God was unbiblical and should be rejected. All this to say that Augustine was truly a breath of fresh air to read because although there were some things I disagreed with there is much more solid Biblical substance in Augustine than all of the first three authors combined.
Background
Augustine is writing against the monk Pelagius who taught that man’s nature was not distorted by sin. Pelagius believed that every baby born was in the same spot as Adam and Eve prior to the fall. He completely denied the necessity of the grace of God for a person to be saved and taught that everyone could by their own free will live perfect if they were willing. Pelagius taught that man by nature can be saved by living rightly. Augustine thought that Pelagius was wrong about the nature of man. He believed that man was dead in sins and trespasses and cannot be saved let alone do anything good apart from the grace of God. Augustine argued that if people are whole and unblemished by sin then there would be no need of a physician to heal them because they are not sick but righteous. This debate was at the heart of the Gospel and for that reason Augustine spoke very pointedly against Pelagius’ heretical teaching. Augustine wrote this about Pelagius; “I only wish that the ability he has displayed were sound and less like that which insane persons are accustomed to exhibit.”
What About the Heathen?
When dealing with the question about the fate of the heathen Augustine does not take the popular evangelical Arminian position. I was glad to see that he let Scripture determine his beliefs on this topic as opposed to his feelings and experience as many are in the habit of doing when discussing this issue. In light of a discussion of the possibility of a person being saved by doing good works and observing creation without God’s special revelation of the Bible Augustine reasons;
“Well, if this could have been done, or can still be done, then for my
part I have to say what the apostle said in regard to the law: “Then
Christ died in vain.” [1136] For if he said this about the law, which
only the nation of the Jews received, how much more justly may it be
said of the law of nature, which the whole human race has received, “If
righteousness come by nature, then Christ died in vain.” If, however,
Christ did not die in vain, then human nature cannot by any means be
justified and redeemed from God’s most righteous wrath–in a word, from
punishment–except by faith and the sacrament of the blood of Christ.”
After reading this quote I hope it is fairly obvious why I appreciated this reading so much more than any other reading assignment for this class. It is interesting that even though Augustine was writing so early (5th century) he was dealing with many of the same issues that are debated in our churches today. Praise God for Augustine’s example by standing up for the heart of the Gospel and proclaiming that the atonement would have been in vain if it were possible for people to be saved apart form divine revelation and faith in Christ. Augustine argued along with Paul that if man could be saved by works of the law then Christ died in vain. In the same way he argued that if man can be saved through nature apart from the Bible then Christ equally died in vain. It is an evangelical fairy tail that many pastors and theologians will tell that the heathen in unreached tribes are being saved through their observance of nature and conscience. This is simply unbiblical because only through faith in Christ can a man be saved and made right before God.
Concluding thoughts
There are many other aspects of Augustine’s thought that I would strongly agree with. He was particularly capable arguing his view and making known the foolishness of unbiblical beliefs on certain subjects. For example: many in the eastern tradition like Athanasius taught that man could be made divine (theosis). To this Augustine says that “all who maintain that our progress is to be so complete that we shall be changed into the substance of God, and that we shall thus become what He is, should look well to it how they build up their opinion; for myself I must confess that I am not persuaded of this.” Augustine’s point is amusingly valid that anyone who claims that a person can have the same substance as God (or become God) should look into how they came up with their position. This seems to be a very obvious point but many Christians today should heed Augustine’s advice. We should be testing others teaching with the word of God and insofar as their teaching aligns with Scripture we should commend and encourage them, but insofar as their teachings (as illustrated above) are contrary to the Scriptures we should as Augustine be skeptical at least and outspoken at best against these teachings. Let us speak out against heresy and keep close attention to our lives and teaching so that we would save both ourselves and those who hear us (emphasis added, see. 1 Tim 4:16). Augustine’s anti Pelagian treatise On Nature and Grace is the first book I have ever read by him and I look forward to much more in the future. This was a great introductory work indeed. I am thankful for the primary source reading assignments this past semester because I have been able to observe current theological issues in light of the formulations and debates about them throughout the history of the church.
