The Monastic Pint Answers from church history on today's questions

The history of predestination: augustine to arminius

What Christian writers said, from about AD 378 to 1949.

43 passages · 10 writers · 5 centuries

The short answer

Schaff says Augustine developed the doctrine during the Pelagian controversy, and Berkhof says he came to see predestination as in no way dependent on God's foreknowledge of human actions. Schaff says the Synod of Orange (529) approved Augustine's views of sin and grace but left his view of predestination open, and that the Latin church never committed itself to his scheme. Schaff says the Gottschalk controversy ended in a victory of Semi-Augustinianism, and Berkhof says the semi-Pelagians reasserted a predestination based on foreknowledge. Boettner and Schaff say Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin held the doctrine strongly, and Schaff says the Formula of Concord disclaimed reprobation and weakened Luther's doctrine of predestination. Trent says no one ought to presume to know he is among the predestinate, Philaret's catechism quotes the Eastern view that God predestined those he foresaw would use free will well, and Schaff says Arminianism teaches a conditional election.

Augustine and the early church

12 passages · 6 writers · 300s to 1900s

Augustine says the Church has never failed to hold the faith of predestination, which he says is now being defended with new solicitude against modern heretics. Berkhof says Augustine came to see predestination as in no way dependent on God's foreknowledge of human actions, and that he taught a double predestination in which predestination unto death also takes account of man's sin. Schaff writes that Augustine developed the doctrine only during the Pelagian controversy and that, strictly speaking, he recognizes only a decree of election to salvation. Schaff describes the Semi-Pelagian view as holding that divine grace and the human will jointly accomplish conversion, with a predestination to salvation conditioned by the foreknowledge of faith. Hodge says the Semi-Pelagians denied that grace is irresistible so as to avoid the conclusion that God has mercy on whom he will, and that Augustine taught that God is sovereign in election and reprobation. Schaff says the Synod of Orange (529) condemned the Semi-Pelagian error and approved Augustine's views of sin and grace but left his view of predestination open. Ambrose says God did not predestinate before he knew, but predestinated the reward of those whose merits he foreknew.

428–429 · Augustine of Hippo, On the Gift of Perseverance (De dono perseverantiae) 23.65

These things, therefore, which the Church asks from the Lord, and always has asked from the time she began to exist, God so foreknew that He would give to His called, that He has already given them in predestination itself; as the apostle declares without any ambiguity. For, writing to Timothy, he says, “Labour along with the gospel according to the power of God, who saves us, and calls us with His holy calling, not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the times of eternity, but is now made manifest by the coming of our Saviour Jesus Christ.” Let him, therefore, say that the Church at any time has not had in its belief the truth of this predestination and grace, which is now maintained with a more careful heed against the late heretics; let him say this who dares to say that at any time it has not prayed, or not truthfully prayed, as well that unbelievers might believe, as that believers might persevere. And if the Church has always prayed for these benefits, it has always believed them to be certainly God’s gifts; nor was it ever right for it to deny that they were foreknown by Him. And thus Christ’s Church has never failed to hold the faith of this predestination, which is now being defended with new solicitude against these modern heretics.

1866 · Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity, A.D. 311-600 9.159

Semi-Pelagianism is a somewhat vague and indefinite attempt at reconciliation, hovering midway between the sharply marked systems of Pelagius and Augustine, taking off the edge of each, and inclining now to the one, now to the other. The name was introduced during the scholastic age, but the system of doctrine, in all essential points, was formed in Southern France in the fifth century, during the latter years of Augustine’s life and soon after his death. It proceeded from the combined influence of the pre-Augustinian synergism and monastic legalism. Its leading idea is, that divine grace and the human will jointly accomplish the work of conversion and sanctification, and that ordinarily man must take the first step. It rejects the Pelagian doctrine of the moral soundness of man, but rejects also the Augustinian doctrine of the entire corruption and bondage of the natural man, and substitutes the idea of a diseased or crippled state of the voluntary power. It disowns the Pelagian conception of grace as a mere external auxiliary; but also, quite as decidedly, the Augustinian doctrines of the sovereignty, irresistibleness, and limitation of grace; and affirms the necessity and the internal operation of grace with and through human agency, a general atonement through Christ, and a predestination to salvation conditioned by the foreknowledge of faith.

1892 · Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 8: Modern Christianity, The Swiss Reformation 14.112

Augustin himself developed it only during the Pelagian controversy; while in his earlier writings he taught the freedom of the human will against the fatalism of the Manichaeans. It triumphed in the Latin Church over Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism, which were mildly condemned by the Synod of Orange (529). But his doctrine of an absolute predestination, which is only a legitimate inference from his anthropological premises, was indirectly condemned by the Catholic Church in the Gottschalk controversy (853), and in the Jansenist controversy (1653), although the name and authority of the great doctor and saint were not touched.

1949 · Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology 1.2.2

At first, Augustine himself was inclined to this view, but deeper reflection on the sovereign character of the good pleasure of God led him to see that predestination was in no way dependent on God's foreknowledge of human actions, but was rather the basis of the divine foreknowledge. His representation of reprobation is not as unambiguous as it might be. Some of his statements are to the effect that in predestination God foreknows what He will Himself do, while He is also able to foreknow what He will not do, as all sins; and speak of the elect as subjects of predestination, and of the reprobate as subjects of the divine foreknowledge. In other passages, however, he also speaks of the reprobate as subjects of predestination, so that there can be no doubt about it that he taught a double predestination. However, he recognized their difference, consisting in this that God did not predestinate unto damnation and the means unto it in the same way as He did to salvation, and that predestination unto life is purely sovereign, while predestination unto eternal death is also judicial and takes account of man's sin.

The Middle Ages

9 passages · 4 writers · 1800s to 1900s

Schaff says both parties in the ninth-century contest appealed to Augustine, the Augustinian party holding absolute predestination and the Semi-Augustinian party a conditional predestination. Schaff says absolute predestination was defended in substantial agreement with Gottschalk by Prudentius, Ratramnus, Servatus Lupus, and Remigius, and confirmed by the Synod of Valence in 855, while Rabanus Maurus, Hincmar, and Pardulus advocated free will and conditional predestination. Schaff says the Synod of Valence affirmed a twofold predestination, with qualifications meant to save the holiness of God and the moral responsibility of man. Schaff says the controversy ended in a defeat of predestinarianism in its rigorous form and a victory of Semi-Augustinianism, and Berkhof says only Gottschalk and a few friends maintained double predestination and his voice was soon silenced. Schaff says the Latin church retained reverence for Augustine but never committed itself to his scheme of predestination, though Fulgentius of Ruspe and Isidore of Seville taught a twofold predestination. David S. Schaff writes that Duns Scotus held the predestination of the elect to be purely an act of God's determination and the non-elect to be reprobated in view of their foreseen demerit, though Duns seems also to hold that the elect merit eternal reward by good works. David S. Schaff also reports a lecturer at Merton who declared that the Church was running after Pelagius and who held that all things occur by the necessity of the first cause.

1885 · Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 4: Mediaeval Christianity, A.D. 590-1073 11.122

Both parties in the contest of the ninth century (leaving the isolated Scotus Erigena out of view) appealed to Augustin as the highest patristic authority in the Latin church. Both agreed in the Augustinian anthropology and soteriology, i.e. in the doctrine of a universal fall in Adam, and a partial redemption through Christ; both maintained that some men are saved by free grace, that others are lost by their own guilt; and both confined the possibility of salvation to the present life and to the limits of the visible church (which leads logically to the horrible and incredible conclusion that the overwhelming majority of the human race, including all unbaptized infants, are eternally lost). But the Augustinian party went back to absolute predestination, as the ultima ratio of God’s difference of dealing with the saved and the lost, or the elect and the reprobate; while the Semi-Augustinian party sought the difference rather in the merits or demerits of men, and maintained along-side with a conditional predestination the universal benevolence of God and the universal offer of saving grace (which, however, is merely assumed, and not at all apparent in this present life). The Augustinian scheme is more theological and logical, the Semi-Augustinian more churchly and practical. Absolute predestinarianism starts from the almighty power of God, but is checked by the moral sense and kept within the limits of infralapsarianism, which exempts the holy God from any agency in the fall of the race, and fastens the guilt of sin upon man. Relative predestinarianism emphasizes the responsibility and salvability of all men, but recognizes also their perfect dependence upon divine grace for actual salvation. The solution of the problem must be found in the central idea of the holy love of God, which is the key-note of all his attributes and works.

1885 · Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 4: Mediaeval Christianity, A.D. 590-1073 11.122

The main question was whether divine predestination or foreordination which all admitted as a necessary element of the Divine perfection, was absolute or relative; in other words, whether it embraced all men and all acts, good and bad, or only those who are saved, and such acts as God approves and rewards. This question necessarily involved also the problem of the freedom of the human will, and the extent of the plan of redemption. The absolute predestinarians denied, the relative predestinarians affirmed, the freedom of will and the universal import of Christ’s atoning death. The doctrine of absolute predestination was defended, in substantial agreement with Gottschalk, though with more moderation and caution, by Prudentius, Bishop of Troyes, Ratramnus, monk of Corbie, Servatus Lupus, Abbot of Ferrières, and Remigius, Archbishop of Lyons, and confirmed by the Synod of Valence, 855, and also at Langres in 859. The doctrine of free will and a conditional predestination was advocated, in opposition to Gottschalk, by Archbishop Rabanus Maurus of Mainz, Archbishop Hincmar of Rheims, and Bishop Pardulus of Laon, and confirmed at a synod of Chiersy, 853, and in part again at Savonnières, near Toul, in 859.

1885 · Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 4: Mediaeval Christianity, A.D. 590-1073 11.122

The Synod of Valence, which met at the request of the Emperor Lothaire in 855, endorsed, in opposition to Hincmar and the four chapters of the Synod of Chiersy, the main positions of the Augustinian system as understood by Remigius, who presided. It affirms a two-fold predestination (“praedestinationem electorum ad vitam et praedestinationem impiorum ad mortem”), but with such qualifications and distinctions as seemed to be necessary to save the holiness of God and the moral responsibility of man.

The Reformation and the confessions

9 passages · 2 writers · 1800s to 1900s

Schaff writes that Luther was fully agreed with Augustine on total depravity and predestination, and that the Formula of Concord disclaimed the doctrine of reprobation while teaching a particular and unconditional election and a universal vocation. Schaff says Melanchthon abandoned his early predestinarianism in 1535 and adopted the synergistic theory, which Luther allowed without adopting himself. Boettner says Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, and the other outstanding reformers were thorough-going predestinarians, and Schaff says all the Reformers at the outset, Melanchthon and Zwingli among them, adopted Augustine's denial of free will and his doctrine of predestination. Schaff says Augustine and Calvin are essentially agreed on the fall, total depravity, the slavery of the human will, and the sovereignty of saving grace, and that Calvin is clearer and more rigorous. Schaff says the Consensus Genevensis and the French, Belgic, Scotch, Irish, and Westminster standards, the Lambeth Articles, and the Canons of Dort teach predestination, while the First Helvetic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, the Second Helvetic Confession, and the Anglican Articles indorse only the free election of believers and are silent about reprobation and preterition.

1866 · Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3: Nicene and Post-Nicene Christianity, A.D. 311-600 10.180

No church teacher did so much to mould Luther and Calvin; none furnished them so powerful weapons against the dominant Pelagianism and formalism; none is so often quoted by them with esteem and love. All the Reformers in the outset, Melancthon and Zwingle among them, adopted his denial of free will and his doctrine of predestination, and sometimes even went beyond him into the abyss of supralapsarianism, to cut out the last roots of human merit and boasting. In this point Augustine holds the same relation to the Catholic church, as Luther to the Lutheran; that is, he is a heretic of unimpeachable authority, who is more admired than censured even in his extravagances; yet his doctrine of predestination was indirectly condemned by the pope in Jansenism, as Luther’s view was rejected as Calvinism by the Form of Concord.

1888 · Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 7: Modern Christianity, The German Reformation 4.73

Luther stated this theory in stronger terms than Augustin or even Calvin; and he never retracted it,—as is often asserted,—but even twelve years later he pronounced his book against Erasmus one of his very best. Melanchthon, no doubt in part under the influence of this controversy, abandoned his early predestinarianism as a Stoic error (1535), and adopted the synergistic theory. Luther allowed this change without adopting it himself, and abstained from further discussion of these mysteries. The Formula of Concord re-asserted in the strongest terms Luther’s doctrine of the slavery of the human will, but weakened his doctrine of predestination, and assumed a middle ground between Augustinianism and semi-Pelagianism or synergism.

1892 · Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 8: Modern Christianity, The Swiss Reformation 14.113

The doctrine of predestination received the official sanction of the pastors of Geneva, who signed the Consensus Genevensis prepared by Calvin (1552). It was incorporated, in its milder, infralapsarian form, in the French Confession (1559), the Belgic Confession (1561), and the Scotch Confession (1560). It was more logically formulated in the Lambeth Articles (1595), the Irish Articles (1615), the Canons of Dort (1619), the Westminster Confession and Larger Catechism (1647), and the Helvetic Consensus Formula (1675). On the other hand, the First Helvetic Confession (1536), the Heidelberg Catechism (1563), the Second Helvetic Confession (1566), and the Anglican Articles (1571, Art. XVII.) indorse merely the positive part of the free election of believers, and are wisely silent concerning the decree of reprobation and preterition; leaving this to theological science and private opinion.

1892 · Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 8: Modern Christianity, The Swiss Reformation 14.112

Luther himself was fully agreed with Augustin on total depravity and predestination, and stated the doctrine of the slavery of the human will even more forcibly and paradoxically than Augustin or Calvin. But the Lutheran Church followed him only half way. The Formula of Concord (1577) adopted his doctrine of total depravity in the strongest possible terms, but disclaimed the doctrine of reprobation; it represents the natural man as spiritually dead like "a stone" or "a block," and teaches a particular and unconditional election, but also an universal vocation.

How the churches hold it

13 passages · 6 writers · 1500s to 1900s

The Council of Trent says no one ought to presume to determine for certain that he is among the predestinate, and anathematizes anyone who says a justified man is bound of faith to believe he is assuredly among them. Philaret of Moscow's catechism says God has predestined to give all men preparatory grace and sufficient means for happiness, and quotes the exposition of the Eastern Patriarchs that God, foreseeing that some would use free will well and others ill, predestined the former to glory and condemned the latter. Hodge reports that the later Lutheran theologians abandoned the ground of the Formula of Concord and teach that the objects of election are those whom God foresaw would believe and persevere, and he quotes Quenstedt as saying that the call offers the benefits of the Redeemer to all men with the serious intention that all be saved. Berkhof reports that many Lutheran theologians regard predestination as conditional rather than absolute, and quotes Krauth that the Lutheran Church has never believed that, to escape Pelagianism, it is necessary to run into the doctrine of absolute predestination. Hodge says that in the later Lutheran, Arminian, and Wesleyan schemes those who duly improve grace and persevere are ordained to be saved, while Augustinians hold that God determines who are saved. Schaff writes that Arminianism, as developed in Holland and among the Wesleyan Methodists, teaches a conditional election and a freedom of the will sufficient to accept or reject the universal offer of saving grace. Wesley says the doctrine of predestination obstructs the witness of the Spirit, and that many who do not hold it have enjoyed the uninterrupted witness of the Spirit. Schaff says modern Calvinism, at least among Presbyterian Churches, tends to deny reprobation and preterition or to leave them to metaphysical theology.

1546–1563 · Council of Trent, Canons and Dogmatic Decrees of the Council of Trent s6.c12

No one, moreover, so long as he is in this mortal life, ought so far to presume as regards the secret mystery of divine predestination, as to determine for certain that he is assuredly in the number of the predestinate; as if it were true, that he that is justified, either can not sin any more, or, if he do sin, that he ought to promise himself an assured repentance; for except by special revelation, it can not be known whom God hath chosen unto himself.

1830 · Philaret of Moscow, The Longer Catechism of the Orthodox, Catholic, Eastern Church 1.123

How are we to understand the predestination of God, with respect to men in general, and to each man severally? God has predestined to give to all men, and has actually given them preparatory grace, and means sufficient for the attainment of happiness.

1871 · Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 2 (Part II, Anthropology; Part III, Soteriology, chapters I-XIV) 3.1.5

Non-resistance to the grace of God, passively yielding to its power, is something good. It is something by which one class is favourably distinguished from another; and therefore the reason why they, rather than others, are saved, is to be referred to themselves and not to God, who gives the same grace to all. The later Lutheran theologians, therefore, have abandoned the ground of the “Form of Concord,” and teach that the objects of election are those whom God foresaw would believe and persevere in faith unto the end.

1871 · Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 2 (Part II, Anthropology; Part III, Soteriology, chapters I-XIV) 3.1.7

Those who duly improve that grace, and persevere to the end, are ordained to be saved; God purposes from eternity, to save those who He foresees will thus persevere in faith and holy living. It is plain that the main point of difference between the later Lutheran, the Arminian, and the Wesleyan schemes, and that of Augustinians is, that according to the latter, God, and according to the former, man, determines who are to be saved. Augustine taught that out of the fallen family of men, all of whom might have been justly left to perish in their apostasy, God, out of his mere good mercy, elected some to everlasting life, sent his Son for their redemption, and gives to them the Holy Spirit to secure their repentance, faith, and holy living unto the end.

1949 · Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology 1.2.1

It does not consistently take its starting point in God and consider all things as divinely pre-determined, but reveals a tendency to consider things from below rather than from above. And in so far as it does believe in pre-determination, it is inclined to limit this to the good that is in the world, and more particularly to the blessings of salvation. It is a striking fact that many Lutheran theologians are silent, or all but silent, respecting the doctrine of the decrees of God in general and discuss only the doctrine of pre-destination, and regard this as conditional rather than absolute. In the doctrine of predestination Lutheran theology shows strong affinity with Arminianism. Krauth (an influential leader of the Lutheran Church in our country) even says: "The views of Arminius himself, in regard to the five points, were formed under Lutheran influences, and do not differ essentially from those of the Lutheran Church; but on many points in the developed system now known as Arminianism, the Lutheran Church has no affinity whatever with it, and on these points would sympathize far more with Calvinism, though she has never believed that in order to escape from Pelagianism, it is necessary to run into the doctrine of absolute predestination. The 'Formula of Concord' touches the five points almost purely on their practical sides, and on them arrays itself against Calvinism, rather by the negation of the inferences which result logically from that system, than by express condemnation of its fundamental theory in its abstract form." In so far as Lutheran theologians include the doctrine of predestination in their system, they generally consider it in connection with Soteriology.