Did Augustine believe in predestination? Part I- free will

When, however, we speak of a free will to do what is right, we of course mean that liberty in which man was created. Chapter 81 of On Grace and Rebuke (aka On Admonition and Grace) written near the end of his life

One of the objections I've heard to Augustine believing in predestination is that he taught on free will.  For example, the all-knowing, always correct Wikipedia article on him says, "The Catholic Church considers Augustine's teaching to be consistent with free will. He often said that any can be saved if they wish".  Apparently, it does not look good to have one of the Catholic Church's two greatest theologians holding to one of the distinguishing doctrines of Reformers such as Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin.

Augustine did write at length on free will.  He had titles to his works such as On Free Choice (Will), On Grace and Free Will (Choice) .  But, I do not think his view of free will is the same as our contemporary view.

We view free will as the ability to decide on a course of action and do it.  For example, I decide I will not make an angry comment to another person and do not do it.  Augustine seems to stop his definition of free will at the first part- the decision.

In chapter 17 (16 in some versions) of On Grace and Rebuke, speaking on the taming of the tongue in James he sarcastically asks, Why should I pray to God that it be accorded me, if it may be had of man? Ought we not to object to this prayer lest injury be done to free will which is self-sufficient in the possibility of nature for discharging all duties of righteousness?  Later, speaking on the petition to lead us not into temptation, he comments, ...yet our will alone is not enough to secure its being done...2  He seems to be view the will as being able to do, go, and say whatever it wants, provided it does so within the confines of a prison cell.  The will appears to be free internally but enslaved externally to the flesh.  It's irrelevant if the will is free in regards to sin, it does not have power to do as it wishes For I suppose a blind man would like to see, but is unable; but whenever a man wishes to do a thing and cannot, there is present to him the will, but he has lost the capacity (chapter 59 or LI). 

He sees sin as destroying free will in chapter 30 of the Enchiridion (aka On Faith, Hope, and Love)
For it was in the evil use of his free will that man destroyed himself and his will at the same time. For as a man who kills himself is still alive when he kills himself, but having killed himself is then no longer alive and cannot resuscitate himself after he has destroyed his own life--so also sin which arises from the action of the free will turns out to be victor over the will and the free will is destroyed.

A few sentences down, he arrives at a conclusion that teaches freedom is relative He serves freely who freely does the will of his master. Accordingly he who is slave to sin is free to sin. But thereafter he will not be free to do right unless he is delivered from the bondage of sin and begins to be the servant of righteousness. One only goes from being enslaved to sin to enslaved to Christ. There is no absolute freedom to chose. 

Later, in chapter 75 of On Rebuke and Grace, he refers to Ambrose' teaching that man's will is prepared by God.  He deals with Pelagius' quote of Xystus by referring to his teaching on sanctification that it is indeed through God's love that men are to be like God-- even the love which is she abroad in our hearts, not by any ability of nature or the free will within us, but by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.  Here he teaches free will does not even play a role in perfecting us. 


In chapter 105 of the Enchiridion, Augustine describes man as passing through 3 phases regarding sin and free will:
1.  during creation, we had the ability to sin or not to sin posse non peccare et posse peccare
2.  after the fall, we only had the ability to sin  posse peccare
3.  after the establishment of the kingdom, we will not be able to will iniquit

To summarize, our wills, free or not, are powerless to choose God unless he enables them todo so.  Needless to say, this does not prove that Augustine held to predestination which I would describe as a combination of the doctrines of Irresistible Grace (if God decides to save someone, they will eventually yield to his grace) and Unconditional Election (God chooses some for undeserved salvation and others for deserved damnation regardless of whether they would have chosen him).  This post is simply to show that Augustine does not view free will in the same way it is debated among Calvinists, Lutherans, Catholics, and Arminians.  I will deal with Augustine's views on these topics in the future.

Have we got it right, yet?

Recently, I read a post that cited a number of examples of people claiming to be Christians and then saying and doing evil or stupid things and using the bible to defend their actions.  The writer ended with the following:

I wish I knew for sure what I would have done...but I don't. I'm humbled, and a little frightened, by how often true justice is only recognized as such in hindsight

This does present the Christian with a problem.  It seems that all of our attempts to apply scripture could be wrong. 


So, take the question from the same writer if your pastor told you that integration was "unbiblical" and MLK was a dangerous, anti-Christian communist, (which is what plenty of white pastors in the South did), which side would you have chosen?

With the communists controlling half the globe, desiring to take my property and religion from them, and pointing nuclear missiles at them, I can see how white people, even those who may not have it in for blacks, would be scared of King if they heard this kind of thing from their pastor.  I don't mean this to justify their actions, merely to explain.

Here's another example from Richard Foster's Challenge of the Disciplined Life, chapter 10: [Hitler] campaigned on a 25-point platform that included...a pledge to improve educational opportunities, a concern for "raising the standard of health in the nation", and a belief in "positive Christianity"

Again, I could see how people still reeling from the humiliation and the loss of millions in WWI and the chaos and hyper inflation of the Weimar Republic, might ignore Hitler's anti-semitic rants and support him (Perhaps the thinking was- I mean after all, Luther was an anti-semite and he was OK, right? Come on, "Germany is a civilized nation".  This is no different than things have always been...)

This inability to see what's really going and to try to fit God into our plans instead of follow his, seems it could lead to despair and frustration which is what I think read in Evans' blog. 

Being a Christian, I think God is just and merciful and guides us.  Not only do I believe the scriptures are a reliable guide, I think that inspite of man's sinfulness, we can still understand them and follow them.

Does the New Testament condone slavery?

It was commonly accepted by southern slave owners that God does support slavery.  Denominations were even formed over it.  Modern proponents of gay marriage use this as part of their argument to discard Biblical teaching and millenia of consistent church teaching on homosexuality.  The argument goes- the Bible, specifically the New Testament condones slavery and condemns homosexuality, we no longer accept the teaching on slavery, therefore we should discard the teaching on homosexuality, too.  But, is it that simple?

I.  Logical Leap #1- They assume that what the apostles referred to as slaves (Greek word doulos) equate to the enslaved people in the United States (north and south) until 1865. Specifically, they assume that they were either captives or descendants of captives.  I Corinthians 7:23 calls that into question.  Paul gives some instructions to Christians including "do not become slaves (douloi) of men".  Could the douloi that Paul is referring to be more akin to the indentured servants that committed to serve a patron for a few years in exchange for paying for their travel to the new world or to the debtor prisoners that settled Georgia? If these people were always enslaved through no fault of their own, why give this instruction?  We may not have private debtors prisons anymore, but it's a stretch to say having them is immoral or inherently unjust.

II.  Logical Leap #2- Even if Paul and Peter were talking to slaves as we think of them, that does not mean they were endorsing slavery when they commanded them to obey their masters.  If the slaves did the opposite of what they were instructing, what would happen? Look at how the Sparticus slave revolt had ended a century before- 6000 rebels were crucified for it.  Slave revolts have a bad track record for the rebels.  John the Baptist, Jesus, and Peter also welcomed soldiers.  I think we can agree that they did not also love the job they knew the soldiers did.  They simply told people how to live as God would have them in bad situations.

III.  A cultural problem- Westerners are raised with these narratives that show a struggle for freedom such as the colonials leaving the British, emancipation, the Civil Rights Movement, WWII, etc.  Jesus did not seem to care too much about defending our rights to life, liberty, and property in the secular realm.  Instead, he tells his followers to do things like turn the other cheek if someone slaps them.  If a Roman soldier attempted to impress or conscript someone to carry their burdens for a mile (as they claimed the right to do), Jesus said to go two miles.  He commanded us to love those that mistreat us with actions.  How are Peter and Paul telling slaves that are also in an unjust situation to love their masters any different? 

IV.  Omitted teachings-  I Corinthians 7:21, in addition to telling Christians to avoid becoming slaves, he tells those that already are to become free if opportunity presents itself.   In Philemon 16, Paul tells a slave's master to receive him as "no longer a slave but more more than a slave, a beloved brother".  Paul either meant for Philemon to free his slave Onesimus or he was telling him to love a slave which is a far cry from the atrocities committed in the Americas.  This may offend our sensitivities, but there are plenty of commands in the New Testament a part of me wishes were not there, too.  I don't want to turn the other cheek or go the extra mile, but Jesus says to. I don't want to love my enemies, but Jesus says to.

The Problem with Dawkins' Weasel Metaphor

A variation of the teleogical argument for the existence of God is the monkey's typing on  typewriters.  Evolution comes by pure chance.   Getting life as we see it today is about as likely as a monkey hacking away on a typewriter producing a Shakespearean play.  In other words, not very.
Take the line from Hamlet:

Methinks it is like a weasel

There are 28 characters in this phrase.  Each character can be one of 29 characters (28 letters +blank spaces).  So, the odds of a monkey randomly typing this are 29^29= 1 in 8.85*10^40.  That's just a part of the code.  If Hamlet is 4042 lines like this, then the odds of the monkey getting Hamlet by become much less.  If the monkey types at one stroke per second, it takes the monkey 31 hours to generate a draft.  Unless our monkey is lucky, we are waiting a long time for him to get it right. It's easier to see someone writing the play than a monkey getting lucky just like it's easier to see Someone guiding the development of life, specifically a DNA molecule, than random chance.
Richard Dawkins takes a stab at this argument with his weasel example (it actually involves weasels, I'm not talking trash about Dawkins)
HT to arstechnica:
At the other end of the spectrum, we have the weasel program, first discussed by Richard Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker. In this example, the target text is the Shakespeare line "Methinks it is like a weasel." The random typing of characters is considered to be analogous to the results of random mutation. But Dawkins adds a new step, analogous to natural selection: if any of the letters are right, they're retained as "fit." The rest get reshuffled and are tested again. Adding this selection step radically shortens the time it takes to arrive at the correct solution, since the monkey will never have to throw out any of its successful work and start over. 

Dawkins treats DNA as a storage unit for evolutionary information.  Organisms that do not have the required DNA are weeded out about via death.  This acts as the fit he refers to.  It eliminates repeat steps and makes the weasel more likely to type up a play though the odds remain 29!=29*28*27...1=8.84*10^30

The problem is that most mutations are either harmful or benign.  Instead of acting as a place holder, they act as erasers in these circumstances.  So, one mutation might help Dawkins' weasel get the M but the next one will probably erase the M (or the e or the k depending on how the far weasel goes) and send him back to the start.  Mutations create a problem for Dawkins, they do not help him and are still highly unlikely to get this by chance.