# In what sense was St. Augustine a Calvinist?



## Anglicanorthodoxy (Jun 23, 2017)

I'm about to start reading On Christian Doctrine, by St. Augustine. I see many Reformed people ( and some on this board) refer to Augustine as a Calvinist. In which of his works does he discuss his views on predestination? In what sense was he a Calvinist? I know St. Augustine influenced Calvin, but would he affirm the 5 Points of Calvinism?


----------



## Jake (Jun 23, 2017)

Maybe a better way to say it was that Calvin was an Augustinian. He quoted Augustine extensively in his Institutes. Warfield said (don't know the exact quote) that the Reformation was a triumph of Augustine's soteriology over his ecclesiology. 

That said, Augustinian wasn't full fledged Calvinism (in the sense of the five points), but it was monergism against the synergism of Pelagius. You might be interested in this article: http://www.leaderu.com/theology/augpelagius.html


----------



## Justified (Jun 23, 2017)

He believed in absolute, unconditional election. All those elected received the gift of perseverance. Salvation was wholly gratuitous, procured by the grace of God alone. So far, so Augustinian; even Lutherans can agree this far.

One cannot, for Augustine, however, infer that one is elect from this, for many people who are really Christians _will _and _have _fall away. Justification, sanctification, glorification are all gratuitous and monergistic, but Auggy doesn't believe in justification by faith alone. We can't really defend him either by saying he didn't know Greek. He knew probably as much-- if not more-- than the average seminarian. It was just his reading of Paul, for good or ill, and he was probably wrong.

Election for Augustine, unlike for the Reformers, is not a matter of assurance. In Reformed theology, one can infer from the practical syllogism that he is elect, and thus derive assurance. Not for Auggy.

It's only a couple small steps away to what some of the Reformers did; the Reformers would argue that Augustine's doctrine of sola gratia strictly implies sola fide; they also extended the gift of perseverance to all Christians; hence, a Christian can now infer that they are elect, and thus have assurance.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 23, 2017)

Justified said:


> He believed in absolute, unconditional election. All those elected received the gift of perseverance. Salvation was wholly gratuitous, procured by the grace of God alone. So far, so Augustinian; even Lutherans can agree this far.
> 
> One cannot, for Augustine, however, infer that one is elect from this, for many people who are really Christians _will _and _have _fall away. Justification, sanctification, glorification are all gratuitous and monergistic, but Auggy doesn't believe in justification by faith alone. We can't really defend him either by saying he didn't know Greek. He knew probably as much-- if not more-- than the average seminarian. It was just his reading of Paul, for good or ill, and he was probably wrong.
> 
> ...


Augustine still held to some erroneous catholic viewpoints still though.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 23, 2017)

Monergism =/= Calvinism. I can find passages from Anselm and Aquinas where they affirm election and maybe even grace alone (depending on how you define grace), but they aren't Calvinists.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 23, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Augustine still held to some erroneous catholic viewpoints still though.



I wouldn't say it like that, for that implies a certain historical continuity for Rome that I deny they have.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 23, 2017)

ReformedReidian said:


> I wouldn't say it like that, for that implies a certain historical continuity for Rome that I deny they have.


He did hold to their water baptism regeneration views I believe, as well as their eschatology views, and views on what the church is.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 23, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> He did hold to their water baptism regeneration views I believe, as well as their eschatology views, and views on what the church is.


 Problematic, yes, but that implies that what we call the "Catholic church" existed back then. Elements of it existed in some embryonic form, to be sure.


----------



## Justified (Jun 23, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> He did hold to their water baptism regeneration views I believe, as well as their eschatology views, and views on what the church is.


 So do Lutherans, some Anglicans, and even, gasp, some Reformed theologians. Its been a theologoumenon in the Church basically since its inception (depending on whether you think it is taught in the New Testament). All I am trying to press home is that, if it is an error, it is not a distinctly Roman Catholic error.

To build on Jacob, while we must admit that Roman Catholicism developed some of Augustine's thought in a direction other than most Protestants, this doesn't mean that he's "their guy." This assumes a kind of continuity that it is definitely debatable. All of this to say, post-Tridentine/Vatican II Catholicism is not the Catholicism (read Christianity) of the Fathers.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 23, 2017)

The problem with doctrines was happening early on, as even some of the early Church fathers had departed in areas form the scriptures themselves.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Jun 23, 2017)

This might be of help, *Augustine’s Calvinism: The Doctrines of Grace in Augustine’s Writings.*

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 24, 2017)

Also best to not use the word Calvinist when speaking of historical figures. It avoids the anachronistic fallacy (and its accompanying word = concept fallacies). Further, the term Calvinism has a tendency to reduce the Reformed faith to 5 points and ignores all of the nuances of covenant, liturgy, eschatology, and church government.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 24, 2017)

ReformedReidian said:


> Also best to not use the word Calvinist when speaking of historical figures. It avoids the anachronistic fallacy (and its accompanying word = concept fallacies). Further, the term Calvinism has a tendency to reduce the Reformed faith to 5 points and ignores all of the nuances of covenant, liturgy, eschatology, and church government.


Calvinism as a theology happened in a formal sense after John Calvin himself, as his followers took what he wrote and expanded on it, to flesh it put so to speak.
And today, reformed and Calvinists now are seen as being distinct from each other, or at least as there are some differences between these 2 groups.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 24, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Calvinism as a theology happened in a formal sense after John Calvin himself, as his followers took what he wrote and expanded on it, to flesh it put so to speak.
> And today, reformed and Calvinists now are seen as being distinct from each other, or at least as there are some differences between these 2 groups.



Which is why we should never use the word Calvinist. Reformed is so much better on every point.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 24, 2017)

To say Calvinist is to imply that Calvin is the font of our thought. But that is refuted on the following:

1) Calvin considered Bucer to be his superior. Should we be called Bucerians? (I actually like that).
2) Vermigli disagreed with Calvin on points and was probably a better technical scholar, yet is Vermigli subservient to Calvin?
3) William Perkins was a supralapsarian and had a different view of Church Government, yet is he a Calvinist?


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 24, 2017)

ReformedReidian said:


> Which is why we should never use the word Calvinist. Reformed is so much better on every point.


The term though, Calvinism, has by now become pretty much the standard term used, but the problem is that there are a wide range of what that actually means in regards to theology.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 24, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The term though, Calvinism, has by now become pretty much the standard term used, but the problem is that there are a wide range of what that actually means in regards to theology.



And because of that extensive use it now has a new identifiable meaning: low-church pop evangelicalism that holds to the sovereignty of God in salvation (but not necessarily in church government, covenant, or worship)


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 26, 2017)

ReformedReidian said:


> And because of that extensive use it now has a new identifiable meaning: low-church pop evangelicalism that holds to the sovereignty of God in salvation (but not necessarily in church government, covenant, or worship)


The other interesting discussion points would be in regards to real differences between how Reformed Presbyterian and Reformed Baptists in areas such as church government, worship, and just how to view children within the Covenant promises.


----------

