No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Lost and Found: Athanasius' Doctrine of Predestination
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2009
Extract
The traditional account of the history of the doctrine of predestination runs somewhat as follows: After the close of the apostolic era, Christians took little interest in the doctrine for the next three centuries. It was again brought into prominence during the early fifth century by Augustine, who was led, partly in reaction to Pelagianism, to formulate the doctrine in an extreme form. This produced a further reaction from a group of theologians led by Cassian, who regarded themselves as orthodox and as opponents of Pelagius, but who rejected the extreme Augustinian doctrine. It is generally considered that from a strictly logical point of view, there is more to be said for Augustine's doctrine, but that as he stated it it was found repugnant by many Christians. So Cassian and his followers are owed a certain debt for preventing the church from being saddled with the logical excesses of the greatest of the Latin fathers.1 All later statements, however, cannot but be Augustinian, Cassianite, or mediating positions between the two.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1976
References
page 435 note 1 This of course is the view of some theologians; possibly a majority view, obviously not universal.
page 435 note 2 Vol. 2, The Doctrine of God, Part 2 (T. and T. Clark, 1957) chapter 7, para. 33, pp. 108–110.
page 435 note 3 Thesis presented in part fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Ph.D., University of Edinburgh, Faculty of Divinity, 1963. The present author wishes to thank Professor Torrance for the recommendation of this work, and Edinburgh and Manchester University Libraries for enabling him to consult it.
page 436 note 1 Oration 1.3.17b speaks of Arius as already dead.
page 436 2 a Dr Holland discusses the date (op. cit., chap. 2, pp. 237–325), and argues for a date between 350 and 357, before or just after the beginning of the third exile of Athanasius (8th February 356). He suggests that Oration 3 may have been left incomplete on this date.
page 436 note 3 295 according to Dr Holland, op. cit., Introduction (Chronological Table), p. 2, following a Coptic encomium which states that Athanasius became Bishop on 8th June 328 at the age of 33.
page 436 note 4 op. cit., pp. 230X where Dr Holland says: (the commencement of Oration 2) ‘is more likely to be a half-polite, half-ironic apology for an unusually large amount of material, of the sort that is consistent with Greek literary manners’.
page 436 note 5 Oration 2.53, etc.
page 437 note 1 Quotations of Athanasius are from the Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, vol. 4 (St. Athanasius: Select Works and Letters), ed. Robertson, A. (Oxford: Parker and CompanyGoogle Scholar; New York: The Christian Literature Company, 1892). Robertson uses Newman's translation of 1844, slightly modified as he explains on p. 304. This reference is to Oration 2.72b, p. 388.
page 437 note 2 Dr Holland argues that the difficulty of Proverbs 8.23 and 8.25 ‘finally impels (Athanasius) to a supralapsarian theology.’ (op. cit., p. 904, cf. p. 900, note 384; also pp. 1090f, and Barth, op. cit., pp. 127–45.) In the sense intended by Barth and Dr Holland, that the incarnation was in God's plan even before the creation of the world, they are right that Athanasius became a supralapsarian; but a warning is necessary. Historically, as both writers are aware, ‘supralapsarian’ was originally the name of a theological party within the Calvinist churches. Its use here should not be taken to assume that Athanasius would have approved of the supralapsarian variety of Calvinism, or of Augustinianism.
page 437 note 3 Oration 2.75, p. 389.
page 437 note 4 Augustine appeals to God's omnipotence to explain why some men are predestinated to salvation by God's grace, and others left in the mass of perdition by his righteous judgment (see, e.g., De dono perseverantiae, para. 35; De Genes, ad Lit. Liber 2); then meets objections thus: ‘You, a man, expect an answer from me; I also am a man. Wherefore let us both listen to him who says “O man, who art thou?” Believing ignorance is better than presumptuous knowledge. Seek merits; you will find nothing but punishment. “Oh, the height…!” Peter denies, a thief believes.’ (De verb, apost. Serm. 20). The answer to Augustine is that no-one is denying his general point, that there are aspects of our salvation of which we must remain ignorant in this life; but that the doctrine of God's omnipotence is irrelevant to the correct identification of these aspects. From the Athanasian standpoint, Augustine ignores certain facts about predestination which may readily be deduced from scripture.
page 438 note 1 
page 439 note 1 The Olney hymn no. 6, ‘Ere God had built the mountains’ is based on Proverbs 8.22–31 and interprets it of salvation. Should Cowper be added to Polanus and Barth as a Reformed theologian who knew this passage of Athanasius?
page 440 note 1 op. cit., p. 110.
page 440 note 2 Dr Holland, op. cit., p. 1091, speaks of Athanasius' ‘wise silence … concerning the destiny of individuals as such, which issue has been the source of so much antagonism to doctrines of predestination in the past’. It was, however, precisely this silence that led to the neglect of Athanasius' doctrine in favour of others which seemed, superficially, to answer this question more adequately.
page 441 note 1 See TeSelle, E., Augustine the Theologian (London, Burns and Oates Ltd., 1970), pp. 165f, 177.Google Scholar
page 441 note 2 Note on Eph. 1.4f in Library of the Fathers (Oxford: John Henry Parker; London: J. G. F. and J. Rivington, Vol. 5 (inside; Vol. 6 on cover), translated W. J. Copeland, 1840). Homilies on Galatians and Ephesians, p. 104.
page 441 note 3 Note on John 6.65 in Library of the Fathers, vol. 36, Homilies on St. John, Part 2 (1852), p. 409.
See also Chrysostom's notes on Rom. 8.33, 9.11f, 11.2. On Rom. 8.33, though an opponent of horse-racing, he compares God electing men to a horse-breaker selecting colts for a race!
page 442 note 1 Gen. 18.18 and 22.18; discussed in Rom. 4 and Gal. 3.
page 442 note 2 Conditio infirmat promissionem…. Promissio autem ilia est quae nihil conditionis incurrit, sin minus nee promissio est firma nec fides integra. Text in Texts and Studies: Contributions to Biblical and Patristic Literature, ed. Robinson, J. Armitage, vol. 3 (Cambridge University Press, 1895), p. 22.Google Scholar
page 442 note 3 op. cit., p. 23: Noluerunt autem gentes credere.
page 442 note 4 op. cit., p. 22. Cogimur autem nos loqui ea quae sine igne doloris audire non possumus. Dicunt enim quidam, qui promissionum firmitatem et quae ex lege est transgressionem nesciunt, promisisse quidem Deum Abrahae omnes gentes, sed salvo libero arbilrio, si legem custodissent.
page 443 note 1 op. cit., p. 24. Invenimus autem et conditions ut: Si me audieritis et volueritis. … Satis enim stultum est et protervum credere in totum corpus convenire quod bipertito corpori dicitur.
page 443 note 2 op. cit., p. 182. It will be seen that, contrary to a widespread impression, the doctrine of predestination according to God's foreknowledge of human merit preceded in Church history, and did not follow, the doctrine of predestination according to the secret sovereign will of God.
page 443 note 3 op. cit., p. 110.
page 443 note 4 Not Book XII, 16, as in the translation of Barth's Church Dogmatics.
page 443 note 5 Titus 1.2f.
page 443 note 6 From Loeb Classical Library, translated by Levine, Philip (London: Heinemann; Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1966)Google Scholar. The Latin text differs a little from Barth's; Barth quotes in ipsius aeternitate atque in Verbo eius coaeterno; Loeb in eius aeternitate atque in ipso Verbo eius eidem coaeterno.
page 444 note 1 Book XV, c. 1.
page 444 note 2 Book XIV, c. 26.
page 445 note 1 Translation from Pelican edition by H. Bettenson (Penguin Books Ltd., 1972).
page 445 note 2 See c. 9 of the letter of Prosper of Aquitaine to Augustine, translated in de Letter, Ancient Christian Writers, vol. 32 (Westminster, Maryland, Newman Press; London, Longmans, Green and Co., 1963), pp. 38–48.
page 445 note 3 I follow Owen Chadwick, John Cassian, C.U.P., 1950. Professor Chadwick believes that Conference 13 was not written in 426 before the controversy broke out, but was evoked by the controversy. See p. 115f (note) and p. 188.
page 446 note 1 Translation from Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series vol. 11, Cassian translation by Gibson, E. C. S. (Oxford: Parker and Co; New York: Christian Literature Co., 1894)Google Scholar. Conference 17.25.14, p. 471.
page 446 note 2 op. cit., p. 132.
page 446 note 3 Conference 12, on Chastity.
page 447 note 1 Translation by E. C. S. Gibson, pp. 422f.
page 447 note 2 I am indebted to Professor Chadwick for bringing to my notice the Chrysostom references collected by A. Hoch in his Lehre des J. Cassianus von Natur und Gnade.
page 447 note 3 op. cit., c. 4, p. 424.
page 447 note 4 op. cit., c. 18, p. 434.
page 447 note 5 op. cit., c. 12, pp. 428f.
page 447 note 6 op. cit., c. 18, p. 435.
page 448 note 1 Later, the Augustinian Luther was to argue against the Cassianite Erasmus (De Servo Arbitrio, Part 6, W. A. 769–771) that ‘semi-Pelagianism’ of Cassian's kind was worse than straightforward Pelagianism, because Pelagianism at least teaches that man must use all his powers to attain to grace, thus recognising something of God's moral demands, whereas Cassianism teaches that we may attain to grace by ‘a very little thing; almost nothing’! I regard this as the scoring of a debating point rather than as a serious contribution to the discussion; but at least it shows that the minimal place Cassian gives to free-will is not necessarily an advantage.
page 448 note 2 Translation in de Letter, Ancient Christian Writers vol. 32 (Prosper of Aquitaine: Defense of St. Augustine) (Westminster, Maryland, Newman Press; London, Longmans, Green and Co., 1963), pp. 70–138.Google Scholar
page 448 note 3 De Correptione et Gratia 44; Enchiridion 103. This text is a good test for Augustinianism, as only the Augustinian feels a need to give it any but the natural meaning. Augustinian interpretations vary, sometimes God's will, sometimes ‘all’, and sometimes ‘salvation’ being reduced in meaning. Athanasius wrote before the text became controversial, and does not discuss it; but see his use of 2 Cor. 5.14 and Heb. 2.gf in De Incamatione, para. 10, and Second Oration against the Arians, para. 69.
page 449 note 1 See his Letter to Rufinus, cs. 13–15, in de Letter, op. cit., pp. 31ff.
page 449 note 2 Translated and edited by de Letter in Ancient Christian Writers, vol. 14 (Westminster, Maryland, 1952).Google Scholar
page 449 note 3 See de Letter, A.C.W. vol. 32, p. 194, note 40, and Introduction and notes, passim.
page 449 note 4 Contra Collatorem, c. 18.
page 449 note 5 One of the errors of Servetus was that he refused to accept the Athanasian doctrine of the eternity of the Son.
page 449 note 6 See his De aetema Praedestinatione Dei, VIII.2.
page 449 note 7 In his Introduction to his translation of the above, Concerning the Eternal Predestination of God (London, James Clarke and Co., 1961), p. 40.Google Scholar
page 450 note 1 Chapter 3, paragraph V.