Third, Augustine’s view of particular or electing grace stood in opposition to Cassian’s theology of the universal availability of salvation. Augustine said, talking about Romans 9, “Here is mercy and judgment, mercy towards the election which has obtained the righteousness of God, but judgment to the rest which have been blinded.” Augustine believed that everyone who comes to the Father for salvation has first heard from the Father and everyone who does not come has not heard from the Father. Leaning on passages like John 6:37 he says, “For if everyone who has heard from the Father, and has learned, comes, certainly everyone who does not come has not heard from the Father; for if he had heard and learned, he would come.” In other words, if one is to come to the Father they must come by the drawing power of the Spirit, which proceeds from the Father. We are commanded on one hand to come to the Father for salvation while on the other we are told that unless there is a change of nature we will not come on our own accord. This is why there is a clear juxtaposition in Augustine of the sovereignty of God and the responsibility of man. Because we are commanded to come and yet we will never do so apart from a divine sovereign act of God.
Cassian saw God’s love being extended to all in the universal offering of salvation, and could not stand the idea that God’s love could be at all selective. Cassian says, “for if He willeth not that one of His little ones should perish, how can we imagine without grievous blasphemy that He does not generally will all men, but only some instead of all to be saved?” According to Cassian’s theology of God’s love, there was required in it a fair chance for all people. In other words, Cassian thought if God really loved people, He would not give the command of moral perfection and then disable the will, this would be completely unfair and would destroy a true responsibility on man’s part to come to Christ for salvation. If people could turn themselves to God by their own will, then God would only have to see, or forsee, who would create in themselves the spark of faith, and predestine them to eternal life on that basis. Cassian seems to muddle the functions of the faculties of the soul and not demonstrating a clear understanding of the will as a function of the heart within the perimeters of a sovereign God.
The more biblical understanding of the relationship between the sovereignty of God and human responsibility is better framed by Augustine in his work, On the Predestination of the Saints than by John Cassian in his work, On the Protection of God. Augustine presents a more biblical understanding of the relationship between the sovereignty of God and human responsibility than does John Cassian in several ways. First, Augustine says that even the beginning of faith is of God’s gift while Cassian believes man is capable, in himself, to choose good. Second, Augustine taught that original sin had left humanity in a state of death and there is a total inability to do anything apart from divine intervention. Cassian held that man must be capable of some motion toward God and he proposes that the will of man was not completely dead to sin. Third, Augustine’s view of particular or electing grace stood in opposition to Cassian’s theology of the universal availability of salvation. Augustine did not deny that fallen man still has a will and that the will is capable of making choices. He argued that fallen man still has a free will but has lost his moral liberty and is in bondage to sin, which is no freedom at all. It is only a work of divine grace that frees the will that is under bondage and makes man able, only, to choose that which is most lovely to him, which at that point, is God and God alone.
Filed under: Augustine, Books, Church History, Doctrine, Heresy, Justification, Man, Salvation, Sovereignty
