St. Augustine and Double Predestination

[ShyBoy]

I was talking to some Calvinists the other day and one of them made the claim that St. Augustine taught Double-Predestination (the doctrine that God unconditionaly and activly predestines some people to Hell).

Is this true?

[StCsDavid]

Check out this article

http://www.ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/AUGUSTIN.htm

[RyanL]

How deep do you want to go with this?

Here's a 12-page rebuttal to Calvinist James White's position on "Double Predestination", which includes a lengthy section on St. Augustine's stance. It's by Robert Sungenis, who isn't currently in good standing with Catholic Answers, but from what I have read it is doctrinally and historically sound.

God Bless,
RyanL

[Contarini]

Originally Posted by ShyBoy

I was talking to some Calvinists the other day and one of them made the claim that St. Augustine taught Double-Predestination (the doctrine that God unconditionaly and activly predestines some people to Hell).

Is this true?

He isn't as explicit about it as Calvin, but he does seem to teach a form of double predestination, yes. The catch would be "actively," I think. I don't think Augustine was worrying much about that distinction. One of Calvin's sillier moves was rejecting the distinction between God's action and permission. On the other hand, there are times when the differences between Augustine (or even Aquinas) and Calvin do seem largely verbal--at least on the basic issue of double predestination. Of course there are other significant differences, such as Calvin's teaching regarding the perseverance of all the regenerate.

Edwin

[Catholic Dude]

Originally Posted by RyanL

How deep do you want to go with this?

Here's a 12-page rebuttal to Calvinist James White's position on "Double Predestination", which includes a lengthy section on St. Augustine's stance. It's by Robert Sungenis, who isn't currently in good standing with Catholic Answers, but from what I have read it is doctrinally and historically sound.

God Bless,
RyanL

Thanks a lot for this link, Im not done reading it yet, but here is a quote I loved that Sungenis said on page 2:

"Since Dr. White has brought up the name of Norman Geisler, I think it is worth mentioning here that Norman Geisler is one of the most respected and well-known theologian/philosphers in the Evangelical world. He appears on the same radio programs that Dr. White appears (The Bible Answer Man; Janet Parcell's America, etc), but on these programs he teaches an almost totally opposite view of John 6 and Predestination than Dr. White. It is ironic that two men, with two entirely different views on Salvation, can appear on the same program with the same hosts, and yet both be touted as faithful interpreters of the Bible."

[Gottle of Geer]

Originally Posted by Contarini

He isn't as explicit about it as Calvin, but he does seem to teach a form of double predestination, yes. The catch would be "actively," I think. I don't think Augustine was worrying much about that distinction. One of Calvin's sillier moves was rejecting the distinction between God's action and permission.

## Is it really a valid distinction to make ? What is odd, is that he sometimes uses the language of permission, yet at others he rejects the very idea that God "permits" anything.

On Romans 1.24:

...As to the manner in which God gives up or delivers men to wickedness, it is by no means necessary in this place to discuss a question so intricate, (longam — tedious.) It is indeed certain, that he not only permits men to fall into sin, by allowing them to do so, and by conniving at them; but that he also, by his equitable judgment, so arranges things, that they are led and carried into such madness by their own lusts, as well as by the devil. He therefore adopts the word, give up, according to the constant usage of Scripture; which word they forcibly wrest, who think that we are led into sin only by the permission of God: for as Satan is the minister of God’s wrath, and as it were the executioner, so he is armed against us, not through the connivance, but by the command of his judge. God, however, is not on this account cruel, nor are we innocent, inasmuch as Paul plainly shows, that we are not delivered up into his power, except when we deserve such a punishment. Only we must make this exception, that the cause of sin is not from God, the roots of which ever abide in the sinner himself; for this must be true, “Thine is perdition, O Israel; in me only is thy help.”
(Hosea 13:9) [1]....

http://ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom38.htm

He can certainly claim a good deal of Biblical support, whether in Job, Amos, or 2 Thessalonians, for example, for the above conceptualisation of God's activity; what he seems always to avoid, is making God the Author of sin.
##

On the other hand, there are times when the differences between Augustine (or even Aquinas) and Calvin do seem largely verbal--at least on the basic issue of double predestination. Of course there are other significant differences, such as Calvin's teaching regarding the perseverance of all the regenerate.

Edwin

[Lazerlike42]

From what I understand, the Church's stance on predestination is that it happens but there is no official stance on exactly what that means.

Jimmy Akin has done some writing on this. In his book The Salvation Controversy he explains how close a faithful Catholic can get to the Calvanist position and how far away a faithful Catholic is allowed to get.