The Arminian/Calvinism Conflict and Why It Matters | Part Three

This series is from the From the Editor’s Desk column of the Sword and Trumpet. The articles were co-authored by Paul Emerson and myself.

In this series on Arminianism vs Calvinism, we will attempt to briefly discuss Aurelius Augustine because of his contribution to the controversy by writing against the errors of Pelagius. Augustine was born on November 14, 354. He was converted to Christianity in 386, was baptized by Ambrose in 387, and died on August 28, 430.

Augustine is an unusual character in church history. He is claimed by both Roman Catholics and Protestants. His writings need to be divided into early Augustine and later Augustine in order to understand his positions. For example, his early writings appear consistent with the position of present-day classical Arminianism and his later writings appear consistent with present day Calvinism. However, what is called Augustinian theology generally follows his later writings.

Augustine interacted with Pelagius and his followers between 412 and 430. At first, his interaction was cordial. He was slow to call Pelagius a heretic, preferring to see him as spiritually sick in need of healing, not as too diseased for a cure. As the disagreement progressed, however, he become convinced that what Pelagius taught was “anti-Christian.”[1] Pelagianism was marked by a zeal for godliness, but in many ways it was a zeal not according to knowledge.

Pelagius believed that God’s grace was given according to merit. Additionally, he taught that a Christian had everything necessary within himself to live according to God’s commands, denying that grace is essential. He said, “Earthly riches came from others, but your spiritual riches no one can have conferred on you but yourself; for these, you are justly praised…for they can exist only from yourself and in yourself.”[2] Augustine responded by saying, “Let her not listen to him who says, ‘No one can confer them on you but yourself, and they cannot exist except from you and in you,’ but to him who says, ‘We have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.’”

Augustine aimed for a balanced view, urging a correspondent in a letter that he turn aside neither to the left hand of the Pelagian error of upholding free will in such a manner as to deny grace, nor to the right hand of the equal error of so upholding grace as if we might yield ourselves to evil with impunity.[3] As B.B. Warfield notes, Augustine emphasized that “both grace and free will must be defended, and neither so exaggerated as to deny the other.”[4]

Augustine demonstrated a great mind and served the church well by identifying and rooting out heresy. He identified the errors of the Manichaeans, the Donatists, and the Pelagians. However, he was not immune from some heresies himself. He was definitely a “tall man” on the timeline of church history, yet we would strongly hesitate to identify with him. The following from his “Confessions” provides a window into his heart.

“Great are you, O Lord, and greatly to be praised; great is your power, and of your wisdom there is no end. Man, being a part of your creation, longs to praise you. He carries his mortality with him, the sign of his sin, the proof that you thwart the proud. Yet man, as a part of your creation, still longs to praise you. You arouse us to delight in praising you, for you have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless until they find rest in you.”


[1] Warfield, B.B., Augustine and the Pelagian Controversy.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

2 thoughts on “The Arminian/Calvinism Conflict and Why It Matters | Part Three

  1. An interesting thing about Augustine is that it is not at all clear that what he meant by “free will” is the same thing that most of us today in 21st century America mean by “free will.” This troubles contemporary attempts to appropriate his thought in favor of (or in opposition to) certain theological positions. The essential thing, of course, is to be clear regarding what we mean *now* by the phrase “free will,” but this is more difficult than a first glance might reveal, as it necessarily involves examining both the nature of freedom and the nature of the human will, and then exploring what it means for this thing called “the will” to be “free.” I’m interested to read more in this series that might explore these questions (even if tangentially!).

    I have a small suggestion regarding a quotation, as I was confused by this at first: the second sentence in the fifth paragraph should perhaps make it clear that the part in quotation marks is *not* a direct quotation from Augustine, but is rather a quotation of Warfield’s paraphrase of Augustine. (Also, this might just be a typographical error, and if so I apologize for being so pedantic, but the first sentence of the same paragraph is missing quotation marks around the direct quotation of Warfield.)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *