Augustine: father of Western theology

               Augustine had been a Manichean before his conversion to Christianity and his engagement with Manichean ideas would shape Christian views on both the nature (and “origins”) of good and evil as well as personal holiness.  Manichaeism was essentially dualist, believing the universe to be “governed” by two equal and opposite powers – i.e. good and evil – engaged in an eternal cosmic “duel”.  Augustine would come to reject this worldview, and insist that the Bible portrayed one, all-powerful Creator God, who had neither equal nor rival.  Although a cursory reading of the Gospels might give one the impression that Satan is God’s counterpart, the Hebrew Scriptures portray ha satan as a member of the (heavily populated) heavenly court, a sort of “public prosecutor”.  Eventually, the image of Lucifer/Satan as a fallen angel (i.e. creature) would become the predominant view, according to which Satan was engaged in resentful and futile rebellion against the Creator until such time that God would decree his destruction (cf. Book of Revelation).  Along with cosmic dualism, Manichaeism taught an anthropological dualism, i.e. that between flesh/spirit.  This human duality led to a certain antinomianism, according to which what was done with and in the body was of negligible moral import, since “spirit” was what really mattered.  Over against this, Augustine taught a holistic anthropology, in which both body and spirit/soul were created by God and belonged to God.  Thus, Christians were responsible for submitting their bodies (bodily passions) to God by obedience to divine law, all in the hope of future resurrection.

                When it comes to Donatism, Augustine’s arguments against the disciples of Donatus would especially influence the Christian view of the relationship between Church and state as well as sacramental theology.  Augustine endorsed an ecclesiology according to which the Church was in a partnership with the imperial authorities for the maintenance of law and order, the safeguarding of orthodoxy and the “disciplining” of heresy.  Perhaps based on a “quietist” reading of Romans 13.1-7, Augustine’s view of “the state” was that of a servant of the divine will, instituted for the protection of the vulnerable and the punishment of evil(doers).  As Constantine had desired, Augustine believed that the Church and the state were in a symbiotic relationship – i.e. the unity of the Church served imperial interests, and imperial “muscle” could be called upon to maintain ecclesial unity.  When it came to the efficacy of the sacraments, contra the Donatists, Augustine held that the sacraments effected what they symbolized, and that regardless of the virtue of the officiant (or lack thereof).  This would give rise to the theory of ex opere operato, the view that the sacraments contained an innate power, granted that the correct form and matter were used (e.g. as long as a baptism is done with water, accompanied by a trinitarian formula, it is valid and accomplishes the sacramental goal of this rite).

                Regarding Pelagianism, Augustine’s refutation of Pelagius’ soteriology would have the greatest impact on subsequent western theologizing, both within the Roman Catholic and (major) Protestant traditions, especially regarding the nature of salvation/sanctification.  Augustine’s rejection of the notion of innate human goodness, which would allow people to “pull themselves up by their own moral bootstraps”, would give rise, in his thought, to the need for extrinsic “means of grace”.  These would include such concepts as baptismal and/or “elective” regeneration of the (previously) spiritually dead individual, and would lead – in some forms of Calvinism/Jansenism – to a heavy (morbid?) emphasis on double predestination.  In the Reformed tradition, this would be expressed in terms of “the sovereignty of God”.  Closely tied to all this is the notion that sin has so corrupted our (free) will, that we are no longer “free” to choose the good, but are rather “slaves of sin” (cf. Rom. 6), who can only be delivered by a sovereign act of God.  In the 16^th century and subsequently, this would be cashed out in terms of “monergistic” vs. “synergistic” views of salvation.  Whereas (most) Roman Catholic thinkers would insist on our ability to cooperate with God’s grace, those of a more Reformed bent would insist that we (elect) are the passive recipients of the sovereign grace of God.  So much for (initial and/or eternal) salvation.  When it comes to sanctification, it seems difficult to exclude the believer’s will from the equation.  If regeneration does indeed restore the elect’s capacity to obey God, well and good.  But it remains difficult for me to differentiate between this cooperation with a previous sovereign act of God and some form of synergism, which could be understood to begin with the believer’s initial (conscious) response to God’s grace at the moment of (initial) conversion.  Who can plumb the depths of the mysterious workings of God (cf. Rom. 11)?