Continuing the discussion of David Allen’s book, Liberating Romans from Reformed Captivity, I would like to focus on a statement from early in the book where Dr. Allen is, again, arguing for novelty in Augustine.
Here is what Dr. Allen stated on page 17:
There is an interesting statement in a letter from Prosper to Augustine on this work further highlighting the novelty of Augustine’s views on predestination. He wrote, “. . . Quoting what the Apostle Paul wrote in his Epistle to the Romans (9:14-21) as proof of divine grace antecedent to the merits of the elect, they declare that these words have never been understood by an ecclesiastical writer as they are now understood [by you].”[35] This statement underscores the novelty of Augustine’s views on predestination toward the end of his life. (p. 17).
Below is more of the Letter from Prosper to Augustine in context. The italicized part corresponds to the italicized part in what Dr. Allen stated above. We are using different translations. This is Prosper stating what the Monks had told him.
And when we produce in answer to them the writings of Your Beatitude, which you filled with countless and very strong testimonies from the divine scriptures, and when we ourselves construct an argument to trap them on the model of your treatises, they defend their stubbornness by invoking tradition. They also maintain that the passages from the letter of Paul the apostle addressed to the Romans, which are produced to show that grace comes before the merits of the elect, had never been interpreted by anyone in the Church in the sense in which they are now being interpreted. And when we ask that they interpret them in accord with the meaning of those commentators whom they prefer, they claim that they have found nothing with which they are satisfied and insist that silence should be maintained on those matters whose depth no one can plumb. Ultimately, their whole obstinacy comes down to the point at which they declare that our belief is something opposed to the edification of those who hear it, and so, even if it is true, it should not be brought into the open. For it is dangerous to hand on teachings that should not be accepted, and it involves no danger to pass over in silence ideas that cannot be understood. (THE WORKS OF SAINT AUGUSTINE, A Translation for the 21st Century, Part II – Letters, Volume 4: Letters 211 – 270, 1* – 29*, Letter 225 pp. 89-90)
In an attempt to “defend their stubbornness by invoking tradition”, these Monks asserted that even though they did not like or understand what Augustine said, they also admitted that they could not actually arrive at a conclusion from anything written prior. Further, they were not able to produce answers that satisfied their concerns from “those commentators whom they prefer”. Prosper was on Augustine’s side and thought the monks were wrong and “obstinate”. Prosper did not show concern about any prior tradition being against Augustine, either. The solution arrived at by the Monks was a mere pragmatic response – they did not feel that it was “to the edification of those who hear it”. “Even if it is true” they argued that it should not be taught! This is hardly the kind of people I would hope Dr. Allen would want on his side – those who when confronted with the truth would say that the truth should not be taught!
And as a footnote to this post, let us keep this in mind: the Monks were in the mindset of considering and judging the words of Augustine against what they thought was the tradition. Dr. Allen was so convinced by this statement from these Monks that he used it to justify an accusation of novelty on Augustine’s part. Allen has also, repeatedly, accused Augustine of being novel on the guilt of original sin.
Knowing the above context, I would direct you to this same letter from Prosper. On the previous page we see that Prosper was citing something the Monks did “state and profess” – their agreement with Augustine on original sin. These Monks did not call it into question from their understanding of prior tradition and commentators. If he is going to agree with the Monks’ theology, is Dr. Allen able to profess the following?
3. For the following is what they state and profess: Every human being certainly sinned when Adam sinned, and no one can be saved by his own works but only by rebirth through the grace of God. (Letter 225 – Page 88 in the source above)
The post Reconsidering the Charge of Innovation: Original Sin and Predestination in Prosper’s Correspondence appeared first on Alpha and Omega Ministries.
Alpha and Omega Ministries