Calvinism Unmasked

Chapter 2 The Origin of My Presuppositions

I believed God was Immutable. What does immutable mean? The word immutable means not subject to change. This idea of immutability is the basis for many of the tenets of Calvinistic doctrine. How did this idea of God’s immutability originate? We don’t know for sure, but as far as influence, it came from Plato. Plato (427-347 BC), the great philosopher of Athens, has been a major influence on philosophical thought for about 2,400 years. By this time, I had translated a few of Plato’s dialogues in my Greek classes at UCLA. He was fairly easy to translate. He also used a dialogical method of making his points.

Augustine, the Bishop of Hippo (354-430), had a passion for wisdom and philosophy. From philosophy he learned the doctrine of the Immutability of God. He incorporated this doctrine into his Christian theology after his conversion. Augustine’s theology influenced the Reformation through an Augustinian monk, Martin Luther. Luther and Augustine had a great influence on John Calvin. Aspects of Calvin’s theology have been foundational for most evangelical theologies since the reformation.[1]

The doctrine of immutability, especially, has influenced the theology of the Christian world. Augustine and Calvin believed that God reveals something about himself both through nature and the reason of man. Since we are created in the image of God, we seem to have some innate knowledge that causes us to understand and even long for God. In addition, God reveals something about himself through his creation. However, man has rebelled, and in general, wants to do his own thing.

Plato’s Doctrine of Immutability

Plato honored his mentor, Socrates, in his books by making him the protagonist of the dialogs. It is through Plato that we have an idea of the philosophy and thought of Socrates since no works of Socrates have been found. Immutability became the foundational doctrine in Plato’s theology concerning the attributes of God’s character.

We can write a logical syllogism of Plato’s doctrine of the Immutability of God in two ways. First we will look at it from Plato’s viewpoint:

The perfect does not change.

God is perfect.

God does not change.

The well read person in the ancient world of Augustine understood the immutability concept Plato applied to God. This idea was found in almost every school of philosophy of that time. Plato himself explained it this way in, “A dialogue between Socrates and Adeimantus.”

(Socrates) Is it not true that to be altered and moved by something else happens least to things that are in the best condition . . . that the healthiest and strongest is least altered. . . . And is it not the soul that is bravest and most intelligent that would be least disturbed and altered by any external affection . . . that those which are well made and in good condition are least liable to be changed by time and other influences. (Adeimantus) That is so. (Socrates) It is universally true then, that that which is in the best state by nature or art or both admits least alteration by something else. (Adeimantus) So it seems. (Socrates) But God, surely and everything that belongs to God is in every way in the best possible state. . . . Then does he [God] change himself for the better and to something fairer, or for the worse and to something uglier than himself? It must necessarily be for the worse if he is changed . . . the gods themselves are incapable of change. . . . Then God is altogether simple and true in deed and word, and neither changes himself nor deceives others.[2]

In this dialogue between Socrates and Adeimantus, Plato presented his ideas about the Immutability of God. This concept was apparently adopted by Augustine through the writings of Plato and the Neo-Platonists.

I want to comment on the phrases in this quotation that I have emphasized. He explained his idea of perfection in this dialogue. It does seem reasonable that those articles that change the least are the most perfect. For example, a person may purchase a pair of shoes that are comfortable and fit well. Over time the shoes begin to show wear and may eventually tear “to be altered and moved by something else”. The soles of the shoes will wear until they get holes that allow dirt to enter. Eventually, the shoes must be replaced. For our purpose, those shoes that last the longest or stay in their original condition longer would be the best shoes, “that those which are well made and in good condition are least liable to be changed by time and other influences”. A perfect shoe would last forever without changing. Any change in a perfect shoe would make the shoe less perfect or worse than perfect, “be for the worse if he is changed”. Since God is perfect, He is not altered or moved by something else. So an attribute of Plato’s God is immutability “the gods themselves are incapable of change . . . Then God . . . neither changes himself nor deceives others”.

In the Platonic manner, Augustine considered the application of pure reason, using the intellect, as superior to the evidence of the senses. Augustine would try to leave the sense world of the body and retreat into the spiritual world of introspection and escape from the body. This method is similar to some modern day evangelicals who have used philosophical methods to ascertain doctrine and have subordinated revelation to reason. Augustine struggled over this issue. To Augustine the question was reason versus authority. What came first, reason or authority? He believed all faith presupposed reason. Only an irrational faith would be founded on an irrational authority. The authority had to be judged rational first. Then man, because he is fallen and unable to reason perfectly, needed revelation to understand God.

Therefore, Augustine adopted some presuppositions from Platonic reasoning. Among these presuppositions was the doctrine of the immutability of God. Greek philosophy had a tremendous influence on Augustine. Augustine had already concluded that the idea of a mutable God was an absurdity. Earlier in his life, when Augustine had read the Bible, he saw that the Bible revealed a mutable God. This caused him to doubt its veracity. Only after Ambrose (c. 340-397), Bishop of Milan, allegorized the Old Testament Scriptures, was Augustine able to accept the Catholic faith. Ambrose allegorized or spiritualized the offending Old Testament Scripture to the point that Augustine was able to accept the Christian God. He wrote:

For those absurdities which in those Scriptures were wont to offend me, after I had heard divers of them expounded properly, I referred now to the depth of the mystery: yea and the authority of that Book appeared so much the more venerable, and so much more worthy of our religious credit.[3]

As we evaluate this information, we can see Augustine’s thought progression. Certain absurdities had hindered Augustine from believing in the Word of God. Augustine believed that God was immutable. To him it was absurd to believe in a God who could change his mind or be mutable. How did Augustine know that this was absurd? He believed the force of reason explained what was absurd. The source of his reasoning was Platonic and Neoplatonic philosophy. After hearing Ambrose, Augustine thought he was able to judge biblical authority to be rational. Augustine only turned to the Scriptures after the absurdities were “expounded properly.” Now he could rely on Scripture for the spiritual help he needed. He needed this help since he had uncontrollable drives his reason was not able to overcome, his sexual desires.[4] “Seeing therefore mankind would prove too weak to find out the truth by the way of evident reason, and for this cause was there need of the authority of Holy Writ:”[5]

Although Augustine later developed a high regard for Scripture, he allowed philosophical reason to first dictate his ideas about God’s attributes. Then, he filled in the details by using the Scriptures. His primary presupposition was the immutability of God. This doctrine of immutability influenced him as he developed his doctrines of predestination, foreknowledge and the intemporality of God. Subsequently Augustine’s doctrines had enormous influence on John Calvin. This influence of Augustine over Calvin is attested by Calvinists. For example, Benjamin Warfield wrote, “The system of doctrine taught by Calvin is just the Augustinianism common to the whole body of the Reformers—for the Reformation was, as from the spiritual point of view a great revival of Augustinianism.”[6]

Where did Plato acquire his ideas?

Plato was a student of Socrates. Interestingly, Augustine discussed the source of Socrates’ inspiration: “what kind that deity was who attended on Socrates, a sort of familiar, by whom it is said he was admonished to desist from any action which would not turn out to his advantage.”[7] Apparently Socrates had a familiar spirit which encouraged him to teach philosophy. Do you think it would be wrong to say Socrates was influenced by a demon?

Augustine argued with a writer, Apuleius, about Socrates. Apuleius wrote a book, Concerning the God of Socrates, where he sought to prove that this “god” was really a demon. What was Augustine’s argument in support of Socrates? Augustine contended that demons love the theater. This familiar spirit did not approve of the theater. Therefore, this familiar spirit was not a demon. Augustine’s conclusion was, “Apuleius is wrong, and Socrates’ familiar did not belong to this class of deities.”[8] We can see that Augustine’s proclivity for Platonic philosophy influenced his conclusion. He believed that Socrates did have a familiar or spirit, but that the spirit was not a demon. What would a spirit in an unregenerated man be? An angel? The Holy Spirit? A demon? Would any Evangelical Christian accept Augustine’s explanation today? No!

Did Plato’s doctrine of the Immutability of God originally come from Socrates? Plato’s discussion was a dialogue between Adeimantus and Socrates. It is probable that Plato heard this discussion while he listened to his mentor teaching. Although Plato may have entered some original material into these dialogues, the evidence favors Socrates as the Greek developer of this doctrine.

Augustine’s rationale for adopting the doctrine of the immutability of God

How was Augustine able to take the Platonic philosophy of the immutability of God and syncretize it into a biblical theology? This is important since this doctrine influenced Augustine in the development of other important doctrines pertaining to the attributes of God. These included predestination, prescience, impassibility and atemporality.

Although Augustine, was raised by a Christian mother, he wandered from the Christian faith. He was impressed by a work of Cicero called Hortensius. By reading this work, he developed a love for philosophy. Although Augustine loved philosophy, he still superstitiously clung to some aspects of the faith of his mother. In contrast, Augustine resisted becoming a disciple of Cicero’s philosophy because he did not find the name of the Catholic God in his works. However, another group who held the ideas of Mani, called Manichaeism,[9] combined the rationalism of the philosophers with the appropriate “God-names,” the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. This persuaded Augustine to become a follower of this sect. He was associated with them for nine years.

The Manichaeans stressed rational inquiry over authority. Augustine agreed with this method of ascertaining truth. The Manichaeans disliked the Old Testament because it revealed an angry emotional God. Needless to say, the Platonic conception of an immutable God was common in most of the Greek philosophies of Augustine’s age. Eugene TeSelle stated: “People acquainted with philosophical notions of God were uncomfortable with the anthropomorphisms of the Old Testament (not only with its descriptions of God but its suggestions that God has human emotions, or changes his mind).”[10]

Augustine was torn between his mother’s religion and the rationalism he admired in the philosophies prevalent in his day. He became a teacher in North Africa, then in Rome, and eventually he arrived in Milan. Ambrose, the Bishop of Milan, offered a solution to Augustine’s dilemma: a reconciliation between philosophy and Catholicism. Here are Augustine’s own word’s:

And for this I rejoiced also, for that the Old Scriptures of the Law and the prophets, were laid before me now, to be perused, not with that eye to which they seemed most absurd before, whenas I misliked thy holy ones for thinking so and so: but indeed they did not think so. And with joyful heart I heard Ambrose in his sermons to the people, most diligently oftentimes recommend this text for a rule unto them, The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life: whilst those things which taken according to the letter seemed to teach perverse doctrines, he spiritually laid open to us, having taken off the veil of the mystery; teaching nothing in it that offended me.[11]

It must be horrible when god’s word offends. Augustine also explained the reasoning which allowed him to be converted to the Catholic faith:

For first of all the things began to appear unto me as possible to be defended: and the Catholic faith, in defense of which I thought nothing could be answered to the Manichees’ arguments, I now concluded with myself, might well be maintained without absurdity: especially after I had heard one or two hard places of the Old Testament resolved now and then; which when I understood literally, I was slain. Many places therefore of those books having been spiritually expounded.[12]

What could Augustine not accept literally? The most important biblical concept Augustine rejected was the mutability of God, that God could change his will from one time to the next in order to adjust to a changeable mankind, or change His dispensational plan when He saw fit. In his Confessions, Augustine explained which literal interpretations were unacceptable. Here is one of his statements:

And because God commanded them one thing then, and these another thing now for certain temporal respects; and yet those of both ages were servants to the same righteousness, whereas they may observe in one man, and in one day, and in one house, different things to be fit for different members, and one thing to be lawful now, which in an hour hence is not so; and something to be permitted or commanded in one corner, which is forbidden or punished in another. Is Justice thereupon various or mutable.[13]

The Manichaeans believed God could not be mutable and retain his perfection. Augustine accepted this rationalistic philosophy as true and attempted to prove this doctrine with Scripture.

In another writing, On the Morals of the Catholic Church, Augustine explained which doctrines of the Old Testament were so absurd. In explaining his dispute with the Manichaeans we can see his agreement with them against the literal interpretation of the Old Testament.

We do not worship a God who repents, or is envious, or needy, or cruel, or who takes pleasure in the blood of men or beasts, or is pleased with guilt or crime, or whose possession of the earth is limited to a little corner of it. These and such like are the silly notions . . . the fancies of old women or of children . . . and in those by whom these passages are literally understood. . . . And should any one suppose that anything in God’s substance or nature can suffer change or conversion, he will be held guilty of wild profanity.[14]

Augustine agreed with the Manichaeans that a mutable God was totally unacceptable. In this conflict between the Platonic doctrine of immutability and the literal interpretation of Scriptures, what had to change? Augustine’s answer was that the literal interpretation of Scripture had to change. For Augustine the plain narratives of Scripture had to be reinterpreted by spiritual or allegorical methods to agree with his philosophical presuppositions. The Manichaeans believed the Old Testament revealed a God who was mutable or could repent. Since the Platonists believed that God was immutable this idea of God repenting was a source of ridicule for the Catholic Church. Augustine was so embarrassed by these arguments that he chose to reinterpret Scripture rather than refute the Platonic philosophy.

Augustine found the immutable God by meditation

Even in Augustine’s account of his conversion he displayed his Platonic persuasion. Augustine found the unchangeable God in his mind by Platonic introspection.

I had by this time found the unchangeable and the true eternity of truth, residing above this changeable mind of mine. And thus by degrees passing from bodies to the soul, which makes use of the senses of the body to perceive by: and from thence to its inner faculties . . . and so forward, as far as the irrational creatures are able to go: and thence again I passed on to the reasoning faculties, unto whatever is received from the senses of the body is referred to be judged.[15]

Did Augustine come to understand God as immutable from a study of the Scriptures? No! Augustine was meditating about God and saw an immutable God in his mind. However, in reality, Augustine received the concept of the unchangeable or immutable God from the Platonists and neo-Platonists. This concept passed right into his Christian theology without change.

Augustine’s fondness for Platonic Philosophers

We can see Augustine’s admiration of Neoplatonic Philosophers. His “Christian” philosophy was greatly influenced by these men. Augustine claimed Ambrose was so Platonic in his preaching that people were saying all the maxims of the Lord Jesus Christ were from the works of Plato. Ambrose stated that Plato learned his maxims from Jeremiah.[16] Of course this was nonsense and repudiated by Augustine later in life but the incident demonstrates how thoroughly Platonic philosophies had influenced Ambrose. But, remember, Ambrose was a major influence in Augustine’s conversion. Augustine further encouraged the use of Platonic philosophy in his Confessions:

Furthermore, if those who are called philosophers, especially the Platonists, have said things by chance that are truthful and conformable to our faith, we must not only have no fear of them, but even appropriate them for our own use from those who are, in a sense, their legal possessors.[17]

Augustine explained how the Israelites left Egypt with the gold of the Egyptians. In the same manner Christians should plunder the gold from the philosophers.

Augustine praised the Platonic philosophers for having a doctrine, the Immutability of God, that was so close to the Christian conception of God: “But, among the disciples of Socrates, Plato was the one who shone with a glory which far excelled that of all others, and who not unjustly eclipsed them all.”[18] “For those who are praised as having most closely followed Plato, who is justly preferred to all the other philosophers of the Gentiles.”[19] “It is evident that none come nearer to us than the Platonists.”[20]

These philosophers, then, whom we see not undeservedly exalted above the rest in fame and glory, have seen that no material body is God, and therefore they have transcended all bodies in seeking for God. They have seen that whatever is changeable is not the most high God, and therefore they have transcended every soul and all changeable spirits in seeking the supreme. . . . He who is clever judges better than he who is slow, he who is skilled than he who is unskillful, he who is practiced than he who is unpracticed; and the same person judges better after he has gained experience than he did before. But that which is capable of more and less is mutable; whence able men, who have thought deeply on these things, have gathered that the first form is not to be found in those things whose form is changeable.[21]

“Whether these philosophers may be more suitably called Platonists . . . we prefer these to all other philosophers, and confess that they approach nearest to us.”[22]

Then, as to Plato’s saying that the philosopher is a lover of God, nothing shines forth more conspicuously in those sacred writings. But the most striking thing in this connection, and that which most of all inclines me almost to assent to the opinion that Plato was not ignorant of those writings, is the answer which was given to the question elicited from the holy Moses when the words of God were conveyed to him by the angel; for, when he asked what was the name of that God who was commanding him to go and deliver the Hebrew people out of Egypt, this answer was given: “I am who am; and thou shalt say to the children of Israel, He who is sent me unto you;” as though compared with Him that truly is, because He is unchangeable, those things which have been created mutable are not – a truth which Plato vehemently held, and most diligently commended. And I know not whether this sentiment is anywhere to be found in the books of those who were before Plato, unless in that book where it is said, “I am who am; and thou shalt say to the children of Israel, Who is sent me unto you.[23]

Augustine freely admitted that the concept of immutability was a Platonic idea. When he referenced these philosophers, he meant the Platonic philosophers, and he mentioned Plato. He then attempted to draw an analogy between these philosophical concepts and God’s word with a shameless allegorizing of Moses. What is the biblical evidence?

Augustine cited Exodus 3:14: And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” The exact meaning of God’s name is debatable. However, there is certainly no reference to immutability. The meaning probably is a reference to the eternal existence of God. We must realize that citing verses with obscure meanings is hardly proof of a major doctrinal concept. Remember that Augustine used philosophical rationalism as proof of his doctrine of Immutability. Reasoning is a dependable tool to systematize the biblical material to help us understand what it means. However, Augustine’s foundation was Platonic not biblical.

It is true that Augustine utilized Scripture in his defense of the immutability of God, but Scripture was a secondary proof. We must remember that Augustine could only accept an allegorized Bible:

Those things which our faith holds and which reason in whatever way has traced out, are fortified by the testimonies of the divine Scriptures, so that those who by reason of feebler intellect are not able to comprehend these things, may believe the divine authority, and so may deserve to know. . . . Accordingly that God is unchangeable.[24]

We must remember that Augustine maintained that reason traced out the doctrine of immutability.

Augustine and Aristotle

Aristotle (384-322 BC) was a disciple of Plato. We find the concept of the Immovable God who is the prime mover in Aristotle’s Metaphysics. Aristotle’s Immovable God moves all things or causes all things to happen but he himself is not caused or moved by anything. Aristotle confirmed the Platonic doctrine of an Immutable God. The following passages are illustrative:

The first principle and primary reality is immovable, both essentially and accidentally, but it excites the primary form of motion, which is one and eternal. Now since that which is moved must be moved by something, and the prime mover must be essentially immovable . . . . Therefore the prime mover which is immovable, is one both in formula and number . . . . Clearly, then it thinks that which is most divine and estimable, and does not change; for the change would be for the worse.[25]

Augustine mentioned this concept of immovability in his commentary on fate:

But an order of causes in which the highest efficiency is attributed to the will of God, we neither deny nor do we designate it by the name of fate, unless, perhaps, we may understand fate to mean that which is spoken. . . . Once hath He spoken, is to be understood as meaning “immovably” that is unchangeably all things which shall be, and all things which He will do. . . . though there is for God a certain order for all causes . . . in that order of causes which is certain to God, and is embraced by His foreknowledge.[26]

Augustine said all things which happen are caused by the immovable God. This immovable God must be Aristotle’s Prime Mover because all things are caused by his god. After perusing the Bible we can confidently declare, it does not speak of an immovable God. In fact, the opposite is true. The God of the Bible, our God, is moved by our prayers, our suffering, and our actions.

Augustine and Plotinus

In Saint Augustine’s Confessions, we find that Augustine saw many similarities between Catholicism and Platonism: “whereas in the Platonists, God and his word are everywhere implied.”[27] Historians believe that the books which Augustine read were most likely the Enneads of Plotinus. Augustine mentioned Plotinus (about 205-269) twice in his work The City of God.[28] Other references to the Platonists seem to include the Neo-Platonist, Plotinus[29], since Augustine had such a high opinion of him: “Plotinus, whose memory is quite recent, enjoys the reputation of having understood Plato better than any other of his disciples.”[30]

Therefore, we see that Plotinus was a Neoplatonic philosopher with whom Augustine was well acquainted. The concept of atemporality, God being in the state of Eternal Now, was developed with Plotinus’ influence. We see that clearly in Augustine’s exposition of the Eternal Now. Let us examine the parallel thoughts of Plotinus and Augustine.

The concept that for God there is no past or future, only present

Plotinus:

one sees eternity in seeing a life that abides in the same, and always has the all present to it, not now this, and then again that, but all things at once, and not now some things, and then again others, but a partless completion. . . . Necessarily there will be no “was” about it, for what is there that was for it and has passed away? Nor any “will be,” for what will be for it? So there remains for it only to be in its being just what it is. That, then, which was not, and will not be, but is only, which has being which is static by not changing to the “will be,” nor ever having changed, this is eternity.[31]

Augustine:

so that of those things which emerge in time, the future indeed, are not yet, and the present are now, and the past no longer are; but all of these are by Him comprehended in His stable and eternal presence . . . but beholds all things with absolute unchangeableness.[32]

Plotinus said the eternal does not have a “was” (past) or a “will be” (future) but only an “is” (present). Since God exists in an eternal state, according to Plotinus, the past, present and future should all be viewed as existing in that one present state. Augustine agreed. He said that God exists in an eternal present in which the future and the past are comprehended as existing now.

The concept that in the Eternal Now there is no change

Plotinus: “which is static by not changing to the ‘will be,’ nor ever having changed”[33]

Augustine: “but beholds all things with absolute unchangeableness”[34]

The concept of immutability again played a crucial role in the development of the doctrine of atemporality. According to Augustine, for God to be immutable, the future can add no knowledge to what he already knows. For Plotinus and Augustine, this unchangeableness is present in the Eternal.

The concept of having no transition of thought

Plotinus: “The life, then, which belongs to that which exists and is in being, all together and full, completely without extension or interval, is that which we are looking for, eternity.”[35]

Augustine: “For he does not pass from this to that by transition of thought, but beholds all things with absolute unchangeableness”[36]

Since both Plotinus and Augustine believed no new knowledge could be possible for God, He could have no transition of thought. Again Plotinus believed that there was no extension or interval of thought in eternity. These concepts were clearly developed by the Platonists before Augustine.

All future events which happen are determined by necessity

Plotinus: “But when all the causes are included, everything happens with complete necessity.”[37]

Chance circumstances are not responsible for the good life, but they, too, follow harmoniously on the causes before them, and proceed woven into the chain of causation by so following. The ruling principle weaves all things together, while individual things cooperate on one side or the other according to their nature, as in military commands the general gives the lead and his subordinates work in unity with him . . . everything which results from their interweaving is foreseen, in order that this result may have room to be well placed,[38]

Augustine:

But, as to those who call by the name of fate . . . . the whole connection and train of causes which makes everything become what it does become, there is no need that I should labor and strive with them in a merely verbal controversy, since they attribute the so-called order and connection of causes to the will and power of God most high, who is rightly and most truly believed to know all things before they come to pass and to leave nothing unordained. . . . But an order of causes in which the highest efficiency is attributed to the will of God, we neither deny nor do we designate it by the name of fate . . . there is for God a certain order of all causes.[39]

Plotinus, the pagan philosopher, and Augustine, the Catholic theologian, agreed that all events which ever happen have been determined. Plotinus said there is a chain of causation which cooperates with God or the ruling principle to determine future events. Augustine would agree that there is a whole connection and train of causes or order of causes that makes everything happen. According to them, everything that will happen has been predestined and will happen by necessity.

Since the future is determined it can also be foreseen. Plotinus said the diviners or astrologers could foretell the future.[40] Augustine agreed that the future is foreseen, but he left foreknowledge to God. If the future were not determined from the beginning, then foreknowledge would be impossible.

How the free will of man works with destiny

Plotinus:

So evil deeds are consequences, but follow from necessity; they come from us (i.e. we cause them), and we are not compelled by providence but we connect them, of our own accord, with the works of providence or works derived from providence. The universe is ordered by the generalship of providence . . . everything which results from their interweaving is foreseen . . . But the things you will choose are included in the universal order, because your part is not a mere casual interlude in the All, but you are counted in as just the person you are. But for what reason is a man the sort of person he is? . . . There are two questions which the argument seeks to settle here, one, whether the blame should rest on the maker, if there is one, who determined the moral character of the individual, or on the being which has come into existence itself: . . . For if it is because he (man) was able to be something nobler than he is, if he was able to add something to make himself better, he is responsible to himself for not doing it; . . . so that it seems likely that blame should fall upon the men who have come into being, and that what belongs to providence is on a higher level.[41]

Augustine:

But it does not follow that, though there is for God a certain order of all causes, there must therefore be nothing depending on the free exercise of our own wills, for our wills themselves are included in that order of causes which is certain to God, and is embraced by His foreknowledge, for human wills are also causes of human actions; and He who foreknew all causes of things would certainly among those causes not have been ignorant of our wills. . . . Therefore we are by no means compelled, either, retaining the prescience of God, to take away the freedom of the will, or, retaining the freedom of the will, to deny that He is prescient of future things which is impious. But we embrace both. We faithfully and sincerely confess both.[42]

Plotinus said these determined events are the results of the interweaving of free wills and Providence. These free wills are interwoven into the will of providence to produce everything that will happen. Augustine said that God foresees our freewill and includes this in his predestination. Somehow the free will decisions of man fit into this predestination. It is not evident how this happens. However, what is evident to us is this: Augustine read Plotinus and used his ideas in formulating his Christian theology.

Augustine’s advice on Christian instruction

How did Augustine instruct Christians to find this doctrine of the immutability of God? Was it through a study of the Bible? No! It was through the Platonic method of introspection and rational thought. Augustine wrote Christian Instruction to explain the norms for expounding Scripture. These principles reveal Augustine’s own understanding of the Christian faith. In Book One, Chapter 2, Augustine explained that teaching was concerned with either things or signs. God is a thing and the Scriptures are signs because they signify God.[43] Augustine thought it was possible to know certain attributes of God without the knowledge of Scripture. One of these attributes is the immutability of God. Augustine explained how all men conceive of God:

When the one God of gods is thought of, even by those who believe in, invoke, and worship other gods “whether in heaven or earth,” He is considered in such a way that the very thought tries to conceive a nature which is more excellent and more sublime than all others.[44]

What is the more excellent thought? Augustine continued to reflect on the attributes of God without the benefit of Scriptures. He wrote:

When they have seen that even this life is still changeable, they are compelled to prefer something unchangeable to it, that very Life, in fact, which is not sometimes foolish and at other times wise, but is rather Wisdom itself. For a wise mind, that is, one that has attained wisdom, was not wise before it attained it; but Wisdom Itself was never unwise, nor can It ever be. If men did not perceive this, they would not, with the utmost trust, esteem an unchangeable wise life above a changeable one. Indeed, they see that the very rule of truth, according to which they claim the unchangeable life is better, is itself unchangeable. They do not perceive this rule anywhere except beyond their own nature, since they perceive that they are changeable beings.[45]

Then Augustine wrote:

No one is so shamelessly foolish as to say: “How do you know that an unchangeably wise life should be preferred to a changeable one?” For, the very point that he is inquiring about-how I know-is universally and unchangeably evident for all to see.[46]

Notice what Augustine said about his method of finding the truth about immutability. He said that men know that God is unchangeable (immutable) because it is universally evident. In addition the unchangeable is better because it is a rule of truth that they perceive in their own nature. Augustine believed that all men without the benefit of the Scriptures or revelation of God understand that God is immutable.

Augustine was simply conforming to the Neoplatonic thought of his age. These are certainly not universal truths evident today. Augustine was revealing his own epistemology.[47] Augustine first believed in God as immutable. He obtained this concept from Neoplatonic philosophy. Then he transferred this belief into his Christian faith.

The Evidence

We have seen the following evidence for Greek philosophical influence over Augustine’s theology:

1. Augustine was converted only after Ambrose allegorized and spiritualized the Scriptures so they did not repudiate the Platonic, immutable God.

2. Augustine found the immutable God through Platonic meditation.

3. Augustine believed Platonic philosophers were close to Christian beliefs.

4. Augustine could not support his theological views on immutability from the Bible.

5. Augustine showed a tendency to quote Aristotelian ideas.

6. Augustine copied the ideas of Plotinus into his Christian theology.

7. Augustine advised theology students that the attribute of immutability was found through Platonic introspection.

[1]I am indebted to Craig Fisher for the great amount of research he did in the writings of Plotinus and Augustine.

[2]Plato, Republic I, Loeb Classical Library, Book II, pp. 191-197. All bold is my emphasis.

[3]Augustine. St. Augustine's Confessions I, Loeb Classical Library, Book VI, p. 285, trans. by W. Watts.

[4]Latourette, Kenneth S., A History of Christianity, Harper & Row, 1975, V. I., pp. 96-98.

[6]Warfield, B., Calvin and Augustine, The Presb. & Reformed Pub. Co., Philadelphia, Pa, 1956, p.22.

[7]Augustine, City of God, New York: Random House, 1950, Book VIII, p.259.

[9]Latourette, Op. cit., pp. 95,96. Beaver, R. P. et. al., Eerdman’s Handbook to the World’s Religions, p. 113. Mani (216-276), a Persian prophet born in Mesopotamia, founded this sect. He was influenced by Zoroastrianism, ancient Babylonian beliefs, and Judaism, as well as Christianity. The Cologne Codex confirmed Arabic traditions that Mani was raised among a Jewish-Christian Baptist group. One of his writings, The Living Gospel, proclaimed Mani as the Paraclete foretold by Christ.

[10] TeSelle, Augustine the Theologian. New York: Herder and Herder, 1970, p.30.

[11]St. Augustine's Confessions, Book VI, p. 259.

[14]Oats, W.J., “On the Morals of the Catholic Church,” Basic Writings of Saint Augustine, New York: Random House Publishers, 1948, p. 327.

[24]“Concerning the Nature of the Good,” Basic Writings of St. Augustine, New York: Random House, p. 440.

[25]Aristotle, Metaphysic, Loeb Classical Library, Book XII, pp. 153,161,165.

[28]Book IX, Chapter 10 and Book X, Chapter 2.

[29]Eerdmans, pp. 45-48. The Neo-Platonist, “Plotinus (about 205-269) made a journey to the East and returned with an arsenal of monistic ideas against the rapidly-growing Christian church in the Roman Empire. To claim the Greek philosophical heritage he included some ideas from Plato, his system of contemplation was identical with the yoga of Hindu monism. Plotinus failed to rally the Roman Empire against Jesus Christ, but he was rediscovered and introduced through the back door many centuries later.”

[31]Plotinus, Ennead, The Loeb Classical Library, Book III, p. 305, trans. by A.H. Armstrong.

[43]Augustine, "On Christian Instruction," The Fathers of the Church, Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University Of America Press, Inc., 1966, Book 1, ch. 2.

[47] “The theory or science of the method or grounds of knowledge.”, The Oxford Universal Dictionary, London, 1955.