On the eschatological views of Augustine of Hyppo

 

On the eschatological views of Augustine of Hyppo

In one of my previous post[1], I cited the fact that the immensely influential Christian theologian Augustine of Hyppo (354-430) denied that God’s salvific will is universal, i.e. that God doesn’t want the salvation of all. In this post, I’ll try to explain why Augustine was led to think that and how he handled a Biblical passage, 1 Tim 2:3-4[2], that seems to explicitly say the opposite. The text I’ll analyse is Augustine’s Enchiridion, from the translation one can find here: https://christgettysburg.org/download/st-augustine-enchiridion-on-faith-hope-and-love-1955-english-translation/?wpdmdl=1160&refresh=66e761b301a401726439859

Augustine raises the question in paragraph 97 of his work:

“Accordingly, we must now inquire about the meaning of what was said most truly by the apostle concerning God, "Who willeth that all men should be saved." For since not all--not even a majority-- are saved, it would indeed appear that the fact that what God willeth to happen does not happen is due to an embargo on God's will by the human will.” (Enchiridion 97)

If God will all to be saved but a ‘majority’ will not be saved, this clearly poses a problem: how could God’s will be frustrated if one accepts that God is, indeed, omnipotent and omniscient?

Soon later, also, Augustine considers the ‘reply usually given’ to this problem, i.e. that the human beings might reject the will of God. To this, Augustine, replies that this cannot be said in the case of infants who receive baptism:

“Now, when we ask for the reason why not all are saved, the customary answer is: "Because they themselves have not willed it." But this cannot be said of infants, who have not yet come to the power of willing or not willing. For, if we could attribute to their wills the infant squirmings they make at baptism, when they resist as hard as they can, we would then have to say that they were saved against their will.” (Enchiridion 97)

Soon later, however, he goes on and fiercely attacks the view that God couldn’t turn the evil will of human beings to the good:

“Furthermore, who would be so impiously foolish as to say that God cannot turn the evil wills of men-- as he willeth, when he willeth, and where he willeth--toward the good? But, when he acteth, he acteth through mercy; when he doth not act, it is through justice. For, "he hath mercy on whom he willeth; and whom he willeth, he hardeneth."” (Enchiridion, 98)

Soon later, he makes quite clear that, according to him, God doesn’t choose the people He will give mercy based on the foreknowledge of their good works. Rather, this choice is made without consideration of one’s merits:

“Accordingly, he [Paul the Apostle] refers to another prophetic witness, where it is written, "Jacob I loved, but Esau have I hated." Then, realizing how what he said could disturb those whose understanding could not penetrate to this depth of grace, he adds: "What therefore shall we say to this? Is there unrighteousness in God? God forbid!" Yet it does seem unfair that, without any merit derived from good works or bad, God should love the one and hate the other. Now, if the apostle had wished us to understand that there were future good deeds of the one, and evil deeds of the other--which God, of course, foreknew--he would never have said "not of good works" but rather "of future works."” (Enchiridion 98)

In Augustine’s interpretation of Paul’s words, then, God gives mercy not in response of the merits of human beings. So, consistently with this, Augustine is led to write that:

“For if one does not understand these matters, who is he to talk back to God? And if one does understand, he finds no better ground even then for talking back. For if he understands, he sees that the whole human race was condemned in its apostate head by a divine judgment so just that not even if a single member of the race were ever saved from it, no one could rail against God's justice. And he also sees that those who are saved had to be saved on such terms that it would show--by contrast with the greater number of those not saved but simply abandoned to their wholly just damnation--what the whole mass deserved and to what end God's merited judgment would have brought them, had not his undeserved mercy interposed. Thus every mouth of those disposed to glory in their own merits should be stopped, so that "he that glories may glory in the Lord."”  (Enchiridion 99)[3]

All human beings rightly deserve eternal damnation! Even if God didn’t show mercy and save anyone, we would have no reason to complain of an ‘injustice’ being done.

The damnation of most people, then, isn’t something that goes against God’s will. Rather, God’s will is always fulfilled:

“But, however strong the wills either of angels or of men, whether good or evil, whether they will what God willeth or will something else, the will of the Omnipotent is always undefeated. And this will can never be evil, because even when it inflicts evils, it is still just; and obviously what is just is not evil. Therefore, whether through pity "he hath mercy on whom he willeth," or in justice "whom he willeth, he hardeneth," the omnipotent God never doth anything except what he doth will, and doth everything that he willeth.” (Ecnhiridion 102)

Hence, the reason why, according to Augustine, God’s salvific will isn’t universal is that (1) God’s will can’t be resisted and (2) it has been revealed that some or even most people will not be saved. Hence, Augustine’s conclusion in paragraph 103 (that I quote in full):

“Accordingly, when we hear and read in sacred Scripture that God "willeth that all men should be saved," although we know well enough that not all men are saved, we are not on that account to underrate the fully omnipotent will of God. Rather, we must understand the Scripture, "Who will have all men to be saved," as meaning that no man is saved unless God willeth his salvation: not that there is no man whose salvation he doth not will, but that no one is saved unless He willeth it. Moreover, his will should be sought in prayer, because if he willeth, then what he willeth must necessarily be. And, indeed, it was of prayer to God that the apostle was speaking when he made that statement. Thus, we are also to understand what is written in the Gospel about Him "who enlighteneth every man." This means that there is no man who is enlightened except by God. In any case, the word concerning God, "who will have all men to be saved," does not mean that there is no one whose salvation he doth not will--he who was unwilling to work miracles among those who, he said, would have repented if he had wrought them--but by "all men" we are to understand the whole of mankind, in every single group into which it can be divided: kings and subjects; nobility and plebeians; the high and the low; the learned and unlearned; the healthy and the sick; the bright, the dull, and the stupid; the rich, the poor, and the middle class; males, females, infants, children, the adolescent, young adults and middle-aged and very old; of every tongue and fashion, of all the arts, of all professions, with the countless variety of wills and minds and all the other things that differentiate people. For from which of these groups doth not God will that some men from every nation should be saved through his only begotten Son our Lord? Therefore, he doth save them since the Omnipotent cannot will in vain, whatsoever he willeth. Now, the apostle had enjoined that prayers should be offered "for all men" and especially "for kings and all those of exalted station," whose worldly pomp and pride could be supposed to be a sufficient cause for them to despise the humility of the Christian faith. Then, continuing his argument, "for this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour" -- that is, to pray even for such as these kings--the apostle, to remove any warrant for despair, added, "Who willeth that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth." Truly, then, God hath judged it good that through the prayers of the lowly he would deign to grant salvation to the exalted--a paradox we have already seen exemplified. Our Lord also useth the same manner of speech in the Gospel, where he saith to the Pharisees, "You tithe mint and rue and every herb." Obviously, the Pharisees did not tithe what belonged to others, nor all the herbs of all the people of other lands. Therefore, just as we should interpret "every herb" to mean "every kind of herb," so also we can interpret "all men" to mean "all kinds of men." We could interpret it in any other fashion, as long as we are not compelled to believe that the Omnipotent hath willed anything to be done which was not done. "He hath done all things in heaven and earth, whatsoever he willed," as Truth sings of him, and surely he hath not willed to do anything that he hath not done. There must be no equivocation on this point.” (Enchiridon 103)

Hence, Augustine felt compelled to deny the universality of God’s salvific will because, in his views, it would be inconsistent with the acceptance of the belief in (1) God’s omnipotence (or ‘sovereignty’, i.e. that God’s will can’t be defeated) and (2) that most people will not be saved.

So, interestingly, Augustine would disagree with those Christians[4] who think that damnation is due to the unrepentant sinner’s will that rejects God’s desire of their salvation. However, if God’s will is indeed not universal we might ask: for what purpose did God create those people He doesn’t want to be saved?

 

 

---

[1] See: https://ancientafterlifebelifs.blogspot.com/2026/01/reflections-on-implications-of-argument.html

[2] “This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.” (source: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%202%3A3-4&version=NIV )

[3] A similar remark can be found in Augustine’s book, the City of God: “But eternal punishment seems hard and unjust to human perceptions, because in the weakness of our mortal condition there is wanting that highest and purest wisdom by which it can be perceived how great a wickedness was committed in that first transgression. The more enjoyment man found in God, the greater was his wickedness in abandoning Him; and he who destroyed in himself a good which might have been eternal, became worthy of eternal evil. Hence the whole mass of the human race is condemned; for he who at first gave entrance to sin has been punished with all his posterity who were in him as in a root, so that no one is exempt from this just and due punishment, unless delivered by mercy and undeserved grace; and the human race is so apportioned that in some is displayed the efficacy of merciful grace, in the rest the efficacy of just retribution. For both could not be displayed in all; for if all had remained under the punishment of just condemnation, there would have been seen in no one the mercy of redeeming grace. And, on the other hand, if all had been transferred from darkness to light, the severity of retribution would have been manifested in none. But many more are left under punishment than are delivered from it, in order that it may thus be shown what was due to all. And had it been inflicted on all, no one could justly have found fault with the justice of Him who takes vengeance; whereas, in the deliverance of so many from that just award, there is cause to render the most cordial thanks to the gratuitous bounty of Him who delivers.” (City of God, book 21, chapter 12; source: https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120121.htm )

[4] This, in my opinion, includes those who agree with the official teachings of the current Catholic Catechism on ‘hell’. See paragraph 1033 and 1037.