1 Tim 2.4
Augustine cites 1 Tim
2.4 only once prior to 412 (Exp. quaest. Rom. 74). The Pelagians erroneously
assumed in 1 Tim 2.4 taught that God gave the gift of faith to all persons,
which Augustine easily refuted by changing wills/desires to 'provides
opportunity' (Spir. et litt. 37-38). The Stoic omnipotent God must get
everything he desires. Not until 414 CE (ep. 149) does 'all kinds/classes'
definitively replace 'all,' and S.304.2 (417 CE) repeats this concept. Only in
421 CE (C. Kul. 4.8.42) did Augustine alter the text to mean 'all who are
saved' are saved by God's will, which he repeats the next year (Enchir. 97,
103). Many people cannot be saved: "many are not saved because God does
not will this" (ep. 217.19). Yet God makes Christians desire the salvation
of those whom he has damned (Corrept. 15, 47), which Rist adeptly identifies as
"the most pathetic passage" (Rist [1972], 239). By 429 CE, Augustine
quotes 1 Cor 1.18 (but he adds the word such to 1 Tim 2.4), then defines all to
all those elected, thereby implying an irresistible call of God.
Hos omnes docet
venire ad Christum Deut; hos enim "omnes vult salvos fieri, et in
agnitionem veritatis venire" [1 Tim. 2.4]. Nam si et illos quibus
stultitia est verbum crucis, ut ad Christum venirent, docere voluisset, procul
dubio venirent et ipsi. (Praed 14)
Thus, Hwang's
analysis of Augustine's evolving interpretation of 1 Tim 2.4 correctly concludes,
Then the radical
shift occured, brought about by the open and heated conflict with the
Pelagians. 'Desires' took on absolute and efficacious qualities, and the
meaning of 'all' was reduced to the predestined. 1 Tim. 2.4 should be
understood, then, as meaning that God saves only the predestined. All others,
apparently, do not even have a prayer. (Hwang [2003], 137-142)
Indeed, only after
411 CE did Augustine arrive at his interpretation from philosophical
conclusions in rhetorically refuting the Pelagians (not from a careful
exposition of scripture) as evidenced by his desultory explanatory attempts
over a twenty year period. In Augustine's later system, he rejects his own
former wishing for his neighbor to share in God's good (Ver. rel. 87, Mor.
eccl. 1.26.49). Because God does not desire our neighbor's good, our desiring
it would be like performing CPR (cardiopulmonary resuscitation) on decaying
corpses. Augustine's novel 'Divine Love' falls short even of the mere human
love-command "love thy neighbor" by desiring her good (e.g., the
Samaritan, Luke 10.28-37). His new God actively creates, then uncaringly abandons—no,
actively 'predestines'—his created persons to eternal damnation. (Kenneth M.
Wilson, Augustine's Conversion from Traditional Free Choice to
"None-free Free Will": A Comprehensive Methodology [Studien und
Texte zu Antike und Christentum 111; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018], 260-61)
