Throughout these final treatises: Augustine insists again that God’s grace is not grace unless it is “gratuitous” (e.g.,
Praed. Sanct. 43:
non nisi gratuita), and by this he means his distinctive constellation of gift-perfections:
prior, incongruous, and efficacious. At no point (after
Ad Simplicianum) must grace be envisaged as secondary or reactive to human initiative: just as grace precedes our merits, and is not God’s response to them, so it is antecedent also to our faith. But this insistence on the
priority of grace is a principle shared with Pelagius and John Cassian, and is by no means sufficient on its own, not even with additional emphasis on its incalculable superabundance. In the development of Augustine’s thought, priority becomes ever more closely affiliated with
efficacy (God’s bringing about our response to his prior grace), such that grace remains in all respects
incongruous, and never a reward for human effort. As Augustine’s opponents insisted, there is no
a priori reason why grace should be perfected in these three dimensions at once, and serious theological objections could be raised to this configuration of grace. Not only did it challenge ordinary notions of equity and human responsibility; it was also not unambiguously supported, still less necessitated, by Scripture itself. But Augustine had integrated his theology of grace with the virtue of humility and with the common-sense piety of daily prayer, and had wielded this integrated doctrine-cum-practice as a powerful weapon against “Pelagian error.” Henceforth it would prove difficult to unpick Augustine’s tightly woven bundle of grace-perfections without appearing “Pelagian,” while its close connection with the routines of prayer made this definition of grace seem “obvious” and proper to the Christian faith. Such is Augustine’s influence that “grace” has come to mean for many theologians precisely that set of perfections with which he endows it (priority, incongruity, and efficacy). It takes a clear-eyed perspective to see that a strong theology of grace does not require to be perfected in this fashion. Whether this constellation of perfections is integral to Pauline theology, and whether the priority and incongruity of grace can be more fruitfully interpreted in other terms today, are questions that should remain open.—J. M. G. Barclay,
Paul and the Gift, 96–97
<idle musing>
He's saying a mouthful here, but be sure to understand it, because it helps you to understand the debates even today. Augustine is bundling aspects of grace together that don't necessarily belong together, scripturally speaking. And that's the problem—especially if you are a non-Augustinian! Augustine's standing in the church is such that if you don't toe his line, you risk being seen as heretical, or sub-Christian.
</idle musing>
