The Orthodox Christian Church—and the consensus of her scriptures, councils, and saints—teach that God desires to bring knowledge to all human beings and to save all human beings without exception, but that God coerces no one to be saved. In the final writings of his life, Augustine (354–430), the bishop of Hippo Regius (395–430), attacked this Orthodox teaching. Saint Paul had written clearly that God “wills all men to be saved” (πάντας ἀνθρώπους θέλει σωθῆναι, 1 Tim. 2:4). Indeed, God brings His light to all human beings. God “brings light to every man” (φωτίζει πάντα ἄνθροπον, John 1:9). It is human beings who reject God; it is not God rejecting human beings. Augustine absolutely refused to accept these Christian doctrines. He misinterpreted “all men” as meaning “all the predestined … because every kind of man is among them” (Augustine, Admonition and Grace 13). It is true that in the Greek scriptures “all” can mean “all kinds of,” but that is simply not how the mind of the Church interprets this passage. The consensus of the saints teaches that in this passage “all men” means all human beings without exception. Augustine taught the un-Christian doctrine that God “inscrutably” (arbitrarily) predestines only a select few human beings to be saved whether they desire salvation or not and that God arbitrarily chooses not to offer salvation to the majority of human beings and that He, essentially, predestines the majority to eternal damnation, even if the person may desire salvation, for no other reason than that these persons “were” Adam when he sinned and therefore inherit the personal guilt of Adam. Orthodox Christianity rejects this extreme system of thought on salvation that Augustine concocted. In Orthodox Christian teaching, God wanted all humans to live and grow into spiritual maturity without sin and without death, but our first human ancestors chose sin, and therefore chose death. All human beings inherit from our human ancestors a double nature with two inclinations, an inclination towards the good and an inclination towards selfish pleasure-seeking. Human beings retain free will and self-determination. But our free will is damaged and perverted by the selfish nature that we inherit from our ancestors. Nevertheless, our free will is not totally destroyed. Augustine, inherited the Orthodox teaching that human beings retain free will, so he had to preserve this teaching in some form. He had to give it lip service. But the logic of the system he concocted had no room for genuine free will in the sense that the Orthodox Christian saints taught about free will. So, Augustine wrote hundreds of pages, using his intellectual and rhetorical skills, claiming that he was defending human free will when in reality he was undermining it. The Oxford dissertation of Kenneth M. Wilson shows that Augustine abandoned the teachings of the ancient Orthodox church fathers, the patristic teaching, on genuine free will, and he substituted-in his own fabricated doctrine of “non-free free will” that claimed to be faithful to the Christian doctrine of free will, but was actually similar to pagan deterministic, fatalistic views (which Augustine had believed in his earlier life when he was a pagan and a Manichaean). The Eastern Orthodox scholar who has written, in the most detail, about Augustine’s departures from Orthodoxy is Father Michael S. Azkoul. He attributes Augustine’s deviations from the Orthodox Christian consensus, even deviations from Augustine’s original Christian beliefs, to the effects of a false “logic” that was driving his rhetoric and his polemics against intellectual opponents. Father Michael notes with great perception that Augustine “imagined himself divinely commissioned to extend, if not reinterpret Christianity, as it had been hitherto understood. Thus, his polemics against the Manicheans, the Academics, the Donatists, the Pelagians and the Arians, although clearly effective, employed arguments which, concocted for the occasion, gradually altered the character of his personal faith. With every controversy, he abandoned his earlier and largely Orthodox opinions; thus, by the last decade of his life, Augustine had fashioned a Christianity perfectly consistent with his own prejudices and needs” (see 265–268).
Other Eastern Christian scholars, who are not as critical as Father Michael is toward Augustine, nevertheless are forced by the evidence to state something similar. Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Etna in his attempts to defend the veneration of Augustine as a saint, is forced to criticize Augustine sharply: “It is certainly true that, in terms of classical Orthodox thought on the subject, Saint Augustine placed grace and human free will at odds, if only because his view of grace was too overstated and not balanced against the Patristic witness as regards the efficacy of human choice and spiritual labor. Likewise, as an outgrowth of his understanding of grace, Augustine developed a theory of predestination that further distorted the Orthodox understanding of free will. And finally, Augustine’s theology proper, his understanding of God, in its mechanical, overly logical, and rationalistic tone, leads one, to some extent, away from the mystery of God—which is lost, indeed, in Saint Augustine’s failure to capture fully the very mystery of man. About these general shortcomings in Augustinian thought there can be no doubt…. [Augustine] erred in expressing himself with too much dependence on human logic and philosophical rigor, thus exposing his teaching to later gross distortions, making his small errors great ones.” In 2017, Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Etna wrote: “the effect of his [Augustine’s] writings on western Christian thinking was devastating and contributed to the West’s estrangement from the Orthodox East—a truly lamentable legacy.…truly serious errors, Augustine’s divers deviations from the consensus of the Orthodox Fathers—starkly so with regard to sin and human guilt before God (his views in this area are diametrically at odds with the pivotal and incisive doctrines of St. Maximos the Confessor), the nature of Grace, and the procession of the Holy Spirit.”
Father Michael Azkoul goes further than Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Etna. Father Michael concludes: “Augustine is … the origin, whatever modifications have been made through the centuries, of almost every religious opinion which separates Western Christendom from the Orthodox Church—philosophical or cataphatic theology, filioque, eternal Ideas, predestination, created and irresistible grace (monergism), the immateriality of the soul, Idealistic epistemology, mystagogical realism, “nestorian” or dualistic christology and ecclesiology; purgatory, visio beata, and, above all, Hellenism, the invisible hand behind Augustine’s innovations. ¶These innovations were opposed ab initio by many of the West Roman Fathers (St John Cassian, St Vincent of Lerins, St Gennadius of Marseillles, St Lupus of Troyes, St Faustus of Riez, etc.)…. ¶With these facts alone, one should be able to dispel the fantasy that the Orthodox Church has never doubted Augustine’s fidelity to the Apostolic Tradition …. ¶Any defense of Augustine’s sanctity, from an Orthodox perspective, can only be the result of an erroneous study of church history and, perhaps, a false sense of piety….¶No one denies Augustine’s ‘astonishing contributions to the defense of Orthodoxy,’ but that no more entitles him to the honor of ‘saint and doctor’ than Didymus the Blind or Tertullian, who greatly enriched the theological and ascetical language of the Church… Tradition has spoken: Augustine in neither a Saint nor a Father of the Orthodox Church. ¶…. ¶Augustine fell prey to the lure of Platonism, both a good friend to Christians and a deadly enemy” (265–268).
Father Panteleimon of Boston put his personal opinion this way: “Augustine of Hippo was the first (as he was the first in so many other teachings) to gainsay the teaching of the Church that Hades was destroyed by our Saviour’s death upon the Cross and descent thereinto. Being corrupted by pagan Greek philosophy, as Origen had similarly been corrupted before him in the east, he believed in and taught extensively absolute predestination, i.e., that God had predestined only a few, the Elect, to be saved and the rest of the vast majority of mankind to eternal damnation. One had no choice or say in the matter. If you were not among the saved, there was nothing you could do to be included among them — you were condemned to eternal fire. Thus, one destroys the teaching that man is created free and has a choice in the matter. The Calvinists teach this Augustinian axiom in its totality to this day. ¶Both Origen and Augustine were so enamored by pagan philosophy, that they fell into great errors and heresies. I maintain that what Origen was in the East, Augustine was in the West — the originators of all heresies that followed in their time. There is no heresy in the East which does not have its seeds in Origen, and no heresy in the West that does not have its seeds in Augustine. ¶Because of this novel teaching of predestination, Augustine not only did not have any problem with consigning most of mankind to eternal damnation. But there could be no other way about it. He had no qualms about this. In his pagan legalistic mind, that is what God’s justice demanded, and consequently God was bound. He would not, or to put it more plainly, could not overrule His own Divine justice and predestination. Any possibility to do so would destroy the philosophical system devised by Augustine.”
Any intelligent and fair-minded reader can determine himself, based on the publicly-available evidence, that Father Seraphim (Eugene Rose) of Platina, California, had a prejudice against and a tendency to caricature and slander Father Panteleimon (John Metropoulos) of Boston and his followers. In only a few sentences (quoted in recent months on Euphrosynos Café) Father Seraphim Rose put forward numerous falsehoods: 1) that Father Panteleimon wanted to become a bishop; 2) that Father Panteleimon wanted to become a Matthewite; 3) that Father Panteleimon would actually become a bishop; 4) that Father Panteleimon would actually become a Matthewite; 5) that Father Panteleimon would proclaim himself the only Orthodox bishop in America; 6) that Father Panteleimon “went” to a modernist seminary; 7) that both Father Panteleimon and his followers had “no knowledge” of theology; 
that Father Panteleimon and his followers (including those who know the Russian language) were “ridiculous” when trying to communicate with Russians; and 9) that Father Panteleimon and his followers (including those who know the Russian language) were “simply not in contact with the authentic theological tradition of Russia.” History has proven all nine assertions and/or predictions to be false. Father Panteleimon always refused to be a bishop or a Matthewite. Father Panteleimon never “went” to seminary; he “went” to Mount Athos (including a close connection to the Russian monastery there) and he lived near a seminary for a time. Father Panteleimon and his followers have published countless theological, liturgical, spiritual, and historical materials relating to (Greek and Slavic) Orthodoxy. History has proven Father Seraphim Rose to be a false (personally slanderous) prophet whose predictions demonstrably do not come true. Saint Philaret and Bishop Gregory Grabbe both wrote that the Boston monastery had the same spirit as authentically-Russian ROCOR did. Saint Philaret and Bishop Gregory Grabbe both accepted and officially proclaimed the Anathema written by the Boston monastery. No matter how much Father Seraphim Rose proclaimed himself (along with allies in Etna and Phyle) to be “moderate,” it is undeniable that he explicitly attacked other traditionalists in extremely personal and harsh (un-moderate) language. I do not equate mere bluntness with immoderation. But I do equate falsehoods with immoderation. And all those false assertions/predictions by Father Seraphim Rose were, by definition, far from “moderate” — because they were all false.
Christ taught that we are to strive to be “perfect.” Why then, in contrast, does Father Seraphim Rose use demeaning language about those who seek to be as correct theologically as humanly possible? One can be Pharisaical. That would not be correct. One can be “too” strict. But in Christianity (as opposed to postmodern relativism) one cannot be “too” correct. Striving to be as correct as possible is not a bad thing. It is a commandment from God. Both Father Seraphim Rose and Father Panteleimon acknowledged that Augustine committed “great sacrilege” (to use Saint John Cassian’s words) in his theological deviation from Orthodoxy. Father Panteleimon taught this truth with greater clarity, whereas Father Seraphim tried to equivocate on what he admitted was true, that Augustine committed great error. Honest clarity is the most “moderate” policy, not the demonstrable slanders and equivocations-on-doctrine of Father Seraphim Rose. Bishop Augustine of Hippo Regius and Priest-monk Seraphim Rose of Platina died in the bosom of the Orthodox Church, and we should all pray for the repose of their souls. May God forgive their voluntary and involuntary sins. But it is undeniable that they both taught falsehoods that would be spiritually dangerous to follow (or exonerate) today. Because of these grievous errors, the more “moderate” policy would be not to venerate them as if they were saints. Leave the official Orthodox calendars and the official menaia as they were in 1950: without these two problematic names.
The tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church recognizes serious errors in Augustine’s writings. Interestingly, the modern writers who advocate most strongly the liturgical veneration of Augustine are forced by the evidence to concede that Augustine made very serious errors. This includes Father Seraphim Rose, Metropolitan Chrysostomos of Etna, and Vladimir Moss, who all admit great error by Augustine, yet still advocate his veneration. The tradition of the Eastern Orthodox Church does not venerate Augustine as a saint, teacher, or father with any hymn in the official menaia liturgical books or with any commemoration in official church calendars. (Augustine was however mentioned in some less-than-official hagiographies, menologies, or prologues.) This lack of mention in official menaia, liturgical books, and official calendars started to change only in the 1950s. This attempted innovation in the 1950s was unwise. Controversy today over the change in the 1950s should not further divide Orthodox synods, since variations in veneration have often been tolerated in church history. Nevertheless, the attempted change in the 1950s was a mistake, it should be protested, and it should be resisted. It is necessary to continue the traditional Orthodox critique of Augustine’s errors because the synods and fathers before us also found it necessary to combat those errors to protect Orthodox teaching. Today, because Augustine’s attacks on traditional patristic teachings have been used to justify ecumenism and doctrinal relativism, it is more important than ever to respond to Augustine’s aggressions against patristic teaching and to reassert the genuine Orthodox teaching. In order to write honest church history, especially on the departure of the West from the ancient Orthodox Christian Consensus (up to the Synod of 879-880), we must examine in depth the aggressions of Augustinianism against Orthodox Christian consensus.
