Posted on 01/17/2006 6:56:20 AM PST by HarleyD
Introduction
John Cassian was a zealous monk whose theology (unfortunately, one might say) has been massively influential on the church’s understanding of the whole of the gospel since the fifth century. His particular theology (commonly known as semi-Pelagianism), which was developed largely in response to Augustine’s doctrines of predestination, grace, and free will, has been adopted by many Christians—academics, clergy and lay people alike—throughout the centuries.Two major influences were at work in Cassian’s life and teachings. First, Greek neo-platonic philosophical theology shaped his understanding of anthropology in a way that prevented him from being able to engage Augustine on the level that he should have. And second, his intense devotion to the ascetic chastity of the monastery created a platform upon which his theology could develop, yet in a way that was almost entirely sub-biblical. The result of Cassian’s theological contributions to the church has been the obscuring of the God of the Bible in the vision of His people.
Cassian and His Work
Cassianus was born (probably in Provence) around 360 A.D., and most likely assumed the name “Iohannes” (John) at his baptism or admittance to the monastic life. [1] He died in Massilia of Gaul (present-day Marseilles, France), where he had spent his most productive years as a monk, in 435. [2] His birthplace is uncertain, and little is known about his parents, education, or childhood, primarily because of his own silence regarding these in his writings.
It is known, however, that he had a rigorous education, as evidenced by his fluent bilingualism and familiarity with church fathers. Western-born, Latin was probably his native tongue; yet much of his thought is influenced by Greek writers, and much of his life was spent in the East, where he derived his perspective on monasticism. “[H]is entire achievement was built on” his bilingualism, [3] as it offered him access to all major writers, and undoubtedly enabled him to address any major audience. Much exposure to Greek philosophical theology, together with his zeal for ascetic chastity, would figure prominently in Cassian’s response to Augustine, as shall be discussed later.
Cassian spent many years as a monk with his companion, Germanus, in Bethlehem of Palestine and various places in Egypt with the desert fathers before they went to Constantinople. There Cassian studied under Bishop Chrysostom, until the teacher was banished from Constantinople. Cassian and Germanus then carried a petition on his behalf from the clergy of Constantinople to Pope Innocent in Rome, where Cassian made the acquaintance of one Archdeacon Leo, later to become Pope Leo the Great. [4] Eventually Cassian removed to Massilia, where monastic life had become increasingly popular during more recent years, in order to develop monasticism—he established two new monasteries—and to write. [5]
In Massilia Cassian, now an abbot, wrote his three major works: 1) his Institutes (De Institutis Coenobiorum et de Octo Principalium Vitiorum Remediis Libri XII), which detail rules for the monastic life; 2) his Conferences (Collationes XXIV), which record conversations with abbots during his time in Egypt; [6] and 3) On the Incarnation against Nestorius (De Incarnatione Domini contra Nestorium), a work of seven books written at the request of Pope Leo. [7] In this last writing Cassian is the first to point out similarities between Nestorianism and Pelagianism. Of certain Nestorians he writes, “in saying that Jesus Christ lived as a mere man without any stain of sin, they actually went so far as to declare that men could also be without sin if they liked.” [8] The high estimation of man’s sufficiency and strength of will that is pervasive in Pelagian writings is applied to the Jesus of Nestorianism, who was supposed to have overcome sin by the sheer power of His merely human will, becoming Christ only at His baptism. [9] This section of De Incarnatione clearly indicates Cassian’s desire to distance himself from “the teaching or rather the evil deeds of Pelagius.” [10]
The ‘Problem’ of Augustinianism
Augustine’s influence and authority had been growing since the official defeat of Pelagianism, which was condemned in 418 at the 16th Council of Carthage. [11] The ‘initial spark’ was provided for the Cassian controversy when one of Augustine’s letters, concerning predestination and prevenient (and therefore irresistible) grace, came into the possession of monks at Adrumetum. Dispute arose among them over these doctrines, and they eventually sent a dispatch to Hippo to ask Augustine about the fuller meaning of his writings. [12] So Augustine wrote De Gratia et Libero Arbitrii (On Grace and Free Will) and De Correptione et Gratia (On Rebuke and Grace) in 426, with the hope of clarifying the matter. [13]
Of course, though this may have settled the matter for the monks at Adrumetum, the doctrines were not so easily incorporated into the life of thought at Massilia. The monks there, of whom Cassian can be considered chief, agreed with Augustine on many issues—even against Pelagianism. But they distrusted his teachings on predestination, grace and free will as a result of his letters to the monks at Adrumetum. [14] “They said that what Augustine taught as to the calling of God’s elect according to His own purpose was tantamount to fatalism, was contrary to the teaching of the fathers and the true Church doctrine, and, even if true, should not be preached, because of its tendency to drive men into indifference or despair.” [15]
Augustine taught that original sin had left humanity in a state of death (not just weakness), which necessitated the symmetrical actual giving of life in salvation by God. The will is alive and free, but its only function is to manifest the desire of a corrupt heart in a choice. So, in a sense, the will is utterly bound to sin, since men always and without exception love the darkness rather than the light, and this is death for them. The life came as God—of His own good pleasure, not motivated by anything He saw in sinners—regenerated the hearts of sinners, causing them to love God more than sin, by His Spirit (c.f. Ezek. 11:19-20; 36:22-28; Jer. 31:33-34; 32:38-41; 1 John 4:19). “This grace, therefore, which is hiddenly bestowed in human hearts by the Divine gift, is rejected by no hard heart, because it is given for the sake of first taking away the hardness of the heart.” [16] Augustine explained that God did this for some and not for others by referring to Romans 9, where God says that He is willing to exert His wrath, yet has patience in order to display the glory of His grace toward His elect. [17] These are the doctrines of predestination, grace and free will that Cassian felt jeopardized important truth about God and humanity. And though Augustine wrote convincing treatises on these doctrines in response to the complaint of the Massilians (De Praedestinatione Sanctorum and De Dono Perseverantiae; On the Predestination of the Saints and On the Gift of Perseverance [18] ), they would not be persuaded, and continued in their efforts to correct the doctrines they perceived as a threat to the life of the church.
Cassian’s ‘Solution’ Examined
Most of Cassian’s relevant arguments are laid out in the 13th book of his Conferences, which is a record of a conversation with Abbot Chaeremon entitled “On the Protection of God,” though he does touch upon the same doctrines, to lesser extents, in several other places. Methodologically, it must be said—to his commendation—that he uses Scripture with great frequency. For Cassian, and others in opposition to strong Augustinianism, it seems there were two factors of primary concern in the debate. First, being a monk whose daily life consisted of disciplined asceticism for the sake of chastity (moral purity), Cassian feared that Augustine’s doctrines would give an overwhelming sense of powerlessness and despondence in such pursuits. This, in turn, might lead to ethical irresponsibility (the lack of the feeling of accountability). [19]
It is of utmost importance to note that Cassian “positions his analyses of grace and free will within his discussions of chastity.” [20] The crucial issue for him was the empowerment for the pursuit of holiness. So great was his concern for chastity, in fact, that earlier in his life Cassian gave up the solitary life of an Anchorite monk in Egypt for that of a Coenobite in community with other monks, “in order that he might have the opportunity of practicing the virtues of obedience and subjection, which seemed out of the reach of the solitary.” [21] Quite unlike Pelagius, however, Cassian insisted that divine grace was absolutely necessary for spiritual progress. “How foolish and wicked then it is to attribute any good action to our own diligence and not to God’s grace and assistance, is clearly shown by the Lord’s saying, which lays down that no one can show forth the fruits of the Spirit without His inspiration and co-operation.” [22] Instead, he sought some middle ground of cooperation between man’s willful initiative and God’s enabling grace (libero arbitrio semper co-operatur).
In order to maintain his position that man must be capable of some motion toward God, he proposed that the will was not dead in sin. Instead, the free will was only severely weakened (infirmitas liberi arbitrii) as a result of the fall. Man was indeed capable of generating a small spark of initiative toward the good by the power of his own will, which must be then strengthened and aided by God to produce any actual good. Having a decidedly Eastern anthropology, it is understandable that Cassian would be more open to “natural possibility” than the Western Augustine. [23] Strangely enough, Cassian saw examples in Scripture of both monergistic (i.e. Matthew and Paul) and synergistic (i.e. Zacchaeus) beginnings of faith without any apparent difficulty. This is interesting, since, as R. C. Sproul observes, “The difference between Augustine and Cassian is the difference between monergism and synergism at the beginning of salvation.” [24] Nevertheless, Cassian was able to write, “when He sees in us some beginnings of a good will, He at once enlightens it and strengthens it and urges it on towards salvation, increasing that which He Himself implanted or which He sees to have arisen from our own efforts.” [25] This kind of assertion is common in his Conferences, and betrays his lack of understanding, at some level, of the issues at hand.
Second, and to a lesser degree, Cassian was concerned that the Augustinian view of particular (electing) grace stood in blatant opposition to the “clear” biblical truth of the universal availability of salvation. [26] He saw God’s love being extended to all in the universal offering of salvation, and could not stand the idea that God’s love would be so arbitrarily selective. “For if He willeth not that one of His little ones should perish, how can we imagine without grievous blasphemy that He does not generally will all men, but only some instead of all to be saved?” [27]
As a result, Cassian’s theology of God’s love required something of a fair chance for all people. If God really loved people (in the way Cassian thought), He would not permit the unfairness of a completely disabled will while demanding moral perfection. So original sin could not really have had the effect that Augustine claimed. Concordantly, prevenient grace would really be quite unnecessary, if people had the ability to initiate their own faith. And if prevenient grace were not a reality, then neither would be an Augustinian understanding of predestination. If people could really turn themselves toward God by their own will (as they must be able to do, if God is really fair and wants all to be saved), then God would only have to see (or foresee) who would create in themselves the spark of faith, and predestine them to eternal life on that basis.
Cassian’s ‘Solution’ Refuted
Having ascertained Cassian’s main reasons for disagreeing with Augustine in these matters, a few presuppositions or foundations of his perspective become evident which warrant critique. First, it is most apparent from his great concern for the advance of disciplined chastity that Cassian’s view of salvation is more sanctification-oriented than justification- or reconciliation-oriented. Whereas Augustine is generally arguing for a specific soteriological position (i.e., who makes the first move to restore relationship between God and men?), Cassian seems not to be able to think in the same category. Columba Stewart attributes this to the fact that Western skills were honed by the Pelagian controversy, while Cassian—being an Eastern thinker—has simply not been so influenced. [28] Thinking so much as he does about chastity, he almost seems to treat God as a means to the end of the perfection of holiness. This is a major fault, as it fosters a fundamentally more anthropocentric view of salvation than theocentric.
Second, and closely related to the first, is the weak view of sin and grace in Cassian. Sin for him seems to be only a violation of command and conscience. For Augustine, and in Scripture, the essence of sin is more than this—it is a rejection of the supremacy of the glory of God for delight in things of infinitely less worth… and therefore much more dishonoring to God. Accordingly, Cassian’s view of grace is more Pelagian than Augustinian. For him grace is merely an agent of enabling unto holiness (seeing Christ more as an instructor than a savior). He would likely have a low view of the substitutionary atonement of Christ.
Third, there seems to be in Cassian the attempt to maintain some level of autonomy from God in the process of salvation. This is perhaps the point where Augustine sees Cassianism “as necessarily implying the basal idea of Pelagianism,” [29] thereby referring to it as “semi-Pelagianism.” Indeed, prior to regeneration we are all born Pelagians, [30] at our religious “best” hoping to commend ourselves to God by some means other than Christ and the total reliance upon the sovereign grace of God.
Fourth, and more commonly ignored among historical and systematic theologians than the other points, is the pernicious error of an unexamined, confused, unbiblical anthropology. It is obvious from Cassian’s Conferences that he sees the will as self-moved, self-initiated, and able to incline itself (albeit only slightly and weakly) toward the good. Also, he muddles the functions of the faculties of the soul in various places, not demonstrating any clear understanding of the will as a function of the heart, or of the desires as determining the direction of the will. For him, a man’s being and doing are reversed from the biblical perspective: “for each man must incline to one side or the other in accordance with the character of his actions.”
The Official Outcome
Prosper of Aquitaine, lay friend of Augustine, took up the defense of monergism against Cassian’s synergism from the beginning. He had alerted Augustine to the trouble in Massilia, motivating the bishop to write the two last works of his life against semi-Pelagianism (De Praedestinatione Sanctorum and De Dono Perseverantiae). And shortly after Augustine’s death he, with his (otherwise unknown) companion, Hilary, petitioned Pope Celestine to condemn Cassian’s teachings. However, they encountered difficulty in
Semi-Pelagianism experienced some small official successes in Gaul at the Synods of Arles and Lyons in 472, but in 496 “Pope Gelasius I sanctioned the writings of Augustine and Prosper and condemned those of Cassian….” [33] Eventually, at the Council of Arausiacum (Orange: 529) semi-Pelagianism was officially condemned, and the church adopted a mostly-Augustinian stance. [34]
The Abiding Influence
Tragically for the church, Augustinianism was being softened by the bishop’s successors before semi-Pelagianism was even officially condemned. [35] It was not held to strongly enough for the fundamental tenets of Augustine’s theology to take deeper root in the church. The resulting influence of Cassian has been widespread and long lasting. For, while it is true that the Council of Orange was a triumph over the “semi-Pelagian denial of the necessity of prevenient grace for salvation,” Robert L. Reymond observes,
And so the more complete majesty of God’s work in saving a people for Himself out of sin has gone through the centuries half-veiled, until the Day when the last vestiges of our self-reliance are stripped away, and all the earth trembles at the total sovereignty of the God whose pleasure it was to save some, sola gratia.
Except there is no evidence that Peter was the "Pope "or that God ordained "Holy orders " for a kind of apostolic succession.
Note that when Judas fell the apostles TRIED their own version of apostolic succession and the man Mattahias was never heard from again in the inspired scripture. Instead God selected the man that was to be the apostle to the Gentiles.
There is no proof in the scriptures or contemporary history that 1) Peter was the Bishop of Rome, or selected to be the "pope" or that God has ordained apostolic succession with men passing on HIS "gifts to others .
God destroyed the principle of priestly succession in 70 AD .
If one ignores scripture, I can see where one might hold this view, but for Christians who hold fast to the word and letter of the Word, the truth is evident.
Note that when Judas fell the apostles TRIED their own version of apostolic succession and the man Mattahias was never heard from again in the inspired scripture. Instead God selected the man that was to be the apostle to the Gentiles.
That's your "evidence" for the failure of succession, lack of scriptural reference to a particular ministry? Lol!
There is no proof in the scriptures or contemporary history that 1) Peter was the Bishop of Rome, or selected to be the "pope" or that God has ordained apostolic succession with men passing on HIS "gifts to others .
Peters bones are in Rome, early writers refer to Peters ministry in Rome, Peter refers to his ministry in Rome(Babylon) and there's a reason Paul preaches about laying on of hands.
I realize that apostolic secession, liturgical and sacramental faith are anathema for many modern Christians who build their belief system on the writings of men who lived over 1400 years after the Apostles died, but you'll have to forgive me for not giving the "reformers" much credence, I'll stick with Christ and His chosen Apostles. When you artificially limit your self to the man made tradition of sola scriptura, you withhold from your self the fullness of revelation.
I said no such thing. I said schism was an extreme remedy, justifiable only in extreme circumstances, much like chemotherapy is a poison that tries to kill the cancer before the cancer kills the patient.
Dr. E, in typical fashion, however, postured and pontificated about how "vile" my comparison was. Frankly, who asked her?
While the Roman Catholic priesthood has entirely too many Sodomite priests, the Pope is certainly not any such thing. Such a comparison is offensive - he's a fellow Christian. He may hold what I believe to be aberrent doctrines, but he is most certainly not a man with "no spiritual standing."
Indeed, the Koine Greek does not have to be "reconstructed", it is, unlike the mythical, unverifiable "Aramaic original", available to us. There is no manuscript evidence of a pre-Greek Matthew. It has also been noted that the character of the Greek is not that of a translation.
..."petros" is masculine form of "petra". Nothing more or, with the pun intended, nothing less.
Petros is only used in the Greek New Testament as a proper name for Simon, with the possible exception of John 1:42. According to Arndt and Gingrich the name Petros was apparently never used in Greek before its appearance in the New Testament. If Petros is merely a masculine form of the word petra, and not a different word with a different meaning, with both words being derived from a common root, then you still have a problem with that little word translated “this”, which also matches the Greek feminine "petra". If Jesus also meant by that second clause to refer to Simon Peter he could have said "epi tauto to petro" (masculine gender in the dative case) "on this petros I will build". But what he said was "Epi taute te petra", using petra, a different Greek word; the sentence going from second person masculine to third person feminine. And then there is the problem of why the feminine petra is always used in the Scriptures to refer to Christ, but never the masculine petros, which is only used to refer to Peter.
Irregardless of all the grammatical subtleties and gymnastics, the fact is that Vatican I claims of exclusive jurisdiction and authority over all the church demands the modern papal supremacy interpretation. So many claims of exclusive authority are riding on so few texts, even though the grammar does not demand it, and despite the fact that the early Church Fathers held views diametrically opposed to it, as represented by Augustine, who can be said to have been fairly typical of the others.
And if all this were wrong, it still does not obviate the fact that even if the text were to apply exclusively to Peter, and added together with all the superlatives and firsts applied to Peter by Scripture and by the Fathers, it does not follow that these things necessarily apply exclusively to the bishops of Rome. Absent any demonstration in context that such prerogatives were applied in the early church's thinking to the bishop of Rome alone as the sole, unique successor of Peter, such an assumption is completely unwarranted.
Cordially,
LOL. Good morning to you, too, Jude.
You seem to be confusing your "frankness" with rudeness.
Your written words are clear for anyone to read and understand which is most likely what's really upsetting you.
In post #148, you wrote...
"I agree with Reformed theology, and believe it to be the most accurate, but there are a lot of warts there - and the resulting schism is something to be lamented. It may have been necessary, but if so, it is like chemotherapy - a radical treatment that is in fact poisonous itself."
Did this "schism" necessitate the Reformation, Jude?
Was this "schism" required of us, as Calvin asserted, in order to reaffirm and reestablish the truth of salvation by God's grace alone?
Did God ordain this truth to be varnished by the blood of the Christian martyrs who died as part of this "schism" in order to print and preach the word of God to all the people?
Did those martyrs deplore this "schism," or like Ridley and Latimer, did they understand that God's truth was all that mattered?
Ridley's last words before the fire was lighted were these, "Heavenly Father, I give Thee most hearty thanks that Thou-hast called me to a profession of Thee even unto death. I beseech Thee, Lord God, have mercy on this realm of England, and deliver the same from all her enemies. Latimer's last words were like the blast of a trumpet, which rings even to this day -- "Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man; we shall this day, by God's grace, light such a candle in England as I trust shall never be put out."
Yet some would extinguish the candle and defame it as "chemotherapy."
Read from the following link and learn the price willingly paid for such "repair."
And I may "posture," Jude, but I never "pontificate." It's not in my Reformed nature, by the grace of God alone.
You've mispelled abhorrent.......
In this post you have altered your comment to me presumably for clarification purposes. Certainly Dr. E and I are not the only ones out here that was confused by your inaccurate statement. I appreciate the clarification but I think you're being disingenuious to Dr. E. We commented on what was posted and as we (and others) read it.
In general, a pronoun (such as "it") refers back to the previous noun used in the sentance (the antecedant). Thus, in the sentences "... the resulting schism is to be lamented. It may have been necessary, but if so, it is like chemotheraphy....," the antecedant is the schism, not the Reformation.
Feel free to comment when you two learn to read. Until then, leave me alone.
They were either to give up Protestantism and receive Popery, or else they were to be burned alive. Refusing to recant, they were one by one handed over to the secular power, publicly brought out and chained to stakes, publicly surrounded with faggots, and publicly sent out of the world by that most cruel and painful of deaths, the death by fire. All these are broad facts which all the apologists of Rome can never gainsay or deny.
All of this may be true, and it speaks to a tyranny, that should it ever rise again, should be supplanted by any means necessary. And, thanks to the Founding Fathers, here in America, the heretic hunters would meet with a dreadful fate themselves. All that being said, during the reign of Henry VIII, and following his falling out with Rome, weren't he and the Protestants at his side, responsible for a good bit of murder and mayhem themselves? Singling out Monks and like Religious in particular? Cranmer (sp?) is reputed to have been forced to recant his attacks against Rome? Is that true? I also read that when he was burned at the stake, he submitted the hand that wrote the recant into the fire first.
What a hideous history this all is. I also read that at the time of the Counter-reformation (perhaps even before) Canon Law forbade the Church to spill blood, as a consequence, heretics were handed over to the State. I can't for the life of me square that.
It's a poor writer who blames the reader.
But I suppose it's a good sign you now want to distance yourself from what you wrote.
Eighty thousand Huguenots, men, women and children, were pulled from their beds and slaughtered because they professed that salvation was by God's grace alone.
No question he is a PROFESSING member of the visible church I do not know if he is a saved Brother in Christ or not, and neither do you.
I did not say he was a sodomite, I never even thought such a thing, and you accuse Dr E of not correctly reading your posts? My SPIRITUAL point (obviously LOST on you) was that we are not to be UNEQUALLY yoked with the unsaved or people that hold false doctrine. I am sorry you miss Spiritual lessons unless CLEARLY explained
It is time for you to apologize for implying I said any such thing
I failed miserably. Sorry.
Good Lord, I had no idea.
I am sure Jude feels that like "Foxes Book of Martyrs" it is all exaggerated .
WHERE was the "humor" you are a lousy liar Jude, you intended that to make me look like a bigot and fool
I away your apology, not for not being funny , but for slandering me
Make that await your apology
I just don't take those accounts at face-value. Those books represent an element of the Reformation that was as much political as it was theological. Taking those accounts at face -value would not be much different than using Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 or Ann Coulter's screeds as source materials for modern American politics.
:) Morning Kevin!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.