John Cassian’s Response to Augustinianism

www.monergism.com ^ | Unknown | E. A. Costa

[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

…trying to secure a condemnation of someone (Cassian) who had just written the anti-Nestorian treatise The Incarnation of the Lord at the behest of Leo, archdeacon of Rome. Cassian had, surely not coincidentally, linked Nestorius to Pelagius and attached both vigorously. His stock was high in Rome. [31]

In 432 Prosper wrote Contra Collatorem (Against the Author of the Conferences) as he saw Cassianism spreading in Gaul, expressing the hope that Pope Sixtus would condemn the teachings. [32] In this work he focuses on Cassian’s Eastern tendencies as detrimental to a right understanding of the human will.

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,

…that same council betrayed the church into the semi-semi-Pelagian denial of the irresistibility of that prevenient grace by human free will, which theological vision, in spite of the recurring protests through the centuries of such men as Gottschalk, Bradwardine, Wycliff, and Hus, eventually an Aquinas was to systematize and the Council of Trent (1545) was to declare the official position of those churches in communion with Counter-Reformation Rome. [36]

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.

[1] Edgar C. S. Gibson, preface to The Works of John Cassian, by John Cassian, trans. Edgar C. S. Gibson, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd ser., vol. 11, ed. Philip Schaff, accessed through The Master Christian Library, ver. 8 (Rio, WI: AGES Software, Inc., 2000), 375. [2] The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1954), s.v. “Cassianus Johannus,” http://www.ccel.org/php/disp.php?authorID=schaff&bookID=encyc02&page=435&view= [3] Columba Stewart, Cassian the Monk, Oxford Studies in Historical Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 5. [4] Gibson, 383. [5] Stewart, 5. [6] The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1908 ed., s.v. “John Cassian,” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03404a.htm [7] Gibson, 383. [8] John Cassian, On the Incarnation against Nestorius, in The Works of John Cassian, trans. with preface Edgar C. S. Gibson, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd ser., vol. 11, ed. Philip Schaff, accessed through The Master Christian Library, ver. 8 (Rio, WI: AGES Software, Inc., 2000), 1:3. [9] Gibson., 387. [10] Cassian., Against Nestorius, 1:4. [11] Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 2d ed. rev. & updated (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998), 468-9. [12] B. B. Warfield, introduction to Saint Augustine’s Anti-Pelagian Works, by St. Augustine, trans. Peter Holmes & Robert Ernest Wallis, rev. B. B. Warfield, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1st ser., vol. 5, ed. Philip Schaff, accessed through The Master Christian Library, ver. 8 (Rio, WI: AGES Software, Inc., 2000), 89-90. [13] Gibson, 388. [14] Ibid., 389. [15] Warfield, 97-8. [16] St. Augustine, The Predestination of the Saints, in Saint Augustine’s Anti-Pelagian Works, by St. Augustine, trans. Peter Holmes & Robert Ernest Wallis, rev. with intro. B. B. Warfield, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1st ser., vol. 5, ed. Philip Schaff, accessed through The Master Christian Library, ver. 8 (Rio, WI: AGES Software, Inc., 2000), ch. 13, emphasis mine. [17] Ibid., ch. 14. See Rom. 9:22-23. For an excellent treatment of the righteousness of God in His sovereign election based on this passage, see John Piper, The Justification of God: An Exegetical & Theological Study of Romans 9:1-23, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1993), especially pp. 183-216. [18] Gibson, 389 [19] Earle E. Cairns, Christianity through the Centuries, 3rd ed. rev. & expanded (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 132. [20] Stewart, 76. [21] Gibson, 378. [22] Cassian, The Conferences of John Cassian, in The Works of John Cassian, 3:16. [23] Stewart, 19. [24] R. C. Sproul, Willing to Believe (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1997), 73. [25] Cassian, Conferences, 13:8. [26] Sproul, 70. [27] Cassian, Conferences, 13:7. [28] Stewart, 78. [29] Warfield, 93. [30] Reymond, 469. [31] Stewart, 20-21. [32] Gibson, 390-391. [33] Sproul, 75. [34] J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, rev. ed. (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1978), 371-2. [35] Sproul, 75. [36] Reymond, 469

[jude24]

I, too, thank God for Luther, but even more for Philipp Melanchthon, who moderated Lutheranism away from the heretical conculsions Luther later came to.

Only God, in his sovereignty, could use a tortured soul like Luther to jump-start a much-needed Reformation.

[AlbionGirl]

(which, providentially, ultimately resulted in "The Presbyterian Rebellion" in the Colonies -- i.e., the American Revolution and the founding of our United States of America).

Amen, and thank God for not-so-small favors.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I, too, thank God for Luther, but even more for Philipp Melanchthon, who moderated Lutheranism away from the heretical conculsions Luther later came to. Only God, in his sovereignty, could use a tortured soul like Luther to jump-start a much-needed Reformation.

Oh, fer crying out loud, Jude... ditching Luther in favor of Melancthon is like ditching Saint Peter in favor of the Pharisee Gamaliel.

You might as well pray to God, "I don't want to learn any important Widsom, Lord... teach me the trivial things!!"

Homework assignment, Jude... identify ONE (1) important doctrine of the Reformation which was first promulgated by Melancthon. JUST ONE. As Dr. Crane says on Frasier, "I'm listening". (Meanwhile, John Calvin had written the second-most influential Book in the last thousand years by the time he turned twenty-eight ~~ and it was Luther what lit a fire under his arse).

Between Luther and Calvin, choosing Melancthon is like saying "given a choice between Prime Rib and Salmon Steak... I'll take the Oatmeal."

Good grief.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

LOL. As I said last week, two things make me gag -- lima beans and OATMEAL!

[jude24]

ditching Luther in favor of Melancthon is like ditching Saint Peter in favor of the Pharisee Gamaliel.

No, at worst, it is like ditching St. Peter for St. Andrew - or, in mythological terms, replacing a titan with a relatively minor hero. But, in this case, Luther's flaws would have endangered the whole Reformation without the reasoned explanations of Melancthon.

identify one ... important doctrine of the Reformation which was first promulgated by Melancthon

Melancthon was the moving force behind the Augusburg Confession - a Confession that was 100% orthodox where Luther's execesses were not (i.e., the canon). (Okay, that's not a "doctrine," but it is the defining document of Lutheranism.)

[RnMomof7]

Tell us how you REALLY feel :)

[RnMomof7]

I don't know if it is cherry picked or not. I find, in the passage you speak of, an insistence on the Part of Christ, that seems to lend itself to the literal aspects of it, which the Roman Catholics are attached to.

Please read the 6th chapter of John from verse 1 until the end.

Jesus preformed a miracle where thousands were fed bread. He then went away from the crowd.

The crowd followed him, but not because they sought Christ as teacher or Savior, not because they knew he was the Christ, but because they wanted to get their stomachs full of bread.

Read the rebuke of Christ to them

Jhn 6:25 And when they had found him on the other side of the sea, they said unto him, Rabbi, when camest thou hither?
Jhn 6:26 Jesus answered them and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye seek me, not because ye saw the miracles, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.

It was then he began to teach that they were looking for a miracle that would fill their stomachs ( as did the nation of Israel in the desert) . They wanted their temporal needs met.

Jhn 6:27 Labour not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of man shall give unto you: for him hath God the Father sealed.
Jhn 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?

Jhn 6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Jesus laid out that salvation was by FAITH, and that was a work of the Father

Then then decided to put Christ to a test ...Give us PROOF. THEY brought up the manna ..

Jhn 6:30 They said therefore unto him, What sign shewest thou then, that we may see, and believe thee? what dost thou work?
Jhn 6:31 Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat.

Jesus clarified where salvation comes from

Jhn 6:32 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven; but my Father giveth you the true bread from heaven

he was pointing out that the "bread from heaven " that kept their fathers only gave them physical life.. HE on the other hands was sent from the father to give them eternal spiritual life.

They did not "get it" they were looking for REAL bread to give them life as had happened in the desert, they were looking for tangible bread like manna

Jhn 6:34 Then said they unto him, Lord, evermore give us this bread.

Jesus then patiently explained to them that His flesh is life for the world.. His crucified body was what was going to bring eternal life

Jhn 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: he that cometh to me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on me shall never thirst.
Jhn 6:36 But I said unto you,That ye also have seen me, and believe not.
Jhn 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Jhn 6:38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.
Jhn 6:39 And this is the Father's will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

Jhn 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

The entire message is on salvation by faith .

The listeners did not get it , they were hung up on another point .

Jhn 6:41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.
Jhn 6:42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven? Notice the focus of the crowd was not on Him being the BREAD or eating Him but that He said he came down from heaven ( a claim of divinity )

Jhn 6:43 Jesus therefore answered and said unto them, Murmur not among yourselves.
Jhn 6:44 No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 6:45 It is written in the prophets, And they shall be all taught of God. Every man therefore that hath heard, and hath learned of the Father, cometh unto me.
Jhn 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

Jhn 6:48 I am that bread of life.
Jhn 6:49 Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead.
Jhn 6:50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.
Jhn 6:51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
Jhn 6:52 The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, How can this man give us [his] flesh to eat?
Jhn 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Jhn 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
Jhn 6:55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. Jhn 6:56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
Jhn 6:57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
Jhn 6:58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

Keep in mind He had already taught at some length that He that believed on Him would be saved.. He has already taught that he that is taught by the Father come to him and are saved.. So to interpret this as other than a metaphor of being saved by His soon to be broken body and his shed blood, by internalizing the fact of the atonement in faith is not a good reading and not the one understood by the new church

This is from jamison

Here, for the first time in this high discourse, our Lord explicitly introduces His sacrificial death--for only rationalists can doubt this not only as that which constitutes Him the Bread of life to men, but as THAT very element IN HIM WHICH POSSESSES THE LIFE-GIVING VIRTUE.--"From this time we hear no more (in this discourse) of "Bread"; this figure is dropped, and the reality takes its place" [STIER]. The words "I will give" may be compared with the words of institution at the Supper, "This is My body which is given for you" ( Luk 22:19 ), or in Paul's report of it, "broken for you" ( 1Cr 11:24 ).

Jhn 6:60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard [this], said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
Jhn 6:61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?

If they were offended at that, he was saying wait until you hear the rest

Jhn 6:62 [What] and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
Jhn 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, [they] are spirit, and [they] are life.
Jhn 6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him.
Jhn 6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
Jhn 6:66 From that [time] many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him.

They did not like hearing that salvation had to be given them , much like the manna in the desert, it was totally a gift of the Father. They could not do anything on their own to earn it . This was blasphemy to the law oriented Jews that felt their salvation was based on their will, their law keeping etc

To make an attempt to make this a teaching on the Lords supper misses the mark. Christ was still alive and in His flesh and 2nd he was, by your reckoning , telling them to do something they could not do because the Lords Supper had not been instituted yet,it is a spiritual eating and drinking that is here spoken of, not a sacramental.

[RnMomof7]

As a Calvinist I take it seriously, we are commanded to remember the crucifixion and death of our substitute, Christ, and to do that as God ordained in the O.T. with the Passover. it is a solemn remembrance where God is present to the elect.
Can you explain how Calvinists do this?

In a manner similar to the way the jews celebrated the passover.

We come to the table, examine our consciences and prayerfully meditate on the sacrifice of the cross for our sin. Jesus said we were to do this in remembrance of him, and that is how we approach the Lords table. God is present to us as he has promised in the congregation and in His word.

Indeed being Catholic is a part of the family and cultural identity of many people. One is for example an "Irish Catholic" in WNY . When I left the church the first thing my father said to me was "Why aren't you Catholic anymore, we are a Catholic family ?" He could not understand the spiritual significance of my conversion because he had never experienced it.
Try being a Roman, and a Roman Catholic. Certainly can't speak for your Dad, but during the time of his initiation into the Faith, Catholics were to be seen and not heard. Questions, innocent or not, were treated with suspicions of treason. One was conscripted, in a manner of speaking. That does a lot for the Organization, very little for the individual, IMO.
My idea of God when I was a kid was of someone who took names, dates, and number of offences. That's how God was basically presented to me, and probably to your Dad too. That being said, God flourishes in the lives of many people who were introduced to God in the same way, The Holy Spirit knows no proscription.

I disagree my friend. God has indeed proscribed the method of salvation clearly in His word.

My Mother is one of those people, and while I don't think she'd celebrate my uncrossing the Tiber, I don't believe she ever believed that Catholics have an iron-clad handle on the truth, and she would accept, and probably understand my decision. I tend to agree with C.S.Lewis too, when a Church claims to be the sole repository of truth and originality, examination of such claims is in order.

I agree with CS Lewis on that. Salvation is not a denomination driven, it is Christ driven.

Thanks for the link.

Pink is an interesting read. he was a prolific writer (a baptist not a Presbyterian:)

And what did you or I do to "earn" those gifts and cards? How were WE worthy ? There is an expectation of money and gifts connected with it, people talk of "still having their first communion money" . The fact that is a Catholic cultural norm says much to me.
My parents used my First Communion money (which I hadn't even recalled until you brought it up) to buy a much needed mattress. It was meaningless (other than it was a help) to them and me, relative to the event. But money does taint many things.

My problem with the posture of the Roman church on this is it makes man worthy of reward for being obedient to a command to do this in "memory " of me. The white dress/veil indicates a "purity" in the one receiving him, when in truth He did not come for or to the pure, but to and for sinners. So the white indicates that anyone anytime could be worthy in their own person to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

God bless, RNMom, and all those you love.

God bless you too! I was glad to see you around. We are due for some cold weather this coming week, so bundle up warm my friend:)

[annalex]

Naturally, the grant of the keys to St. Peter did not remove any power from Christ Who is, after all, the King. That is the keys the Revelation 1:18 is talking about.

[AlbionGirl]

You stay safe and warm too!

I did read your responses, but need some time to re-read and think over, so don't think I just passed them over.

[RnMomof7]

Naturally, the grant of the keys to St. Peter did not remove any power from Christ Who is, after all, the King. That is the keys the Revelation 1:18 is talking about.

BUT can one get to the King in the kingdom without going through the one with the Keys? It would seem that if one makes Peter the eternal holder of the keys to the kingdom, no one gets in through the golden gates unless he lets them .. So who is really King then?

[annalex]

Christ is Christ, Peter is Peter, and Church is Church. Extra ecclesiam nulla salus never meant that Christ is not King.

[Diamond]

Overall, Homily 88 strongly affirms primacy of Peter, -- thank you for mentioning it to me:

And why, having passed by the others, doth He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus putteth into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and He bringeth not forward the denial, nor reproacheth him with what had taken place, but saith, "If thou lovest Me, preside over thy brethren, and the warm love which thou didst ever manifest, and in which thou didst rejoice, show thou now; and the life which thou saidst thou wouldest lay down for Me, now give for My sheep."

The conclusion that Chrysostom is affirming the primacy of Peter in a Papal sense is unwarrantd because Chrysostom explains exactly what he means by the grant of "chief authority over the brethren"; namely, in his comments about James at Jerusalem quoted above, and wherein he states that "charge of the world" means that he was to be a teacher of the world, which very thing he also stated of John. The "chief authority" here attributed by Chrysostom to Peter is not unique to Peter because Chrysostom also attributes the very same "chief authority" to Paul.

According to Chrysostom, all bishops are successors of Peter, who possess the chair of Peter and not just the bishops of Rome:

In speaking of S. Peter, the recollection of another Peter has come to me, the common father and teacher, who has inherited his prowess, and also obtained his chair. For this is the one great privilege of our city, Antioch, that it received the leader of the apostles as its teacher in the beginning. For it was right that she who was first adorned with the name of Christians, before the whole world, should receive the first of the apostles as her pastor. But though we received him as teacher, we did not retain him to the end, but gave him up to royal Rome. Or rather we did retain him to the end, for though we do not retain the body of Peter, we do retain the faith of Peter, and retaining the faith of Peter we have Peter.
(On the Inscription of the Acts, II. Cited by E. Giles, Documents Illustrating Papal Authority (London: SPCK, 1952), p. 168. Cf. Chapman, Studies on the Early Papacy, p. 96)

Chrysosom called Ignatius of Antioch "a successor of Peter, on whom, after Peter, the government of the church devolved."
(In S. Ignat. Martyr., n. 4. Cited by Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1910), Volume III, p. 309).

It was Chrysotom who said that "the Apostles were designated rulers, rulers who received not nations and particular cities, but all being entrusted with the world in common." (Inscriptionem Actorum II. PG 51, 93

Add to that Chrysotom's exegesis on Mattew 16:16, where he states that this rock is not Peter himself, but Peter's confession, and there is nothing in him or other early patristic sources that mandates or evidences a papal ecclesiology, except by imposing it onto the sources after the later fact.

When you say that Firmilian of Caesarea notices that Stephen claimed to decide the controversy regarding rebaptism on the ground that he held the succession from Peter (Cyprian, Ep. 75:17), it is not suprising to me that he does not deny the claim, because they all held the succession from Peter, and his chair, not just the bishops of Rome. All includes Rome but is not exclusive to it. Augustine stated that Cyprian was not wrong in opposing Stephen because a general council had not decided on the matter.

There are great proofs of this existing on the part of the blessed martyr Cyprian, in his letters,—to come at last to him of whose authority they carnally flatter themselves they are possessed, whilst by his love they are spiritually overthrown. For at that time, before the consent of the whole Church had declared authoritatively, by the decree of a plenary Council, what practice should be followed in this matter, it seemed to him, in common with about eighty of his fellow bishops of the African churches, that every man who had been baptized outside the communion of the Catholic Church should, on joining the Church, be baptized anew.
(NPNF series, First Series, Volume 4, On Baptism, Against the Donatists, Book 1, Chapter 18.28)

Even though Stephen had rendered a judgment as the bishop of Rome this was not the final and authoritative judgment according to Augustine, which would have been the case if he had viewed the decree of the bishop of Rome as dispositive in some papal sense.

Cordially,

[annalex]

Chrysostom also attributes the very same "chief authority" to Paul.

Where? I don't dispute that he did, but would like to see the context.

The Church is a hierarchical structure. A bishop is a local representative of the pope and ordinarily is all the authority the flock would ever need to know in the matters of faith. The passages from Chrysostom that you cite do not show otherwise. And, yes, it is the steadfastness of faith that earned Peter his unique commission.

Overall, you ascribe to the papacy certain autocratic qualities, then argue that the Chair of Peter was not universally thought of as autocratic. So, it is true that a single papal opinion needs to be made in consensus with the bishops of the Church before it can be considered infallible. The pope can make local determinations like any other bishop; moreover, he can voice private opinions not binding on anyoine at all. The rebaptism controversy does not point to anything about the papacy we don't know.

[Diamond]

Chrysostom also attributes the very same "chief authority" to Paul.

Where? I don't dispute that he did, but would like to see the context.

In his 32nd Homily on Romans. The term “chief authority” in Homily 88 is a translation of the Greek word prostasia. Chyrostom applies the very same term to Paul:

Who is there then to pray over us, since Paul hath departed? These who are the imitators of Paul. Only let us yield ourselves worthy of such intercession (sunhgorias), that it may not be that we hear Paul's voice here only, but that hereafter, when we are departed, we may be counted worthy to see the wrestler of Christ. Or rather, if we hear him here, we shall certainly see him hereafter, if not as standing near him, yet see him we certainly shall, glistening near the Throne of the king. Where the Cherubim sing the glory, where the Seraphim are flying, there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as a chief and leader of the choir of the Saints, and shall enjoy his generous love. For if when here he loved men so, that when he had the choice of departing and being with Christ, he chose to be here, much more will he there display a warmer affection. I love Rome even for this, although indeed one has other grounds for praising it, both for its greatness, and its antiquity, and its beauty, and its populousness, and for its power, and its wealth, and for its successes in war. But I l t all this pass, and esteem it blessed on this account, that both in his lifetime he wrote to them, and loved them so, and talked with them whiles he was with us, and brought his life to a close there. Wherefore the city is more notable upon this ground, than upon all others together. And as a body great and strong, it hath as two glistening eyes the bodies of these Saints. Not so bright is the heaven, when the sun sends forth his rays, as is the city of Rome, sending out these two lights into all parts of the world. From thence will Paul be caught up, from thence Peter. Just bethink you, and shudder (frixate) at the thought of what a sight Rome will see, when Paul ariseth suddenly from that deposit, together with Peter, and is lifted up to meet the Lord. (1 Thess. iv. 17.) What a rose will Rome send up to Christ! (Is. xxxv. 1) what two crowns will the city have about it! what golden chains will she be girded with! what fountains possess! Therefore I admire the city, not for the much gold, not for the columns, not for the other display there, but for these pillars of the Church. (1 Cor. xv. 38.)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210232.htm

Cyril of Jerusalem also refers to Peter and Paul with the very same term:

15. As the delusion was extending, Peter and Paul, a noble pair, chief rulers of the Church, arrived and set the error right; and when the supposed god Simon wished to shew himself off, they straightway shewed him as a corpse. For Simon promised to rise aloft to heaven, and came riding in a daemons' chariot on the air; but the servants of God fell on their knees, and having shewn that agreement of which Jesus spoke, that If two of you shall agree concerning anything that they shall ask, it shall be done unto them, they launched the weapon of their concord in prayer against Magus, and struck him down to the earth. And marvellous though it was, yet no marvel. For Peter was there, who carrieth the keys of heaven: and nothing wonderful, for Paul was there, who was caught up to the third heaven, and into Paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful far a man to utter. These brought the supposed God down from the sky to earth, thence to be taken down to the regions below the earth. In this man first the serpent of wickedness appeared; but when one head had been cut off, the root of wickedness was found again with many heads.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310106.htm

Chrysostom also says this about Paul in his Commentary on Galations:

Ver. 8 "For He that wrought for Peter unto the Apostleship of the Circumcision wrought for me also unto the Gentiles.
He calls the Gentiles the Uncircumcision and the Jews the Circumcision, and declares his own rank to be equal to that of the Apostles; and, by comparing himself with their Leader not with the others, he shows that the dignity of each was the same. After he had established the proof of their unanimity, he takes courage, and proceeds confidently in his argument, not stopping at the Apostles, but advances to Christ Himself, and to the grace which He had conferred upon him, and calls-the Apostles as his witnesses, saying,
Ver. 9. "And when they perceived the grace that was given unto me, James and Cephas and John, they who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship.
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF1-13/npnf1-13-06.htm#P314_88493

All the quotes in context, Chyrostom applies the term for "chief authority" to Peter, Paul and James ("James was invested with the chief rule", even in Peter's presence) and thus they too are contraindicative of a papal ecclesiology in the early church. "Chief Authority" in Homily 88 is not exclusive to Peter.

Overall, you ascribe to the papacy certain autocratic qualities

I am only refering to Rome's claims of a universal jurisdiction over the entire Church. As far as I know, Stephen is the first bishop to assert such a thing so unheard of by Apostolic tradition that he was virtually mocked by Firmilian for it.

"I am justly indignant with Stephen's obvious and manifest silliness, that he so boasts of his position, and claims that he is the successor of St. Peter on whom were laid the foundations of the Church; yet he brings in many other rocks, and erects new buildings of many Churches when he defends with his authority the baptism conferred by heretics; for those who are baptized are without doubt numbered in the Church, and he who approves their baptism affirms that there is among them a Church of the baptized.… Stephen, who declares that he has the Chair of Peter by succession, is excited by no zeal against heretics" (c. xvii). "You have cut yourself off—do not mistake—since he is the true schismatic who makes himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For in thinking that all can be excommunicated by you, you have cut off yourself alone from the communion of all" (c. xxiv).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firmilian

Cordially,

[annalex]

Thank you.

St. Paul is surely a great leader of the Church, the author of many epistles, first to formulate several important theological concepts; apart from the issue of papacy, it is natural that St. Paul, as well as St. John and St. James, are mentioned with highest honorifics any time St. Peter is mentioned. We need to see if the context refers to a specific authority of last instance reserved to St. Peter and the Pope, -- not to theological prowess or sanctity. In the first quote, clearly we do not deal with temporal authority on earth at all. In the second a concrete episode is described as two men, Peter and Paul arrive to set straight a controversy. It is their role in the specific controversy that is described as sharing in authority, not their role in the church worldwide; in fact, St. Peter's role as the keeper of the Keys is confirmed in the same quote. The third quote does not deal with Apostle Paul in relation to the rest fo the church, but rather to the propriety of his rank as an Apostle, given that he was not among the original Twelve and had to receive that status from John, Peter, and James, -- the "pillars". If anything, that quote would strengthen the case that Peter, James and John in collegium, if not Peter alone, executed something resembling a papal privilege.

Firmilian disputes a specific decision by a specific Pope, and he does so, interestingly, by disputing the validity of Pope Stephen's succession to the throne of Peter. He is not calling into question the institution of papacy at all. As you know, in the 14 century we had three men claiming to be popes. We have some claiming to be popes today, and some dispute that anyone after Vatican II has been pope. Firmilian's rhetoric is an early example of a sedevacantist argument. The very fact that the argument is made points to the reality of the institution of papacy, today, and in the 3rd century.

[Dahlseide]

That is a far cry from your "crime" & (peasant revolt) post; that embedded in your desire for "unity". So now it is I agree, but,

Then the two of you with your neat little one liners concerning the tortured, & heretics of, Luther & ...

To paraphrase, one of you have kicked me in the arse to post as much of Luther & the times he lived & the circumstances in which he found himself as I am able - that includes the bad stuff & for that I do not need the help of either of you; nor from a member of non-reformed party & its charge of personnel corruption & stunted intellect; that with without a whimper from FR (I did the best I could privately - shame on me for cowardice); because (?) it acknowledged Calvin as at least having a worthy case

This with apologies to DrEck & Rnmomo7 Gamecock; I did not intend to imply that you agree with me. It is my desire that I not embarrass any of you three, as to the other two I care not a whit

I don't know if the match I have lit will find it's way into pool of gasoline or a pool of water or something in between.

The devil has his plate full of stuff he can use against the reform 500 years ago

You sit in your comfy sans the trials of that period & judge a brother. Not judging? re-read your posts. Shame, shame, on the both of you.

I believe my anger is righteous, if not make a charge & let’s follow in the Spirit of Matthew 18.

Finally to echo somthing of Luther; I am not drunk.

[jude24]

When you can string two coherent sentences together, then come back to me. I can't figure out what, precisely, your grievance is.

[Dahlseide]

In replying to your post I am working on stringing two or more words together; that may take a while as I am somewhat retarded. I will be back, possibly tonight; I do use a spell checker although that is not much help with grammer. But at least Bill Gates word processor gave me a clean bill on my grammer.

[Dahlseide]

My guess is I was being too cryptic when referring to posts one of which was on another thread.

I will round up the exact posts as soon as I have the opportunity.

Until I get back one is copied in part below:

To: jude24; Gamecock; HarleyD; Dr. Eckleburg Tell it to those slaughtered in the Peasant's Revolt or by Cromwell's minions. Respectfully, Jude -- Calvinists are hardly liable either for Martin Luther's over-estimation of Princely Authority (which resulted in the massacre of the Peasants), or for the excesses of Cromwell (who was the anti-presbyterian Warlord of the Independency; a "Calvinist" of sorts in his Soteriology, but not in his Ecclesiology or Theonomy). "Calvinism", if read in the light of Calvin's Institutes, rejects both the Tyranny-prone Monarchism of Luther, and also the Demagoguery-prone popular-Congregationalism of Cromwell