John Cassian’s Response to Augustinianism

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.”

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]

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.

[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

When Christ gave him the keys, He gave peter authority when He gave Peter a particular commission in John, He reaffirmed the position.

The commission was to open the Gospel to the JEWS, which is what we see in scripture. Paul to the gentiles and Peter to the Jews.

When Peter writes from Babylon he is writing from Rome.

Proof of that please? There is no contemporary or biblical evidence that he was ever IN Rome, but being in Babylon would have been consistent with the mission given him by God.

Just because you say it does not make it true, please show us in Scripture that Babylon DEFINITELY means Rome , and then please do not act offended if the dispensationalists say that Rome is Babylon in Revelations, you can not have it both ways

When Peter told the apostles assembled in Acts that there was no need to "..by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? " he was preaching infallible dogma.

That was AFTER he sat in silence and gave approval for just that thing among the jews, infallible in his silence too ? It was James that spoke from the Chair of authority not peter in that counsel

And note too that no one disputed him when he said "My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe." He has a particular calling and a particular authority conferred to him by Christ and recognized by the Apostles.

He is referring to Gods providence in preaching to Cornelius , that he and his house would be saved ( Vs 18). We know how hard God had to go to get him to go there don't we? Scripture is without error and from other writings we know that Peter was sent to the Jews ( as he was used on Pentecost and Paul to the gentiles) Also note the last time we read of Peter in the book of Acts. No mention of a missionary journey into the loins den of Rome, no mention of building a great church there.

He didn't need to run around telling everyone I'm the pope!", they all knew he was chosen to lead from the foundation.

Proof please .

Clement and Irenaeus both refer to Peters Roman ministry.

Clement (101 AD listed as the 4th Pope after peter, not a contemporary . Irenaeus b120/140-d200/202, also not a contemporary .

"Most reconstructions of Peter's life depend primarily on the New Testament; there are no other contemporary accounts of his life or death.
- Wikipedia, encyclopedia

He is not presented as the "pope" in Rome until the 300's . Other mentions in the century following the death of Christ ( 100-200) speak of a presence in Rome, but no mention of the status of infallible head of the Catholic Christ ( Pope)

Hmm, Peter is given authority to preach the gospel to both the Jews and the gentiles,

The only Gentiles mentioned in the bible he preached to was Cornelius and his household.

All Scripture is inspired and truth so you must go to the letter to the galations

Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter;

Gal 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)

Gal 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we [should go] unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.

pronounces the dogma that James, the Bishop of the See of Jerusalem, who would be responsible for annunciating a decision of a council held there confirms

He addressed the council, without personal authority or power. James as the head of the council made the declaration .Peter participated but he was not the leader, or head. After this we NEVER hear of Peter again.

, he preaches in Babylon, which is universally (at least until the Reformers and their heirs found it inconvenient) believed to be Rome, where his bones are,

Well it is interesting that Catholics believe that Babylon is Rome and the church there huh? LOL if I said it I would be called anti Catholic .

Rev 14:8 And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication.

Rev 18:2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

Please present a contemporary writing that places Peter in Rome at any time

Hi to each of you.

How's the weather, Mom? Not too bad here, but could get ugly later. I love snowstorms!!!!

Ok, here's the real reason I'm writing. I read the entire link that Dr. E provided regarding the Martyrs of the Reformation. I was hesitant about posting this because I didn't and don't want to sidetrack the thread, but I think that's already happened, no?

Anyway, I have some questions. If these questions have already been addressed, and you'd rather not go there, then, if you could point me in the direction of a thread that has already covered this, that would be good too.

That link that laid out the stories of the Martyrs was interesting for many reasons. I have always held the Martyrs for the Faith in especially high esteem, and I was very moved by the accounts therein. If you ever get the chance to read about St. Jean de Brebeuf, it will move you, too. He's a Catholic North American Martyr whose life and death is astounding. And, let us not forget that contemporary Martyr, the young lady at Columbine, whose name, I'm sorry to say, I don't know, but I think of her too now and again.

Anyway, here are the questions:

1)Hasn't there been some indication for some time, per even Protestant historians, that Foxe's account may contain embellishment? Not that I'm implying, even if true, that it would render it without substance and meaning, just want to get your take on that.

2)The most important question for last: Why were the Reformers so viscerally contra the Real Presence? Per that link, they seem to despise it, and that seems so over-the-top.

Even if they believed it to be untrue, why did they despise the doctrine so? Their arguments, per Scripture, I don't find that convincing. What I did find convincing was the idea that they promulgated which stated that the Doctrine of the Real Presence was used as a gateway to who was considered a real Christian and who was not. Am I understanding that correctly insofar as the Reformers views are concerned?

Hi AlbionGirl

Point 1-If I remember correctly Foxe's Book of Martyrs has been criticized by others as containing embellishments. I don't know if this is true or not as I'm not familiar with the book. However we can't and shouldn't throw out the book as suspect. If we did that with every book based upon bias we might as well throw out 99% of all Church/church writings and teachings. (e.g. Would you say the Church official records are not bias against the Reformation?) As with all documents such as this you must simply view it as a source. How much weight you wish to give it is entirely up to you but I have always felt it was folly to ignore anything unless clearly proved to be false. There is generally always some truth if nothing more than simply another perspective.

Point 2-It is my contention that the Reformers were not "viscerally contra the Real Presence". I believe there is a historical paper trail within the Church that shows some who believed in the bread and wine as a symbol rather than a real presence. The Eucharist was officially recognized at the 4th Lateran Council of 1211. It's my belief that the Eucharist was one method used by the medieval Catholic Church for attracting and keeping the populists. You must refill God's grace in your life. This erroneous and abused belief drove the Reformers (certainly Wycliffe) to adopt the consubstantiation belief but not without cause. There is probably more scriptural text against the Real Presence than for and there is nothing in scripture that indicates the wine and bread actually turns into the physical blood and body of Christ. With all due respects for the holy sacrament, it only proclaims the Lord's death and resurrection until He comes. There is nothing to suggest it fills us with anything.

It should be noted many Catholics, of course, vemousnessly disagree with everything I have written. I suppose it goes back to my point in #1. :O)

Hi, AG. Stay warm through the snow.

The most important question for last: Why were the Reformers so viscerally contra the Real Presence? Per that link, they seem to despise it, and that seems so over-the-top.

I think what you're perceiving is accurate. Among Protestants, especially the Reformed, there is an almost tactile disdain for all things mystical. This is one reason I admire Reformed doctrine. It is the antithesis of "hidden" wisdom. As you've noted, the Reformed very nearly "despise" anything that suggests of an esoteric nature within man himself. Man is a fallen, sinning creature. Redeemed men are children of God. But that is due solely to and absolutely by the death of Christ on the cross who paid the price for our sins and acquitted us of our guilt.

Nothing hidden. Nothing uncertain. And most of all, nothing transmogrifying. Mystical transformation is for alchemists. Men begin as human beings; men die as human beings. But by Christ's atonement, we will see heaven. Scripture gives us this promise. Christ Himself gave us this promise. He will lose none whom God has given Him to redeem.

So Protestants do not like the ambiguity of the RC and EO. It appears manipulative to us. It appears extraneous to the completed work of Christ. It appears to be excess baggage, ribbons and bows and beads, all obscuring our finished redemption by Christ.

Our redemption is not ongoing. Our sanctification is ongoing and continues as long as we live. But our sins were paid-in-full at Calvary. Salvation has been accomplished by God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ alone.

There's a scene in the movie "Cromwell" with Richard Harris. Cromwell (who had his own problems along the way) enters church one Sunday morning with his family and is shocked to find the table of the Lord's Supper turned away from the congregation. In Protestant churches, the table and minister face the congregation.

When Cromwell sees this apparent return to RC tradition, he explodes and flings the table around in a fit of righteous fury.

It's a very interesting scene that appeals to Protestants. We tend to be allergic to the pomp and dislike the distance between God and man that we believe is created by top-heavy hierarchies.

Salvation is so much simpler than many would have it. Believe and be saved.

"Seeing that a Pilot steers the ship in which we sail, who will never allow us to perish even in the midst of shipwrecks, there is no reason why our minds should be overwhelmed with fear and overcome with weariness." -- John Calvin

"These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace. In the world ye shall have tribulation: but be of good cheer; I have overcome the world." -- John 16:33

I'll grant you, your "two headed" approach is correct and certainly within keeping of scripture. But what happens when there are conflicts with what you are reading and with what the Magisterium is saying to be true?

I would appeal to my Presbyter, then to my Session, then to my Presbytery, then to my Synod, and finally to the General Assembly of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church.

At no point along this chain could any single allegedly-"Infallible" Human Personage deny me my Right of Appeal to Scripture, and at all points above my Presbyter (assuming I had an intractable disagreement with my Presbyter over a reading of Scripture) would the matter be determined by Conciliar Governance ("two heads are better than one"), with Right of Appeal.

Theoretically, if I appealed to the General Assembly, and my petition were adjudged by the full council of both the Ministers and the Lay Elders to be invalid -- then I would have to either submit myself to the Ruling of the Council, or else go into schism.

However, it should be noted that the General Assembly has proven in the past (even once or twice in the 20th Century) to accept modifications to even the (otherwise-binding) Confession of Faith when a powerful Appellate Case against a disputed clause of the Confession can be resoundingly proved to the entire Council, from Scripture Alone.

As regards the reading of Scripture in the light of Magisterial edification, then: I am far more comfortable with the Biblically-ordained Presbyterian system of Conciliar Government (see Acts 15), multiple Right of Appeal, and acknowledgement of the supremacy of Biblical Law over Creedal Regulation... than I could ever be comfortable with the Romanist system of "The Pope says it, so you better damn well believe it, and that settles it".

Best, OP

Dear Jude:

I was going to object to your characterization of the Reformational Schism as being similar to "necessary-but-poisonous chemotherapy", but since I last had a few moments to post, other GRPLs have already argued against your statement on two grounds:

1.) They have objected that Reformation Theology should not be called "poisonous" (which is true, but I realize that wasn't what you were saying; you were referring to the Schism, not the Reformation itself); and...
2.) They have objected against the characterization of the Reformational Schism as being "lamentable". This, I think is the better criticism (and more correctly addresses your actual statement); if a Cancer Patient must undergo radical surgery to remove a metastasizing Tumor (which I think to be a better analogy than chemotherapy, IMHO), he may indeed "lament" the suffering and convalescence necessitated by the surgery, but he certainly does *not* lament his "schism" from the Tumor!

However, since you've already been debated on this point by numerous others, I'll refrain from pressing the matter further. No need to "pile on"; and besides, that dispute is mainly one of poor word choice and misunderstood sentence construction, and I wanted to discuss a different matter with you.

(Re: the subordination of Magisterial Teaching to Scripture)... "That's certainly true in the case of the later early church father's like Augustine, or the monastics like Aquinas. I would argue, however, that the Creeds and the early writings like the Didache are the lens through which the New Testament must be interpreted, because the canon was not crystallized until after they were written, and these were unquestionably orthodox. Those writings are binding authorities on the interpretation of the Scripture."

I must object that there can be NO "binding authority" upon the interpretation of Scripture except the supreme authority of Scripture itself (which we must consider our "Constitution"); ANY declaration pronounced by a Presbyter or a Council of Presbyters must be regarded as equivalent to either a single Judge's Ruling, or a Supreme Court Judgment, respectively. And any "Supreme Court Judgment", no matter how long-established as Precedent, is always subject to "constitutional" (i.e., Biblical) future challenge (e.g., Plessy v. Ferguson, for example).

The fact that the Didache and some other early Magisterial writings appeared prior to the formal finalization of the Biblical Canon does nothing to change the inherent supremacy of the Books of the Biblical Canon over all Magisterial Teachings.

Lee Strobel (MSL, Yale Law School), former Legal Affairs Editor for the Chicago Tribune, quotes Dr. Bruce Metzger (Ph.D., Professor Emeritus Princeton Theological Seminary) in this regard in his book The Case for Christ:

Authoritative Books

For somebody now to say that the Canon emerged only after councils and synods made these pronouncements would be like saying, 'Let's get several academies of musicians to make a pronouncement that the music of Bach and Beethoven is wonderful.' I would say, 'THANKS FOR NOTHING! We knew that before the pronouncement was made.' We know it because of sensitivity to what is good music and what is not. The same with the Canon." (emphasis mine)

In short, if one truly believes (as Protestants do, and Romanists say that they do) that the Canonical Books of Scripture are the uniquely-inspired, wholly-infallible Word of God, then one MUST regard their every word as being genuinely-Miraculous in Authority (a "Miracle" being defined as Direct Divine Intervention in the Natural course of affairs).

As such, the Scriptures Alone must be regarded as being so far above ANY Magisterial "commentary", even the Didache and the Early Patristics, as we would regard the Resurrection of the Dead above any natural textbook on Medicine, even the best textbook on Medicine.

The Didache and the Early Patristics may be -- in fact, are -- excellent Medicine, which a Christian ignores at the peril of his spiritual health... but the Canonical Scriptures are Miraculous Life, in and of themselves -- without comparison, or "binding", to any Magisterial commentary whatsoever.

Having said that, Jude, I will say also that I never like to see Calvinists fighting against eachother. I hope that we can all agree to temper our disagreements in charity. I'll probably sound "preachy" if I say anymore than that, so that's all that I will say on the subject.

Best, OP

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.

Owing, therefore, to the vices or defects of men, it is safer and more tolerable when several bear rule, that they may thus mutually assist, instruct, and admonish each other, and should any one be disposed to go too far, the others are censors and masters to curb his excess.

an aristocracy bordering on popular government

(Calvin, "Institutes", Book IV ch. XX)

Calvin established that, amongst both Presbyters and Magistrates, the Presbyterian-Conciliar or "Republican" form of Government -- with its delegation of powers and checks-and-balances -- was the pre-eminent Biblically-ordained form of Human Government.

We Presbyterian Calvinists can hardly be held to account for Luther's crimes; while Lutherans burnt Calvinists at the stake at Leipzig, we Calvinists have always regarded the Lutherans in love as our elder brothers in the Reformation of the Church, if only reserving that they should recognize that Calvin perfected what Luther began.

Nor are we responsible for the excesses Cromwell; according to both the Bible and Calvin's Institutes, the proper form of Human Governance is Presbyterian-Conciliar or "Republican" governance, not the Populist-Demagoguery of Cromwell's Independency.

Best, OP

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren. (Luke 22:32)

and here St. Peter promises us that his office be handed down in perpetuity

13 But I think it meet as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance. 14 Being assured that the laying away of this my tabernacle is at hand, according as our Lord Jesus Christ also hath signified to me. 15 And I will endeavour, that you frequently have after my decease, whereby you may keep a memory of these things. (2 Peter 1)

This is an example of the huge leap in exegesis of these texts that is demanded to support the notion that they have anything whatever to to do with either the Papacy or exclusively the Roman Church. There is absolutely nothing in these texts themselves, either in what is said to Peter or what he says, in context, or as interpreted by any of the early church, that connects in any meaningful way what is said as applying exclusively to the bishop of Rome alone as the sole, unique successor of Peter, or that in any way does not apply to the entire bishopric of the Church. There is not a shred of evidence that they were historically viewed as supportive of an office of a Papacy.

Now, the only model of perpetuating the office is by tying it to a geographical location and establishimg a method of succession. There is never a suggestion anywhere that Rome should have several bishops.

The exact opposite is true; there is never anywhere a suggestion in Scripture or the early church that Rome or any other church should have only one bishop.

It is also a strawman that the governance of the Church is "papal supremacy". The papal infallibility only works in union with the college of bishops.

Tell that to the enraged Pius IX who shouted at Cardinal Guidi, who had emphatically stated that the pope was not infallible in and of himself, independently of the Church, but only insofar as he reflected the views of the bishops and the tradition of the Church, "I am Tradition!"

Cordially,

Calvinism is more than a mental assent to the Doctrines of Grace, much like salvation is more than a mental assent to the trinity and the Virgin birth or believing that the sinners prayer saves anyone

That being my position I feel the necessity of those that hold the doctrines of grace to defend them, even if the "offender" has a mental assent to the Doctrines of Grace and calls himself a Calvinist

Personally when I see Reformed posters nit picked, misquoted, mocked and corrected or rebuked for expounding the Doctrines of grace and/or the reformation, or when I see one that states he is a Calvinist seeking to find truth in the very basics that Luther, Calvin and others found in serious error, I find no need to wear a false fellowship mask for public consumption based on ones "self proclaimed" doctrinal position or church membership .

So, it may trouble you to find friends that all "say" they are Calvinists having public disagreements on the very basics the Reformation sought to correct, be of good cheer as the doctrines are being correctly presented through the lens of the Reformation and any presentation that is through the Catholic church and their doctrine is dutifully corrected and rebuked .

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.