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

The Biblical, Primitive Papacy: St. Peter & the "Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven": Scholarly Opinion (Mostly Protestant)
Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . (RSV)

Isaiah 22:20-22 In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, . . . and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Revelation 3:7 [Christ describing Himself]:. . . the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.

The power of the "keys," in the Hebrew mind, had to do with administrative authority and ecclesiastical discipline, and, in a broad sense, might be thought to encompass the use of excommunication, penitential decrees, a barring from the sacraments and lesser censures, and legislative and executive functions. Like the name Rock, this privilege was bestowed only upon St. Peter and no other disciple or Apostle. He was to become God's "vice-regent," so to speak. In the Old Testament, a steward was a man over a house (Genesis 43:19, 44:4, 1 Kings 4:6, 16:9, 18:3, 2 Kings 10:5 15:5 18:18, Isaiah 22:15). The steward was also called a "governor" in the Old Testament and has been described by commentators as a type of "prime minister."

In the New Testament, the two words often translated as "steward" are oikonomos (Luke 16:2-3, 1 Corinthians 4:1-2, Titus 1:7, 1 Peter 4:10), and epitropos (Matthew 20:8, Galatians 4:2). Several Protestant commentaries and dictionaries take the position that Christ is clearly hearkening back to Isaiah 22:15-22 when He makes this pronouncement, and that it has something to do with delegated authority in the Church He is establishing (in the same context). He applies the same language to Himself in Revelation 3:7 (cf. Job 12:14), so that his commission to Peter may be interpreted as an assignment of powers to the recipient in His stead, as a sort of authoritative representative or ambassador.

The "opening" and "shutting" (in Isaiah 22:2) appear to refer to a jurisdictional power which no one but the king (in the ancient kingdom of Judah) could override. Literally, it refers to the prime minister's prerogative to deny or allow entry to the palace, and access to the king. In Isaiah's time, this office was over three hundred years old, and is thought to have been derived by Solomon from the Egyptian model of palace functionary, or the Pharaoh's "vizier," who was second in command after the Pharaoh. This was exactly the office granted to Joseph in Egypt (Genesis 41:40-44, 45:8).

One can confidently conclude, therefore, that when Old Testament usage and the culture of the hearers is closely examined, the phrase keys of the kingdom of heaven must have great significance (for Peter and for the papacy) indeed, all the more so since Christ granted this honor only to St. Peter. The following commentary is all from Protestant scholars, with the exception of the final two selections:

[The steward is] the king's friend, or principal officer of the court (1 Kings 4:5; 18:3; 1 Chronicles 27:33, the king's counsellor) . . .

Keys are carried sometimes in the East hanging from the kerchief on the shoulder. But the phrase is rather figurative for sustaining the government on one's shoulders. Eliakim, as his name implies, is here plainly a type of the God-man Christ, the son of "David," of whom Isaiah (ch. 9:6) uses the same language as the former clause of this verse [and the government will be upon his shoulder].

(Jamieson, Robert, Andrew R. Fausset & David Brown, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1961 [orig. 1864; Fausset and Brown were Anglicans, Brown Presbyterian], 536 -- on Isaiah 22:15,22)

In the . . . exercise of the power of the keys, in ecclesiastical discipline, the thought is of administrative authority (Is 22:22) with regard to the requirements of the household of faith. The use of censures, excommunication, and absolution is committed to the Church in every age, to be used under the guidance of the Spirit . . .

So Peter, in T.W. Manson's words, is to be 'God's vicegerent . . . The authority of Peter is an authority to declare what is right and wrong for the Christian community. His decisions will be confirmed by God' (The Sayings of Jesus, 1954, p.205).

(New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, 1018)

In accordance with Matthew's understanding of the kingdom of heaven (i.e., of God) as anywhere God reigns, the keys here represent authority in the Church.

(Eerdmans Bible Dictionary, ed. Allen C. Myers, Grabd Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, rev. ed., 1975, 622)

The phrase is almost certainly based on Is 22:22 where Shebna the steward is displaced by Eliakim and his authority is transferred to him. 'And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.' (This is applied directly to Jesus in Rev 3:7).

(New Bible Commentary, Guthrie, D. & J.A. Motyer, eds., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 3rd ed., 1970 [Reprinted, 1987, as The Eerdmans Bible Commentary], 837)

In the Old Testament a steward is a man who is 'over a house' (Gen 43:19, 44:4; Is 22:15, etc). In the New Testament there are two words translated steward: 'epitropos' (Mt 20:8; Gal 4:2), i.e. one to whose care or honour one has been entrusted, a curator, a guardian; and 'oikonomos' (Lk 16:2-3; 1 Cor 4:1-2; Titus 1:7; 1 Pet 4:10), i.e. a manager, a superintendent -- from 'oikos' ('house') and 'nemo' ('to dispense' or 'to manage'). The word is used to describe the function of delegated responsibility.

(New Bible Dictionary, ed. J.D. Douglas, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, 1216)

For further references to the office of the steward in Old Testament times, see 1 Kings 4:6; 16:9; 18:3; 2 Kings 10:5; 15:5; 18:18, where the phrases used are "over the house," "steward," or "governor." In Isaiah 22:15, in the same passage to which our Lord apparently refers in Matt 16:19, Shebna, the soon-to-be deposed steward, is described in various translations as:

1) "Master of the palace" {Jerusalem Bible / New American Bible}
2) "In charge of the palace" {New International Version}
3) "Master of the household" {New Revised Standard Version}
4) "In charge of the royal household" {New American Standard Bible}
5) "Comptroller of the household" {Revised English Bible}
6) "Governor of the palace" {Moffatt}

As the robe and the baldric, mentioned in the preceding verse, were the ensigns of power and authority, so likewise was the key the mark of office, either sacred or civil. This mark of office was likewise among the Greeks, as here in Isaiah, borne on the shoulder. In allusion to the image of the key as the ensign of power, the unlimited extent of that power is expressed with great clearness as well as force by the sole and exclusive authority to open and shut. Our Saviour, therefore, has upon a similar occasion made use of a like manner of expression, Matt 16:19; and in Rev 3:7 has applied to himself the very words of the prophet.

(Adam Clarke, [Methodist], Commentary on the Bible, abridged ed., Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1967 [orig. 1832], 581)

Eliakim stands in strong contrast to Shebna . . . Godward he is called 'my servant' (v.20; cf. 'this steward', v.15); manward, he will be 'a father' to his community (v.21) . . .

The opening words of v.22, with their echo of 9:6, emphasize the God-given responsibility that went with it [possession of the keys], to be used in the king's interests. The 'shutting' and 'opening' mean the power to make decisions which no one under the king could override. This is the background of the commission to Peter (cf. Mt 16:19) and to the church (cf. Mt 18:18).

(New Bible Commentary, Guthrie, D. & J.A. Motyer, eds., Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 3rd ed., 1970 [Reprinted, 1987, as The Eerdmans Bible Commentary], 603)

Not only is Peter to have a leading role, but this role involves a daunting degree of authority (though not an authority which he alone carries, as may be seen from the repetition of the latter part of the verse in 18:18 with reference to the disciple group as a whole). The image of 'keys' (plural) perhaps suggests not so much the porter, who controls admission to the house, as the steward, who regulates its administration (cf. Is 22:22, in conjunction with 22:15). The issue then is not that of admission to the church . . . , but an authority derived from a 'delegation' of God's sovereignty.

(R.T. France; in Morris, Leon, Gen. ed., Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, Leicester, England: Inter-Varsity Press / Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1985, vol. 1: Matthew, 256)

Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord puts the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so does Jesus hand over to Peter the keys of the house of the kingdom of heaven and by the same stroke establishes him as his superintendent. There is a connection between the house of the Church, the construction of which has just been mentioned and of which Peter is the foundation, and the celestial house of which he receives the keys. The connection between these two images is the notion of God's people.

(Oscar Cullmann, Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestle, 1952 French ed., 183-184)

The prime minister, more literally 'major-domo,' was the man called in Hebrew 'the one who is over the house,' a term borrowed from the Egyptian designation of the chief palace functionary . . .

The power of the key of the Davidic kingdom is the power to open and to shut, i.e., the prime minister's power to allow or refuse entrance to the palace, which involves access to the king . . . Peter might be portrayed as a type of prime minister in the kingdom that Jesus has come to proclaim . . . What else might this broader power of the keys include? It might include one or more of the following: baptismal discipline; post-baptismal or penitential discipline; excommunication; exclusion from the eucharist; the communication or refusal of knowledge; legislative powers; and the power of governing.

(Peter in the New Testament, Brown, Raymond E., Karl P. Donfried and John Reumann, editors, Minneapolis: Augsburg Pub. House/New York: Paulist Press, 1973, 96-97. Common statement by a panel of eleven Catholic and Lutheran scholars)

In biblical and Judaic usage handing over the keys does not mean appointment as a porter but carries the thought of full authorization (cf. Mt. 13:52; Rev. 3:7) . . . The implication is that Jesus takes away this authority from the scribes and grants it to Peter.

(J. Jeremias, in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Gerhard Kittel, abridgement of Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1985, 440)

All these New Testament pictures and usages go back to a picture in Isaiah (Is 22:22) . . . Now the duty of Eliakim was to be the faithful steward of the house . . . So then what Jesus is saying to Peter is that in the days to come, he will be the steward of the Kingdom.

(William Barclay, Gospel of Matthew, Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1975, vol. 2, 144-145)

Isa 22:15 ff. undoubtedly lies behind this saying . . . The keys are the symbol of authority . . . the same authority as that vested in the vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain, of the royal household in ancient Israel. Eliakim is described as having the same authority in Isaiah.

(William F. Albright and C.S. Mann, Anchor Bible: Matthew, Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971, 196)

And what about the "keys of the kingdom"? . . . About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim . . . (Isa. 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward.

(F.F. Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus, Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1983, 143-144)

The symbol of the keys, in the East, always implied power and authority, and the giving of the keys the transfer of that authority. Even in our day when we wish to honor a visitor of prominence we give him the keys of the city . . .

'The gift of the keys,' writes Lagrange, 'is, therefore, an investiture of power over all the house. The owner still keeps the sovereign power, but delegates its exercise to a major-domo . . . Christ has the keys of David (Rev 3:7); He gives St. Peter the keys. St. Peter's authority, therefore, is the authority of Jesus, which He ratifies in heaven' (Evangile selon S. Matthieu, 328).

(Bertrand Conway, The Question Box, New York: Paulist Press, 1929, 146)

By the time of Isaiah the office of the master of the palace was three centuries old and the highest of the royal administration which Solomon organized in full . . .

Solomon set up the office in imitation of the office of the Pharaoh's vizier. Unlike in Assyria and Babylon, where the master of the palace was a mere administrator of the king's household affairs, in Egypt as well as in Judah and Israel the master of the palace was the second in command after the king. In Egypt he reported every morning to the Pharaoh, received his instructions, and by ceremoniously opening the gates to the palace he let the official day begin for the Pharaoh's highest administrative offices. He was privy to all the major transactions of the Pharaoh's kingdom, all important documents had to have his seal, all other officials were subordinate to him, and he governed the whole land in the Pharaoh's absence. It was precisely this function which was exercised by Joseph whom the Pharaoh put in charge of his house (Gen 41:40), made the keeper of the royal seal and the ruler over the entire land of Egypt. Similarly, the master of the palace of the king of Israel headed the list of royal officials (2 Ki 18:18) and he alone appears with the king (1 Ki 18:3). The importance of the title is particularly apparent when Yotham [or, Jotham] assumes it in his capacity of regent of the kingdom during the final illness of his father King Ozias [or, Uzziah, or Azariah] (2 Ki 15:5).

(Stanley Jaki, The Keys of the Kingdom, Chicago: Franciscan Herald Press, 1986, 27-28)

posted by Dave Armstrong at 4:15 PM

Lest there be any misunderstanding, Lukaris was condemned by the Pan Orthodox Council at Jerusalem in 1672 as was Calvinism generally.

I am aware of that, certainly.

Though technically I believe (and here I offer correction humbly, and admit that I may be mistaken) that the Patriarch Cyril Lukaris, a much-beloved Anti-Turkish Patriot of the Greek Church, was never himself condemned; but rather, certain portions of his Confessions were rejected.

However, unless the 1672 Council is elevated to the status of the Seven General Councils, it seems to me that what we have here is a case of Dueling Patriarchs -- the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople has offered his Confessions; and the Patriarch of Jerusalem has, in council with largely Middle-Eastern Bishops (The decisions of the Council were only later transmitted to Great Russia, or am I mistaken?), rejected them -- long after the Ecumenical Patriarch was murdered by Turks, and thus unable to defend his Confessions.

This would seem, at least to me, to raise two questions:

FIRST: UNLESS the 1672 Council holds an equal status to that of the Seven General Councils, does the Patriarch of Jerusalem with some assembled Middle-Eastern Bishops have the Ecclesial Authority to deny the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople his Pastoral Right to promulgate a non-binding pastoral teaching?
AND SECONDLY: GIVEN THAT Bishop Saint Augustine of Hippo, in the days of the Pelagian Heresy, whose teachings on Original Sin and Absolute Predestination were far more stringent than that of John Calvin (remember that Saint Augustine believed that all those "Dying in the Womb" and all those "Dying in Infancy without Baptism" perished unto Hell, two positions which were utterly rejected by Saint John Calvin -- who believed in the Salvation of Dying Infants by Gratuitous Atonement), was in fact received by the Universal Christian Church (including both the West and also the East) as being Magisterial and Authoritative -- does a much later Eastern Orthodox Local Council have the Right to overthrow the teachings of Bishop Saint Augustine, whose Magisterial and Authoritative teachings the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople merely affirmed in a non-binding pastoral confession (indeed, like the Calvinists, in an even more modest formulation)?
Which, incidentally, leads me to a third question (call it Question 2B): If GOD HIMSELF Inspired and Authorized the Infallible Scriptures of Daniel and Esther amongst the Jews in Exile in the Old Testament; and if (as it is surely true) that The Presbyters of Iona, the ancient Scottish forebears of modern Calvinism ("Geneva shakes hands with Iona across the gulf of a thousand years"; Wylie, History of the Scottish Nation) were founded by Greek Orthodox -- not Roman-Latin -- missionaries from Asia Minor according to Greek customs and Greek baptismal rites.... then how can the Eastern Orthodox presume that their Western step-children, upon throwing off the chains of Papist Domination, did not preserve and extend Augustinian Truths in the West? Granted, the Scottish Orthodox were cut off from their Founders in Greece and Asia Minor -- but that does not mean that we, while yet in Papist Exile, were cut off from the Enlightenment of the All-Holy Spirit. Perhaps we have something to add to Eastern Orthodoxy, as God added the Books of Daniel and Esther to the Canon of Israelite Scripture.
Just a thought... just a thought...

But we regard works not as witnesses certifying our calling, but as being fruits in themselves, through which faith becomes efficacious, and as in themselves meriting, through the Divine promises, that each of the faithful may receive what is done through his own body, whether it is good or bad."

I don't have a great many problems with this quotation. We Protestants will also agree, with the Orthodox and the Bible, that "Faith without Works, is Dead."

Indeed, provided that our mutual conception of the relation between Works (which are indeed "fruits in themselves", I wholly agree) and Efficacious Faith are understood in the light of the Old Orthodox "Canon to Jesus":

Let my faith be reckoned in place of works, and seek not deeds which would justify me. But may my faith alone suffice instead of any deeds; may it answer for me, may it justify me, may it make me a partaker of Thine eternal glory. Let not Satan seize me and boast that he hath torn me from Thy hand and fold, O Word. But whether I will it or not, save me, O Christ my Savior. Go before me quickly, quickly, for I am perishing! Thou art my God from my mother's womb. Grant that I may love Thee, O Lord, as formerly I loved sin itself, and that I may work for Thee earnestly and without laziness, as I once worked for deceitful Satan..."
(From the Canon to Jesus in Old Orthodox Prayer Book, Priest Pimen Simon, Priest Theodore Jurewicz and Hieromonk German Ciuba, trans. and ed., pp. 150-151.)

...Then, in that case, I should have no objection whatsoever to Eastern Orthodox Theology on Faith and Works.

Indeed, I don't think that any Calvinist would object.

Best, OP

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.