Posted on 01/17/2006 6:56:20 AM PST by HarleyD
Introduction
John Cassian was a zealous monk whose theology (unfortunately, one might say) has been massively influential on the churchs 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 Augustines doctrines of predestination, grace, and free will, has been adopted by many Christiansacademics, clergy and lay people alikethroughout the centuries.Two major influences were at work in Cassians 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 Cassians 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 Cassians 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 monasticismhe established two new monasteriesand 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 mans 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 Cassians desire to distance himself from the teaching or rather the evil deeds of Pelagius. [10]
The Problem of Augustinianism
Augustines 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 Augustines 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 issueseven 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 Gods 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 Godof His own good pleasure, not motivated by anything He saw in sinnersregenerated 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.
Cassians Solution Examined
Most of Cassians 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 saidto his commendationthat 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 Augustines 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 Gods grace and assistance, is clearly shown by the Lords 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 mans willful initiative and Gods 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 Gods love being extended to all in the universal offering of salvation, and could not stand the idea that Gods 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, Cassians theology of Gods 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.
Cassians Solution Refuted
Having ascertained Cassians 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 Cassians 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 Cassianbeing an Eastern thinkerhas 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 thisit 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, Cassians 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 Cassians 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 mans 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 Cassians 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 Augustines death he, with his (otherwise unknown) companion, Hilary, petitioned Pope Celestine to condemn Cassians teachings. However, they encountered difficulty in
Semi-Pelagianism experienced some small official successes in Gaul at the Synods of Arles and Lyons in 472, but in 496 Pope Gelasius I sanctioned the writings of Augustine and Prosper and condemned those of Cassian . [33] Eventually, at the Council of Arausiacum (Orange: 529) semi-Pelagianism was officially condemned, and the church adopted a mostly-Augustinian stance. [34]
The Abiding Influence
Tragically for the church, Augustinianism was being softened by the bishops successors before semi-Pelagianism was even officially condemned. [35] It was not held to strongly enough for the fundamental tenets of Augustines 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 Gods 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.
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:
Eze 36:26 "Moreover, I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; and I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. (God's sovereignty)
To complete Augustine's logic you have to conclude that when God states that He will give us a new heart and spirit and cause us to walk in His statues, He means just that. Since God is perfect, His "new heart and new spirit" gift to us will also be perfect.
You can post all sorts of "free will" verses just as I can post all sorts of "God's sovereignty" verses. However, you will never get past the Augustinian logic above. You will never be able to satisfactorily explain Ezekiel 36. All I'll ever here is "yeah but this verse over here says...".
OTOH, for Ezekiel 18 I would simply answer as Augustine would answer, that God commands what He wills and gives what He commands. He gives us a new heart and spirit as He states in Ezekiel 36 and then He commands us to use it as in Ezekiel 18. God promises that this new heart and spirit will allow us to walk in His statues man. It's all because of God's working. If God so empowers us, it will happen.
This is exactly the way He works with all your verses.
So they are NECESSARY but they are not? I thought you were in law school ? Are they NECESSARY as they say or are they not?
Are you asking or prosecuting?
God can save apart from the sacraments, but the sacraments are the normative instrument of salvation he's given to his church. We are bound by his laws, but he is not bound by any law except when he binds himself.
Excuse me, but that's not right. Saul asked Samuel what he (Saul) should do. There was no mention of any intercession. Saul conjured up Samuel to tell his fortune, pure and simple, and that's the definition of necromancy. You're inventing Scripture to trash Catholics when you claim that Saul asked Samuel to intercede for him. He didn't.
Law school made me comfortable with internally contradictory propositions ;-).
I will concede that you're partly right. It was because the Lord wasn't answering Saul that Saul sought Samuel out (2 Sam 28). This isn't intercession. However, I would point out that Samuel chastises Saul for asking what will happen of him rather than the Lord. The point is that if your not right with the Lord, at least well enough to pray to Him, then there is no point in seeking anyone else out.
If you want to say I'm trashing the Catholics then fine.
That is sad
That's a very different claim from "it's always wrong to talk to 'dead' people" or "talking to 'dead' people is necessarily necromancy". I don't object to your reformulation, at least not much.
If you think it's necessary to trash Catholics, I think that's too bad. But if you make up claims about what Scripture says that are at variance with the little leather Bible I keep in my desk drawer, don't be surprised if I call you on it.
You can't recognize a joke when you see it?
Sorry but perhaps I wasn't clear. It was wrong for Saul to seek help or advice from the dead Samuel. It use to be punishable by death. The Lord exacted that punishment. That was then. This is now I suppose.
Lest you think I'm picking on Catholics I would stress that I'm equally "vile" with many Protestants. I can tell you I'm not the brightest bulb around but I see little sensible reasoning among many Christians today especially Protestants. Thinking is a dying art replaced by our five senses.
As Ben Franklin once said, "The trouble with common sense is that it's not too common."
My father used to call that " kidding on the square".
I see so much compromise of your faith in your posts here that there was a ring of truth to your words.
Help no, advice, yes.
Fortunetelling is wrong. (Presumably I don't have to explain to you why it's wrong.) Conjuring up visions of anyone or demanding visions of anyone (Christ included) is also wrong.
(That's not to say that such visions don't happen. Demanding or expecting them, or trying to make them happen by some occultic means, is wrong.)
Conjuring up a vision of a dead person for the sake of fortunetelling is therefore wrong twice over. Consulting a witch for any purpose is wrong. Poor Saul: three strikes and he's out.
Merely communicating with (so-called) "dead" saints in glory is not wrong, because Jesus did it at the Transfiguration. Nor is one Christian asking another for help (help, not information or special gnosis) wrong.
Jude is going to change his tagline to "Only the church is a Roman"?
That said, Jude... are you aware that there's a major movie about Plymouth Brethren missionaries opening in 1,200 theaters this weekend?
"The End of the Spear" (a nice play on words in the title, I thought -- first Christians died by the spear, but then brought an end to its use) is a retelling of the (initially-martyred, later-successful) 1956 Elliot-Saint mission to the Auca Indians of Amazonian Ecuador, which eventually resulted in the mass conversion of what was arguably the most fratricidal tribe of native peoples in the world at the time (culminating in their general Christianization and the reduction of tribal homicide rates by some 90%). I believe that the screenplay in based upon the books Through Gates of Splendor and Aucas Downriver, two books which I enjoyed immensely in my youth (though I believe that the latter is now out of print).
I expect to catch it on DVD, as I don't think there's a showing available in my immediate area; but I thought I'd give you a heads-up. :-)
Best, OP
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:
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...
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":
...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
I do not "definitively rule" upon *any* doctrinal disagreement.
Rather, as a Lay Believer operating under the Authority of my Ordained Presbyters, I freely exercise my Layman's Right to Conscientous Reading of Scripture under the Appellate Authority bequeathed by Apostle Saint Timothy to All Believers without discrimination:
Being advised by Timothy that Scripture Alone can thoroughly furnish a Believer unto Perfect Understanding, I intend to continue reading Scripture and speaking my understanding (albeit under the Authority of my Ordained Presbyters, which is also of course commanded in Scripture).
Best, OP
*Don't forgetthe teaching of our first Pope
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.
*Sleep well, brother
Although, first see my #76 regarding Calvinist contacts with Orthodoxy. Thanks.
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.