John Cassian’s Response to Augustinianism

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

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

*Don't forgetthe teaching of our first Pope

There was no "First Pope". The entire Concept of Roman Papal Supremacy is foreign and antithetical to the Church of Jesus Christ.

There was a First Council, which was presided over by the Brother of Jesus, Patriarch of Jerusalem Apostle James (NOT PETER).

ACTS 15:4, 13, 19-20, 22
And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.... And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying, Men and brethren, hearken unto me:.... Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: But that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollutions of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood.... Then pleased it the apostles and elders with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company...

At the end of the day, the Government of the Church is Conciliar.

Now, the Orthodox may interpret James as being an "Ecumenical Patriarch" amongst Equal Bishops, whereas we Presbyterians would interpret James as a "General Moderator" amongst Equal Presbyters... but despite our disagreements, we will agree on this:

The First President of Council was James, not Peter; and the Proper Organization of Church Government IS CONCILIAR, NOT PAPAL.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Hey, I accept Petrine authority. ~~ Well, you're in trouble now. ;-)

"Petrine Authority" is indisputable. Certainly Peter was granted a specific measure of apostolic authority towards the extension of the New Testament Church.

What cannot possibly be established is Petrine Supremacy.

AT the end of the day, the Acts of the Apostles records that Apostle James (NOT PETER) "pronounced Judgment" for the Jerusalem Council, and that Peter "was afraid of the Men of James".

No Petrine Papacy to be found there, or in any other New Testament Record of the organization of the New Testament Church.

[bornacatholic]

7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know, that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel, and believe. 8 And God, who knoweth the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us; 9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

*Peter spoke with authority and that was that. Once Peter speaks with authority only protestants protest. There were no protestants in that local Council

You are all Protestant Hat with no Doctrinal cattle. All your "doctrine" is based upon Catholic authority. It is solely from the authority of the Catholic church that you even have the New Testament with which to wrestle to your own destruction. It is the Catholic Church which has the sole authority to teach what it means. Even your opposition to Christian doctrine is based upon opposition to Divinely Constituted authority (matt 16:18,19). Of course you don't beleive that. So what? That just illustrates the reality of Free Will

Have a good night's sleep, brother

[bornacatholic]

St. Augustine

‘He was handed over for our offenses, and he rose again for our justification.’ What does this mean, ‘for our justification?’ So that He might justify us; so that he might make us just. You will be a work of God, not only because you are a man, but also because you are just. For it is better that you be just than that you be a man. If God made you a man, and you made yourself just, something you were doing would be better than what God did. But God made you without any cooperation on your part. For you did not lend your consent so that God could make you. How could you have consented when you did not exist? But He who made you without your consent does not justify you without your consent. He made you without your knowledge but He does not justify you without your willing it.

*Augustine was a Christian Catholic.

Get your own saints and leave ours alone. Stop trying to expropriate our Saints. It ain't working

[HarleyD]

Get your own saints and leave ours alone.

OK....

"Man's steps are ordained by the Lord, How then can man understand his way?" Prov 20:24

Saint Solomon

ordained: command formally: to order or establish something formally, especially by law or by some other authority

Is that better?

[jude24]

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).

Which is exactly what I do. I, too, subject myself to the authority of the ordained presbyters in my church and the authority of the ecumenical councils and the Early Church Fathers and the Creeds.

I do this because I do not trust my own interpretations of Scripture standing in isolation. My own prejudices, misconceptions, and errors are read into the text; by using the framework of the Presbyters, the Councils, the Fathers, and the Creeds, that is mitigated. I'll even call this group the Magisterium - and so call myself a Magesterial Protestant.

I think my statements on this approach could have been more clear, because right now RnMomof7 is absolutely convinced I don't believe in absolute truth (I do, I just observe that even the most naked fact requires that we interpret it through the lens of our experiences.). But ultimately, my approach is rooted in a disbelief in the complete perspecuity of the Scriptures (rather, believing that all things pertaining to salvation are clearly found within; the rest is subject to interpretation - by the Magisterium.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Interesting, I fully agree with you on the use of images, for education and comtemplation...and I'm a Presbyterian too, but, I acknowlege such a position is out of sinc with the Westminster standards...so how is it you are still OP???

Two answers.

1.) IN THE FIRST PLACE, as Presbyterian Laymen, you and I actually are not under the strict requirement to fully adhere to every specific clause of the Westminster Confession of Faith; rather, that is the Duty of our Overseeing Presbyters. As Laymen, we are bound only by the Four Affimations of Membership (here I offer a common example):
• Trusting in the gracious mercy of God, do you turn from the ways of sin and renounce evil and its power in the world?
• Do you turn to Jesus Christ and accept Him as your Lord and Savior, trusting in His grace and love?
• Will you be Christ’s faithful disciple, obeying His Word and showing His love?
• Do you promise to be a faithful member of this congregation, and commit yourself responsibly to the teaching, fellowship, government and discipline of The Church?

Provided that a Lay Member has pronounced these Four Affirmations before his Ruling and Teaching Elders and before his Congregation (as you and I have both done, upon entry into Communicable Voting Fellowship), it is permissible for a Layman Presbyterian to personally explore varying interpretations of Scripture and Tradition, provided that he does not deliberately contravert the commands of his Local Ruling Elders, or offer his Local Congregation a "Word of Instruction" (that is, a Lay Sermon) without the oversight of his Ruling Elders.

Having never taken Clerical Vows, I am operating within my Rights as a Presbyterian Layman to discuss the propriety of Orthodox Iconography, so long as I do not deliberately contravert the commands of my Local Ruling Elders (I have never done so, nor will I).

2.) IN THE SECOND PLACE, even the Presbyterian Clergy themselves have a Right of Appeal against anything, literally anything in even the Westminster Confession of Faith itself provided that they can prove their Objection to a General Assembly on the basis of Scripture Alone.

Even the hallowed Westminster Confessions HAVE been amended in the past; We Presbyterians submit even our General Councils and Universal Confessions to the God-Ordained Principle of Semper Reformanda, "The Reformed Church, Always Reforming!" ANY AND EVERY Confession of Bishops and Presbyters may always be subjected to inspection and clarification, under the bar of Sola Scriptura; as very well stated by the Eastern Orthodox Saint Brianchaninov:

"Has some good thought come to you? Have you felt some good impulse or inclination in your heart? Stop! Check it with the Gospel."Blessed Vladyka Ignatij (Brianchaninov)

Given, then, that the Ark of the Covenant represented the greatest Material Icon in the history of the Church, and was fully Biblical; I can, as I have said before, hardly begrudge the 10th Century Greeks their stained-glass Icons for converting and educating illiterate pagan Russians.

In sum: As long as we Protestants aren't expected to pray to Icons (sorry, we Protestants still feel that such an act would be Idolatry), we are able to appreciate the use of Icons for Education and Contemplation purposes.

And, as a Presbyterian, I am within my rights as a Layman to consider such things.

Best, OP

[AlbionGirl]

Bookmarked.

[jude24]

As long as we Protestants aren't expected to pray to Icons (sorry, we Protestants still feel that such an act would be Idolatry), we are able to appreciate the use of Icons for Education and Contemplation purposes.

Just as long as you aren't required to affirm the Helvetic Confession of Faith.

“But in fact in order to instruct men in religion and to remind them of divine things and of their salvation, the Lord commanded the preaching of the Gospel (Mark 16:15)--not to paint and to teach the laity by means of pictures. Moreover, he instituted sacraments, but nowhere did he set up images.”

This seems to me to suffer from the same fatal flaw that much of theology in the denomination I left did - an assumption that what is not mentioned is forbidden.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Peter spoke with authority and that was that. Once Peter speaks with authority only protestants protest. There were no protestants in that local Council. You are all Protestant Hat with no Doctrinal cattle. All your "doctrine" is based upon Catholic authority. It is solely from the authority of the Catholic church that you even have the New Testament with which to wrestle to your own destruction. It is the Catholic Church which has the sole authority to teach what it means.

Well, last I checked, the Roman Papacy was the very definition of "All Hat and No Cattle":

"Worship the Hat! Worship the Hat!! The Great Big Hat proves that I am the Supreme Vicar of Jesus Christ! Don't you see my great big huge three-tiered Hat? Am I not the True Successor to the Humble Son of Man, because I have a Great Big Hat? WORSHIP THE GREAT BIG HAT!!"

But you are right about this: Calvinist Doctrine is based upon CATHOLIC authority -- that is, universal Christian authority, established back in the days of Saint Augustine and well before.

But you are UTTERLY WRONG if you think that my Church was based upon the false usurpation of Roman Catholic Authority.

The Scottish Church was originally founded by Greek Missionaries from Asia Minor, NOT the later domination of Roman Papacy; and Calvinism traces its spiritual heritage to that foundation, AND NOT the later megalomaniacal claims of the Roman Pope.

The Christianity preached in the Scotland of that day was the same full-orbed system, the same galaxy of glorious truths, plain yet profound, simple yet surpassingly sublime, which constitutes the Christianity of this hour. Geneva shakes hand with Iona across the gulf of a thousand years.

Best, OP

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Just as long as you aren't required to affirm the Helvetic Confession of Faith...

Presbyterian Laymen are not required to submit to any formal Confession of Faith. We are simply required to submit to our Presbyters.

[bornacatholic]

David Hill.Presbyterian minister at the University of Sheffield : David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972

It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. Attempts to interpret the 'rock' as something other than Peter in person (e.g. his faith, Jesus, etc.) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of which is highly unlikely

*Have a good night's sleep,brother

[bornacatholic]

http://www.reformed.org/webfiles/antithesis/v1n5/ant_v1n5_why.html

[bornacatholic]

http://web.archive.org/web/20030604155026/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ474.HTM

[bornacatholic]

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/a87.htm

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

David Hill.Presbyterian minister at the University of Sheffield : David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972 ~~ It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. Attempts to interpret the 'rock' as something other than Peter in person (e.g. his faith, Jesus, etc.) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of which is highly unlikely

As a Magisterial Presbyterian -- the Heir of the Scottish Church founded by Greek Missionaries from Asia Minor long before the Roman-Papist Usurpation -- I do not doubt, deny, nor dispute the Scriptural Fact that Jesus Christ did Himself Personally-ordain the Apostle Saint Peter to play an absolutely-foundational role in the establishment of the New Testament Church amongst the Jews, just as Our Lord also Personally-ordained the Apostle Saint Paul to play an absolutely-foundational role in the establishment of the New Testament Church amongst the Gentiles (Galatians 2:8).

All of which does nothing to change the fact that, according to Acts 15, the God-Ordained Organization of the New Testament Church IS CONCILIAR, AND NOT PAPAL; and that it was Apostle James the Brother of Jesus, AND NOT PETER, who pronounced the Judgment of the Council.

When all is said and done, you can't argue with Acts 15.
The Government of the Church is Conciliar, NOT PAPAL; and James was the first "President", NOT PETER.

Best, OP

[Campion]

Heir of the Scottish Church founded by Greek Missionaries from Asia Minor

Care to name any of those "Greek Missionaries"?

Is this the same kind of historical fiction that has Joseph of Arimathea as the first Anglican?

[RnMomof7]

That is the sola that the catholic church follows

Sola Ecclesia Romanus
Only the Church of Rome is the Rule of Faith


Catechism of the Catholic Church

85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form [Scripture] or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church, published by Liguori Publications, English translation copyright 1994 by the United States Catholic Conference, Inc., Libreria Editrice Vaticana, page 27.

[Cronos]

Augustine was no "Crypto-Calvinist". Rather, Augustine was a Proto-Calvinist -- that is, he correctly maintained the Orthodox Doctrine of the Christian Church long before it was utterly corrupted by the Papal Supremacists of Rome.

And how come our Orthodox Christian brethern also have the same Christian beliefs as opposed to your philosophy?

Given that the (Eastern Orthodox) Ecclesial Organization, (Eastern Orthodox) Baptismal and Infant-Baptismal Rites, and (Augustinian) Predestinarian Doctrines of Orthodox Iona were preserved for a thousand years throughout the long dark centuries of bitter Roman Catholic suppression and domination until eventually reinforced and re-established by Knoxian Scottish Calvinism; and...

Some more fairy tales -- did the wee folks and hobgoblins preserve it?

Whatever our disagreements (and here, we Magisterial Protestants are willing to appeal to Orthodox Patristics and Orthodox Patriarchs and Orthodox Tradition in defense of our Theology), we Calvinists

Oh, you're willing to stoop down to let the Orthodox humbly join you in your ways?

Satanic Organization

Anything outside The Church is heretical and by extension Satanical. The Orthodox and Oriental Churches are part of the One Church -- the many Protestants also believe in Christ's teachings could also be included, but not cultists.

[Campion]

"Sola Ecclesia Romanus" does not mean "Only the Church of Rome" ... anything. The closest it could mean, after assuming a verb, would be "only the church is a (male) Roman".

"Only the Roman Church" would be "Sola Ecclesia Romana", since adjectives must agree with their referents in number, case, and gender. "Only the Church of Rome" would be "Sola Ecclesia Romae" (Romae = genitive form of "Roma").

Thus endeth the Latin lesson for today. We now return you to our regularly scheduled program, "the fictional Protestant history of Scottish Christianity".