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

*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).

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

IN THE FIRST PLACE

actually are not

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.