This article is seriously misleading, even false. It concludes with a dishonest half-truth. Cassian's influence on the Western Church was indeed immense. But that influence did not include semipelagianism in any way shape or form. The article implies that it did, implies that medieval monks were closet pelagians and semipelagians.
This is simply not true. I wrote my dissertation on the theology of grace in medieval western monasticism. The very beginning of conversion to the monastic life was solely and totally a work of God's grace in the heart of the monk.
If you want to read about John Cassian, read Columba Stewart's book of that title or, if you prefer an honest account by a partisan Protestant, then read Owen Chadwick's older but very valuable book on John Cassian.
This monergism-site article is using John Cassian to try to score points against the Catholic heirs of Augustine, who did retain both the absolute priority of God's grace and the complete freedom of the human will to reject God. That is not semi-pelagianism.
And on this point, there is no quarrel between Eastern Orthodox and Western Catholics. Augustine's concept of original sin is faulty and was abandoned by the Western Church in the 11thc and following. But Augustine's teaching on sin otherwise is not false--he defends human freedom to the end and equally defends the absolute priority of God's grace. I really don't see why it was necessary to take out after Augustine on original sin in the context of this article.
Dear Dionysiusdecordealcis,
"And on this point, there is no quarrel between Eastern Orthodox and Western Catholics. Augustine's concept of original sin is faulty and was abandoned by the Western Church in the 11thc and following."
I really appreciate many of your posts, and learn a lot from them.
If you have a little spare time, I'd be very appreciative if you could make a basic comparison and contrast between Augustine's view and that which is held by the Church.
If you don't have the time, that's okay.
Either way, thanks for all your contributions to this forum.
sitetest
I don't know if I would agree that Augustine's concept of original sin was faulty. I would agree most of the Western Church abandoned it in the 11th century. There are those of us who still believe in original sin.
The reason is the T.U.L.I.P. garden thinks Augustine is a Crypto-Calvinist