Pelagius

[artrx]

I'll second the Thank You, Phillip. Is there a book you can point me to that would further explain the Eastern view?

 

[Philip]

I'll second the Thank You, Phillip. Is there a book you can point me to that would further explain the Eastern view?

I would suggest reading On the Incarnation by St Athansius the Apostolic. It is widely and highly regarded by the Orthodox. It is not long and should be freely available all over the Web. It is about 1700 years old, so reading it takes some effort, but it is worth it. For those who do not know the name Athansius, he was the principle defender of the truth of Christ's divine nature at the First Ecumenical Council.

As for more modern books, it largely depends on where you are now. Explaining Orthodoxy to a Catholic requires a different strategy than explaining it to a Calvinist. One book I read not too long ago is useful for those familiar with Luther. Union with Christ by [some Finnish guy whos name I can't remember at this moment] is interesting. The author reexamines Luther's writings and questions how closely modern Lutheranism matches Luther's beliefs. In the process, he discusses his interpretations of Luther in comparison to Orthodox beliefs. The result is, perhaps accidentally, an introduction to Orthodoxy using terms and ideas familiar to Protestants. It did much to raise my opinion of Luther.

Bishop Kallistos (Timothy Ware) was an Anglican priest who converted to Orthodoxy. He has written several books that are meant to make Orthodoxy accessible to those unfamiliar with Eastern thought. The Orthodox Way is good. His The Orthodox Church is bettern known, but it is primarily a history, not theology, book.

Beside those, I will have to think. In the mean time, I would be happy to try to answer any questions. Or, you can stop by TAW.

 

[Philip]

Oops. Correct to the above:

Union with Christ is edited by Carl Braaten, Robert Jenson. The Finn I had in mind is Tuomo Mannermaa. Some of his essays are included in the book. Mannermaa's book is Christ Present In Faith.

 

[Blackhawk]

Agreed, justification/sactification is a process by which we partake in the divine nature. However, you have not established a necessary separation between them. Indeed, you can not. They are two different names for the same thing: the gift of Christ, Christ Himself, given to us. What you call justification is the driving out of previous sin by Christ presence in us. What you call santification is the protection from further sin by Christ's presence in us. Calling them separate names does not make them separated.

I would just as quickly say the artificially erecting a barrier between the two 'effects how we view our relationship with and our response to God.'

You have done a good job of presenting the standard Western Protestant beliefs on the matter. What you have failed to do is prove that those beliefs are the necessary conclusion of Scripture or the historic teachings of Christians. The split between the ideas of justification and sanctification begins is do to the Scholastic theology of medieval Catholics. They defined 'faith' as 'incomplete or imperfect knowledge' and concluded that something incomplete or imperfect could not be sufficient for salvation. Thus were born their ideas of fides charitate formata, the elevation of human love to divine love, infused grace/infused righteousness, merits, and so on. Protestants were right to reject this, but their solution never escaped the philosophies of the day. They, for the most part, never recognized that faith in Christ is nothing short of union with Christ. Through this union, we have both the forgiveness of sins and the strength to resist sin. If I might borrow from Luther:

Just as the Word became flesh, so it is certainly necessary also that the flesh become may become Words. In other words, God becomes man so that man may become God. Thus, power becomes powerless so that weakness may become powerful. The Logos puts on our form and gestalt, our image and likeness, so that He may clothe us with His image, His gestalt, and His likeness. Thus, wisdom becomes foolish so that foolishness may become wisdom, and so it is in all other things that are in God and in us, to the extent that in all these things He takes what is ours to Himself in order to impart what is His to us.​

The concept of justification and sanctification are the same thing: Christ takes what is ours (sin) and imparts (not imputes) what is His (rightousness). Such is the beauty of the Incarnation.

Okay I know about Eastern soteriology. What I do not get here though is that it seems that you state that justification and sanctification are both the same thing but then you state that they are different parts of one overall process (salvation). Let me quote you again.

They are two different names for the same thing: the gift of Christ, Christ Himself, given to us. What you call justification is the driving out of previous sin by Christ presence in us. What you call santification is the protection from further sin by Christ's presence in us. Calling them separate names does not make them separated.

Now I do not know what problems many Western Christians would have with this. I think in fact Calvin would agree with you. Except Calvin did use forensic metaphors for salvation. That is a difference but I do not see how there is really a split between justification and sanctification that is not present also in what you said or in the Eastern orthodox view of deification.Can you help me see the difference? I just do not see any.

 

[angela 2]

While I don't separate justification and sanctification entirely, I think we must keep in mind that a person cannot be justified unless they are sanctified and vice versa.

BTW, I think all righteousness is imputed since our righteousness is God seeing us as he sees his Son.

 

[angela 2]

While I don't separate justification and sanctification entirely, I think we must keep in mind that a person cannot be justified unless they are sanctified and vice versa.

BTW, I think all righteousness is imputed since our righteousness is God seeing us as he sees his Son.

Blackhawk,

I never knew you were a theologian. Been hiding your light under a basket?

 

[Philip]

Okay I know about Eastern soteriology. What I do not get here though is that it seems that you state that justification and sanctification are both the same thing but then you state that they are different parts of one overall process (salvation).

Perhaps it would be better to say that they are two effects (removal of sin and resistence to sin) of the same cause (union with Christ).

Now I do not know what problems many Western Christians would have with this. I think in fact Calvin would agree with you. Except Calvin did use forensic metaphors for salvation.
That is a difference but I do not see how there is really a split between justification and sanctification that is not present also in what you said or in the Eastern orthodox view of deification.Can you help me see the difference? I just do not see any.

I have been told many times that I do not understand Calvinism. Further, I am likely to confuse what Calvinist teach with what Calvin taught. But, I'll give it a shot anyway.

First, let me say that I don't think Calvin is guilty, as some Western theologies teach, of making justification the work of Christ while santification is soley the work of the Spirit.

Under the forensic model, justification is a change in the relationship between God and man. The being of the person is not changed, 'just' how God regards the person:

A man is said to be justified in the sight of God when in the judgment of God he is deemed righteous, and is accepted on account of his righteousness; for as iniquity is abominable to God, so neither can the sinner find grace in his sight, so far as he is and so long as he is regarded as a sinner...Thus we simply interpret justification, as the acceptance with which God receives us into his favor as if we were righteous; and we say that this justification consists in the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of the righteousness of Christ,

Calvin asserts that justification is 'deeded righteous' and seen 'as if we were righteous'. I contend that the change is not just in our relationship to God, but is ontological. We are made righteous. Futher, this change is brought about by Christ truly dwelling in us. Given Calvin's remarks concerning Osiander, who he compares to the Manichee, I don't think this would be acceptable to him. (Osiander's primary mistake was not in supposing a union with Christ, but in splitting the hypostatic union.)

For, in the whole of this discussion, the noun righteousness and the verb to justify, are extended by Osiander to two parts; to be justified being not only to be reconciled to God by a free pardon, but also to be made just; and righteousness being not a free imputation, but the holiness and integrity which the divine essence dwelling in us inspires. And he vehemently asserts (see sec. 8) that Christ is himself our righteousness, not in so far as he, by expiating sins, appeased the Father, but because he is the eternal God and life. To prove the first point, viz., that God justifies not only by pardoning but by regenerating, he asks, whether he leaves those whom he justifies as they were by nature, making no change upon their vices? The answer is very easy: as Christ cannot be divided into parts, so the two things, justification and sanctification, which we perceive to be united together in him, are inseparable.

Not that I agree with Osiander, but I doubt Calvin would see a difference between Osiander and Orthodoxy. Calivn seems opposed to the idea that justification is an actual change. Consider his analogy of justification to Jacob disguising himself as Esau. Jacob received Issac's blessing not by being changed. I contend that in we are justified by receiving Christ, ontologically changed. We are not just 'mistaken' for a righteous person, as Jacob was mistaken, but we are actually made righteous.

I think we can agree that Calvin supports the idea the sanctification effects a real change in the believer. So, I must wonder if justification does not effect a real change, but sancification does, how can Calvin say they are the same?

BTW, I am not sure how Calvin's idea of regeneration fits in.

 

[Philip]

While I don't separate justification and sanctification entirely, I think we must keep in mind that a person cannot be justified unless they are sanctified and vice versa.

I agree that justification an sanctification presuppose eachother. But this raises a problem. When dealing with Arminians, Calvinists routinely list an Ordo Salutis. Invariably, this places justification causally before sanctification.

BTW, I think all righteousness is imputed since our righteousness is God seeing us as he sees his Son.

I disagree. Our righteousness is Christ dwelling in us. It is not just a relationship, how He sees us, it is a real change.

Blackhawk,
I never knew you were a theologian. Been hiding your light under a basket?

Actually, Blackhawk is quite a gifted theologian.

 

[angela 2]

I agree that justification an sanctification presuppose eachother. But this raises a problem. When dealing with Arminians, Calvinists routinely list an Ordo Salutis. Invariably, this places justification causally before sanctification.

Yes, I know. However, if one presupposes the other, I can't agree that there is a causal connection or even a temporal one.

I disagree. Our righteousness is Christ dwelling in us. It is not just a relationship, how He sees us, it is a real change.

It is and it isn't. This is one of those dialectical issues that Luther never fully resolved. There's a passage in the later letter (don't know where) where the writer says when God looks at us he sees us in/through this Son. And let's not forget Paul's, "You have died and are hidden in Christ."

I agree that it is a real change, but I question who 'owns' the change, so to speak. If righteous is entirely our possession, then how do we account for Luther's saying that we are sinners and justified at the same time?

BTW, I would say that it is the Holy Spirit who lives in us while we live in Christ. I know Greek prepositions are a nightmare, but the best translators repeat the phrase "in Christ" many times.

 

[Philip]

It is and it isn't. This is one of those dialectical issues that Luther never fully resolved.

I have come to believe that Luther did resolve this. Neo-Kantian Lutheran theologians of the 19th and 20th century seem to have muddled it.

There's a passage in the later letter (don't know where) where the writer says when God looks at us he sees us in/through this Son.

I am reminded of Luther's words:

For nothing counst with God, except His beloved Son Jesus Christ, who is completely pure and holy before Him. Where He is, there God looks and has His pleasure.... Now the Son is not grasped and held in the heart by works but only by faith, without works. So God say: 'The heart is holy because of My Son, who lives within it through faith.'

And let's not forget Paul's, "You have died and are hidden in Christ."

Actually, St Paul says that our lives are hidden in Christ. Though we physically die, our life continues in Christ. And, according to the next verse, when Christ returns in glory, we will be revealed with Him.

I agree that it is a real change, but I question who 'owns' the change, so to speak. If righteous is entirely our possession, then how do we account for Luther's saying that we are sinners and justified at the same time?

Our nature is not destroyed. Just as Christ did not destroy human nature, but assumed it and restored it, in the Incarnation, our fallen nature still exists, but it has been connected to Christ. Not that we are Incarnations ourselves, but we partake in the Divine Nature. Neither Christ nor His righteousness are ours in the sense that we have a right to them or they are our property. Rather, we cling to this union by the power of the Spirit.

BTW, I would say that it is the Holy Spirit who lives in us while we live in Christ. I know Greek prepositions are a nightmare, but the best translators repeat the phrase "in Christ" many times.

I think St Paul is clear on the matter:

Galations 2:20
"I have been crucified with Christ; and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself up for me. ​

 

[Blackhawk]

Blackhawk,

I never knew you were a theologian. Been hiding your light under a basket?

well some would say that I am and others would say that I am a quack.

 

[angela 2]

Philip,

Unfortunately I don't have time to play any longer. I'm doing a mini presentation on the nature and work of Christ this evening. So I suppose I ought to prepare something.

One suggestion. If we look at the Institutes in the area on Osiander, we find Calvin using words like "participation" and "fellowship." 'Sounds more like an activity than a passive state. Perhaps this is a clue.

But essentially I think we would be better served by looking at Luther rather than Calvin. A modern theologian, Karl Barth, whose theology is rooted in Luther's gives an extensive, difficult and very fine explication (IMHO) of the relationship of justification to sanctification.

 

[Blackhawk]

[/quote] Perhaps it would be better to say that they are two effects (removal of sin and resistence to sin) of the same cause (union with Christ). [/quote]

Okay. But how is this different than what many protestants argue? The church fathers seem to often argue that there is an innitiation into salvation (Baptism) and then one continues through the process of salvation through the Eucharist and the living out of the word of God. I guess what I am saying is that justification and then sanctification are always seperated yet put together (along with regeneration, glorifcation, adoption) into the totality of salvation.



[/quote] I have been told many times that I do not understand Calvinism. Further, I am likely to confuse what Calvinist teach with what Calvin taught. But, I'll give it a shot anyway.

First, let me say that I don't think Calvin is guilty, as some Western theologies teach, of making justification the work of Christ while santification is soley the work of the Spirit. [/quote]

Okay.

[/quote]Under the forensic model, justification is a change in the relationship between God and man. The being of the person is not changed, 'just' how God regards the person [/quote]

Okay. I am right now looking more into this. What I do know though is that the forensic model alone is not an adequate model for salvation. However I do not want to abandon it altogether. I do not see why it has to be an either/or deal.

Do you know anything of NT Wright and the New perspective on Paul? If so what do you think of it?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0800626818/sr=8-4/qid=1141514161/ref=pd_bbs_4/104-5273104-6205532?%5Fencoding=UTF8



[/quote]Calvin asserts that justification is 'deeded righteous' and seen 'as if we were righteous'. I contend that the change is not just in our relationship to God, but is ontological. We are made righteous. Futher, this change is brought about by Christ truly dwelling in us. Given Calvin's remarks concerning Osiander, who he compares to the Manichee, I don't think this would be acceptable to him. (Osiander's primary mistake was not in supposing a union with Christ, but in splitting the hypostatic union.)



Not that I agree with Osiander, but I doubt Calvin would see a difference between Osiander and Orthodoxy. Calivn seems opposed to the idea that justification is an actual change. Consider his analogy of justification to Jacob disguising himself as Esau. Jacob received Issac's blessing not by being changed. I contend that in we are justified by receiving Christ, ontologically changed. We are not just 'mistaken' for a righteous person, as Jacob was mistaken, but we are actually made righteous.

I think we can agree that Calvin supports the idea the sanctification effects a real change in the believer. So, I must wonder if justification does not effect a real change, but sancification does, how can Calvin say they are the same?

BTW, I am not sure how Calvin's idea of regeneration fits in. [/quote]

So what do you mean by ontological change? What does "We are made righteous" mean?

 

[Dmckay]

The Council of Orange was seated to settle the theological differences between Augustine and Pelagius. Therre was a good deal known about pelagius hat had been implied here, whether intentional or not:
THE COUNCIL OF ORANGE
The Council of Orange was an outgrowth of the controversy between Augustine and Pelagius. This controversy had to do with degree to which a human being is responsible for his or her own salvation, and the role of the grace of God in bringing about salvation. The Pelagians held that human beings are born in a state of innocence, i.e., that there is no such thing as a sinful nature or original sin. As a result of this view, they held that a state of sinless perfection was achievable in this life. The Council of Orange dealt with theSemi-Pelagian doctrine that the human race, though fallen and possessed of a sinful nature, is still “good” enough to able to lay hold of the grace of God through an act of unredeemed human will. As you read the Canons of the Council of Orange, you will be able to see where John Calvin derived his views of the total depravity of the human race

THE CANONS OF THE COUNCIL OF ORANGE
(529 AD)

CANON 1. If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was “changed for the worse” through the offense of Adam’s sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, “The soul that sins shall die” (Ezek. 18:20); and, “Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?” (Rom. 6:126); and, “For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved” (2 Pet. 2:19)

CANON 2. If anyone asserts that Adam’s sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, “Therefore as sin came into the world through one manand death through sin, and so death spread to all men becauseall men sinned” (Rom. 5:12)

CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, “Ihave been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me” (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1)

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, “The will is prepared by the Lord” (Prov.8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, “For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13).

CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism— if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching ofthe Apostles, for blessed Paul says, “And I am sure that hewho began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6). And again, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyonemakes the assistance of grace depend on the humility orobedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, “What have you that you did notreceive?” (1 Cor. 4:7), and, “But by the grace of God I amwhat I am” (1 Cor. 15:10).

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any rightopinion or make any right choice which relates to thesalvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that wecan be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospelthrough our natural powers without the illumination andinspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladlyassent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by aheretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of Godwho says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can donothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not thatwe are competent of ourselves to claim anything as comingfrom us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).

CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come tothe grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will,which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who havebeen born after the transgression of the first man, it is proofthat he has no place in the true faith. For he denies thatthe free will of all men has been weakened through the sin ofthe first man, or at least holds that it has been affected insuch a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery ofeternal salvation by themselves without the revelation ofGod. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is bydeclaring that no one is able to come to him "unless theFather who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), as he also says toPeter, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and bloodhas not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven"(Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, "No one can say'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3).

CANON 9. Concerning the succor of God. It is a mark ofdivine favor when we are of a right purpose and keep our feetfrom hypocrisy and unrighteousness; for as often as we dogood, God is at work in us and with us, in order that we maydo so.

CANON 10. Concerning the succor of God. The succor of Godis to be ever sought by the regenerate and converted also, sothat they may be able to come to a successful end orpersevere in good works.

CANON 11. Concerning the duty to pray. None would make anytrue prayer to the Lord had he not received from him theobject of his prayer, as it is written, "Of thy own have wegiven thee" (1 Chron. 29:14).

CANON 12. Of what sort we are whom God loves. God loves usfor what we shall be by his gift, and not by our owndeserving.

CANON 13. Concerning the restoration of free will. Thefreedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can berestored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost canbe returned only by the one who was able to give it. Hencethe Truth itself declares: "So if the Son makes you free, youwill be free indeed" (John 8:36).

CANON 14. No mean wretch is freed from his sorrowful state,however great it may be, save the one who is anticipated bythe mercy of God, as the Psalmist says, "Let thy compassioncome speedily to meet us" (Ps. 79:8), and again, "My God inhis steadfast love will meet me" (Ps. 59:10).

CANON 15. Adam was changed, but for the worse, through hisown iniquity from what God made him. Through the grace ofGod the believer is changed, but for the better, from whathis iniquity has done for him. The one, therefore, was thechange brought about by the first sinner; the other,according to the Psalmist, is the change of the right hand ofthe Most High (Ps. 77:10).

CANON 16. No man shall be honored by his seeming attainment,as though it were not a gift, or suppose that he has receivedit because a missive from without stated it in writing or inspeech. For the Apostle speaks thus, "For if justificationwere through the law, then Christ died to no purpose" (Gal.2:21); and "When he ascended on high he led a host ofcaptives, and he gave gifts to men" (Eph. 4:8, quoting Ps.68:18). It is from this source that any man has what hedoes; but whoever denies that he has it from this sourceeither does not truly have it, or else "even what he has willbe taken away" (Matt. 25:29).

CANON 17. Concerning Christian courage. The courage of theGentiles is produced by simple greed, but the courage ofChristians by the love of God which "has been poured into ourhearts" not by freedom of will from our own side but "throughthe Holy Spirit which has been given to us" (Rom. 5:5).

CANON 18. That grace is not preceded by merit. Recompenseis due to good works if they are performed; but grace, towhich we have no claim, precedes them, to enable them to bedone.

CANON 19. That a man can be saved only when God shows mercy.Human nature, even though it remained in that sound state inwhich it was created, could be no means save itself, withoutthe assistance of the Creator; hence since man cannot safe-guard his salvation without the grace of God, which is agift, how will he be able to restore what he has lost withoutthe grace of God?

CANON 20. That a man can do no good without God. God doesmuch that is good in a man that the man does not do; but aman does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so asto let him do it.

CANON 21. Concerning nature and grace. As the Apostle mosttruly says to those who would be justified by the law andhave fallen from grace, "If justification were through thelaw, then Christ died to no purpose" (Gal. 2:21), so it ismost truly declared to those who imagine that grace, whichfaith in Christ advocates and lays hold of, is nature: "Ifjustification were through nature, then Christ died to nopurpose." Now there was indeed the law, but it did notjustify, and there was indeed nature, but it did not justify.Not in vain did Christ therefore die, so that the law mightbe fulfilled by him who said, "I have come not to abolishthem ****e law and prophets> but to fulfil them" (Matt. 5:17),and that the nature which had been destroyed by Adam might berestored by him who said that he had come "to seek and tosave the lost" (Luke 19:10).

CANON 22. Concerning those things that belong to man. Noman has anything of his own but untruth and sin. But if aman has any truth or righteousness, it from that fountain forwhich we must thirst in this desert, so that we may berefreshed from it as by drops of water and not faint on theway.

CANON 23. Concerning the will of God and of man. Men dotheir own will and not the will of God when they do whatdispleases him; but when they follow their own will andcomply with the will of God, however willingly they do so,yet it is his will by which what they will is both preparedand instructed.

CANON 24. Concerning the branches of the vine. The brancheson the vine do not give life to the vine, but receive lifefrom it; thus the vine is related to its branches in such away that it supplies them with what they need to live, anddoes not take this from them. Thus it is to the advantage ofthe disciples, not Christ, both to have Christ abiding inthem and to abide in Christ. For if the vine is cut downanother can shoot up from the live root; but one who is cutoff from the vine cannot live without the root (John 15:5ff).

CANON 25. Concerning the love with which we love God. It iswholly a gift of God to love God. He who loves, even thoughhe is not loved, allowed himself to be loved. We are loved,even when we displease him, so that we might have means toplease him. For the Spirit, whom we love with the Father andthe Son, has poured into our hearts the love of the Fatherand the Son (Rom. 5:5).

 

[Dmckay]

The Council of Orange was seated to settle the theological differences between Augustine and Pelagius. Therre was a good deal known about pelagius hat had been implied here, whether intentional or not:
THE COUNCIL OF ORANGE
The Council of Orange was an outgrowth of the controversy between Augustine and Pelagius. This controversy had to do with degree to which a human being is responsible for his or her own salvation, and the role of the grace of God in bringing about salvation. The Pelagians held that human beings are born in a state of innocence, i.e., that there is no such thing as a sinful nature or original sin. As a result of this view, they held that a state of sinless perfection was achievable in this life. The Council of Orange dealt with theSemi-Pelagian doctrine that the human race, though fallen and possessed of a sinful nature, is still “good” enough to able to lay hold of the grace of God through an act of unredeemed human will. As you read the Canons of the Council of Orange, you will be able to see where John Calvin derived his views of the total depravity of the human race

THE CANONS OF THE COUNCIL OF ORANGE
(529 AD)

CANON 1. If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was “changed for the worse” through the offense of Adam’s sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, “The soul that sins shall die” (Ezek. 18:20); and, “Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?” (Rom. 6:126); and, “For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved” (2 Pet. 2:19)

CANON 2. If anyone asserts that Adam’s sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, “Therefore as sin came into the world through one manand death through sin, and so death spread to all men becauseall men sinned” (Rom. 5:12)

CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, “Ihave been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me” (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1)

CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, “The will is prepared by the Lord” (Prov.8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, “For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure” (Phil. 2:13).

CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism— if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching ofthe Apostles, for blessed Paul says, “And I am sure that hewho began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6). And again, “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.

CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyonemakes the assistance of grace depend on the humility orobedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, “What have you that you did notreceive?” (1 Cor. 4:7), and, “But by the grace of God I amwhat I am” (1 Cor. 15:10).

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any rightopinion or make any right choice which relates to thesalvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that wecan be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospelthrough our natural powers without the illumination andinspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladlyassent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by aheretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of Godwho says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can donothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not thatwe are competent of ourselves to claim anything as comingfrom us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).

CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come tothe grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will,which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who havebeen born after the transgression of the first man, it is proofthat he has no place in the true faith. For he denies thatthe free will of all men has been weakened through the sin ofthe first man, or at least holds that it has been affected insuch a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery ofeternal salvation by themselves without the revelation ofGod. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is bydeclaring that no one is able to come to him "unless theFather who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), as he also says toPeter, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and bloodhas not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven"(Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, "No one can say'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3).

CANON 9. Concerning the succor of God. It is a mark ofdivine favor when we are of a right purpose and keep our feetfrom hypocrisy and unrighteousness; for as often as we dogood, God is at work in us and with us, in order that we maydo so.

CANON 10. Concerning the succor of God. The succor of Godis to be ever sought by the regenerate and converted also, sothat they may be able to come to a successful end orpersevere in good works.

CANON 11. Concerning the duty to pray. None would make anytrue prayer to the Lord had he not received from him theobject of his prayer, as it is written, "Of thy own have wegiven thee" (1 Chron. 29:14).

CANON 12. Of what sort we are whom God loves. God loves usfor what we shall be by his gift, and not by our owndeserving.

CANON 13. Concerning the restoration of free will. Thefreedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can berestored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost canbe returned only by the one who was able to give it. Hencethe Truth itself declares: "So if the Son makes you free, youwill be free indeed" (John 8:36).

CANON 14. No mean wretch is freed from his sorrowful state,however great it may be, save the one who is anticipated bythe mercy of God, as the Psalmist says, "Let thy compassioncome speedily to meet us" (Ps. 79:8), and again, "My God inhis steadfast love will meet me" (Ps. 59:10).

CANON 15. Adam was changed, but for the worse, through hisown iniquity from what God made him. Through the grace ofGod the believer is changed, but for the better, from whathis iniquity has done for him. The one, therefore, was thechange brought about by the first sinner; the other,according to the Psalmist, is the change of the right hand ofthe Most High (Ps. 77:10).

CANON 16. No man shall be honored by his seeming attainment,as though it were not a gift, or suppose that he has receivedit because a missive from without stated it in writing or inspeech. For the Apostle speaks thus, "For if justificationwere through the law, then Christ died to no purpose" (Gal.2:21); and "When he ascended on high he led a host ofcaptives, and he gave gifts to men" (Eph. 4:8, quoting Ps.68:18). It is from this source that any man has what hedoes; but whoever denies that he has it from this sourceeither does not truly have it, or else "even what he has willbe taken away" (Matt. 25:29).

CANON 17. Concerning Christian courage. The courage of theGentiles is produced by simple greed, but the courage ofChristians by the love of God which "has been poured into ourhearts" not by freedom of will from our own side but "throughthe Holy Spirit which has been given to us" (Rom. 5:5).

CANON 18. That grace is not preceded by merit. Recompenseis due to good works if they are performed; but grace, towhich we have no claim, precedes them, to enable them to bedone.

CANON 19. That a man can be saved only when God shows mercy.Human nature, even though it remained in that sound state inwhich it was created, could be no means save itself, withoutthe assistance of the Creator; hence since man cannot safe-guard his salvation without the grace of God, which is agift, how will he be able to restore what he has lost withoutthe grace of God?

CANON 20. That a man can do no good without God. God doesmuch that is good in a man that the man does not do; but aman does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so asto let him do it.

CANON 21. Concerning nature and grace. As the Apostle mosttruly says to those who would be justified by the law andhave fallen from grace, "If justification were through thelaw, then Christ died to no purpose" (Gal. 2:21), so it ismost truly declared to those who imagine that grace, whichfaith in Christ advocates and lays hold of, is nature: "Ifjustification were through nature, then Christ died to nopurpose." Now there was indeed the law, but it did notjustify, and there was indeed nature, but it did not justify.Not in vain did Christ therefore die, so that the law mightbe fulfilled by him who said, "I have come not to abolishthem ****e law and prophets> but to fulfil them" (Matt. 5:17),and that the nature which had been destroyed by Adam might berestored by him who said that he had come "to seek and tosave the lost" (Luke 19:10).

CANON 22. Concerning those things that belong to man. Noman has anything of his own but untruth and sin. But if aman has any truth or righteousness, it from that fountain forwhich we must thirst in this desert, so that we may berefreshed from it as by drops of water and not faint on theway.

CANON 23. Concerning the will of God and of man. Men dotheir own will and not the will of God when they do whatdispleases him; but when they follow their own will andcomply with the will of God, however willingly they do so,yet it is his will by which what they will is both preparedand instructed.

CANON 24. Concerning the branches of the vine. The brancheson the vine do not give life to the vine, but receive lifefrom it; thus the vine is related to its branches in such away that it supplies them with what they need to live, anddoes not take this from them. Thus it is to the advantage ofthe disciples, not Christ, both to have Christ abiding inthem and to abide in Christ. For if the vine is cut downanother can shoot up from the live root; but one who is cutoff from the vine cannot live without the root (John 15:5ff).

CANON 25. Concerning the love with which we love God. It iswholly a gift of God to love God. He who loves, even thoughhe is not loved, allowed himself to be loved. We are loved,even when we displease him, so that we might have means toplease him. For the Spirit, whom we love with the Father andthe Son, has poured into our hearts the love of the Fatherand the Son (Rom. 5:5).

 

[Dmckay]

Conclusions:

CONCLUSION. And thus according to the passages of holyscripture quoted above or the interpretations of the ancientFathers we must, under the blessing of God, preach andbelieve as follows. The sin of the first man has so impairedand weakened free will that no one thereafter can either loveGod as he ought or believe in God or do good for God's sake,unless the grace of divine mercy has preceded him. Wetherefore believe that the glorious faith which was given toAbel the righteous, and Noah, and Abraham, and Isaac, andJacob, and to all the saints of old, and which the ApostlePaul <sic> commends in extolling them (Heb. 11), was notgiven through natural goodness as it was before to Adam, butwas bestowed by the grace of God. And we know and alsobelieve that even after the coming of our Lord this grace isnot to be found in the free will of all who desire to bebaptized, but is bestowed by the kindness of Christ, as hasalready been frequently stated and as the Apostle Pauldeclares, "For it has been granted to you that for the sakeof Christ you should not only believe in him but also sufferfor his sake" (Phil. 1:29). And again, "He who began a goodwork in you will bring it to completion at the day of JesusChrist" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have beensaved through faith; and it is not your own doing, it is thegift of God" (Eph. 2:8). And as the Apostle says of himself,"I have obtained mercy to be faithful" (1 Cor. 7:25, cf. 1Tim. 1:13). He did not say, "because I was faithful," but"to be faithful." And again, "What have you that you did notreceive?" (1 Cor. 4:7). And again, "Every good endowment andevery perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Fatherof lights" (Jas. 1:17). And again, "No one can receive anything except what is given him from heaven" (John 3:27).There are innumerable passages of holy scripture which can bequoted to prove the case for grace, but they have beenomitted for the sake of brevity, because further exampleswill not really be of use where few are deemed sufficient.According to the catholic faith we also believe that aftergrace has been received through baptism, all baptized personshave the ability and responsibility, if they desire to laborfaithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christwhat is of essential importance in regard to the salvation oftheir soul. We not only do not believe that any areforeordained to evil by the power of God, but even state withutter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believeso evil a thing, they are anathema. We also believe andconfess to our benefit that in every good work it is not wewho take the initiative and are then assisted through themercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faithin him and love for him without any previous good works ofour own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfullyseek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able byhis help to do what is pleasing to him. We must thereforemost evidently believe that the praiseworthy faith of thethief whom the Lord called to his home in paradise, and ofCornelius the centurion, to whom the angel of the Lord was sent, and of Zacchaeus, who was worthy to receive the Lord himself, was not a natural endowment but a gift of God's kindness.
Please excuse this the print, was so poor that the scan to text didn't turn out as well as I hoped.

 

[Philip]

Blackhawk,

I do intent to address your questions.

 

[Danfrey]

Interesting the Ancient Fathers are mentioned. There are several of the Ancient Fathers that would have supported Free Will and man's ability to choose God. We can thank Augustine for many of the false teachings that resurfaced at the time of the reformation.

 

[Philip]

The Council of Orange was seated to settle the theological differences between Augustine and Pelagius.

I am always amazed at the authority some people give to this synod. It was a small synod of about 20 bishops (a typical Ecumenical Council would have several hundred) and its decrees were never accepted by the Church as a whole.

By the way, it was seated more to condemn John Cassian than Pelagius. He is counted as a saint among the Orthodox. While the Catholics do not consider him a saint (I think), the Benedictine Monks base their rules on Cassian's writings. An odd thing to do if he was considered a heretic.

 

[depthdeception]

Interesting the Ancient Fathers are mentioned. There are several of the Ancient Fathers that would have supported Free Will and man's ability to choose God. We can thank Augustine for many of the false teachings that resurfaced at the time of the reformation.

You should rather "thank" the Reformers who misappropriated Augustine's teachings to justify their own distortions...