John Cassian was one of the foremost founders of western monasticism. In his earlier life he had been a monk in Bethlehem and then had journeyed to Egypt with a friend to see the monks there. Later he was a friend of John Chrysostom in Constantinople, before settling in the area of Massilia (Marseille). From the instruction he had received in Egypt he published a series of conferences reproducing what he and his friend heard from the monks of Egypt.
Reading the conferences sheds some light on monasticism in Egypt and the ethos around it. They prided themselves on strictness and if your idea of piety is having your cook perform open penance (he was excluded from common prayers for a time and had to beg for prayers from his brethren as they assembled) for hurrying with the pot he was carrying and sloshing water and a few lentils on the ground then you would love monasticism. There were doubtless good Christians among these monks, and some of the things written by Cassian are very good, but monasticism has a great flaw. It is in direct contradiction of Paul's command in 1 Corinthians 7:23, where it is forbidden for Christians to become slaves voluntarily. Monks were not called slaves, but they were in the condition in that like slaves they could not leave without permission and if they did could be found and hauled back. They could not own property, but were effectively property of the monastery. They took a vow of perpetual obedience which is extremely perilous for the human conscience. All of this is slavery in essence if not in name.
Also found in the conferences in the third conference of Abbot Chaeremon chapter XII is a statement and some scriptural passages which he uses in support of Semi-pelagianism. Cassian was a contemporary of Augustine and though an opponent of Pelagianism, he believed that it is possible for man unaided by God in at least some cases to draw near to God. This is known as semi-pelagianism. Pure pelagianism denied any consequence of the fall but bad example, and praised the merits of human ability to such an extant that it practically denied the need of God's grace in redemption. Semi-pelagianism acknowledges God's grace in that it believes that without God's grace our best endeavors will not succeed, it differs from Arminianism and Calvinism in believing that the beginning of these endeavors can arise from ourselves.
In this post I will quote the fore-mentioned section of the conference and then try to show where I differ and why I think Cassian is in error. This section of the conference is the basic statement of his beliefs and in dealing with it I will be dealing with semi-pelagianism as a whole.
For we should not hold that God made man such that he can never will or be capable of what is good: or else He has not granted him a free will, if He has suffered him only to will or be capable of evil, but neither to will or be capable of what is good of himself. And, in this case how will that first statement of the Lord made about men after the fall stand: "Behold, Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil?" For we cannot think that before, he was such as to be altogether ignorant of good. Otherwise we should have to admit that he was formed like some irrational and insensate beast: which is sufficiently absurd and altogether alien from the Catholic faith.
This opening statement is the heart of semi-pelagianism. What exactly is the natural human condition in regard to good? Jesus brought out both total depravity and an ability to do basic natural goodness in Matt. 7:11, "If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!" This goodness to children is part of the image of God in which man was originally created, it is present in even evil men and absent only in the most fiendish. However, this goodness is not true goodness, because it did not make these people any less evil in nature. Jesus also shows in Matt. 5:43-48, that even notorious sinners are capable of loving those who love them and repaying kindness with kindness, and that these things though they would appear good fall short of the goodness which God requires. Only true goodness can cry for the punishment to come on those who are bringing about your own death, only true goodness could give natural benefits to all whether they worship Him or not, and only true goodness could grant a man the very breath he uses to expel blasphemy against the one who gave it to him. This is true goodness, this is true righteousness. It isn't in any of us. We are only too happy to retaliate on others when we are slighted, or if better inclined to merely ignore them, not to love. Our righteousness is as filthy rags. In the tabernacle it was forbidden to offer honey with any sacrifice on the altar (Lev. 2:11). Honey like human goodness cannot abide the fire, but turns bitter in the heat. In the same way, whatever good we do as humans shows what a good God created us, but is in no way effectual in saving us or causing Him to give us grace.
As to Adam and his knowledge prior to the fall, he was able to enjoy the goodness of God, but that doesn't mean he had a knowledge of what that goodness entailed. Just as a child can enjoy and experience the care of a parent without really knowing it. As infants we become acquainted with good and evil the same way Adam was, it is driven into our consciousness when we cross over the line and first transgress. Until that time we had the nature of Adam, but it was only manifest when the command came and we transgressed. Adam was clearly a sensible and moral being that enabled him to fellowship with God, but though placed in a moral world, he had little idea of what morality meant. Also at this time there were no wrong foods for him to eat except the one forbidden, no thorns or noxious plants. Thus he would have been unable to discriminate between baneful and good, not because he lacked the faculty, but becasue only good was there.
Moreover as the wisest Solomon says: "God made man upright," i.e., always to enjoy the knowledge of good only, "But they have sought out many imaginations," for they came, as has been said, to know good and evil. Adam therefore after the fall conceived a knowledge of evil which he had not previously, but did not lose the knowledge of good which he had before. Finally the Apostle's words very clearly show that mankind did not lose after the fall of Adam the knowledge of good: as he says: "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things of the law, these, though they have not the law, are a law to themselves, as they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness to these, and their thoughts within them either accusing or else excusing them, in the day in which God shall judge the secrets of men."
Yes, man has the knowledge, at least some knowledge, of good. The problem is man does not live according to that knowledge. He never will because his will is depraved. He may follow his conscience, which is a witness that God has given us and restrains us from a lot of things we would otherwise do, but he will never follow it perfectly. We all break the law of God whether it is known from His Word, or known by the law of conscience.
And with the same meaning the Lord rebukes by the prophet the unnatural but freely chosen blindness of the Jews, which they by their obstinacy brought upon themselves, saying: "Hear ye deaf, and ye blind, behold that you may see. Who is deaf but My servant? and blind, but he to whom I have sent My messengers?" And that no one might ascribe this blindness of theirs to nature instead of to their own will, elsewhere He says: "Bring forth the people that are blind and have eyes: that are deaf and have ears;" and again: "having eyes, but ye see not; and ears, but ye hear not." The Lord also says in the gospel: "Because seeing they see not, and hearing they hear not neither do they understand."And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which says: "Hearing ye shall hear and shall not understand: and seeing ye shall see and shall not see. For the heart of this people is waxed fat, and their ears are dull of hearing: and they have closed their eyes, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart, and be turned and I should heal them." Finally in order to denote that the possibility of good was in them, in chiding the Pharisees, He says: "But why of your own selves do ye not judge what is right?" And this he certainly would not have said to them, unless He knew that by their natural judgment they could discern what was fair.
The Scriptures used here are applicable to the subject at hand, but what do they show? Firstly this blinding is judicial, but not unconditional. The blinding was in response to the Word of God received, but not believed. Secondly this blinding takes place not in the absence of grace but in the presence of it. They closed the eyes of their spirit to the truth, but first they had seen it or else they would not have shut them. They stopped the ears of their spirit, but first the voice must have resounded or they would not have felt the need. These verses thus show that grace is necessary to awaken us to the truth, but they also show that it is not irresistible. If the word had not penetrated they would have had nothing to reject by closing eyes and ears as they did. The truth is most of the Pharisees were already very hard of hearing spiritually before Christ came, because they had heard the Word over and over again, but not let it work in them, when Christ came very few of them would respond and the greatest grace God gave them produced the greatest hardening. Both the ones who repented on the day of Pentecost and the ones who stoned Stephen were deeply moved in the heart by God's Word, but the response was very different. The second group resisted the Spirit, which can only be done if He were present. Jesus promised that the Comforter when He came would convict (not judicial conviction – the same word is used in John 3:20, Matt. 18:15, Luke 3:19, and John 8:9&46) the world of sin, righteousness and judgment (John 16:8-11). The world has its faults exposed by the Spirit, but what it does with the exposure is a different matter.
Wherefore we must take care not to refer all the merits of the saints to the Lord in such a way as to ascribe nothing but what is evil and perverse to human nature: in doing which we are confuted by the evidence of the most wise Solomon, or rather of the Lord Himself, Whose words these are; for when the building of the Temple was finished and he was praying, he spoke as follows: "And David my father would have built a house to the name of the Lord God of Israel: and the Lord said to David my father: Whereas thou hast thought in thine heart to build a house to My name, thou hast well done in having this same thing in thy mind. Nevertheless thou shalt not build a house to My name." This thought then and this purpose of king David, are we to call it good and from God or bad and from man? For if that thought was good and from God, why did He by whom it was inspired refuse that it should be carried into effect? But if it is bad and from man, why is it praised by the Lord? It remains then that we must take it as good and from man. And in the same way we can take our own thoughts today. For it was not given only to David to think what is good of himself, nor is it denied to us naturally to think or imagine anything that is good. It cannot then be doubted that there are by nature some seeds of goodness in every soul implanted by the kindness of the Creator: but unless these are quickened by the assistance of God, they will not be able to attain to an increase of perfection, for, as the blessed Apostle says: "Neither is he that planteth anything nor he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase."
This Scriptural example is pertinent, but the writer does not fully look at all the options in my opinion. It's important to first note that David was a man after God's heart, and this desire to build the temple was after he had followed the Lord many years. We all tend to interpret Scripture within our own perspective. Here is how I see it. God commended the desire, because David was the first man who had drawn so near to Him as to feel for His honor in this way. It was deep desire that God had that He had not voiced to anyone, but was waiting to share with one who understood Him. A similar case is Moses in seeking pardon for the children of Israel when God expressed a desire to destroy them. Moses voiced God's deeper desire to show mercy and interceded for them. In neither case would I say that the desire sprung from the man as the source. Why then was David given the desire if he was not allowed to do it? Perhaps so that he could lay up the treasure for his son to be able to do it. It is doubtful if Solomon would have built it if David had not prepared. To look at another example, it is clear that Abraham's call was from God not his own desires and he was promised the whole land for his seed, but he owned none of it except for a burial plot he bought himself. Thus in his case especially, the promise and desire were primarily for those who would follow not himself.
The last verse quoted here is badly misapplied, because the planting is not the planting of man's thoughts, nor the watering thereof, but the planting of God's Word, and even in that God gives the increase. There are no remaining seeds of goodness in us for God to aid. Paul gave one of the marks of true circumcision as having no confidence in the flesh (Phil. 3:3). In it dwells no good thing (Rom. 7:18). What is born of the flesh is flesh, it can never morph into spirit. Nothing done in the power of the flesh can please God (Rom. 8:7-8). The sweat of the brow was part of the curse inflicted on man, sinful man having rejected the sustaining provision of God would now have to exert himself to provide and God specifically forbade the priests in Ezekiel's temple to wear any garments that caused sweat (Ezek. 44:18). The sweat of human exertion is unacceptable to God, even as sweat has an unpleasant odor to us. Jesus' yoke is easy and His burden is light, it becomes difficult when we exert ourselves in our own paths. If we allow God to minister through us all is easy, when it is a slog, we must ask a few questions. Firstly, is it God's plan I am following or my own? Secondly, Am I trying in my own strength or relying on His grace? Thirdly, for whose glory am I seeking this? Remember, of Him and through Him and to Him are all things (Rom. 11:36). It is also pertinent while we are on this subject to remember that Christ Himself did not offer Himself in His own power as sinless Man to the Father, but He offered Himself through the Eternal Spirit (Heb. 9:14).
But that freedom of the will is to some degree in a man's own power is very clearly taught in the book termed the Pastor, where two angels are said to be attached to each one of us, i.e., a good and a bad one, while it lies at a man's own option to choose which to follow. And therefore the will always remains free in man, and can either neglect or delight in the grace of God. For the Apostle would not have commanded saying: "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling," had he not known that it could be advanced or neglected by us. But that men might not fancy that they had no need of Divine aid for the work of Salvation, he subjoins: "For it is God that worketh in you both to will and to do, of His good pleasure." And therefore he warns Timothy and says: "Neglect not the grace of God which is in thee;" and again: "For which cause I exhort thee to stir up the grace of God which is in thee." Hence also in writing to the Corinthians he exhorts and warns them not through their unfruitful works to show themselves unworthy of the grace of God, saying: "And we helping, exhort you that ye receive not the grace of God in vain:" for the reception of saving grace was of no profit to Simon doubtless because he had received it in vain; for he would not obey the command of the blessed Peter who said: "Repent of thine iniquity, and pray God if haply the thoughts of thine heart may be forgiven thee; for I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness and the bonds of iniquity."
If you have ever wondered where the popular consciousness got the idea of the little angel and devil on the shoulder often seen in cartoons, it was from the Shepherd of Hermes, a book written in the 2nd century and widely read in the Church, though not accepted as inspired. With most of this passage I am in agreement provided it be understood that God's grace must first be present or we would have nothing to respond to. Some might enquire how is it possible for someone who's will is depraved to choose God. I would reply by asking how a woman with a sinful nature could bear a Son with a sinless nature. As Protestants we believe that Mary had the same nature as we and yet somehow that nature was not passed on to Christ. Is this not because the overshadowing of the Spirit made it possible? If this is possible when the Holy Spirit overshadows, can He not enable a sinner to choose good refuse evil when He probes the depths of his heart?
It prevents therefore the will of man, for it is said: "My God will prevent me with His mercy;" and again when God waits and for our good delays, that He may put our desires to the test, our will precedes, for it is said: "And in the morning my prayer shall prevent Thee;" and again: "I prevented the dawning of the day and cried;" and: "Mine eyes have prevented the morning." For He calls and invites us, when He says: "All the day long I stretched forth My hands to a disobedient and gainsaying people;" and He is invited by us when we say to Him: "All the day long I have stretched forth My hands unto Thee." He waits for us, when it is said by the prophet: "Wherefore the Lord waiteth to have compassion upon us;" and He is waited for by us, when we say: "I waited patiently for the Lord, and He inclined unto me;" and: "I have waited for thy salvation, O Lord." He strengthens us when He says: "And I have chastised them, and strengthened their arms; and they have imagined evil against me;" and He exhorts us to strengthen ourselves when He says: "Strengthen ye the weak hands, and make strong the feeble knees." Jesus cries: "If any man thirst let him come unto Me and drink;" the prophet also cries to Him: "I have laboured with crying, my jaws are become hoarse: mine eyes have failed, whilst I hope in my God." The Lord seeks us, when He says: "I sought and there was no man. I called, and there was none to answer;" and He Himself is sought by the bride who mourns with tears: "I sought on my bed by night Him whom my soul loved: I sought Him and found Him not; I called Him, and He gave me no answer."
This last section is many Scripture quotations mostly relevant, but overlooking certain things. The word "prevent" is used in its original sense of go before, either to help or hinder as the case maybe, we use it more in the latter sense today. The main thing being overlooked is John's express statement, "we love Him, because He first loved us" (1 John 4:19). It is God who first sought Adam in the garden after the transgression, not the other way around. It is God who first seeks us, but having found us and kindled love for Him in response to His love we seek Him. At times He withdraws from us to increase our seeking of Him, and to show to us how much we long for Him. This longing itself comes from Him. Draw me and we will run after you. Willing we are, but unless you first draw we can go nowhere.
I hope this has been helpful to someone. It is important that we see our dependence on God for everything that pertains to life and salvation. We are complete in Him. He is the author of our faith and the finisher of it. He not only enlivens our spirit but also keeps us. It was He who began the work and thus we know He will be faithful to finish it. To God be the glory!
No comments:
Post a Comment