The Synod of Orange (529 AD)

In the early church, some people rejected Augustine’s view of the will, sin, grace, and predestination.  Teachers like John Cassianus (d. ca. 430) and Faustus of Riez (d. ca. 490) argued for for freedom of the will, the ability to reject God’s grace, and they disagreed with Augustine’s emphasis on predestination.  This is usually referred to as Semi-Pelagianism; it was huge controversy in the 5th and 6th century Christian church.  It also resurfaced in the later middle ages and was one factor that led to the Protestant Reformation.  Luther and Calvin stood with Augustine and opposed the Semi-Pelagianism of the Roman Catholic Church.

But back to the early church.  In 529 a synod (held in Orange, France) was called to deal with this controversy.  Bengt Hagglund explains the Synod of Orange:

“The Synod of Orange, whose 25 canons were drawn for the most part from a collection of quotations from Augustine prepared by Prosper [of Aquitaine], sanctioned Augustine’s teaching of original sin.  The synod agreed that as a result of original sin the entire man is changed for the worse, both in body and soul, and that the free will is not undamaged.  Both sin and death have come to the entire human race through one man.”

“Furthermore, the anticipatory activity of grace was strongly emphasized: the very prayers in which we pray for grace are themselves stimulated by grace.  By ourselves we are unable to take the first step to receive grace.  God does not wait until man wills to be cleansed from sin; He rather works through the Spirit to implant this desire within us.  Neither is the longing for wholeness, or the beginning of faith, or the feeling of faith something that is part of man by nature.  When a man consents to the preaching of the Gospel, this must be attributed to the enlightenment and inspiration of the Holy Spirit.  Man is not good in himself; God must work all good within him.  Even the regenerate must pray to God for help in order to persevere in doing good.”

“…Canon 22 of the Synod of Orange summarizes the content of the entire confession: ‘Of himself, no man is anything but lies and sins.  If one does possess something of faith and righteousness, it comes from that fountain after which we ought to thirst in this desert, so that, sprinkled as it were, by some of its drops, we might not succumb on the way.’”

There’s more to it, of course, but suffice it to say the Synod of Orange was a very important assembly in the early church.  You can read more about it in chapter 12 of Bengt Hagglund’s History of Theology.

rev shane lems

The Faith of Our Fathers

In the first of his five-volume series on the history and doctrinal developments of the Christian church, Jaroslav Pelikan evaluates, explains, and summarizes the Christian beliefs of the catholic (universal) church from 100-600 AD.  Since many people today are writing – and duped by – historical revisions of the early church and its beliefs, it is good for us to find accurate and reliable books and studies on ancient church history.  Though not perfect in every way, Pelikan’s series is both reliable and accurate.

The following quote from volume one is a quote that shows Pelikan’s level-headed approach to studying the beliefs of the early church fathers.  Anyone who has read various writings, tracts, and treatises of teachers like Cyril, Cyprian, and Augustine (etc.) knows that it can be difficult to get a detailed and orderly snapshot of early Christian theology.  Pelikan’s notes here are helpful in this area.

“Against various heresies and schisms, the orthodox and catholic church defined as apostolic doctrine that which it believed, taught, and confessed.  This doctrine, so it was presumed, had been believed and taught by the church before heresy demanded that it be confessed.  Yet the task of reconstructing it from the existing documents is a complex one.  A large part of the Christian literature which has been preserved was preoccupied either with the defense of Christianity against the cultured among its despisers or with polemics against heresy.”

“Hence the interpretation of what was Christian doctrine during the second and third centuries is likely to concentrate on these same issues, at the expense of other doctrinal themes in the belief and the piety of the church.  The methodological problems in the attempt to uncover those themes in the documents are formidable, but the documents themselves make the attempt both necessary and justifiable.”

“To cite one of the most explicit instances from the second century, Athenagoras opened his apologetic for the resurrection with a distinction between a ‘plea for the truth,’ addressed to skeptics and doubters, and an ‘exposition of the truth,’ addressed to those who were prepared to accept the truth; he noted that the exposition was more valuable and important, but that pagan hostility to the Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the dead made it necessary for him to give precedence to the plea over the exposition.  Athenagoras’s distinction justifies the effort to supply as much as possible of the missing ‘exposition’ in defense of which the ‘plea’ was made” (p. 121).

Though the discussion is detailed, Pelikan made a great point here.  Much of the early Christian literature was more of a defense of the Chrsitian faith and not a point by point exposition of it.  But that doesn’t mean we can’t find the exposition in the defense.  Though it is sometimes difficult to find the “exposition” woven in the “defense,” it is certainly right and proper for us to do so.  There is such a thing as historical Christian orthodoxy that our forefathers believed, taught, confessed, and defended!

Again, the quote was taken from Jaroslav Pelikan’s The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), p. 121.

shane lems

A Pious Confession of Ignorance

 In the opening section of his discussion of theology proper, Herman Bavinck does a nice job utilizing Augustine and Hilary to explain the biblical teaching that a person can know God truly but not exhastively.   In other words, a person can apprehend God by faith in Jesus, but no one can comprehened him.  The first part of this longer quote is from Augustine’s lectures on the Gospel of John.

“‘We are speaking of God.  Is it any wonder if you do not comprehend?  For if you comprehend, it is not God you comprehend.  Let it be a pious confession of ignorance rather than a rash profession of knowledge.  To attain some slight knowledge of God is a great blessing; to comprehend him, however, is totally impossible.’  God is the sole object of all our love, precisely because he is the infinite and incomprehensible One.”

“Although Scripture and the church, thus as it were, accept the premises of agnosticism and are even more deeply convinced of human limitations and the incomparable grandeur of God than Kant and Spencer, they draw from these realities a very different conclusion.  Hilary put it as follows: ‘The perfection of learning is to know God in such a way that, though you realize he is not unknowable, you know him as indescribable.’”

“The knowledge we have of God is altogether unique.  This knowledge may be called positive insofar as by it we recognize a being infinite and distinct from all finite creatures.  On the other hand, it is negative because we cannot ascribe a single predicate to God as we conceive that predicate in relation to creatures.  It is therefore an analogical knowledge: a knowledge of a being who is unknowable in himself, yet able to make something of himself known in the being he created.”

Bavinck goes on to discuss this “adorable mystery,” that the infinite God can make himself known to finite creatures.  He says it well: “This mystery cannot be comprehended; it can only be gratefully acknowledged.”  Reminds me of Paul’s doxology at the end of Romans chapter 11.

The above quotes can be found in volume 2 of Bavinck’s Reformed Dogmatics, pages 48-50. 

shane lems

Living in God’s Two Kingdoms

I’ve been looking forward to this book for a few months now: Living in God’s Two Kingdoms: A Biblical Vision for Christianity and Culture (Wheaton: Crossway, 2010). David VanDrunen has been studying this subject for years, and this book is the fruit of his study aimed at the layperson.  In some ways, it is his scholarly work on the topic made easier for the general audience.  To introduce the book, I’ll quote a section of the intro which I appreciated.

“This two-kingdoms doctrine strongly affirms that God has made all things, that sin corrupts all aspects of life, that Christians should be active in human culture, that all lawful cultural vocations are honorable, that all people are accountable to God in every activity, and that Christians should seek to live out the implications of their faith in their daily vocations.”

“A Christian, however, does not have to adopt a redemptive vision of culture in order to affirm these important truths.  A biblical two-kingdoms doctrine provides another compelling way to do so.  According to this doctrine, God is not redeeming the cultural activities and institutions of this world, but is preserving them through the covenant he made with all living creatures through Noah in Genesis 8:20-9:17.”

“God himself rules this ‘common kingdom,’ and thus it is not, as some writers describe it, the ‘kingdom of man.’  This kingdom is in no sense a realm of moral neutrality or autonomy.  God makes its institutions and activities honorable, though only for temporary and provisional purposes.”

“Simultaneously, God is redeeming a people for himself, by virtue of the covenant made with Abraham and brought to glorious fulfillment in the work of the Lord Jesus Christ, who has completed Adam’s original task once and for all.  These people are citizens of the ‘redemptive kingdom,’ whom God is gathering now in the church and will welcome into the new heaven and new earth at Christ’s glorious return.  Until that day, Christians live as members of both kingdoms, discharging their proper duties in each.”

There is more to it, of course – this was just a part of the intro.  I do think this is a solid Reformed way to look at the tough issue of Christians in culture.  I’ll blog more on it later; until then, let me say this book will certainly stimulate healthy thinking and discussions on this topic.  I highly recommend it.

shane lems

Staying within the Limits of Revelation

In Calvin’s treatise called “God’s Eternal Predestination and Secret Providence” (an awesome piece of writing!) the Reformer continually calls his readers to stay within the limits of what God has revealed to us concerning predestination and providence.  Here’s one of the more memorable lines (one of many):

“Those who seek to know more than God has revealed are madmen.”

He uses Augustine several times to reiterate the point.  Here’s one quote of Augustine he used.

“When men ask us why God did this or that, our answer is to be, ‘Because it was his will.’  If they go on to inquire, Why did he so will it? our reply should be, ‘Now you ask what is greater and higher than the will of God itself.  You ask what none can find out.’  Let human rashness, then, keep itself within bounds.  Let it never seek after that which is not, lest it should not find that which is.”

One more by Calvin:

“Into this mirror [Christ] let the eye of our faith ever fixedly look.  Let it not desire to penetrate where access to its sight is not given.”

I always love this emphasis by Augustine and Calvin.  It is easy for knowledge-seekers to go where we should not go – we need constant reminders to stay within the limits of scripture, and stay humbly there.  It really means staying at the feet of Jesus, the sum and substance of scripture.  Wise Christians will not be afraid to say “I do not know” when asked certain deep questions.  This is part of the epistemological humility that we should pray for and seek to exhibit.

shane lems