The Pelagian Captivity of the Church

[eduardo89]

The Council Orange was Roman Catholic. TER is Greek Orthodox, so this is irrelevant to him (and to me, btw).

You do realise at the time we (RC and EO) were one and the same?

 

[erowe1]

That view was condemned by the Council of Orange. It proclaimed that the will has been corrupted and a servant of sin.



It seems the Eastern Orthodox belief on the matter changed over the years.

The EOC never accepted Orange. That was a local council, and it was not reaffirmed by any council that the EOC recognizes. All (or at least most--I think all) of the canons of Orange were reaffirmed by the Council of Trent, which the RCC calls an ecumenical council, but the EOC doesn't.

However, see what I posted above. Over a century before Orange, the Council at Carthage in 418 included several canons that were written to contradict Pelagianism, anathematizing those who disagreed. And all these anathemas were reaffirmed at the Second Council of Nicea, which the EOC does call an ecumenical council. These canons don't go as far as those at Orange later would. But they touch on the teachings, and the one I copied and pasted above, I think, does not comport with the Confession of Dositheus.

Eastern Christianity has always had Pelagian leanings. Whereas Orange in 529 very strongly condemned Pelagianism and upheld semi-Augustinianism in its place, and even Carthage (418) did the same to a lesser degree, two eastern councils in 415, one in Jerusalem and the other in Diospolis, refused to condemn Pelagius.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagius

From Carthage to Orange to Trent, all of the strongest and most explicit anti-Pelagian councils were in the West. It's only indirectly that the one from Carthage impinges on Eastern Orthodoxy by way of the Second Council of Nicea, which doesn't actually quote the anti-Pelagian canons that it claims to reaffirm by saying something like, "all that they anathematize we too anathematize."

 

[erowe1]

It is part of your churches history.

But it was only a local council. His point is still basically right, minus calling it RC.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

You do realise at the time we (RC and EO) were one and the same?

No. I haven't got all my Church history straight yet. Mea culpa. :o Thnx. ~hugs~

 

[erowe1]

The truth is, if you want to be historically honest, all the councils were local ones. The idea that there has ever been a gathering of bishops who represented the entire Church is clearly false. The so-called seven ecumenical councils are the same essential thing all the local councils were, just a group of a few hundred bishops representing a small segment of christendom. Some differences that might seem important, but that really don't mean anything once you think about them, are: that they were slightly larger than all those other councils that were merely "local," that they included people representing a slightly larger swath of christendom than those "local" ones did, that they sometimes had the express approval and even signature of the Roman emperor, and that they claimed for themselves that they were ecumenical (which, of course, anyone can claim, if there's no objective basis for saying when they are or aren't).

 

[TER]

The truth is, if you want to be historically honest, all the councils were local ones. The idea that there has ever been a gathering of bishops who represented the entire Church is clearly false. The so-called seven ecumenical councils are the same essential thing all the local councils were, just a group of a few hundred bishops representing a small segment of christendom. Some differences that might seem important, but that really don't mean anything once you think about them, are: that they were slightly larger than all those other councils that were merely "local," that they included people representing a slightly larger swath of christendom than those "local" ones did, that they sometimes had the express approval and even signature of the Roman emperor, and that they claimed for themselves that they were ecumenical (which, of course, anyone can claim, if there's no objective basis for saying when they are or aren't).

actually, what makes a council ecumenical other then the fact that bishops from all reaches of Christendom are invited to attend is the fact that the NEXT council (whether 10, 20, or 500 years later) reaffirms the teachings and proclamations of the previous council, as a checks and balances measure to ensure that the proclamations from the previous council have withstood the test of time and the test of the Church militant in general.

 

[TER]

... just a group of a few hundred bishops representing a small segment of christendom...

LOL!!!!!!! What utter ignorance!!! A small segment of Christendom?!?!? Are you mad? These were the bishops of the churches which were spread across the known world and which could trace themselves to the very first faithful who lived there!! These were not some of the Bishops, this was nearly all the bishops! These were the bishops from different nations, cultures and languages who could trace themselves back to the first churches in Jerusalem and Palestine. These were the bishops who were chosen by all the Christians in the those cities and capitals, the trusted and anointed shepherds guiding the faithful amongst the wolves of the world which seeked to devour and destroy the early Church of the Martyrs.

The bishops present were the bishops of the universal Church which traced itself back to Jerusalem and Antioch and Corinth and Rome!

The one Church which shared in worship with those saints and apostles before them, who gave their limbs and lives defending the truths revealed by Christ, who handed down the apostolic teachings and also guarded and cared for the relics of the giants of the faith who ran the race and fought the good fight and earned their crowns of victory!!

How many bishops in those early centuries at the time of the Ecumenical Councils were able to trace their ordination, teachings and authority back directly to the Apostles via apostolic succession AND claim consistent eucharistic unity unbroken from the days of the early churches in Jerusalem, in Antioch, in Corinth and in Rome? Here's a hint: 'a few hundred'.

Erowe your knowledge is still quite lacking. I would suggest you open your mind a little bit more, spend more time studying the writings of the Church Fathers and read more about the lives of the saints. I think this would be to your tremendous benefit.

 

[jmdrake]

Mans "free will" is wholly corrupt and incapable of believing. Which is what the Council of Orange was about. It was to counteract and condemn the pelagian/semi-pelagian teachings that plagued the church then just as it does now.

And God's gifts to man are whole corrupt and incapble of believing? Once God "frees your will" you are still unable to do what He has freed you to do? Really, you're not attacking "man" or "pelagianism". You are attacking God. You're just not capable of understanding your attack on Him.

There is an effectual call. Jesus said so.

Uh...huh. You believe Jesus....until He says things that you don't agree with and then you no longer believe Him.

Luke 6:46-49
46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

47 Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:

48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.

49 But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.

The difference between the effectual call and the ineffectual call depends on whether the hearer is willing to actual do what Jesus calls him to do.

Romans 12:3 read in context of the other verses doesn't show that God has given everyone on Earth a measure of faith. Paul is speaking to a group of Christians and explaining to them that God has given them a measure of faith.

If you compare Romans 12:3 with the parables of Jesus, from the sower and the seeds, to the 1, 5 and 10 talents, to the wise and foolish virgins, it is clear to anyone who honestly reads them that there are people who are given faith, receive that faith, but do not act on that faith and are lost. Your philosophy requries you to ignore the plain teachings of the Master.

 

[TER]

just a group of a few hundred bishops representing a small segment of christendom

and this is the root of your error erowe because you ignore historical realities in order to try and justify your innovations. Here is a description of the bishops who attended the First Ecumenical Council, who gathered together from across the entire Christian world in order to defend the faithful from the heresy of Arianism:

...The General Council having thus received authority from the king, the fathers directed that there should be gradations in the assembly and that each Bishop should sit in his place according to his rank. Chairs were there made for all and the king entered and sat with them. He kissed the spots which were the marks of Christ in their bodies. Of the 318 fathers, only 11 were free from such marks, whose name were Absalom, Bishop of Edessa, and son of Mar Ephrem's sister, Jonah of Raikson, Mara of Dora, George of Shegar, Jacob of Nisibis, Marouta of Mepairkat, John of Goostia, Shimon of Diarbekir, Adai of Agal, Eusebius of Caesarea and Joseph of Nicomedia. But all the others were more or less maimed in their persecutions from heretics. Some had their eyes taken out; some had their ears cut off. Some had their teeth dug out by the roots. Some had the nails of their fingers and toes torn out; some were otherwise mutilated; in a word there was no one without marks of violence; save the above-named persons. But Thomas, Bishop of Marash was an object almost frightful to look upon; he had been mutilated by the removal of his eyes, nose and lips; his teeth had been dug out and both his legs and arms had been cut off. He had been kept in prison 22 years by the Armanites [Armenians] who used to cut off a member of his body or mutilate him in some way every year, to induce him to consent to their blasphemy, but he conquered in this fearful contest to the glory of believers and to the manifestation of the unmercifulness of the heretics. The fathers took him with them to the Council and when the king saw him, he fell down upon the ground and venerated him saying, "I venerate thee, O thou martyr of Christ, who art adorned with many crowns."

 

[shane77m]

And God's gifts to man are whole corrupt and incapble of believing? Once God "frees your will" you are still unable to do what He has freed you to do? Really, you're not attacking "man" or "pelagianism". You are attacking God. You're just not capable of understanding your attack on Him.

Just because God issues a command doesn’t mean one can do the command.
Once God takes someone’s heart of stone and gives him a heart of flesh, “freeing the mans will” if you want to call it that, then that person will choose God.
You are denying the condition of man. You have church history and Scripture against you.

Eph2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
Eph2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Eph2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
Eph2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
Eph2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved

A dead man cannot choose. Once God has given one life, that person will come to Him.

John6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

Uh...huh. You believe Jesus....until He says things that you don't agree with and then you no longer believe Him.

Luke 6:46-49
46 And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?

47 Whosoever cometh to me, and heareth my sayings, and doeth them, I will shew you to whom he is like:

48 He is like a man which built an house, and digged deep, and laid the foundation on a rock: and when the flood arose, the stream beat vehemently upon that house, and could not shake it: for it was founded upon a rock.

49 But he that heareth, and doeth not, is like a man that without a foundation built an house upon the earth; against which the stream did beat vehemently, and immediately it fell; and the ruin of that house was great.

Jesus is teaching a great multitude of people. Many people called Him Lord. Yet when He died, none of them were around. Even His own disciples abandoned Him.

When you are able to follow all of Jesus’ commandments then let me know.
Mat5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

John6:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

The difference between the effectual call and the ineffectual call depends on whether the hearer is willing to actual do what Jesus calls him to do.

If someone has an effectual call placed on them then they will believe.

John6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.

If you compare Romans 12:3 with the parables of Jesus, from the sower and the seeds, to the 1, 5 and 10 talents, to the wise and foolish virgins, it is clear to anyone who honestly reads them that there are people who are given faith, receive that faith, but do not act on that faith and are lost. Your philosophy requries you to ignore the plain teachings of the Master.

Romans 12 is not written to the lost. Romans 12 is written to the group of Christians that Paul is speaking with. Paul is speaking about the measure of faith that God has given His people. He is not talking about a common grace in these passages.

Granted God does show mercy to an extent to everyone. However, He shows a special mercy to His sheep by giving them a heart of flesh and the ability and desire to believe.

Mat5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
Mat5:45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

A discussion on the parables would require a new thread.

 

[shane77m]

and this is the root of your error erowe because you ignore historical realities in order to try and justify your innovations. Here is a description of the bishops who attended the First Ecumenical Council, who gathered together from across the entire Christian world in order to defend the faithful from the heresy of Arianism:

Too bad they didn't get that one stomped out. I wouldn't have to deal with Jehovah's Witnesses.

 

[erowe1]

How many bishops at the Council of Nicea came from localities outside the Roman Empire?

How many came from Britain?

And even of that limited geographical range that was represented, what are we to make of all those millions of believers in Jesus, who belonged to his one Church, who held to the one faith which had been passed down from Christ's apostles, and had received the one baptism, and gathered together in Christ's name observing the Lord's Supper in remembrance of him, but who did not belong to churches that were under the leadership of those bishops in attendance? Do their churches not count?

When you get down to it, if you want to look at it in a historically honest way, and deal with the actual facts, rather than just accepting someone's empty boasts, none of the so-called ecumenical councils really were ecumenical. They merely represent the views of some Christians, just like Orange did.

Some of what those councils declared was true. But their saying so doesn't make any of those truths any more true than they were already. Nor could their vote on any matter make something false become true. They were fallible humans who could only speak on their own behalf's, not God's.

 

[erowe1]

It is part of your churches history. Many, many, many, years before the split.

This isn't really the right way to put it. Yes, AD 529 was many many years before the split between the Eastern and Western Churches. But it was so many years before it that, back then, there wasn't even anything to split. There was no single unified hierarchical organization that could claim to be the totality of the Church.

Prior to Gregory the Great, who came later than Orange, the bishop of Rome did not exercise anything like the kind of authority over other bishops around the world that the pope does. And the attempt to elevate the 5 bishops of the so-called pentarchy, as patriarchates, supposedly ruling over all of the Church, also didn't come until later than Orange.

In the earliest centuries of Christianity, the union of the global Church was a spiritual kind of union. It was made up of millions of individual believers who congregated with one another in hundreds of thousands of assemblies, most of which functioned fairly independently from one another, with some level of connection to other assemblies within the same city as them (for those that were even in cities at all), and sometimes with various levels of closeness to assemblies further away, especially when that was a function of the personal relationships that people in one assembly had with those in others. Christianity was a global phenomenon, even very early in its history. And there was a great deal of sharing and travel between its assemblies. But the apostles did not put any global leadership in place to rule over the whole Church after they were gone.

 

[TER]

Too bad they didn't get that one stomped out. I wouldn't have to deal with Jehovah's Witnesses.

If it weren't for those bishops and that council, you probably would be Jehovah's Witness.

 

[TER]

How many bishops at the Council of Nicea came from localities outside the Roman Empire?

How many came from Britain?

And even of that limited geographical range that was represented, what are we to make of all those millions of believers in Jesus, who belonged to his one Church, who held to the one faith which had been passed down from Christ's apostles, and had received the one baptism, and gathered together in Christ's name observing the Lord's Supper in remembrance of him, but who did not belong to churches that were under the leadership of those bishops in attendance? Do their churches not count?

When you get down to it, if you want to look at it in a historically honest way, and deal with the actual facts, rather than just accepting someone's empty boasts, none of the so-called ecumenical councils really were ecumenical. They merely represent the views of some Christians, just like Orange did.

Some of what those councils declared was true. But their saying so doesn't make any of those truths any more true than they were already. Nor could their vote on any matter make something false become true. They were fallible humans who could only speak on their own behalf's, not God's.

You have little idea of what you are talking about. The 300+ bishops of the First Council represented over 99% of all the Christians in the known world at that time. This fantasy you have that there were various 'churches' who were not under the spiritual guidance of bishops is pure ignorance.

 

[TER]

This isn't really the right way to put it. Yes, AD 529 was many many years before the split between the Eastern and Western Churches. But it was so many years before it that, back then, there wasn't even anything to split. There was no single unified hierarchical organization that could claim to be the totality of the Church.

Prior to Gregory the Great, who came later than Orange, the bishop of Rome did not exercise anything like the kind of authority over other bishops around the world that the pope does. And the attempt to elevate the 5 bishops of the so-called pentarchy, as patriarchates, supposedly ruling over all of the Church, also didn't come until later than Orange.

In the earliest centuries of Christianity, the union of the global Church was a spiritual kind of union. It was made up of millions of individual believers who congregated with one another in hundreds of thousands of assemblies, most of which functioned fairly independently from one another, with some level of connection to other assemblies within the same city as them (for those that were even in cities at all), and sometimes with various levels of closeness to assemblies further away, especially when that was a function of the personal relationships that people in one assembly had with those in others. Christianity was a global phenomenon, even very early in its history. And there was a great deal of sharing and travel between its assemblies. But the apostles did not put any global leadership in place to rule over the whole Church after they were gone.

You seem to ignore the importance of eucharistic unity within the Church. That is the visible sign of their oneness in faith, the faith of the apostles. That is the sacramental communion with all the members of the Body of Christ going back to beginning. Those 300+ bishops of the First Council, who traveled far and wide representing not 'some of the Christians' from the lands and cities they lived, but ALL of them, and were in sacramental and eucharistic unity with one another, with over 99% of the Christians that lived in the world at the time, and all the way back to the fathers who preceded them.

 

[shane77m]

If it weren't for those bishops and that council, you probably would be Jehovah's Witness.

Nah. It would be too much work. Besides, with the price of gas, it would cost too much to drive around on Saturdays and try to sell people pamphlets and books from the Watchtower.

 

[erowe1]

Sounds like a variation of the "You'd be speaking German" line, with about as much factual basis.

 

[TER]

Nah. It would be too much work. Besides, with the price of gas, it would cost too much to drive around on Saturdays and try to sell people pamphlets and books from the Watchtower.

In all seriousness though, we can sometimes take for granted the debt we owe to these Christians who suffered much in order to pass down faithfully the teachings and traditions of the Apostles. The bishops of that time came together to protect the faith from innovations and distortions which invariably occur on account of human weakness.

 

[TER]

Sounds like a variation of the "You'd be speaking German" line, with about as much factual basis.

You belittle the threat that Arianism had towards the Church because you make up your own history. Sad that an intelligent person such as yourself has perfected the art of willful ignorance.