The council of Orange

[J. A. McIntyre]

In 529ad a Church Council was held to deal with the conflict created between St. Augustine and Pelagius. I'm interested in how the Eastern Church views or understands this Council and it's cannons.

He's a quote: "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 of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who 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 anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience 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 not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).

CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).

CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him "unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has 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)."

Thank you.

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

In 529ad a Church Council was held to deal with the conflict created between St. Augustine and Pelagius. I'm interested in how the Eastern Church views or understands this Council and it's cannons.

This Council seems clearly to be dealing with Pelagianism in its strict form and not what St Prosper of Aquitaine called Massilianism or what some later call semi-Pelagianism. As such we would accept this Council in its condemnation of Pelagianism.

We don't however accept the criticisms directed at St Vincent of Lerins and St John Cassian as if they also were Pelagianists. What we have most trouble with is St Augustine's theory of grace which opposes Divine grace and human will in too radical a way. For us St Augustine and those who follow him also fail to see the distinct ways in which the Holy Spirit works within and outside of the Church. Of course all of this comes down to the crucial point of what we mean by salvation and what leads to this.

St Vincent and John Cassian describe the life in Christ as they experienced it in a very practical way within the monastic environment of the Church. For them as the result of this experience they understood that grace and will always act in mysterious tandem. God draws man towards Himself but always with the free assent of the person involved. This means that human will is best understood not as something absolute but rather as that which in Christ is gradually fulfilled in terms of its purpose.

As St John Cassian writes, "When God sees in us the beginnings of a good will, He enlightens it and urges it on towards salvation, givining increase to that which either He Himself implanted or which He sees has arisen by our own efforts." (Conferences 2,13,8).

The reasons for the differing visions which eventually came to desribe the division between east & west are very complex. Some have maintained that St Augustine was very influenced by the philosophical baggage of his past. Some have also pointed out that he tended to speak from within the context of the doctrinal and pastoral problems he was dealing with within the Church.

But maybe the main problem with St Augustine is just that he has the tendency towards a kind of formal consistency that is very rarely encountered in the rest of the Fathers.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[J. A. McIntyre]

But maybe the main problem with St Augustine is just that he has the tendency towards a kind of formal consistency that is very rarely encountered in the rest of the Fathers.

I believe this maybe it Father, the logical consistency found in Augustine's works is very hard to deny.

thank you

[M.C. Steenberg]

I believe this maybe it Father, the logical consistency found in Augustine's works is very hard to deny.

Which is an interesting example of how logical consistency, which has many great assets to it in terms of coherent explorations of theological concepts, can also be deeply problematic in other realms. Augustine himself seemed to feel this limitation acutely at times; particularly in the later years of his dispute with Pelagius, where he seemed to feel trapped into a need to posit some manner of predestinarianism as the logical fruit of various views on sin and free will -- a predestinarianism of which he was not fond, but felt logical consistency in some sense demanded.

INXC, Matthew

[Herman Blaydoe]

Just goes to show, logic has its limits.

[J. A. McIntyre]

The Western [demonized I’ve been told] mind bulks at the idea of God being anything but ultimately consistent and logical. Logic is a natural faculty of the mind and is found in every culture on earth. If you cannot account for your belief logically you fail the test of rationality since your beliefs are contradictory. A good example can be found in Proverbs, where logic is clearly displayed. St. Paul uses logical consistency and logical argumentation throughout his Epistles. Since our presupposition but begin with a Christian worldview, logic is therefore necessary.


Which is an interesting example of how logical consistency, which has many great assets to it in terms of coherent explorations of theological concepts, can also be deeply problematic in other realms. Augustine himself seemed to feel this limitation acutely at times; particularly in the later years of his dispute with Pelagius, where he seemed to feel trapped into a need to posit some manner of predestinarianism as the logical fruit of various views on sin and free will -- a predestinarianism of which he was not fond, but felt logical consistency in some sense demanded.

INXC, Matthew

Matthew, would you say an illogical method is better or necessary to understanding the faith? I agree, St. Augustine didn't like the many doctrines, but to say he felt trapped is to read your feelings for the doctrine into his works. When is logical consistency NOT demanded? [Keep in mind I'm a Westerner!]


Just goes to show, logic has its limits.

How so? Are you saying that you disagree, and therefore logic has it's limits?

Peace,

j

[Herman Blaydoe]

How so? Are you saying that you disagree, and therefore logic has it's limits?

Absolutely. Are you at all familiar with quantum physics? Logic is of little or no value when faced with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. I believe it was Thoreau who accused his opponent in a debate: "You are not THINKING sir, you are simply using logic".

Logic can be misapplied, especially if you are not aware of or choose to ignore the rules governing the situation being examined. Something can be made to SOUND logical but still be completely wrong.

"Gödel's proof states that within any rigidly logical mathematical system there are propositions (or questions) that cannot be proved or disproved on the basis of the axioms within that system and that, therefore, it is uncertain that the basic axioms of arithmetic will not give rise to contradictions. This proof has become a hallmark of 20th century mathematics and its repercussions continue to be felt and debated." Encyclopedia Britanica

Kurt Gödel proved - beyond a shadow of a doubt - that if you are totally contained within a subset system then the math, rules and even what you call common sense and LOGIC developed within that system have no relation whatsoever to any universal truth.

The Creator is outside Creation's logic. We worship a crucified God. How is that "logical"? God confounds the wisdom of the Greeks (logic). Logic has its use, I use it every day as an engineer, but I am well aware that it does, in fact, have some very serious limits. It ain't "all that".

[J. A. McIntyre]

I asked, "Are you saying that you disagree, and therefore logic has it's limits?"

Herman wrote: "Absolutely."

Herman, you haven't offered proof that you're correct.


Logic can be misapplied, especially if you are not aware of or choose to ignore the rules governing the situation being examined. Something can be made to SOUND logical but still be completely wrong.

"Gödel's proof states that within any rigidly logical mathematical system there are propositions (or questions) that cannot be proved or disproved on the basis of the axioms within that system and that, therefore, it is uncertain that the basic axioms of arithmetic will not give rise to contradictions. This proof has become a hallmark of 20th century mathematics and its repercussions continue to be felt and debated." Encyclopedia Britanica

Kurt Gödel proved - beyond a shadow of a doubt - that if you are totally contained within a subset system then the math, rules and even what you call common sense and LOGIC developed within that system have no relation whatsoever to any universal truth.

The above strikes me as a red herring with a touch of ad hominen, I could be wrong and often am, but that’s my first impression. The illustration given above only further explains what you believe Herman but doesn’t prove what you believe. As for the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, this is based upon evidentialism and I agree with you. Nothing can be absolutely proven with this style of evidence, but this isn’t what this topic is about. Faith and logic are not opposed to one another and faith establishes the principles from which we reason logically. Yet, we can understand principles [as absolutes] as a theologian once wrote, "A truth is not necessary, because we negatively are not able to conceive the actual existence of the opposite thereof; but a truth is necessary when we positively are able to apprehend that the negation thereof includes an inevitable contradiction. It is not that we cannot see how the opposite comes to be true, but it is that we are able to see that that the opposite cannot possibly be true."


The Creator is outside Creation's logic. We worship a crucified God. How is that "logical"? God confounds the wisdom of the Greeks (logic). Logic has its use, I use it every day as an engineer, but I am well aware that it does, in fact, have some very serious limits. It ain't "all that".

And I can't agree more with St. Augustine when he concluded, ""...[T]he validity of logical sequences is not a thing devised by men, but is observed and noted by them.... ...[I]t exists eternally in the reason of things, and has its origin with God." Herman my brother, this is where I have a hard time understanding the Eastern view, it's the apophatic theology and the presuppositions it creates. When a Westener like myself talks about the logic of faith, I'm not claiming that everything which God tells us must be understandable to us or explained by the human mind, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity is a perfect example of this. What I am saying is God is logical, our faith is logical, and the worship of a crucified God is logical if you have a logical understanding of the headship of Christ and redemptive history.

I'll quote from the Holy Bible, it's what I have a background in, to show a few examples of logic.

1 Pet. 3:15 Now sanctify the Lord God in your hearts (minds); and always be prepared for (presenting) a logical defense to everyone who requests a reason from you concerning the hope which is among you, (doing so) with meekness and fear . . .Very Literal Translation

Colossians 4:5-6 Walk in wisdom toward them that are without, redeeming the time. Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that ye may know how ye ought to answer every man. KJV

St. Paul used logic on Mars Hill
Acts 17:22-31 Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious . . .

2 Corinthians 10:3-6 For the weapons of our warfare (are) not fleshly, rather (they are) powerful in God for the demolishing of fortresses; demolishing reasonings and every thing lifting itself up against the knowledge of God, and taking captive every thought into the obedience of Christ. Very Literal Translation

1 Thessalonians 5:21 "Prove" all things; hold fast that which is good.. KJV

St. Paul used logic to convince: Acts 9:22 [Paul] confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving that this is very Christ.

17:2. And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, Opening and alleging, that Christ must needs have suffered, and risen again from the dead; and that this Jesus, whom I preach unto you, is Christ.

18:4. And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

18:19 . . .he. . . entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews.

18:28. For he mightily convinced the Jews, and that publickly, shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ. KJV

More from St. Augustine,

"The science of reasoning is of very great service in searching into and unraveling all sorts of questions that come up in Scripture, only in the use of it we must guard against the love of wrangling and the childish vanity of entrapping an adversary." (On Christian Doctrine II,48)

"When the consequent is false, the antecedent must also be false," says what is most true; but he does not himself make it so, he only points out that it is so. And it is upon this rule that the reasoning ...from the Apostle Paul proceeds. For the antecedent is, "There is no resurrection of the dead...." ...the necessary consequence is "Then Christ is not risen." But this consequence is false, for Christ has risen; therefore the antecedent is also false. ...We conclude therefore that there is a resurrection of the dead. ...This rule, then, that when the consequent is removed, the antecedent must also be removed, is not made by man, but only pointed out by him. And this rule has reference to the validity of the reasoning, not to the truth of the statement." (II,50)

I'm out of time brothers and sisters, thank you for the give and take, I'm learning [ever slowly] a lot.

Thank you and God bless,

j

[Tim Grass]

I asked, "Are you saying that you disagree, and therefore logic has it's limits?"

Herman wrote: "Absolutely."

Herman, you haven't offered proof that you're correct.
That's what we call misunderstanding the line of argument. Challenging the claim that logic has its limits, by stating that this hasn't been logically proven, is a case in point for the original argument.

Logic is a tool. It has its limits. This is simply a given in Orthodoxy.... not a thing to be proven or disproven.... it's part of the confession.

--tim

[Herman Blaydoe]

You asked if I thought logic had limits. You didn't ask for proof, even though I provided one. Simply because I used the word "you", it was a generic "you" not specific, so your "ad hominem" concern is unjustified.

I take it you have a problem with Gödel's proof? May I ask what it is? At any rate, logic is a tool, just as Tim says. It has its place, but a hammer is not a wrench. To claim that logic has no limits is simply illogical!

This is why the cataphatic approach must be balanced with the apophatic.

And which translation are you using for your quote from 1st Peter? None of the translations I have available to me adds the word "logical". Wasn't there some sort of warning about "adding" to Holy Scripture?

[J. A. McIntyre]

It's a matter of evidentialism vs. presuppositionalism and I sit in the presuppositional camp. St. Paul on Mars Hill gives a good example of the presuppositional method, starting by assuming X is true and then proving it [not with evidence you can see with the senses] by exposing inconsistency in the pagan's world view.



Wasn't there some sort of warning about "adding" to Holy Scripture?

I quoted the VLT, I added nothing. Maybe someone could help out on this one, I've never studied Greek and so I'm at the mercy of translators [can't wait for the LXX!], and I'm left with Thayer's Definition: 1) verbal defence, speech in defence 2) a reasoned statement or argument. If this is true, a reasoned statement, is a logical statement.

I fear this thread may not being turning out like I'd hoped, I just wanted info on the Council, that's all...

Thanks.

[Herman Blaydoe]

Well, NOBODY is saying that logic is BAD or useless, simply trying to communicate that, like any other tool, it has appropriate and inappropriate uses. Just like you can't use a hammer to tighten a bolt or a wrench to drive a nail. You SEEM to be taking exception to this but it is an important part of Orthodox (eastern?) theology and leaving it out is what causes many of the issues that cause problems with western theology in Orthodox minds. "Logic" is much more than simply "making a good argument", it is a very specific approach that makes very specific assumptions. But if there are issues with those assumptions, the argument falls apart. That is why BALANCE is important, and sometimes OTHER tools have to be used, other than simple "logic". That is all we are trying to say. You SEEM to be saying that that it is an "either or" situation and we are trying to say it is BOTH. That's all.

[J. A. McIntyre]

Sorry Brother Herman, I have a had time expressing myself in writting without coming across as agressive or cavalier, that's not my goal.

Peace,

jm