Orthodoxy and the 2nd Council of Orange?

[Ignatius21]

Hi!

I'm curious as to whether the 2nd Council of Orange (A.D. 529 in Gaul) is recognized as authoritative in Orthodoxy. It obviously occured in the West and was not an ecumenical council in the sense of the Seven. The main topic of interest was a condemnation of Semi-Pelagianism and any idea that we seek God on our own initiative, without God first drawing us to Himself by His grace. It affirms among other things that faith, trust, prayer, and repentance are themselves gifts from God.

It became a bone of contention during the Reformation with both sides trying to use it to attack the other. The canons strongly affirmed the teaching of Augustine against Pelagius and those who followed with a watered-down, but essentially similar, doctrine. I was just wondering whether the decrees ever carried weight in the East or played any role in Eastern theology.

Here is the summary of the Canons. Here is the whole thing if anyone has lots of time on their hands: Canons of the Council of Orange

CONCLUSION. And thus according to the passages of holy scripture quoted above or the interpretations of the ancient Fathers we must, under the blessing of God, preach and believe as follows. The sin of the first man has so impaired and weakened free will that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought or believe in God or do good for God's sake, unless the grace of divine mercy has preceded him. We therefore believe that the glorious faith which was given to Abel the righteous, and Noah, and Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and to all the saints of old, and which the Apostle Paul commends in extolling them (Heb. 11), was not given through natural goodness as it was before to Adam, but was bestowed by the grace of God. And we know and also believe that even after the coming of our Lord this grace is not to be found in the free will of all who desire to be baptized, but is bestowed by the kindness of Christ, as has already been frequently stated and as the Apostle Paul declares, "For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake" (Phil. 1:29). And again, "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 it is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). And as the Apostle says of himself, "I have obtained mercy to be faithful" (1 Cor. 7:25, cf. 1 Tim. 1:13). He did not say, "because I was faithful," but "to be faithful." And again, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7). And again, "Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of 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 be quoted to prove the case for grace, but they have been omitted for the sake of brevity, because further examples will not really be of use where few are deemed sufficient.

According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him. We must therefore most evidently believe that the praiseworthy faith of the thief whom the Lord called to his home in paradise, and of Cornelius 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.

 

[Macarius]

It would be viewed, like many small councils, as a clear indication of the views of a church in a given area.

Like the council, we also condemn semi-pelagianism and affirm that salvation in all ways begins with God's initiative, so that all spiritual gifts (including faith itself) are gifts freely given.

We do not believe, however, that after God's initiative the process is done. He also allows us to reject or interfere with His salvation, and we must cooperate with the process of grace towards justification (towards being made righteous). This is a lifetime process. It is always, however, God who saves. We pray that nearly every day in the 50th / 51st Psalm ("And take not Thy Holy Spirit from me, but restore unto me the joy of THY salvation").

We don't typically talk about the council of orange as authoritative, so I won't say we agree with it word for word as we would with, say, the Constantinoplitan creed or the dogma of the Incarnation from Chalcedon. But from what you presented, the basic idea sounds very Orthodox.

 

[Ignatius21]

From what I gather it was fairly localized, but given the sanction of the Roman Pope. The only people I've ever really heard discussing it are Calvinists because it does show that the Augustinian ideas were not invented off-the-cuff in the 16th century, although the Reformers did take it further than I think can be supported by this particular council. The tendency is to use this council as a hammer to say that the council condemned synergism, because the Reformed to this day typically equate anything other than Augustinian monergism, with semi-Pelagianism. It's a glaring error in my opinion. Regardless of whether synergism is right or not, it is non synonomous with semi-Pelagianism.

Thanks for the thoughts on the council. I suspected that some Protestants were according it greater weight than it actually had historically.

 

[Tzaousios]

The tendency is to use this council as a hammer to say that the council condemned synergism, because the Reformed to this day typically equate anything other than Augustinian monergism, with semi-Pelagianism. It's a glaring error in my opinion. Regardless of whether synergism is right or not, it is non synonomous with semi-Pelagianism.

This does seem to be the case, that many in the Reformed camp use Orange as a hammer against anything non-Augustinian.

However, as much research as I have done on the subject, including looking at the original sources, I still cannot see in the theological sense where the dividing line is between Orthodox synergism and what became known as "semi-Pelagianism" in the West.

Whereas what was called semi-Pelagianism in the West seemed to have come about as a reaction to Augustine's later ideas (Messalian monks, for example), the East seemed to have held the synergistic, cooperative notion of grace and the human will all along. They are largely historically-exclusive developments, although there is some evidence that the Messalians corresponded with John Chrysostom on the matter.

 

[Macarius]

To me, Pelagianism is the assertion that we earn or warrant salvation. The Orthodox would never affirm that, even in the least. Even a casual participation in Orthodox Holy Week would confirm that.

To use my favorite analogy: imagine that we are down in a pit, and begging Christ to help lift us out of it. Christ throws us a rope, and pulls us up. We still hang on to the rope while being lifted (as opposed to stubbournly refusing to grab the rope) but that doesn't mean that God didn't save us.

Actually, to complete the analogy, we're unconscious in the pit, and God shouts down at us to wake up, then we realize we're in a pit and start babbling. God, politely, asks us if we'd like help. We meekly nod. God throws us the rope, we sit there blubbering. God asks if we'd like to grab the rope. We do. He pulls, and we let go and fall back down. Repeat these steps throughout our life. Eventually, by his strength and persistence, He gets us to hang on long enough to pull us up.

I think, in a Calvinist perspective, God just reaches down and pulls us up while we're still unconscious (i.e. zero synergy).

Anyhow, those are my two cents.

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[MariaRegina]

Related story about the pit

Did you hear this joke?

Our priest gave a sermon about overcoming selfishness and putting on Christ. Then he followed with this joke:

There was this Christian woman who died and went to hell.
When she was in the fiery lake, she said that there must have been some mistake.
So she pleaded to her Guardian Angel and told him that she was faithful in prayers and in good works, especially giving onions from her garden to the poor when they had nothing to eat.

The angel whipped out a huge onion from his pocket and asked:
"Is this one of the onions you gave them?

She answered, "Yes."

The angel said, "Here grab onto the roots of the onion, and I will pull you out of the fiery pit."

She eagerly did so. However, others in hell saw that she was being rescued and decided to grab on also.

When she realized that their massive weight was pulling her down in the fiery pit again, she yelled out:

"Let go, it's mine." At that moment, the Angel let go of the onion, and they all fell back into the pit, including the woman.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Actually, to complete the analogy, we're unconscious in the pit, and God shouts down at us to wake up, then we realize we're in a pit and start babbling. God, politely, asks us if we'd like help. We meekly nod. God throws us the rope, we sit there blubbering. God asks if we'd like to grab the rope. We do. He pulls, and we let go and fall back down. Repeat these steps throughout our life. Eventually, by his strength and persistence, He gets us to hang on long enough to pull us up.

yeah, it seems to me that this is why Christ says He stands at the door and knocks. He does not enter in before we make it to the door

 

[Sphinx777]

The Councils of Orange (or the Synods of Orange) comprised two synods held at Orange, France. The first (441) dealt with various church issues. The second (529) affirmed Augustine's teaching against the Pelagian challenge.

The first took place on November 8, AD 441, under the presidency of Hilary of Arles, with Eucherius of Lyons also being present. Seventeen bishops attended the meeting. Thirty canons (or judgements) were passed, dealing with unction, the Permission of penance, the right of asylum; recommending caution to bishops in the ordination of foreign clergy, the consecration of churches outside of their own jurisdictions, and other matters; imposing limitations on the administration of ecclesiastical rites to those who were in any way defective, either in body or mind; and emphasizing the duty of celibacy for those belonging to the clerical state, especially deacons and widows, with express reference to canon viii. of the Synod of Turin (AD 401). The exact interpretation of some of them (ii., iii., xvii.) is doubtful. Canon iv. is alleged to be in conflict with a decretal of Pope Siricius; and ii. and xviii. betray an inclination to resist the introduction of Roman customs. These canons were confirmed at the Synods of Arles about 443.

On July 3, 529, another synod took place at Orange, which in the mean time had passed under Burgundian and then Ostrogothic rule. This meeting, for which occasion was given by the consecration of a church built by the governor of Gallia Narbonensis, was attended by fourteen bishops under the presidency of Caesarius of Arles. It was the chief of many councils that affirmed the theology of Augustine of Hippo against Pelagianism. It received the papal sanction.

The canons of the first council are often cited in the contemporary debates over the ordination of women to the ministry. Canons of the second council played a central role in interpreting Augustine to establish what later came to be known as the Calvinist and Banezian doctrines of original sin and total depravity.

 

[jckstraw72]

interesting this thread is here so recently, because my old roommate just brought up the Council of Orange as evidence that Reformed theology existed pre-Calvin, because I asked him why, if Reformed theology is true, is there no evidence that the Apostolic communities ever believed it?

Many of the canons can be interpreted in a Reformed way, but its not different than when they interpret Romans in a Reformed way. the Conclusion of the Canon, however, is quite against Reformed theology:

CONCLUSION. And thus according to the passages of holy scripture quoted above or the interpretations of the ancient Fathers we must, under the blessing of God, preach and believe as follows. The sin of the first man has so impaired and weakened free will that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought or believe in God or do good for God's sake, unless the grace of divine mercy has preceded him. We therefore believe that the glorious faith which was given to Abel the righteous, and Noah, and Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and to all the saints of old, and which the Apostle Paul commends in extolling them (Heb. 11), was not given through natural goodness as it was before to Adam, but was bestowed by the grace of God. And we know and also believe that even after the coming of our Lord this grace is not to be found in the free will of all who desire to be baptized, but is bestowed by the kindness of Christ, as has already been frequently stated and as the Apostle Paul declares, "For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake" (Phil. 1:29). And again, "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 it is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). And as the Apostle says of himself, "I have obtained mercy to be faithful" (1 Cor. 7:25, cf. 1 Tim. 1:13). He did not say, "because I was faithful," but "to be faithful." And again, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7). And again, "Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of 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 be quoted to prove the case for grace, but they have been omitted for the sake of brevity, because further examples will not really be of use where few are deemed sufficient.
According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema. We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him. We must therefore most evidently believe that the praiseworthy faith of the thief whom the Lord called to his home in paradise, and of Cornelius 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.

in this conclusion we see that God did not predestine anyone to evil (which would be necessarily the case if they were predestined to Hell), that free will is weakened (but not lost) and that we must of our own desire labor faithfully. These stances are in line with Orthodox but not Reformed theology.

 

[Macarius]

Oh! Thank you for that.

I didn't know the conclusion said that (I've never read the acts of the council).

 

[jckstraw72]

its good stuff!

 

[Ignatius21]

interesting this thread is here so recently, because my old roommate just brought up the Council of Orange as evidence that Reformed theology existed pre-Calvin, because I asked him why, if Reformed theology is true, is there no evidence that the Apostolic communities ever believed it?

Many of the canons can be interpreted in a Reformed way, but its not different than when they interpret Romans in a Reformed way. the Conclusion of the Canon, however, is quite against Reformed theology:

in this conclusion we see that God did not predestine anyone to evil (which would be necessarily the case if they were predestined to Hell), that free will is weakened (but not lost) and that we must of our own desire labor faithfully. These stances are in line with Orthodox but not Reformed theology.

The stance that anyone is predestined to sin (i.e. caused to sin by God) is indeed abhorrent to borrow the language from the conclusion. The conclusion of the canon is quite in line with Reformed theology, with the exception being the (seeming) identification of baptism as the instrumental cause of regeneration in the soul. Nobody with any knowledge of historical theology will claim that those who wrote these canons were 5-point Calvinists. That would be anachronism of the worst kind. But these very much do fall in line with what Reformed theology teaches, because there is little in the way of soteriology taught by the Refomers, that was not present in the Augustinian system long before.

I may be misinterpreting the canons of the council--that is always quite possible. But I would respectfully point out that you have badly misrepresented Reformed belief as taught by the Reformers and the confessions that arose from their theology.

"Calvinists believe that God predestines people to do evil."
"Orthodox and Catholics worship Mary."

Each statement distorts the beliefs of a respective community, targeting age-old strawmen rather than actual beliefs.

I realize this isn't a debate thread necessarily, but I thought I would point out that the Reformed cite this council for good reasons. The canons are only flatly opposed to Reformed belief if it is not actually Reformed belief.

Thanks.

 

[Ignatius21]

To me, Pelagianism is the assertion that we earn or warrant salvation. The Orthodox would never affirm that, even in the least. Even a casual participation in Orthodox Holy Week would confirm that.

To use my favorite analogy: imagine that we are down in a pit, and begging Christ to help lift us out of it. Christ throws us a rope, and pulls us up. We still hang on to the rope while being lifted (as opposed to stubbournly refusing to grab the rope) but that doesn't mean that God didn't save us.

Actually, to complete the analogy, we're unconscious in the pit, and God shouts down at us to wake up, then we realize we're in a pit and start babbling. God, politely, asks us if we'd like help. We meekly nod. God throws us the rope, we sit there blubbering. God asks if we'd like to grab the rope. We do. He pulls, and we let go and fall back down. Repeat these steps throughout our life. Eventually, by his strength and persistence, He gets us to hang on long enough to pull us up.

I think, in a Calvinist perspective, God just reaches down and pulls us up while we're still unconscious (i.e. zero synergy).

Anyhow, those are my two cents.

In Christ,
Macarius

Macarius, your analogy comes quite close to a Calvinist perspective, but it misses by a hair, because in each case the guy in the pit is still alive!

We believe that we are truly spiritually dead toward God. Calvinism does not teach that our wills aren't free, or that our wills are gone and we're incapable of making decisions. Rather the problem lies in that our desires flow from the state of our heart, and our wills follow our desires, as one cannot choose something that one does not most strongly desire at the moment of choice.

So to use your analogy with a twist, the guy in the pit does not know he's in a pit. He's quite happy in his pit and quite certain he's in no danger. You can throw all the ropes you like--he will ignore them. You can shout down and warn of his danger, and he will just gnash his teeth and despise you for it. He's physically alive but dead toward the only one who can help him. Not until his inward being changes, from one opposed to God to one who desires God, will he realize his danger and exercise his will to grab the rope and climb.

Jesus didn't ask Lazarus to choose whether to get up and walk. Lazarus was dead. Jesus commanded Lazarus to rise. He could obey once he was breathing again, but not before. So too must Christ raise our hearts from the dead, give us new life and new birth, and regenerate our inward being--so that our free wills may now freely choose to accept Christ, because our hearts now desire Christ.

So says Reformed belief. I would not argue that the Canons of Orange take this specific view, nor that anyone that long ago had worked out a nuanced view of desire, will, and liberty. But they certainly seem (to me) to tend toward that direction.

 

[jckstraw72]

if God predestines someone for Hell as a vessel of wrath, and thus they are never regenerated, would they not, because of total depravity, have to do evil, since turning to God would not even be an option? Why would they be predestined for good works but still predestined to Hell?

and the conclusion teaches a damaged free will (not entirely lost), and the necessity of our own labor towards salvation -- how are those reconcilable with Reformed theology?