Cassian vs Augustine

Faith only comments and references, as a product of the Donatist revolt, carried over into the debate over Grace during the lives of Cassian and Augustine. Both were high level teachers with direct connections to popes. Yet they had disagreement on the concepts of Grace and holiness.

The writings of both, which later came to influence theology, were in response to each other in a couple of cases.

Augustine was the herald of prevenient grace, a doctrine that Grace must precede man's decision to obey the Gospel, in Augustine's view it was irresistable. Faith itself was a gift from God. Cassian was a proponent of Grace and free will.  Stating man had a greater action in salvation than did Augustine.

Augustine was known for irresistable prevenient grace, which greatly influenced Calvin. Though Augustine was not faith only, he did introduce concepts that would later be borrowed and re-identified within faith only. Augustine taught there were 3 methods of forgiveness.

•  In the Church, therefore, there are three ways in which sins are forgiven: in baptisms, in prayer, and in the greater humility of penance" (St. Augustine, Sermon to Catechumens on the Creed 7:15, 8:16).

Though Augustine is clearly not faith only, his teachings on grace and reason were incorporated into faith only groups. Luther was in agreement on two of three points.

Cassian believed in perfecting the heart through a monastic life similar to Jesus being in seclusion at times for prayer and temptation. He did not believe God changed the heart independent of man as Protestants did..

"These books [the Institutes] . . . are mainly taken up with what belongs to the outer man and the customs of the coenobia [i.e. Institutes of monastic life in common]; the others [the "Collationes" or Conferences] deal rather with the training of the inner man and the perfection of the heart."

Thus Cassian saw training and changing the heart as vehicles to change  which man does. Cassian wasn't far off if you allow some room for God to work also. I think Cassian had a closer association with the Church in Jerusalem. As Ezekiel pointed out man does have some responsibility in changing the heart.

Eze 18:31  Cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed; and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will ye die, O house of Israel?

Later Popes and Protestants sided more closely with Augustine and some went beyond his teaching into total depravity. Almost all falling under Wesleyanism and some under Calvinism.

Church of England

Methodist

Church of Nazarene

Assembly of God

Wesleyan

We must understand that both Cassian and Augustine's writings were only theories, not necessarily doctrines set forth by the apostles. Both were from Egypt though Cassian later moved to Constantinople and lived around Jerusalem as well. In other words, they were trying to fill in the pieces the Apostles did not specifically set forth. It is important to remember they disagreed with each other, but both had points we should study and consider.

The debate in Egypt that caused Cassian to move to Constantinople was over God's nature, which held sway on the nature of man. Origen believed God was spirit and without a body, others argued man was created in God's image, man had a body, therefore God had a body. The word image implying a body.

This can be challenged from Colossians where Jesus is called the image of the Godhead, the emphasis being on likenesses that are spiritual. The word image is likely not used because both had bodies. It seems rather their likeness was in dominion. Jesus being the firstborn over creation.

Col 1:15  Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 

Col 1:19  For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell; 

Certainly Jesus didn't have the same body before his birth;

Heb 10:5  Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me: 

If emphasis was on the body, since it mentions every creature, he would need to look like every creature.

Another note is that some argued God was sinless, man was made in his image, therefore at one time man had a sinless nature. This led to the belief man had to fall into depravity from an original state of God-likeness. They argued man was like God having a body and having a sinless nature. Neither were necessarily true.

The doctrine, man was created with a sinless nature and then fell, was introduced to explain free will at creation but remove real choice today. They had to create a scenario where man was wholly dependent in all aspects of faith.

They tried to marry points that seemed to be contradictory.

Theories came from assumptions over what it meant to be in God's image. God's image could have been the idea of a united one, as man is male and female, a union so to speak. The arguments over God's image caused modifications in other points as teachers built theological models to support their theories.

Christ certainly was flesh with a body, but he was made that way at his conception. The word was made flesh. It does not tell us what he was like previous to the conception. The same with the Father, God is Spirit and we have no knowledge of what he looks like or if he has a body. Certainly his presence is not limited by a restrictive body. He is omni-present.

The council of Nicea called God a substance, saying Jesus and the Father were the same substance, thus making God more than Spirit.

There were some notable but false theories that came from the over all discussions. If you reasoned being in God's image meant a sinless nature, then the fall of man as an intermediate step had to exist.

Theory One

Some taught man's nature fell into total depravity after the fall of Adam. 

John Wesley

I believe that Adam, before his fall, had such freedom of will, that he might choose either good or evil; but that, since the fall, no child of man has a natural power to choose anything that is truly good. Yet I know (and who does not?) that man has still freedom of will in things of indifferent nature

So Wesley taught man once had free will but became so depraved he couldn't choose good.

The scriptures do not actually note a change in nature, but a change in relationship. Man became a sinner by not heeding God's word and was kicked out of the Garden, thus being in a sense farthur from God and the evidence that might cause belief. He was dead spiritually and would die physically. Of course being in the garden man still sinned, before death and before being removed, they didn't have to change nature to sin. They rejected God's warning, thus not living by faith. Anything not of faith is sin.

Rom 14:23  And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin. 

Sin is the violation of faith, not just the violation of law.

Actually, Adam sinned based upon his God given nature. There was no change of nature after the sin. Eve already had the lust and pride needed to sin. The flesh was already at odds with faith.

God gave warnings

Man's nature saw something desirable

Satan planted doubts

Man's doubt grew to the point he would risk the consequences.

We must admit that faith only groups mis-represented that man's nature fell after the fall, it was already capable of sin.

The doctrine of the fallen nature led to all kinds of heretical theories.

The Nazarene Creed

We believe that the human race’s creation in Godlikeness included ability to choose between right and wrong, and that thus human beings were made morally responsible; that through the fall of Adam they became depraved so that they cannot now turn and prepare themselves by their own natural strength and works to faith and calling upon God. But we also believe that the grace of God through Jesus Christ is freely bestowed upon all people, enabling all who will to turn from sin to righteousness, believe on Jesus Christ for pardon and cleansing from sin, and follow good works pleasing and acceptable in His sight.[3]

The idea of the fallen nature is paramount in faith only groups.

It is the idea we cannot have faith without Gods grace. Protestants went further by adding a doctrine of regeneration, which added a step beyond Augustines prevenient Grace.

Yet this flies in the face of examples such as Abel and Cain. They could come to faith through the testimony of their parents. Augustine might see teaching as a prevenient grace, but faith only groups would see instruction as useless without regeneration.

We see no where that Abel was regenerated but Cain was not. God compared it to choice and dominion.

Gen 4:7  If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. 

We see God explaining to Cain that he could rule over sin, it knocks at the door but we have choice to say yes or no. Abel did what was right, Cain did not. In this situation anyway. Paul also recognized this theology,

Rom 6:12  Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the lusts thereof. 

We see Paul in agreement with God, but Protestants would say Paul could only say this of people regenerated.

Human testimony and teaching could produce faith. This coupled with the individuals attention span, both in hearing or reading, we become partners in the production of faith, and we become partners in righteousness or sin.

Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. It does not have a set messenger, where the ears hear the word faith is possible.

The doctrine of the fall of man allowed the doctrine of depravity to reign, which has two sides.

1. We have no power to bring forgiveness on our own.

2. We have no power to achieve faith apart from a direct operation of God.

By faith Abel offerred a more excellent sacrifice, evangelicals would blame God for Cain's demise if he did not provide the necessary faith, God said it was Cain who did not rule sin.

They taught man could not have the righteousness of faith, much less the righteousness of moral law. This meant that Genesis 15:6, James 2:21-24 must be substitutionary statements, vs recognizing the person had a real righteousness that could be identified by God.

Man could attain the righteousness of faith, but not 100% moral righteousness. Man had the ability to believe God. The grace involved wasn't a change of man's nature, but the addition of evidence.

prophecy fulfilled

signs and wonders

Act 1:3  To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God: 

Instead of changing man's nature he added evidence for belief. He could have done this for Adam and Eve but chose to stay silent at the time.

So we see man did need God's help to believe the Gospel, but his aid wasn't as many describe.

Act 14:3  Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands.

Grace was many fold, but it wasn't the idea of forcing compliance.

1. Some who believed didn't obey. The grace necessary to believe didn't translate into being stronger than other factors.

2. Grace didn't change that salvation and our future was still unseen.

Heb 11:1  Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.