The Council of Orange (I)
So, for all the creeds we've looked at, we are now on page 37 of 736. 700 to go, woo!
We're beginning to enter the creeds that are longer than pithy statements. Previously, creeds were very economical in their language, conserving words without sacrificing depth of meaning. While this may continue to be the case, creeds will increasingly deal with a wider range of subject matter (necessitating multiple sections to the creed), and with finer and more nuanced areas of theology (frequently anthropology: our view of humanity). So we're not going to look at the entire statement of the Council of Orange today. Take it one bite at a time.
Canon 1. If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was "changed for the worse" through the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is decieved by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, "The soul that sinneth, the same shall die" (Ezekiel 18:20); and, "Know you not, that to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are whom you obey?" (Romans 6:16); and, "For by whom a man is overcome, of the same also he is a slave" (II Peter 2:19).
Canon 2. If anyone asserts that Adam's sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, "Through one person sin entered the world and through sin death, and thus it passed to all [men], in whom all have sinned" (Romans 5:12).
The beginning of this creed identifies the worst of Pelagianism. Pelagius was contemporary to Augustine, and the two of them engaged in the great theological debate of the age, which centered around the nature of sin and freewill. As identified in Canons 1 & 2 of the Council of Orange, Pelagius' stance was based around what he believed to have happened at the Fall of Mankind, when Adam and Eve ate the Forbidden Fruit in the Garden of Eden.
1. Pelagius believed that the first sin changed nothing. According to Pelagius, there was no "fall." Adam was a uniquely created freewill being in the Garden, and when he ate the fruit, he continued to be a uniquely created freewill being, with an equal capacity to choose good or evil. He was not enslaved to sin. Augustine, on the other hand, held that the Fall did indeed happen, and that it was a big deal. Adam was capable of choosing good or evil for himself when he lived in the Garden, but when he chose evil and ate the fruit (he was not obeying God, who is good, so he chose evil) everything changed. Adam's body and soul were both immediately corrupted by his sin, and his humanity was forever changed. Augustine held that because of the Fall, Adam was a slave to sin, and no longer had the capacity to love or follow God of himself.
2. Pelagius believed that the first sin did not have direct lasting consequences. The immediate corrolaries of these positions become evident as we begin to talk about the Sons of Adam. For Pelagius, Adam's offspring are also unique freewill beings, capable of choosing good or evil at any time. He explained the presence of sin in the world as an effect of the environment. Because Adam sinned, he set an example for his children to follow, and so because sin was present in their lives, they sinned as well. But they did not, by nature, have to sin. Pelagius would fit right in to a modern behavioral and social psychology symposium. "We are a product of our environment." Augustine, naturally, disagrees. If Pelagius is on the nurture side of "Nature vs. Nurture," where would Augustine be? Because Adam's nature, body and soul, was changed at the Fall when he chose to sin, Adam's offspring will be a product of his new nature. With Nicaea and Constantinople, we already saw that "like begets like." If the Father is God, then the Son is God. If the father is corrupted by sin, the son is corrupted by sin. In other words, Augustine held to original sin: before even being born, our children already possess sin natures, because they inhereted them, along with the rest of our humanity, from us.
This is the center of the controversy between Augustine and Pelagius. As we continue to look at the Creed of the Council of Orange, a number of consequences of these positions will be seen.
Not to tip my hand too much, but I want to go ahead and reveal that the Council of Orange did not end up accepting Augustinianism part and parcel. The official stance of the Council of Orange was a semi-Augustinianism, asserting Augustine's position on the fall, the sinfulness of humanity, and the nature of God's grace. However, they did not remain as extreme as Augustine did regarding God's extension of His grace, as we will see. Therefore, orthodoxy (classic and central Christian faith) is semi-Augustinian, though full Augustinian positions are accepted as well; it is only Pelagianism that is rejected.
Happy Fifth of July...? :P
We're beginning to enter the creeds that are longer than pithy statements. Previously, creeds were very economical in their language, conserving words without sacrificing depth of meaning. While this may continue to be the case, creeds will increasingly deal with a wider range of subject matter (necessitating multiple sections to the creed), and with finer and more nuanced areas of theology (frequently anthropology: our view of humanity). So we're not going to look at the entire statement of the Council of Orange today. Take it one bite at a time.
Canon 1. If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was "changed for the worse" through the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is decieved by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, "The soul that sinneth, the same shall die" (Ezekiel 18:20); and, "Know you not, that to whom you yield yourselves servants to obey, his servants you are whom you obey?" (Romans 6:16); and, "For by whom a man is overcome, of the same also he is a slave" (II Peter 2:19).
Canon 2. If anyone asserts that Adam's sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, "Through one person sin entered the world and through sin death, and thus it passed to all [men], in whom all have sinned" (Romans 5:12).
The beginning of this creed identifies the worst of Pelagianism. Pelagius was contemporary to Augustine, and the two of them engaged in the great theological debate of the age, which centered around the nature of sin and freewill. As identified in Canons 1 & 2 of the Council of Orange, Pelagius' stance was based around what he believed to have happened at the Fall of Mankind, when Adam and Eve ate the Forbidden Fruit in the Garden of Eden.
1. Pelagius believed that the first sin changed nothing. According to Pelagius, there was no "fall." Adam was a uniquely created freewill being in the Garden, and when he ate the fruit, he continued to be a uniquely created freewill being, with an equal capacity to choose good or evil. He was not enslaved to sin. Augustine, on the other hand, held that the Fall did indeed happen, and that it was a big deal. Adam was capable of choosing good or evil for himself when he lived in the Garden, but when he chose evil and ate the fruit (he was not obeying God, who is good, so he chose evil) everything changed. Adam's body and soul were both immediately corrupted by his sin, and his humanity was forever changed. Augustine held that because of the Fall, Adam was a slave to sin, and no longer had the capacity to love or follow God of himself.
2. Pelagius believed that the first sin did not have direct lasting consequences. The immediate corrolaries of these positions become evident as we begin to talk about the Sons of Adam. For Pelagius, Adam's offspring are also unique freewill beings, capable of choosing good or evil at any time. He explained the presence of sin in the world as an effect of the environment. Because Adam sinned, he set an example for his children to follow, and so because sin was present in their lives, they sinned as well. But they did not, by nature, have to sin. Pelagius would fit right in to a modern behavioral and social psychology symposium. "We are a product of our environment." Augustine, naturally, disagrees. If Pelagius is on the nurture side of "Nature vs. Nurture," where would Augustine be? Because Adam's nature, body and soul, was changed at the Fall when he chose to sin, Adam's offspring will be a product of his new nature. With Nicaea and Constantinople, we already saw that "like begets like." If the Father is God, then the Son is God. If the father is corrupted by sin, the son is corrupted by sin. In other words, Augustine held to original sin: before even being born, our children already possess sin natures, because they inhereted them, along with the rest of our humanity, from us.
This is the center of the controversy between Augustine and Pelagius. As we continue to look at the Creed of the Council of Orange, a number of consequences of these positions will be seen.
Not to tip my hand too much, but I want to go ahead and reveal that the Council of Orange did not end up accepting Augustinianism part and parcel. The official stance of the Council of Orange was a semi-Augustinianism, asserting Augustine's position on the fall, the sinfulness of humanity, and the nature of God's grace. However, they did not remain as extreme as Augustine did regarding God's extension of His grace, as we will see. Therefore, orthodoxy (classic and central Christian faith) is semi-Augustinian, though full Augustinian positions are accepted as well; it is only Pelagianism that is rejected.
Happy Fifth of July...? :P