Free-Will-ism and the Canons of the Council of Orange

Unless he be perpetually reminded of the free and unconditional nature of the gospel, and therein sustained and preserved by God, a person will, in accordance with a universal natural inclination of man, tend to regress and revert back toward a kind of works-righteousness, or Pelagianism (i.e., the idea that he must in some sense and to some degree earn or merit his salvation). Though natural, the error known as "Pelagianism" was clearly condemned by the the Second Council of Orange (529 AD). The medieval scholastic theologians (viz., those of the Via Moderna, against whose theology Luther specifically reacted) don't seem to have known about or had access to these cannons. For, theologians such as Gabriel Biel, while thinking themselves to have avoided the Pelagian error, had in fact become ensnared in it. The Reformers did utilize these canons, which was a powerful demonstration against the Catholic Church.

The content of the Council itself naturally grew out of the public dispute between Augustine and Pelagius. This critical dispute had to do with the extent to which the natural man is responsible for his own regeneration (the new birth)—i.e. whether the work of God in regeneration monergistic (God alone) or synergistic (a cooperation of man and God). The council supported Augustine's monergism, rejecting Pelagianism of any degree. Here are four of the most important canons:

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).

But why ought Christians to concern themselves with such seemingly trivial and troublesome points of doctrine such as free will? Martin Luther has a blunt (and perhaps offensive) answer for us in his 1525 On the Bondage of the Will:

It is not irreverent, inquisitive, or superfluous, but essentially salutary and necessary for a Christian, to find out whether the will does anything or nothing in matters pertaining to eternal salvation . . . , to inquire what free choice can do, what it has done to it, and what is its relation to the grace of God. If we do not know these things, we shall know nothing at all of things Christian, and shall be worse than any heathen. . . . For if I am ignorant of what, how far, and how much I can and may do in relation to God, it will be equally uncertain and unknown to me, what, how far, and how much God can and may do in me . . . . But when the works and power of God are unknown, I cannot worship, praise, thank, and serve God, since I do not know how much I ought to attribute to myself and how much to God. It therefore behooves us to be very certain about the distinction between God's power and our own, God's work and our own, if we want to live a godly life. (117)

"Jedi Knights They Are"

Wow: If I knew nothing else about humanity, the existence of a Jedi religion alone would seem to establish beyond all doubt the total depravity of man. Apparently, it exists—and is the fourth largest religious group in Britain, if the article below is to be believed. The article is copied from here.

Two self-styled Jedi Knights are stepping up an intergalactic campaign for formal recognition.

Umada and Yunyun, also known as John Wilkinson and Charlotte Law, want the United Nations to feel “The Force” is worthy of being called a religion.

The couple claim to be part of the UK’s fourth largest religious group, after 400,000 people recorded their faith as “Jedi” in the 2001 Census.

They say that as a religion, they deserve tolerance and respect. November the 16th is the annual International Day for Tolerance.

And as part of a global battle worthy of Luke Skywalker’s efforts against the Empire, the band of self-styled Jedis want the UN to re-name the day as Interstellar Day of Tolerance.

More people claim their religion to be Jedi in England and Wales than those who follow Sikhism, Judaism and Buddhism. And the cause has global support.

There are also 70,000 Jedi knights in Australia, 53,000 in New Zealand, and 20,000 in Canada.

This is Umada and Yunyun’s letter to the UN Association:


To whom it may concern,

For the last ten years the United Nations has marked today as the International Day of Tolerance. While we support this important work, we feel the UN needs to move with the times.
In the 2001 UK census, 390,000 people identified themselves as Jedi Knights, making us the fourth largest religion in the country. We have a proud heritage dating back 195,000 years to our first Jedi, the blue haired, blue eyed Kaja Sinis, who was born on Coruscant.
Like the United Nations, the Jedi Knights are peacekeepers, and we feel we have the basic right to express our religion through wearing our robes, and to be recognised by the national and international community.
We therefore call upon you to change the 16th November to the United Nations Interstellar Day of Tolerance, to reflect the religious make-up of our twenty-first century civilization.
Tolerance is about respecting difference where ever it lies, including other galaxies. Please don’t exclude us from your important work.

May the Force be with you.

"Just and the Justifier", Part 2

Yeah, so my first "Just and the Justifier" post never actually discussed "just and the justifier." And so, consider this:

God's judicial righteousness is demonstrated in the gospel. Under the Mosaic sacrificial system, forgiveness was offered through (but not on the basis of) animal sacrifice. As the New Testament recognizes (Heb 9:11–15; 10:1–4), such sacrifices cannot substitute for the sins of humans. The real significance of the Old Testament sacrifices lay in the way they pointed forward to Christ, through whom God would deal with human sin in an appropriate and final way. In view of what He would later do, God could righteously pass over "former sins" (v. 25). The work of Christ reveals both the justice of God (He does punish sin in the person of His own Son, 8:32) and the righteousness of God's way of salvation by "faith in Jesus" (v. 26). In dealing with Christ as sin-bearer and the human person as sinner, God does not compromise His own holiness or the necessity of sin's bieng atoned for. Yet He graciously provides a salvation that mankind was incapable of obtaining. In this respect, Paul sees the Cross as the manifestation of the glorious wisdom of God (1 Cor. 1:23, 24).

A New Post

Hey, this is a new post. I've been terribly busy recently. Normally, I have two essays due each week (1x 1500 word, 1x 3000 word). Last week, however, I had three essays due (2x 1500 words, 1x 3000 word). This week, I have the normal two essays due (one of which I finished today).

I'm playing lots of table tennis here at Cambridge. I joined the CU Table Tennis Club (though I'm not nearly good enough to play on the CU team), and I'm on the Homerton College table tennis team (which I am good enough to play on). The Homerton team is in a league with the other 30 individual Cambridge colleges. The Homerton College team has played twice so far this term: first against St. Catherine's College, and then against Robinson College. We won both competitions: 5-4 against St. Catherine's and 6-3 against Robinson. Against St. Catherine's, I personally went 2-1, and then I went 1-2 against Robinson. There are three players per team, and each player plays each of the other team's players once (so there are 9 matches per competition). Each match is best of five games—although, if both teams wish to shorten the competition, they may agree to only play best of three games (this was the case at our second competition). On the CU Table Tennis Club, I am, however, on the club "ladder" (although I happen to be last, since I was the last person to join the ladder. You can even see my name on the CUTTC website here. Visit the main page for the Cambridge University Table Tennis Club website. You can see the rules and everything. (I can only think of one or two people who would be interested in all this.)

I must now go to a theology supervision ("The Shaping of Modern Theologians"), but I'll be back with another post soon.