When we look back at Church history we see that the 16th century often brought beliefs back that had been discarded. James White would be proud of this. However, who held these beliefs? Was it the early Catholic Church or was it the heretical sects? Let’s look at three examples using the early Church historian Socrates of Constantinople.
Denial of Confession to a priest
Now, when the declaration of faith had been written out and subscribed by the Synod, the emperor asked Acesius whether he would also agree to this creed to the settlement of the day on which Easter should be observed. He replied, ‘The Synod has determined nothing new, my prince: for this heretofore, even from the beginning, from the times of the apostles, I traditionally received the definition of the faith, and the time of the celebration of Easter.’ When, therefore, the emperor further asked him, ‘For what reason then do you separate yourself from communion with the rest of the Church’ he related what had taken place during the persecution under Decius; and referred to the rigidness of that austere canon which declares, that it is not right persons who after baptism have committed a sin, which the sacred Scriptures denominate ‘a sin unto death’ to be considered worthy of participation in the sacraments: that they should indeed be exhorted to repentance, but were not to expect remission from the priest, but from God, who is able and has authority to forgive sins. When Acesius had thus spoken, the emperor said to him, ‘Place a ladder, Acesius, and climb alone into heaven.’
– Ecclesiastical History, Book 1, Chapter 10
So it was the Novatian heretic Acesius who said that you’re to confess to God and not to a priest. Constantine very wisely put him in his place. It’s also worth noting that they mention a ‘sin unto death’ which was a reference to 1 John 5:16. The difference between mortal and venial sins is known by this episode. There are other parts of Socrates’ Church History where he talks about confession to and absolution from priests, however this episode is good because it shows the heretics of the day opposing it.
Denial of Free Will
Luther and Calvin both denied free will. Let’s see what Socates has to say about it.
Now the contents of these treatises apparently agree with Christianity in expression, but are pagan in sentiment: for Manichaeus being an atheist, incited his disciples to acknowledge a plurality of gods, and taught them to worship the sun. He also introduced the doctrine of Fate, denying human free-will; and affirmed a transmutation of bodies, clearly following the opinions of Empedocles, Pythagoras, and the Egyptians.
– Ecclesiastical History, Book 1, Chapter 22
Denial of Papal Authority
I can’t quote the whole episode since it’s long but I’ll summarize it, source it, and quote bits and pieces. Essentially Arians had taken over the Eastern Church and five bishops who refused to submit to Arianism were expelled from their sees. These bishops were Paul of Constantinople, Acslepas of Gaza, Marcellus of Ancyra, Lucius of Adrianople and Athanasius of Alexandria. They fled to Rome, told Pope Julius what happened then he gave them letters re-instating them into their sees.
This can be read about in Ecclesiastical History Book 2, Chapter 15. Later in the chapter we read:
Relying on the signature of the Bishop Julius, the bishops departed from Rome, and again took possession of their own churches, forwarding the letters to the parties of whom they were addressed. These persons considering themselves treated with indignity by the reproaches of Julius, called a council at Antioch, assembled themselves and dictated a reply to his letters as the expression of the unanimous feeling of the whole Synod. It was not his province, they said, to take cognizance of their decisions in reface to any whom they might with to expel from their churches; seeing that they had not opposed themselves to him, when Novatus was ejected from the church.
– Ecclesiastical History, Book 2, Chapter 15
Not his province? This sounds like it would make Thomas Cranmer proud. Remember how he argued that the bishop of Rome has authority over Rome only and not England. Not his province perhaps? Too bad this was the Arian bishops telling this to Julius.
Two chapters later we read the following:
When Julius, bishop of Rome, was apprised of these fresh machinations of the Arians against Athanasius, and had also received the letter of the then deceased Eusebius, he invited the persecuted Athanasius to come to him, having ascertained where he was secreted. The epistles also of the bishops who had been some time before assembled at Antioch, just then reached him; and at the same time others from the bishops in Egypt, assuring him that the entire charge against Athanasius was a fabrication. On the receipt of these contradictory communications, Julius first replied to the bishops who had written to him from Antioch, complaining of the acrimonious feeling they had evinced in their letter, and charging them with a violation of the canons, because they had not requested his attendance at the council, seeing that the ecclesiastical law required that the churches should pass no decisions contrary to the views of the bishop of Rome: he then censured them with great severity for clandestinely attempting to pervert the faith;
– Ecclesiastical History, Book 2, Chapter 17
So I guess James White would feel at home in the early Church, just not among the main body of believers. He’d have to hang around Novatians, Manichaeans, and Arians to see those who held his views.
All of these quotes can be found here.
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2601.htm
The Council of Orange also denied that “free will” exists in unregenerate humans. (granted that the Council of Orange thought the will is freed by water baptism, but do you see my point?) Luther and Calvin believed the same thing as Augustine – that only God’s grace frees the will so that a person can repent and believe and obey God.
We have creaturely free will in the sense of choosing what we want to freely, but what we want is always tainted by sinful motives, until God frees the will by conversion. (not by water ritual ceremony in RCC – a dead ritualistic church.)
CANON 13. Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it. Hence the Truth itself declares: “So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed” (John 8:36).
So I take it that you think the Church of the Council of Orange is a dead ritualistic church since it agree with the Catholic Church on regeneration?
Hi Allan,
Thank you for raising points that cause me to think about why I hold certain beliefs.
I am, however, perplexed by a few things that you said.
First, I was thinking about your comments about papal infallibility. The Orthodox Churches, like the Protestant Churches, deny papal infallibility. Yet, according to you, I guess they would be keeping company with James White and heretics on this one. I can’t imagine that any Orthodox Churches would agree with you on this point. I think they would say that the Roman Catholic dogma on papal infallibility is a case of doctrinal excess in the Catholic Church.
Second, you state that Luther and Calvin denied free will. I don’t think this is the case. I think it would be more correct to say that they taught that the will was in bondage to sin. Therefore, the “human will” will always freely choose to go against God (Romans 3:10 and following).
Third, I don’t know any protestant who says that a believer can’t confess their sins to a priest. What I hear from them is a balanced position of confession of sins to other believers (James 5:16) and confession directly to God (Matthew 6:12,14-15 and Psalm 51:1-4).
Well those are just some of my thoughts.
Hi Kevin,
God bless you and thanks for your comment.
Yes, the EOs would disagree with me on Papal Authority. They would say that infallibility is an excess. However, don’t take it from the EOs or even me for that matter. I’d encourage you to read the Church history of Socrates for yourself. He’s from the East so there will be no pro-Roman bias. Read it and let me know what you come up with.
Regarding free will in Luther and Calvin, do you think that double pre-destination doesn’t take away free will?
“Third, I don’t know any protestant who says that a believer can’t confess their sins to a priest. What I hear from them is a balanced position of confession of sins to other believers (James 5:16) and confession directly to God (Matthew 6:12,14-15 and Psalm 51:1-4).”
Ken Temple, care to weigh in on this?
Thanks for your input.
Allan
Are you a Roman Catholic? It appears that you are. What is your justification for the institution of the Roman Catholic priesthood?
Would you deny that GOD does choose and that the human will is perfect to choose good over evil? Surely we do have a will but our will is imperfect since no man has ever never sinned. All men have sinned. Otherwise if our will were perfect, we would always will and do right and never miss the mark and have not therefore a need for salvation.
Based upon my 3 years of watching psychiatric patients including drug addicts, I know that the strength and power of the human will to choose right is based also upon many factors including good health and a functional brain. Does a bi-polar person have a perfect will? He can indeed make choices but his cerebral function is impaired without medication. Does a schizophrenic, whose perception is altered, have perfect will? Does a mentally retarded person, whose brain function is impaired, have perfect will? A drug addict can make good decisions but the more he uses drugs the more he damages his brain and consequently the harder it is to have the mental strength to make decisions in his best interest. Does someone with dementia have perfect will? How many could study accounting for hours and hours nonstop every single day? How many could muster the will to run a marathon? How many can master physics?
And in fact our birth was not a result of our own will but of GOD; neither is our will able to overcome physical death because GOD has already decreed that our days here on earth be numbered. Moreover, GOD does choose as multiple examples such as HIS election of Abraham out of all men of his day and and of the Twelve out of all the Jews. He also directed the Apostle Paul to where he should proclaim THE GOSPEL. So GOD did predetermine who first would hear THE GOSPEL, including the order in which nations would hear THE GOSPEL and when, and He determine when we should live, including if and when we would hear HIS GOSPEL, since some still, even today, have not had an opportunity to hear it
The problem is that we, being men and not privy to an explanation from GOD for all HIS decisions do not have all the answers. But yes many of us do have a will to receive HIS GOSPEL and yes GOD does make HIS own decisions.
Would you consider Pope Francis worth defending or are you defending the ecclesiastical concept of the papacy?