# Council of Orange and Reprobation



## SRoper (Mar 2, 2005)

I read somewhere that the Second Council of Orange contradicts Trent and lends support to the Reformation. However when I read the cannons, I was stopped by this statement:

"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."

Is this denying Reprobation (I'm not sure if that's the right term -- I mean what some call "double predestination"), or is it merely asserting that God is not the author of sin?

Also is it true that Augustine never taught Reprobation?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## DTK (Mar 3, 2005)

> _Originally posted by SRoper_
> I read somewhere that the Second Council of Orange contradicts Trent and lends support to the Reformation. However when I read the cannons, I was stopped by this statement:
> 
> "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."
> ...


1) Having read the canons of Orange, including the Conclusion from which you quoted, it is my understanding that it is simply denying that God is the author of sin.

2) As for Augustine´s view of reprobation, one contributor to Volume 2 of _The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century_ states regarding the Westminster Confession and of men like Augustine...


> In fact, the Confession does not use the term _reprobation_ in any of its articles. This structure mirrors the formulations of other single-predestinarians such as Augustine (354-430), Thomas Aquinas (1224/5-74), or Heinrich Bullinger (1504-75). (pp. 492-493).


Now the reference in the footnote that this writer gives for Augustine is his "œ_Enchiridion_, in _Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers_, Vol. 3, ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. F. Shaw (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), chp. XCVIII, 268." That paragraph from Augustine reads...


> And, moreover, who will be so foolish and blasphemous as to say that God cannot change the evil wills of men, whichever, whenever, and wheresoever He chooses, and direct them to what is good? But when He does this He does it of mercy; when He does it not, it is of justice that He does it not for "œlie hath mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth." And when the apostle said this, he was illustrating the grace of God, in connection with which he had just spoken of the twins in the womb of Rebecca, "œwho being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth, it was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger." And in reference to this matter he quotes another prophetic testimony: "œJacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated." But perceiving how what he had said might affect those who could not penetrate by their understanding the depth of this grace: "œWhat shall we say then?" he says: "œIs there unrighteousness with God? God forbid." For it seems unjust that, in the absence of any merit or demerit, from good or evil works, God should love the one and hate the other. Now, if the apostle had wished us to understand that there were future good works of the one, and evil works of the other, which of course God foreknew, he would never have said, "œnot of works," but, "œof future works," and in that way would have solved the difficulty, or rather there would then have been no difficulty to solve. As it is, however, after answering, "œGod forbid;" that is, God forbid that there should be unrighteousness with God; he goes on to prove that there is no unrighteousness in God´s doing this, and says: "œFor He saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion." Now, who but a fool would think that God was unrighteous, either in inflicting penal justice on those who had earned it, or in extending mercy to the unworthy? Then he draws his conclusion: "œSo then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy." Thus both the twins were born children of wrath, not on account of any works of their own, but because they were bound in the fetters of that original condemnation which came through Adam. But He who said, "œI will have mercy on whom I will have mercy," loved Jacob of His undeserved grace, and hated Esau of His deserved judgment. And as this judgment was due to both, the former learnt from the case of the latter that the fact of the same punishment not falling upon himself gave him no room to glory in any merit of his own, but only in the riches of the divine grace; because "œit is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy." And indeed the whole face, and, if I may use the expression, every lineament of the countenance of Scripture conveys by a very profound analogy this wholesome warning to every one who looks carefully into it, that he who glories should glory in the Lord.


Now then, it is my tentative position to disagree with this distinguished author, whose credentials (I´m sure) far exceed my own. I don´t think this reference makes his case for Augustine, especially in light of the fact that only two chapters later Augustine states...


> *Augustine (354-430):* These are the great works of the Lord, sought out according to all His pleasure, and so wisely sought out, that when the intelligent creation, both angelic and human, sinned, doing not His will but their own, He used the very will of the creature which was working in opposition to the Creator´s will as an instrument for carrying out His will, the supremely Good thus turning to good account even what is evil, *to the condemnation of those whom in His justice He has predestined to punishment, and to the salvation of those whom in His mercy He has predestined to grace.* For, as far as relates to their own consciousness, these creatures did what God wished not to be done: but in view of God´s omnipotence, they could in no wise effect their purpose. For in the very fact that they acted in opposition to His will, His will concerning them was fulfilled. And hence it is that "œthe works of the Lord are great, sought out according to all His pleasure," because in a way unspeakably strange and wonderful, even what is done in opposition to His will does not defeat His will. For it would not be done did He not permit it (and of course His permission is not unwilling, but willing); nor would a Good Being permit evil to be done only that in His omnipotence He can turn evil into good. _NPNF1: Vol. III, The Enchiridion_, Chap. 100.


Now, that quote from Augustine seems to affirm (as far as I can tell) a view of double predestination. Moreover, Augustine appears to affirm a view of double predestination elsewhere in his writings...

*Augustine (354-430): What will He give to those whom He has predestined to life, who has given such things even to those whom He has predestined to death?* What blessings will He in the blessed life shower upon those for whom, even in this state of misery, He has been willing that His only-begotten Son should endure such sufferings even to death? _NPNF1: Vol. II, The City of God_, Book XXII, Chapter 24.

*Augustine (354-430):* What did He mean, then, in saying to them, "œYe are not of my sheep"? *That He saw them predestined to everlasting destruction, not won to eternal life by the price of His own blood.* _NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John_, Tractate 48, Â§4.

*Augustine (354-430):* "œAnd they shall never perish:" you may hear the undertone, as if He had said to them, Ye shall perish for ever, because ye are not of my sheep. "œNo one shall pluck them out of my hand." Give still greater heed to this: "œThat which my Father gave me is greater than all." What can the wolf do? What can the thief and the robber? *They destroy none but those predestined to destruction.* But of those sheep of which the apostle says, "œThe Lord knoweth them that are His;" and "œWhom He did foreknow, them He also did predestinate; and whom He did predestinate, them He also called; and whom He called, them He also justified; and whom He justified, them He also glorified;" "” there is none of such sheep as these that the wolf seizes, or the thief steals, or the robber slays. He, who knows what He gave for them, is sure of their number. And it is this that He says: "œNo one shall pluck them out of my hand;" and in reference also to the Father, "œThat which my Father gave me is greater than all." What did the Father give to the Son that was greater than all? To be His own only-begotten Son. What, then, means "œgave"? Was He to whom He gave previously existent, or gave He in the act of begetting? For if He previously existed to whom He gave the gift of Sonship, there was a time when He was, and was not the Son. Far be it from us to suppose that the Lord Christ ever was, and yet was not the Son. Of us such a thing may be said: there was a time when we were the sons of men, but were not the sons of God. For we are made the sons of God by grace, but He by nature, for such was He born. And yet not so, as that one may say, He did not exist till He was born; for He, who was coeternal with the Father, was never unborn. Let him who is wise understand: and whoever understands not, let him believe and be nourished, and he will come to understanding. _NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John_, Tractate 48, Â§6.

*Augustine (354-430):* "œO righteous Father," He saith, "œthe world hath not known Thee." Just because Thou art righteous it hath not known Thee. *It is as that world which has been predestined to condemnation really deserved*, that it hath not known Him; while the world which He hath reconciled unto Himself through Christ hath known Him not of merit, but by grace. *For what else is the knowing of Him, but eternal life? which, while He undoubtedly withheld it from the condemned world, He bestowed on the reconciled.* _NPNF1: Vol. VII, Tractates on John_, Tractate 111, John 17:24-26, Â§5.

Now, J. B. Mozley has argued that Augustine held to a single decree that included both ordination to life for the elect and ordination to everlasting misery for the non-elect... 


> From S. Augustine´s doctrine of original sin, I proceed to his statements on the subject of predestination. S. Augustine, then, held the existence of an eternal Divine decree, separating, antecedently to any difference of desert, one portion of the human race from another; and ordaining one to everlasting life and the other to everlasting misery. J. B. Mozley, _A Treatise on the Augustinian Doctrine of Predestination_, 2nd ed. (New York: E. P. Dutton & Company, 1878), p. 126.


Now, then, to be fair to the above cited author from Volume 2 of _The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century_, he argues that "œthe term _single_ refers to the number of decrees. Stated simply, double-predestination has two decrees of predestination: election and reprobation. Single predestination has only one decree of predestination: election. The non-elect are not the subject of God´s specific predestinating will but instead the subject of God´s general will, or providence. It must be noted that single predestination is not a denial of the concept of reprobation." (p. 481).

However (and I stand to be corrected), I don´t see how it helps to insist on one decree or two decrees with regard to predestination, i.e., apart from historical considerations of how the doctrine has been formulated. For as the writer states, even the single decree view can include the concept of reprobation. But as for Augustine, he explicitly uses the language of predestination when speaking of the non-elect to destruction, as I think I´ve shown from Augustine above. Therefore, presently, I don´t see how one can say that Augustine held to single predestination as opposed to double predestination by arguing that there is only a single decree. But to be strictly biblical, the Bible never never uses the word "œpredestinated" or "œpredestined" when speaking of the reprobate. That particular word is reserved exclusively in Holy Scripture for speaking of the salvation of the elect.

But then, I encourage you to pursue this further from someone much brighter and astute than myself.

Blessings,
DTK

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SRoper (Mar 8, 2005)

Thank you for your reply. It is clear you have given the subject much thought.


----------

