Here is an excellent article comparing the Council Trent with the Second Council of Orange. Trent was an ecumenical council calling all the bishops of the Church to attend or with representatives and held as binding on all Catholics. The Second Council of Orange was a local council, but received papal approval by Pope Felix IV, making them binding on the Faithful.
Many Calvinists think the Second Council of Orange approved of their theology. This article explains how this is incorrect.
Just as a helpful note on "actual grace" or "helping grace" and "sanctifying grace":
In Christian theology, "actual grace" or "helping grace" and "sanctifying grace" are distinct concepts.
"Actual grace" or "helping grace" refers to the temporary assistance given by God to help a person to perform a specific good action or avoid a specific evil action. This type of grace is said to be "actual" because it refers to God's grace accepted by a person to help him to act according to His will, man is always free to reject such graces.
On the other hand, "sanctifying grace" refers to the state of grace in which a person is placed when they receive God's forgiveness for all their sins and are reconciled into Him in Baptism. This type of grace is said to be "sanctifying" because it transforms a person to be holy, remitting all sin, and transforming them from a state of sinfulness to a state of righteousness and making him or her an adopted child of God and incorporates one into the Mystical Body of Christ-- the Church.
While actual grace is temporary and specific to a particular situation or action; it is available before and after justification. Sanctifying grace (justification) is transformative, changing the very nature of the person into a child of God. Sanctifying grace can be lost by mortal sin (and regained through the sacrament of confession) but being a child of God can never be lost the soul is marked or sealed and this is permanent:
Ephesians 1:13
"having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of the promise"
In short, actual grace is a temporary assistance to help a person act in accordance with God's will, while sanctifying grace is a transformation that makes a person holy and righteous.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:
calledtocommunion.com
John Hendryx is a PCA member who studied at Reformed Theological Seminary and owns and edits Monergism.com, a well known Reformed website and online Reformed library and bookstore. He has posted an article claiming that the sixth session of the Council of Trent (AD 1547) is at odds with the Second Council of Orange (AD 529). Because the acts of the Second Council of Orange were approved by Pope Boniface II on January 25, in AD 531, if Hendryx’s claims were true, this would imply that at the Council of Trent the Magisterium of the Church rejected soteriological doctrines it had previously affirmed over a thousand years earlier, and would thereby strengthen the Reformed claim to have preserved the authentic soteriology of the early Church. Here I show two things: first, that the Tridentine canons Hendryx thinks are contrary to the doctrine promulgated by the Second Council of Orange are not only entirely compatible with the teaching of Orange but in full continuity with it, and second, that in multiple ways Reformed theology deviates from the soteriological doctrines taught at the Second Council of Orange.
Interior of the Cathedral at Orange, France
Hendryx quotes the following three canons from the Second Council of Orange.
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 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him “unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:3).
Against those three canons, he juxtaposes three canons from the sixth session of the Council of Trent:
CANON 4. If anyone says that man’s free will moved and aroused by God, by assenting to God’s call and action, in no way cooperates toward disposing and preparing itself to obtain the grace of justification, that it cannot refuse its assent if it wishes, but that, as something inanimate, it does nothing whatever and is merely passive, let him be anathema.
CANON 5. If anyone says that after the sin of Adam man’s free will was lost and destroyed, or that it is a thing only in name, indeed a name without a reality, a fiction introduced into the Church by Satan, let him be anathema.
CANON 11. If anyone says that men are justified either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost,[116] and remains in them, or also that the grace by which we are justified is only the good will of God, let him be anathema.
All the canons of the Second Council of Orange are available here, and all the chapters and canons of the sixth session of the Council of Trent are available here.
John Hendryx
The purpose of the Second Council of Orange was to address the error of Semipelagianism, and for this reason the canons of Orange condemn Semipelagian errors. Semipelagianism is not the claim that we, once moved by God’s prevenient grace, freely choose whether to cooperate or not with that grace. Nor is Semipelgianism the notion that fallen man retains free will, or that justification is by divine favor alone. Rather, Semipelagianism is the notion that we, without grace, make the first move toward God, and that God then gives grace in response. While Pelagianism denies that grace is necessary for salvation, Semipelagianism admits that grace is necessary for salvation. But Semipelagianism denies that prevenient grace is necessary for salvation. According to Semipelagianism, post-fall man can draw near to God without God first moving him to do so; God waits for man to make the first move, and then God gives grace to those who entirely on their own initiative first draw near to Him.
In his article Hendryx makes four claims. He claims that the sixth canon of Orange is at odds with the doctrine taught in the sixth session of Trent, that the fifth canon of Orange is at odds with the fourth canon of the sixth session of the Council of Trent, that the eighth canon of Orange is at odds with fifth canon of the sixth session of Trent, and that the eleventh canon of the sixth session of Trent anathematizes both the Second Council of Orange and St. Augustine. Below I examine these four claims each in turn.
Does the Doctrine of Trent Contradict the Sixth Canon of Orange?
Hendryx claims that the sixth canon of Orange (see above) is at odds with the doctrine set forward in the sixth session of Trent. The sixth canon of Orange teaches that in matters of salvation, we cannot make the first move. Any move we make (e.g. belief, will, desire, prayer, etc.) toward God is itself already a gift of God’s grace working in us. In no place does the Council of Trent deny this. In fact, Trent affirms this very doctrine in chapter five of session six, and in Canon 3 of that same session, which reads:
Canon 3: If anyone says that without the predisposing inspiration of the Holy Ghost and without His help, man can believe, hope, love or be repentant as he ought, so that the grace of justification may be bestowed upon him, let him be anathema.
Thus in continuity with the Second Council of Orange, Canon 3 of the sixth session of Trent directly condemns Semipelagianism.
But someone might think that Canon 6 of Orange is at odds with Canon 9 of the sixth session of Trent, which reads:
Canon 9: If any one saith, that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean, that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of Justification, and that it is not in any way necessary, that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.
Prima facie, it might seem that Canon 6 of Orange is condemning the notion that we can prepare to receive grace, while Canon 9 of Trent’s sixth session is at least condemning the notion that we cannot prepare to receive grace. However, that construal oversimplifies what each canon is teaching. Canon 6 of Orange condemns the notion that we make the first move in the reconciliation of our friendship with God, and thus that God’s first movement toward us depends on a prior move by us toward Him. Any movement we make toward Him is a result of His actual grace already at work in us. So the grace in view in Canon 6 of Orange is actual grace. On the other hand, Canon 9 of the sixth session of Trent is not teaching that we make the first move in reconciling with God. Canon 9 of the sixth session of Trent is referring to the grace of justification, which is sanctifying grace. Sanctifying grace is distinct from actual grace.
Actual grace is the grace whereby God moves us to (among other things) respond to the gospel and seek to be baptized, while sanctifying grace is the grace infused into us at baptism, by which, along with infused faith and agape we are immediately justified. Thus when Canon 9 of Trent’s sixth session speaks of the necessity of preparing for grace, it is referring to preparing for the reception of sanctifying grace in baptism. It presupposes that our preparation for baptism is already the fruit of actual grace at work in us. Likewise, when Canon 9 of Trent’s sixth session speaks of cooperating in order to obtain the grace of justification, it is referring to cooperating with actual grace.
Here again, one might think that cooperating with actual grace would be contrary to Canon 6 of Orange if cooperation is seen as something we do by our own strength and choice. But Canon 9 of the sixth session of Trent has in view the Augustinian distinction between operative actual grace and cooperative actual grace.1 Operative actual grace is that grace by which God moves us without us, from a condition in which we cannot cooperate with actual grace or do anything in the supernatural order, to a condition in which we can freely cooperate with actual grace. Cooperative actual grace is that grace by which, after God has moved us by way of operative actual grace and we have then freely corresponded to it, God moves us with us. (On the distinction between actual grace and sanctifying grace, as well as the distinction between operative actual grace and cooperative actual grace, see “Lawrence Feingold on Sanctifying Grace and Actual Grace.”)
While Canon 6 of Orange is teaching that operative actual grace precedes and underlies all cooperation with actual grace, Canon 9 of session six of Trent is teaching that following upon the divine movement within us by way of operative actual grace, cooperation with actual grace is necessary for receiving sanctifying grace in baptism. So the truth of Canon 6 of Orange is fully compatible with the truth of Canon 9 of session six of Trent.
Does the Fourth Canon of Trent’s Sixth Session Contradict the Fifth Canon of Orange?
Hendryx claims that the fifth canon of Orange is at odds with the fourth canon of the sixth session of the Council of Trent. He writes:
CANON IV. If any one shall affirm, that man’s freewill, moved and excited by God, does not, by consenting, cooperate with God, the mover and exciter, so as to prepare and dispose itself for the attainment of justification; if moreover, anyone shall say, that the human will cannot refuse complying, if it pleases, but that it is inactive, and merely passive; let such an one be accursed”! [Note: Compare with Orange 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 … 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)….] (emphases his)
By the emphases in his quotations, Hendryx seems to be reasoning that because Orange condemns the notion that the beginning of faith is from us and not by grace, and because Trent teaches that cooperation with grace is necessary for justification, therefore, Trent is contradicting Orange. But that conclusion does not follow. The fifth canon of Orange teaches that the beginning of faith and the desire for the faith that comes to us in the regeneration of holy baptism is not something we have by nature, but is a gift of grace by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit turning our will from unbelief to faith. This canon is directly condemning the error of Semipelagianism. By contrast, the fourth canon of the sixth session of Trent teaches that after a man has been so moved by the operative actual grace of the Holy Spirit, he must actively cooperate with actual grace by his free will in disposing himself to receive the grace of justification in baptism. So Canon 4 of the sixth session of Trent is affirming that in response to the gift of operative actual grace man must cooperate to prepare himself for justification in baptism, whereas the fifth canon of Orange is affirming that the beginning of faith and the very desire for faith do not belong to us by nature but are gifts of operative actual grace. Thus there is no contradiction between the two canons, because they are condemning two distinct errors, and neither condemnation entails a denial of the other. The two canons appear to be incompatible only if we fail to distinguish between actual grace and sanctifying grace.
Does the Fifth Canon of Trent’s Sixth Session Contradict the Eighth Canon of Orange?
Hendryx claims that the eighth canon of Orange is at odds with the fifth canon of the sixth session of Trent. He writes:
CANON V.- If anyone shall affirm, that since the fall of Adam, man’s freewill is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing titular, yea a name, without a thing, and a fiction introduced by Satan into the Church; let such an one be accursed”! [Note: Compare with Orange CANON 8 If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him “unless the Father who sent me draws him” (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor. 12:3).(emphases his)
Canon 8 of Orange condemns the notion that some men, by free will alone (without grace), are able to come to the grace of baptism. This canon teaches that the grace of the Holy Spirit is necessary for anyone to come to the grace of baptism. Human free will alone, without the aid of grace, is unable to bring any man to seek the grace of baptism. Canon 5 of the sixth session of Trent, by contrast, condemns the notion that fallen man no longer has free will. So while Canon 8 of Orange affirms that grace is necessary to come to baptism, and that free will alone is insufficient to do so, Canon 5 of the sixth session of Trent affirms that man retains free will even after the fall. Once again, there is no contradiction between these two canons because they are speaking of two distinct things: the necessity of grace in order to come to baptism, and the post-fall retention of the free will we have by nature as rational creatures. These two canons are fully compatible because affirming that free will remains after the fall does not entail that grace is not necessary in order to come to baptism.
Some have claimed that Canon 5 of the sixth session of Trent is incompatible with Canon 13 of Orange, which reads:
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).
At first glance there might appear to be a contradiction between Canon 13 of Orange and Canon 5 of Trent’s sixth session, because Canon 13 of Orange teaches that the free will destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, whereas Canon 5 of the sixth session of Trent teaches that free will is not lost or extinguished after the fall. But there is no actual contradiction, because by ‘free will’ they each mean something different. Canon 13 of Orange is referring to the power had by Adam and Eve through the sanctifying grace with which they were endowed at their creation, and by which they could avoid sin, and merit eternal life. (See Canon 1 of Orange.) That power was “destroyed” (Orange, Canon 13) by sin, and “corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man” (Orange, Canon 8). It is restored “only through the grace of baptism” (Canon 13).
In its conclusion (or “demonstration”) the Council of Orange states:
The sin of the first man has so impaired and weakened free will that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought or believe in God or do good for God’s sake, unless the grace of divine mercy has preceded him.
All these statements indicate that the ‘free will’ in view in the statements at Orange is the power to choose in the supernatural order, whether to believe (with supernatural faith) and whether to love God and men (with supernatural agape). By contrast, the free will in view in Canon 5 of the sixth session of Trent is the natural power of man that belongs to him by nature, by which power he can choose in the natural order between right and wrong, good and evil. That natural power is incapable of choosing or attaining a supernatural end (i.e. heaven) without grace; see “Nature, Grace, and Man’s Supernatural End: Feingold, Kline, and Clark.” That natural power was not destroyed by Adam’s sin; the Council of Orange states that through the fall human nature “remained in that sound state in which it was created.” (Canon 19) And in its conclusion, the Council of Orange notes that faith is not given through natural goodness, but by the grace of God, and adds, “And we know and also believe that even after the coming of our Lord this grace is not to be found in the free will of all who desire to be baptized…” This shows clearly that the Council of Orange distinguished the two conceptions of free will. In Canon 13 of Orange, the free will referred to is that which was destroyed by Adam’s sin and is “restored only through the grace of baptism.” But in the Council of Orange’s conclusion it speaks of the natural free will possessed by those who desire to be baptized. If they desire to be baptized, they cannot have already been baptized, in which case the free will that is “restored only through the grace of baptism” must be distinct from the free will Orange recognizes to be retained even by the unregenerate.
So the appearance of contradiction here between Canon 5 of the sixth session of Trent and Canon 13 of Orange is only an appearance, because in their use of the term ‘free will’ the two canons are not referring to the same power. Canon 13 of Orange is referring to the will as aided by supernatural gifts with which God endowed Adam and Eve at their creation.2 Canon 5 of the sixth session of Trent, however, is referring to the will itself apart from those supernatural gifts lost by Adam’s sin. This conception of natural free will as something possessed by the unregenerate is found even in the conclusion of the Council of Orange.
Does the Eleventh Canon of Trent’s Sixth Session Anathematize the Second Council of Orange and St. Augustine?
Lastly, Hendryx claims that the eleventh canon of the sixth session of Trent anathematizes both the Second Council of Orange and St. Augustine. Hendryx writes:
CANON XI.-If any one saith, that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ, or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost, and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favour of God; let him be anathema. [Note: this says if the “the grace, whereby we are justified, is ONLY the favour of God; let him be anathema.” In Other her words, RCC outright rejects SOLA GRATIA – salvation by grace alone in Christ alone, thereby anathematizing both Augustine and their own early church council.] (his emphases)
Hendryx asserts that Canon 11 of the sixth session of Trent anathematizes the Council of Orange. But he does not quote anything from the Council of Orange that is supposed to be incompatible with this Tridentine canon, or provide any evidence to substantiate his assertion. Canon 11 of the sixth session of Trent teaches that justification is not solely by an extra nos imputation of righteousness or solely by the remission of sins, and that the grace whereby we are justified is not merely the favor of God. These three notions are each insufficient for justification because they each reduce justification to something only extrinsic to man, whereas a man is not truly justified who is not truly righteous, i.e. righteous internally.3
This canon teaches that we are justified only if grace and charity have been poured forth into our hearts by the Holy Spirit so as to be inherent in us, i.e. as “sanctifying grace,” and as the virtue of agape, not merely actual grace, and an act of agape. Men are justified only when they are made righteous within, by the infusion of grace and agape. That doctrine in no way contravenes any statement by the Second Council of Orange. Hendryx seems to think that by denying that the grace whereby we are justified is only the favor of God, Trent condemned the Second Council of Orange. But the Second Council of Orange in no place teaches that the grace whereby we are justified is only the favor of God. On the contrary, although favor is not something that can be infused or operate upon us, most of the uses of the term ‘grace’ in the Council of Orange are referring to internal gifts or helps operating within or infused into us by the Holy Spirit.
Finally, what of Hendryx’s claim that Canon 11 of the sixth session of Trent anathematized St. Augustine? Whether Hendryx’s claim is true depends on whether St. Augustine believed and taught justification by extra nos imputation, or justification by infusion of agape. In fact St. Augustine understood justification as the infusion of agape — i.e. the writing of the law on the heart “so that they might be justified” (On the Spirit and the Letter, 29). A few lines later St. Augustine writes, “See how he [i.e. St. Paul] shows that the one [i.e. the Law of Moses] is written without [i.e. outside of] man, that it may alarm him from without; the other within man himself, that it may justify him from within.” (On the Spirit and the Letter, 30) And some paragraphs later in that same work St. Augustine writes,
For this writing in the heart is effected by renovation, although it had not been completely blotted out by the old nature. For just as that image of God is renewed in the mind of believers by the new testament, which impiety had not quite abolished (for there had remained undoubtedly that which the soul of man cannot be except it be rational), so also the law of God, which had not been wholly blotted out there by unrighteousness, is certainly written thereon, renewed by grace. Now in the Jews the law which was written on tables could not effect this new inscription, which is justification, but only transgression. (On the Spirit and the Letter, 48)
Here St. Augustine explicitly states that justification is the writing of the law on the heart, i.e. the infusion of agape.
There are many other such examples (see, for example, “St. Augustine on Law and Grace“). Justification, for St. Augustine and the Church Fathers is not by extra nos imputation, but by the infusion of grace and agape, which infusion is the writing of the law on the heart. God, who is the Truth, counts us righteous only if by this supernatural gift of grace and agape poured out into our hearts we are truly righteous within. Thus in no way did Canon 11 of the sixth session of Trent anathematize St. Augustine or his doctrine. In teaching justification by the infusion of grace and agape Trent was, in fact, teaching exactly what St. Augustine himself taught about justification.
Conclusion
So why do monergists believe that Trent contradicted St. Augustine and the Second Council of Orange? Primarily because they do not distinguish between actual grace and sanctifying grace, and therefore do not distinguish between the actual grace whereby God operates in us without us, and the sanctifying grace inhering within us whereby we are justified. Because they fail to recognize this distinction, monergists mistakenly treat what St. Augustine and the Council of Orange say about the monergistic character of operative actual grace as though it applies also to cooperative actual grace and sanctifying grace. They therefore mistakenly interpret any notion of cooperation with grace in justification as Semipelagian.
But this distinction between actual grace and sanctifying grace is already apparent in multiple places in the canons of the Second Council of Orange. According to Orange, the grace of regeneration and justification is received through the sacrament of baptism:
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 … (Canon 5)
Notice there the distinction between the increase of faith, and the beginning of faith. The beginning of faith is the act of faith through actual grace. But the increase of faith – that by which faith inheres within us as a virtue – comes through baptism. Hence Canon 21 speaks of the grace “which faith in Christ advocates and lays hold of.” The initial faith by which one believes the gospel leads to laying hold of the sanctifying grace that comes to us through the regeneration of holy baptism (Canon 5). That would make no sense if justification were by faith alone, since in that case the person having initial faith would not need to lay hold of anything for cleansing, or be regenerated by holy baptism.
The Council of Orange refers to actual grace when it says “our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit,” and “The will is prepared by the Lord” (Prov. 8:35, LXX), moving us to desire faith and godliness (Canon 4). The will to be cleansed is something in us prior to being cleansed. The will to be cleansed is not in us by nature, but by grace. So the grace by which we will to be cleansed is distinct from the grace by which we are cleansed. Being cleansed is through sanctifying grace received at baptism. Willing to be cleansed is the result of grace moving us prior to being cleansed. And therefore the willing to be cleansed is the result not of sanctifying grace, but of actual grace. Similarly, the notion of the Holy Spirit working in us to “prepare” the will (Canon 4) is referring to the actual grace given by which we prepare for the sanctifying grace received in baptism. The statement “If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will …” (Canon 8) shows that according to Orange, we receive grace at baptism, and this is not the same grace we receive prior to baptism, the grace by which we desire baptism and prepare for baptism. Here too Orange distinguishes between actual grace and sanctifying grace.
In its concluding paragraphs the Council of Orange also distinguishes between actual grace and sanctifying grace, in the following statements:
And we know and also believe that even after the coming of our Lord this grace is not to be found in the free will of all who desire to be baptized, but is bestowed by the kindness of Christ, …
According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. … We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him.
Here Orange teaches that grace is “received through baptism,” and that prior to our baptism God is at work in us to inspire within us both faith in Him and love for Him “so that we may … faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism.” The work of God in us, prior to baptism, is actual grace. The grace that is “received through baptism” is sanctifying grace, by which we are cleansed (i.e. justified) and are, with the aid of actual grace, then “able by His help to do what is pleasing to Him.”
In short, the distinction between actual grace and sanctifying grace is present in the canons of the Second Council of Orange, as is the distinction between operative actual grace, whereby God works in us without us, and cooperative actual grace, whereby God continues to move us as we correspond freely to this grace, in order to prepare ourselves to receive the grace of justification in baptism. This doctrine in which upon being moved by operative actual grace we must with God’s cooperative actual grace prepare ourselves to receive the grace of justification through baptism is contrary to the Reformed conception of justification as monergistic. Moreover, Second Orange, like Trent, affirms baptismal regeneration (Canons 5, 8, 13, and Conclusion). By contrast, Reformed theology denies baptismal regeneration and according to PCA pastor Wes White, the doctrine of baptismal regeneration is “impossible in the Reformed system.”4 In its conclusion Second Orange strongly condemned the notion that some people are foreordained to evil (i.e. sin or hell) by the power of God such that they could not but be evil or avoid hell, and in this way Second Orange condemned the notion of double predestination, according to which God created some people for heaven and created other persons for hell. By contrast, for John Calvin, God for His good pleasure predestined some men to hell and sin in the same ‘positive’ way He predestined others to heaven.5
So it turns out that what is contrary to the Second Council of Orange is not anything from the sixth Session of Trent, but rather the Reformed notions that justification is monergistic, is by faith alone, does not require preparation or cooperation on our part, is not given through baptism, and that some people are foreordained to evil by the power of God.6
- St. Augustine writes, “He operates, therefore, without our help, in order that we may will; but when we will, and will so as to act, He co-operates with us.” (On Grace and Free Will, 33) St. Thomas explains that distinction in more detail in Summa Theologica II-I Q.111 a.2. [↩]
- Regarding the supernatural gifts with which Adam and Eve were endowed at their creation see “Lawrence Feingold on Original Justice and Original Sin.” [↩]
- See “Imputation and Paradigms: A Reply to Nicholas Batzig.” [↩]
- See “The Church Fathers on Baptismal Regeneration.” [↩]
- Cf. Institutes, III.21.6; III.22.11; III.23.1. [↩]
- Monergism is motivated by philosophical assumptions among which are that God receives the most glory when God alone receives glory, and that the degree of glory is determined entirely by the degree of causality exercised, such that the greater the causality exercised, the greater the glory received. Claiming on this basis that justification must be monergistic so that God alone receives the glory is inconsistent with accepting synergistic sanctification (see Kevin DeYoung’s “Is Sanctification Monergistic or Synergistic: A Reformed Survey“), or granting that creatures have genuine causal powers. See “The Gospel and the Paradox of Glory.” [↩]
No comments:
Post a Comment