Thank you for this extended explanation. Such excellent discourse enlightens the soul. I covet the opportunity to learn from those who I admire. You make many good points about the Cassian view. The few points where my reformed theological background tugs me back from understanding boil down to fundamental concepts about the degree to which humans have control over their sinful nature. That is the foundation beneath my views on dealing with passions like anger.
My difference with Cassian on some points is likely due to my years as a student of R.C. Sproul. In the debate between Augustine and Pelagius, Cassian’s teaching was presented as a “less flawed” middle ground position in Sproul’s teaching. That Cassian felt the church had gone too far in accepting Augustinian teaching as doctrine and needed to be pulled back. I understand and agree with Cassian’s position on some things, such as his refined view of predestination. I was never able to fully come to terms with his teaching about the interaction of human free will and grace. But I was a student of Sproul, not a follower. I was never able to fully come to terms with all of Calvin’s TULIP either. When it comes to the finer understanding of fallen human passions, I know I have room to grow.
This is my current understanding: Augustine posited that innate human passions like anger only became a dispositive aspect of human free will after the fall when sin became inherent in the nature of humankind. As a result, controlling or eradicating those passions can only happen via an act of grace by God. We can pray for grace, but whether or not we receive it is solely at the will of God. Pelagius believed that the original sin was Adam’s alone, and not passed along to humanity in in subsequent generations. Because he believed that people were basically born good (without sinful nature), he believed that negative human passions were a moral defect which could be fully remedied by enlightenment and acts of human will. Cassian believed that grace was required, but that whether and when grace could act was controlled by human will. Both grace and human will are required. So, the difference in beliefs is one of monergism vs synergism in the utility of grace. As it relates to dealing with passions like anger, so far, I have come to believe the more monergistic view.
While the manifestations of and freedom from original sin may be my core issue regarding what we can actually do about anger, it doesn’t address the stickier issue (stickier for me at least) of whether or not anger fulfills any useful purpose. I can see both sides of this question. I’m not sure I can clearly articulate my gut feelings about it. We might also ask what purpose is served by Christ leaving us to struggle with the sin within us instead or eradicating it after saving our souls from its eternal condemnation. The answer to that broader question on original sin is more clearly defined by widely accepted doctrine regarding sanctification. Perhaps it is the same answer for anger, but persuasive arguments can obviously be made for other perspectives.
As someone who has struggled with anger on a personal level, I have been drawn to the perspectives that align with the spiritual disciplines that have proven helpful to me in that regard. Your thoughtful writing has reminded me that every time I am led to dig deeper into the teachings of the early church fathers, it is a blessing. I’m looking forward now to studying Cassian further.
Thank you for this extended explanation. Such excellent discourse enlightens the soul. I covet the opportunity to learn from those who I admire. You make many good points about the Cassian view. The few points where my reformed theological background tugs me back from understanding boil down to fundamental concepts about the degree to which humans have control over their sinful nature. That is the foundation beneath my views on dealing with passions like anger.
My difference with Cassian on some points is likely due to my years as a student of R.C. Sproul. In the debate between Augustine and Pelagius, Cassian’s teaching was presented as a “less flawed” middle ground position in Sproul’s teaching. That Cassian felt the church had gone too far in accepting Augustinian teaching as doctrine and needed to be pulled back. I understand and agree with Cassian’s position on some things, such as his refined view of predestination. I was never able to fully come to terms with his teaching about the interaction of human free will and grace. But I was a student of Sproul, not a follower. I was never able to fully come to terms with all of Calvin’s TULIP either. When it comes to the finer understanding of fallen human passions, I know I have room to grow.
This is my current understanding: Augustine posited that innate human passions like anger only became a dispositive aspect of human free will after the fall when sin became inherent in the nature of humankind. As a result, controlling or eradicating those passions can only happen via an act of grace by God. We can pray for grace, but whether or not we receive it is solely at the will of God. Pelagius believed that the original sin was Adam’s alone, and not passed along to humanity in in subsequent generations. Because he believed that people were basically born good (without sinful nature), he believed that negative human passions were a moral defect which could be fully remedied by enlightenment and acts of human will. Cassian believed that grace was required, but that whether and when grace could act was controlled by human will. Both grace and human will are required. So, the difference in beliefs is one of monergism vs synergism in the utility of grace. As it relates to dealing with passions like anger, so far, I have come to believe the more monergistic view.
While the manifestations of and freedom from original sin may be my core issue regarding what we can actually do about anger, it doesn’t address the stickier issue (stickier for me at least) of whether or not anger fulfills any useful purpose. I can see both sides of this question. I’m not sure I can clearly articulate my gut feelings about it. We might also ask what purpose is served by Christ leaving us to struggle with the sin within us instead or eradicating it after saving our souls from its eternal condemnation. The answer to that broader question on original sin is more clearly defined by widely accepted doctrine regarding sanctification. Perhaps it is the same answer for anger, but persuasive arguments can obviously be made for other perspectives.
As someone who has struggled with anger on a personal level, I have been drawn to the perspectives that align with the spiritual disciplines that have proven helpful to me in that regard. Your thoughtful writing has reminded me that every time I am led to dig deeper into the teachings of the early church fathers, it is a blessing. I’m looking forward now to studying Cassian further.
Your brother Coram Deo,
Greg Williams
www.christiansoldier21.org
Hmmm... What do you think of the verses that describe God's anger?
Glad to see the impassibilists come out ahead