Provisionism and the 418 Council of Carthage

The Council of Carthage of 418 opposed errors attributed to Pelagius and Celestius (P&C).  The council defined eight canons, which sometimes serve as a definition of Pelagianism (for another translation including other unrelated canons, see here).  In preparation for an upcoming debate over whether Provisionism (as represented by Leighton Flowers aka LF) is Semi-Pelagian, I thought it may be beneficial to consider the canons of the Council of Carthage of 418.  For the sake of simplicity, I'm taking for granted that P&C held to the views opposed by the Council.  In this case, the canons are expressed first as to positive doctrine and then negatively.  I believe that the negative wording is the actual statement by the council, and the positive is a commentary on the negative.

That Adam was not created by God subject to death. (Canon 1 of 418 Synod)

That whosoever says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he had sinned or not, he would have died in body—that is, he would have gone forth of the body, not because his sin merited this, but by natural necessity, let him be anathema.

I cannot say whether LF agrees or disagrees with P&C as to this canon.  I note that Old Earth creationists (and theistic evolutionists) may easily run afoul of this canon.

That infants are baptized for the remission of sins. (Canon 2 of 418 Synod)

Likewise it seemed good that whosoever denies that infants newly from their mother’s wombs should be baptized, or says that baptism is for remission of sins, but that they derive from Adam no original sin, which needs to be removed by the laver of regeneration, from whence the conclusion follows, that in them the form of baptism for the remission of sins, is to be understood as false and not true, let him be anathema. For no otherwise can be understood what the Apostle says, “By one man sin is come into the world, and death through sin, and so death passed upon all men in that all have sinned,” than the Catholic Church everywhere diffused has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who could have committed as yet no sin themselves, therefore are truly baptized for the remission of sins, in order that what in them is the result of generation may be cleansed by regeneration.

LF agrees with P&C here.  

That the grace of God not only gives remission of sins, but also affords aid that we sin no more. (Canon 3 of 418 Synod)

Likewise it seemed good, that whoever should say that the grace of God, by which a man is justified through Jesus Christ our Lord, avails only for the remission of past sins, and not for assistance against committing sins in the future, let him be anathema.

I think that LF disagrees with P&C here.

That the grace of Christ gives not only the knowledge of our duty, but also inspires us with a desire that we may be able to accomplish what we know. (Canon 4 of 418 Synod)

Also, whoever shall say that the same grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord helps us only in not sinning by revealing to us and opening to our understanding the commandments, so that we may know what to seek, what we ought to avoid, and also that we should love to do so, but that through it we are not helped so that we are able to do what we know we should do, let him be anathema. For when the Apostle says: “Wisdom puffeth up, but charity edifieth” it were truly infamous were we to believe that we have the grace of Christ for that which puffeth us up, but have it not for that which edifieth, since in each case it is the gift of God, both to know what we ought to do, and to love to do it; so that wisdom cannot puff us up while charity is edifying us. For as of God it is written, “Who teacheth man knowledge,” so also it is written, “Love is of God.”

I think that LF agrees with P&C here, at least as it pertains to someone who is presently an unbeliever.

That without the grace of God we can do no good thing. (Canon 5 of 418 Synod)

It seemed good that whosoever should say that the grace of justification was given to us only that we might be able more readily by grace to perform what we were ordered to do through our free will; as if though grace was not given, although not easily, yet nevertheless we could even without grace fulfil the divine commandments, let him be anathema. For the Lord spake concerning the fruits of the commandments, when he said: “Without me ye can do nothing,” and not “Without me ye could do it but with difficulty.”

 I think that LF at least partially agrees with P&C here.

That not only humble but also true is that voice of the Saints: “If we say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves.” (Canon 6 of 418 Synod)

It also seemed good that as St. John the Apostle says, “If we shall say that we have no sin we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us,” whosoever thinks that this should be so understood as to mean that out of humility, we ought to say that we have sin, and not because it is really so, let him be anathema. For the Apostle goes on to add, “But if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all iniquity,” where it is sufficiently clear that this is said not only of humility but also truly. For the Apostle might have said, “If we shall say we have no sins we shall extoll ourselves, and humility shall have no place in us;” but when he says, “we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us” he sufficiently intimates that he who affirmed that he had no sin would speak not that which is true but that which is false.

I think that LF mostly disagrees with P&C here.

That in the Lord’s Prayer the Saints say for themselves: “Forgive us our trespasses.” (Canon 7 of 418 Synod)

It has seemed good that whoever should say that when in the Lord’s prayer, the saints say, “forgive us our trespasses,” they say this not for themselves, because they have no need of this petition, but for the rest who are sinners of the people; and that therefore no one of the saints can say, “Forgive me my trespasses,” but “Forgive us our trespasses;” so that the just is understood to seek this for others rather than for himself; let him be anathema. For holy and just was the Apostle James, when he said, “For in many things we offend all.” For why was it added “all,” unless that this sentence might agree also with the psalm, where we read, “Enter not into judgment with thy servant, O Lord, for in thy sight shall no man living be justified;” and in the prayer of the most wise Solomon: “There is no man that sinneth not;” and in the book of the holy Job: “He sealeth in the hand of every man, that every man may know his own infirmity;” wherefore even the holy and just Daniel when in prayer said several times: “We have sinned, we have done iniquity,” and other things which there truly and humbly he confessed; nor let it be thought (as some have thought) that this was said not of his own but rather of the people’s sins, for he said further on: “When I shall pray and confess my sins and the sins of my people to the Lord my God;” he did not wish to say our sins, but he said the sins of his people and his own sins, since he as a prophet foresaw that those who were to come would thus misunderstand his words.

I think that LF firmly disagrees with P&C here.

That the Saints say with accuracy, “Forgive us our trespasses.” (Canon 8 of 418 Synod)

Likewise also it seemed good, that whoever wished that these words of the Lord’s prayer, when we say, “Forgive us our trespasses” are said by the saints out of humility and not in truth let them be anathema. For who would make a lying prayer, not to men but to God? Who would say with his lips that he wished his sins forgiven him, but in his heart that he had no sins to be forgiven.

I think that LF firmly disagrees with P&C here.