John Cassian

[Steven Avery]

The Works of John Cassian.
The Seven Books of John Cassian on the Incarnation of the Lord, Against Nestorius.
Book III. Chapter I. That Christ, who is God and man in the unity of Person, sprang from Israel and the Virgin Mary according to the flesh.
https://www.catholiccrossreference.online/fathers/index.php/Romans 9:5

That divine teacher of the Churches when in writing to the Romans he was reproving or rather lamenting the unbelief of the Jews, i.e., of his own brethren, made use of these words: “I wished myself,” said he, “to be accursed from Christ, for my brethren, who are my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites, to whom belongeth the adoption as of children, and the glory, and the testaments, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises: whose are the fathers, of whom is Christ according to the flesh, who is over all things, God blessed for ever.”

 

[Steven Avery]

Burgon says ..
https://books.google.com/books?id=nXkw1TAatV8C&pg=PA212

We find that the expression ‘ who is over all [things], God blessed for ever * is expressly acknowledged to refer to our Saviour by the following 60 illustrious names:— ... Cassian, twice ... All these see in Rom. ix. 5, a glorious assertion of the eternal GODhead of Christ.

 

[Steven Avery]

On the Incarnation
On the Divine and the Divinized
https://classicalchristianity.com/2012/10/15/on-the-divine-and-the-divinized/
Full page
https://classicalchristianity.com/category/bysaint/st-john-cassian-ca-360-435/

The name of God would for the faithful be amply sufficient to denote the glory of His Divinity, but by adding over all, God blessed, he excludes a blasphemous and perverse interpretation of it, for fear that some evil-disposed person to depreciate His absolute Divinity might quote the fact that the word God is sometimes applied by grace in the Divine economy temporarily to men, and thus apply it to God by unworthy comparisons, as where God says to Moses: I have given you as a God to Pharaoh, Exo. 7:1 or in this passage: I said you are Gods, where it clearly has the force of a title given by condescension. For as it says I said, it is not a name showing power, so much as a title given by the speaker. But that passage also, where it says: I have given you as a God to Pharaoh, shows the power of the giver rather than the Divinity of him who receives the title. For when it says: I have given, it thereby certainly indicates the power of God, who gave, and not the Divine nature, in the person of the recipient. But when it is said of our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever, the fact is at once proved by the words, and the meaning of the words shown by the name given: because in the case of the Son of God the name of God does not denote an adoption by favour, but what is truly and really His nature. (On the Incarnation Bk. 3.2)

 

[Brianrw]

A very good quote as to how Cassian understands the text, and how it refutes the position that the title "God" is "applied by grace in the Divine economy temporarily to men."

Would it not have been easier for them to assert, as you attempt, that the passage only signifies that Christ is "blessed by God," had that interpretation been allowable to them?

 

[Steven Avery]

A very good quote as to how Cassian understands the text, and how it refutes the position that the title "God" is "applied by grace in the Divine economy temporarily to men."

Which is a rarely made argument.
Where have you seen it made?

And if "God blessed" has your interpretation of blessing people and creation, then it works against his argument. If Christ is God blessed by God, it fits perfectly.

Beyond that, the wording of Cassian looks like it has lots of equivocation.
e.g. this English
"But when it is said of our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever"

Simply does not make much sense. God is blessing God?

=================================

More interesting are the points made here.

Romans 9:5 - If Christ is God, but not God the Father, what God is he?
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...d-but-not-god-the-father-what-god-is-he.2381/

 

[Brianrw]

Which is a rarely made argument.
Where have you seen it made?

The Socinians/Unitarians, for example, utilized it as one of their methods in evading the meaning of the text. It was one of the disputes taken up at the Council of Nicea.

I turned up a couple of examples in the list of heterodox commentators on Romans 9:5 if my memory serves.

Beyond that, the wording of Cassian looks like it has lots of equivocation.
e.g. this English
"But when it is said of our God and Lord Jesus Christ, who is over all, God blessed for ever"

Simply does not make much sense. God is blessing God?

No. He's referring to Christ as "our God and Lord Jesus Christ," and that one subject is in view is also demonstrated in the commentary you fail to duplicate here: "the fact is at once proved by the words, and the meaning of the words shown by the name given: because in the case of the Son of God the name of God does not denote an adoption by favour, but what is truly and really His nature."

 

[Steven Avery]

No. He's referring to Christ as "our God and Lord Jesus Christ," and that one subject is in view is also demonstrated in the commentary you fail to duplicate here: "the fact is at once proved by the words, and the meaning of the words shown by the name given: because in the case of the Son of God the name of God does not denote an adoption by favour, but what is truly and really His nature."

Sounds like the nature of God, like the proper use of the word Godhead (like Godhood, womenhood, etc). More like divinity, which is usually quite different than deity. I mention this distinction often, even the Arians use it, but you seem totally oblivious.

 

[Brianrw]

Sounds like the nature of God, like the proper use of the word Godhead (like Godhood, womenhood, etc). More like divinity, which is usually quite different than deity. I mention this distinction often, even the Arians use it, but you seem totally oblivious.

Oblivious to what? There are numerous Christological heresies, most of which I am familiar with. John Cassian is stating that Christ is called "God" because he truly is, by nature and not adoption, "God." Just what are you trying to assert about Cassian? It is clear in this passage that he understands "God" in reference to "Christ."