Pelagianism - The Default Mode of the Human Heart

“Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire.” Thee are the words, from the pen of Augustine, that infuriated Pelagius, and they still enrage the heart of natural man today.

I dare say that 90% of western Christians are not even aware of who Pelagius was, they espouse his views on soteriology, nonetheless.

It matters not which label a man chooses, or is he claims to have no label. A huge percentage of people filling the pews of mega-churches/entertainment-driven (your average church) on Sundays live, walk, and talk as Pelagians, and they do so because Pelagianism is the religion of natural man.

It takes the renewing of one's mind, through the careful study of scripture, and of course, good teachers, to help us see things as they truly are.

When the Church fails to catechize her children we end up repeating errors which are centuries old.

 

I understand your concern, but I disagree.

In 35 years in the church, I have spoken to many, many people about this. I can count on one hand those who have mentioned "prevenient grace".

Prevenient grace is largely what separates the Pelagian position from the Arminian position.

I won't argue that there aren't many semi-Pelagians in the mix, I'm not making an absolute statement, but the average person warming a pew thinks that people are saved when they use their (unaided) reason to simply "choose this day. . ." or "open the door to their heart".

Explain the philosophy of the "seeker friendly" movement, which has dominated American Evangelicalism for decades, if it is not Pelagian.

Whether we like it or not, Charles Finney is alive and well in the church today.

When asked, "why is one man saved, but his neighbor not?" The overwhelming majority will simply reply: "free will". In other words, they chose, to choose Christ, but their neighbor wasn't persuaded that it was a good deal. That is a Pelagian, not semi-Pelagian, view.

I will grant that many will say, afterward, that they need God's help/assistance to live the Christian life, and they will all say that Christ died for their sins, but I am thinking strictly about soteriology in this thread.

 

*** Please note this. I am not, in this thread, discussing what a person's official position on these doctrines is or what the official position of their church/denomination is.

As I've stated, most are too ignorant of church history to even have a discussion on these things. What I am talking about here is not the official doctrinal position of one's church, but one's actual functional theology. How they actually live; how they actually present the gospel; how they argue these points here and elsewhere. What they hold in their hearts regarding these matters. . .

 

You may disagree with me, but were you aware that RC Sproul made the same argument that I have made in this thread?

In a George Barna poll, more than seventy percent of “professing evangelical Christians” in America expressed the belief that man is basically good. And more than eighty percent articulated the view that God helps those who help themselves. These positions — or let me say it negatively — neither of these positions is semi-Pelagian. They’re both Pelagian.
​

The above comes from an article called, The Pelagian Captivity of the Church It's a good read: The Pelagian Captivity of the Church, by R.C. Sproul

 

So am I. I like to think that I walk a line very close to the middle of these two groups, and as difficult a position as that is to be in, I count it a strength.

 

***Sorry, I mistook that for a reply to me***

I live in the northeast. That's why. I'm aware of Founders. Thanks. I've visited a few churches on the church finder.

The closest church to me is dried up and gone. The next closest (30-minute drive) is very dispensational and has a legalistic bent. After that, it's 50, 60-minute drive to a church with 20 people in it, which seems disinterested in being a light to its community, which is the same charge I would lay on many Reformed churches, Baptist or not.

We are planning a move to a southern strictly because of the difficult church situation here. I've been looking at a church which isn't on your church finder, for some reason; although I see no reason why it shouldn't be.

 

The Pelagian Captivity of the Church
by R.C. Sproul
I’ve often wondered if Luther were alive today and came to our culture and looked, not at the liberal church community, but at evangelical churches, what would he have to say? Of course I can’t answer that question with any kind of definitive authority, but my guess is this: If Martin Luther lived today and picked up his pen to write, the book he would write in our time would be entitled The Pelagian Captivity of the Evangelical Church. Luther saw the doctrine of justification as fueled by a deeper theological problem. He writes about this extensively in The Bondage of the Will. When we look at the Reformation and we see the solas of the Reformation — sola Scriptura, sola fide, solus Christus, soli Deo gloria, sola gratia — Luther was convinced that the real issue of the Reformation was the issue of grace; and that underlying the doctrine of solo fide, justification by faith alone, was the prior commitment to sola gratia, the concept of justification by grace alone.

. . .
Modern Evangelicalism almost uniformly and universally teaches that in order for a person to be born again, he must first exercise faith. You have to choose to be born again. Isn’t that what you hear? In a George Barna poll, more than seventy percent of “professing evangelical Christians” in America expressed the belief that man is basically good. And more than eighty percent articulated the view that God helps those who help themselves. These positions — or let me say it negatively — neither of these positions is semi-Pelagian. They’re both Pelagian. To say that we’re basically good is the Pelagian view. I would be willing to assume that in at least thirty percent of the people who are reading this issue, and probably more, if we really examine their thinking in depth, we would find hearts that are beating Pelagianism. We’re overwhelmed with it. We’re surrounded by it. We’re immersed in it. We hear it every day. We hear it every day in the secular culture. And not only do we hear it every day in the secular culture, we hear it every day on Christian television and on Christian radio.

In the nineteenth century, there was a preacher who became very popular in America, who wrote a book on theology, coming out of his own training in law, in which he made no bones about his Pelagianism. He rejected not only Augustinianism, but he also rejected semi-Pelagianism and stood clearly on the subject of unvarnished Pelagianism, saying in no uncertain terms, without any ambiguity, that there was no Fall and that there is no such thing as original sin. This man went on to attack viciously the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and in addition to that, to repudiate as clearly and as loudly as he could the doctrine of justification by faith alone by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. This man’s basic thesis was, we don’t need the imputation of the righteousness of Christ because we have the capacity in and of ourselves to become righteous. His name: Charles Finney, one of America’s most revered evangelists. Now, if Luther was correct in saying that sola fide is the article upon which the Church stands or falls, if what the reformers were saying is that justification by faith alone is an essential truth of Christianity, who also argued that the substitutionary atonement is an essential truth of Christianity; if they’re correct in their assessment that those doctrines are essential truths of Christianity, the only conclusion we can come to is that Charles Finney was not a Christian. I read his writings and I say, “I don’t see how any Christian person could write this.” And yet, he is in the Hall of Fame of Evangelical Christianity in America. He is the patron saint of twentieth-century Evangelicalism. And he is not semi-Pelagian; he is unvarnished in his Pelagianism.

READ MORE

 

I'm not familiar with that movement. What is it?

 

Thanks. I understand, and I have seen it but had not heard the term before.

I probably dislike it as much as you do, and I think that, "Christian Mormonism", describes it well.

The only thing I would be onboard with is that children should be, as much as it is possible, integrated into church life, especially worship services. All the segregation of various groups isn't a good thing, IMO.

edited to add:
I'm also with them on public schools (not fully). I against the idea of using children as "missionaries" in public schools. We ought not sacrifice our children to "save the lost", and as Reformed believers, we know we don't have to. Homeschooling should be the aim of Christian parents, where is possible, practical, and best for all involved, especially the child. Even so-called, "Christian" schools can be problematic, so there aren't many good options for Christian parents.