How many here hold to the heresy of Pelagianism

[Wesley Briggman]

I've read several theologians who posit that semiPelagianism is the default religion of American Christians, and I tend to believe it.

rsr, based on the following definition of Pelagianism, can you identify which characteristics would apply to semiPelagianism? Additionally, where these groups of American Christians major denominations or splinter groups?

Being that this is a new concept to me, I am trying to be more informed.

Thanks for sharing.

Ministry and Music - Seeking the Old Paths: Definitions of terms
Pelagian/Pelagianism
Pelagius combatted the doctrine of original sin. He and his followers framed these six doctrines for example:
1. That Adam would have died even if he had not sinned
2. That the sin of Adam injured himself, not the human race
3. That newborn children are in the same condition as Adam was before the Fall; that infants have eternal life
4. That the whole human race does not die because of Adam's death or sin, nor will it rise again because of Christ's resurrection
5. That the Old Testament Law, as well as the New Testament Gospel, gives entrance to heaven
6. That even before the coming of Christ there were men who were entirely without sin.
(It should be noted that some present day “Arminians” are followers of Pelagius rather than Arminius on the ideas of original sin and depravity.)

 

[rsr]

First, any discussion of Pelagianism is separate from Pelagius himself, who may or may not have believed or taught everything that has been subsumed under Pelagianism, just as it's not clear that Nestorius was actually Nestorian.

That said, from a soteriological perspective, Calvinism/Augustianism, Arminianism, semi Pelagianism and Pelagianism my be described as four points along a scale. Pelagianism denies that the Fall made men unable to live virtuously, that as an act of will men may be righteous. Christ thus becomes an example for men, not their atonement.

Semi Pelagianism holds that the Fall wounded men's ability to respond to God, but men are still able — without special divine grace — to seek out God, who responds to their seeking and responds with grace to continue the journey to salvation.

Calvinism/Augustinianism and Arminianism agree that man's will is totally corrupted by the Fall (what Calvinists call total depravity or, more accurately, total inability) and that God's grace is required to free man's will to respond to God. For Calvinists that grace is effective to regenerate the individual; for Arminians that grace is "prevenient" in that it precedes salvation and frees a man's will to respond to God, whose continued grace can eventually lead to salvation.

Now, all that is a very truncated explanation, which I'm sure will please no one and be met by denials and refutations.

 

[AustinC]

5. Pelagius believed that the soul of man by creation is neither holy nor sinful.

According to Pelagius, Adam was not created holy. He was not constitutionally inclined either toward good or evil. He was morally indifferent or neutral. In this state of moral equilibrium, Adam was no more disposed to good than to evil. Pelagius argued that if Adam had possessed any moral character prior to moral action, his moral responsibility would be destroyed.

Because he was a creature, Adam's body was mortal. That is to say, it was Adam's destiny to die physically whether or not he ever sinned. Physical death, therefore, is not a penalty for sin passed on to Adam's posterity, but is rather an inevitable corollary to man's essential character as created.

6. Adam's fall was occasioned by the exercise of free will.

In Pelagius’s thinking, there was nothing in Adam's nature, either for good or ill, that inclined him in the decision he made. Furthermore, Adam's sin in no way affected his posterity except insofar as it set a bad example for them. Referring to Paul's statement in Romans 5:12, Pelagius insisted that "It is said we sinned in Adam, not because sin is innate, but because it comes from imitation [emphasis mine].”2

Consequently, all men come into being in the exact condition as was Adam before the fall. Pelagius believed each soul is created immediately by God and thus cannot come into the world contaminated or corrupted by the sin of Adam. The doctrine of transmitted sin (tradux peccati) or original sin (peccatum originis), says Pelagius, is blasphemous.:

"A sin propagated by generation is totally contrary to the catholic faith. Sin is not born with man, but is committed afterwards by man. It is not the fault of nature, but of free will."

10 Things You Should Know about Pelagius and Pelagianism

 

[JonC]

The thing is, you cannot pick out one belief and say because of it another accepts the view of a whole system.

Pelganism holds that men by nature choose or reject God. Men can choose God without God working in them towards that end.

Here (on this thread) people are calling others who deny Pelganism "Pelganists" because they believe all men are drawn by God and are able to choose.

This can be seen as semi-pelganism because it holds men can choose good or evil. But it is just as much semi-Calvinism as it holds all men are drawn by God and apart from this drawing cannot choose good.

 

[AustinC]

The thing is, you cannot pick out one belief and say because of it another accepts the view of a whole system.

Pelganism holds that men by nature choose or reject God. Men can choose God without God working in them towards that end.

Here (on this thread) people are calling others who deny Pelganism "Pelganists" because they believe all men are drawn by God and are able to choose.

This can be seen as semi-pelganism because it holds men can choose good or evil. But it is just as much semi-Calvinism as it holds all men are drawn by God and apart from this drawing cannot choose good.

The specific issue however is the claim that infants are born sinless and/or neutral, which is a direct claim of Pelagian and therefore it makes the person at the Baptist Board who claims that specific view...a Pelagian.

 

[JonC]

The specific issue however is the claim that infants are born sinless and/or neutral, which is a direct claim of Pelagian and therefore it makes the person at the Baptist Board who claims that specific view...a Pelagian.

No. That is only a partial truth.

Orthodox theologies hold varying views of original sin, and many orthodox theologies hold infants to be born sinless. That does not make them Pelaganism any more than the Calvinistic view of divine sovereignty makes Calvinists fatalists.

Pelaganism is more than its view of original sin and its results. It holds that men can choose good or evil and choose good (and God) without divine intervention (without God drawing them).

You are confusing Pelaganism with semi-Peligianism and I doubt it would sit well with you if the shoe was on the other foot (if you were accused of fatalism because they believe in divine sovereignty or you were accused of anti-mission theology because they believe in divine election).

 

[AustinC]

No. That is only a partial truth.

Orthodox theologies hold varying views of original sin, and many orthodox theologies hold infants to be born sinless. That does not make them Pelaganism any more than the Calvinistic view of divine sovereignty makes Calvinists fatalists.

Pelaganism is more than its view of original sin and its results. It holds that men can choose good or evil and choose good (and God) without divine intervention (without God drawing them).

You are confusing Pelaganism with semi-Peligianism and I doubt it would sit well with you if the shoe was on the other foot (if you were accused of fatalism because they believe in divine sovereignty or you were accused of anti-mission theology because they believe in divine election).

It is a part of Pelagians belief, therefore it is Pelagian theology.
I understand that most evangelicals, probably you included, are semi-pelagian and synergists in your understanding. However, nearly every synergist/semi-pelagian I have met has confirmed humans being born with a sin nature. The person who I addressed on this board declares that humans are not born with a sin nature and thus are sinless at birth. That is a distinct Pelagian position not found in semi-pelagians that I have met.

 

[MB]

It is a part of Pelagians belief, therefore it is Pelagian theology.
I understand that most evangelicals, probably you included, are semi-pelagian and synergists in your understanding. However, nearly every synergist/semi-pelagian I have met has confirmed humans being born with a sin nature. The person who I addressed on this board declares that humans are not born with a sin nature and thus are sinless at birth. That is a distinct Pelagian position not found in semi-pelagians that I have met.

Look at you the warmed over Catholic. Hehehehehehehe
MB

 

[Dave G]

Orthodox theologies hold varying views of original sin, and many orthodox theologies hold infants to be born sinless.

"Orthodoxy" changes, Jon, depending on who is asked.

I often find that "Orthodoxy" is defined rather broadly, and includes many things that I consider false.
In other words, to me what is orthodox is defined by the largest group of professing Christians.

As I see it, the very fact that orthodoxy contains varying views, shows that it is based on a range of opinions and not a definite set of truths.

That does not make them Pelaganism any more than the Calvinistic view of divine sovereignty makes Calvinists fatalists.

Pelagianism is well-defined and that definition can be found anywhere, if one wants to study it.

However, I also recognize that God's children can be carried about with every wind of doctrine ( Ephesians 4 ), so those that hold to unbiblical beliefs will be guided into the truth of them at some point in their lives the more they study His word.

Having a certain set of beliefs about the Bible does not necessarily make a person unsaved.
But I would say that if they never grow beyond that, and continue all their lives in error, then to me that is an evidence of not having the Holy Spirit.

Pelaganism is more than its view of original sin and its results. It holds that men can choose good or evil and choose good (and God) without divine intervention (without God drawing them).

Agreed.

Pelagius taught many things, not just denying "original sin" ( The "Federal Headship" of Adam and the taint of sin passed on through our natures through birth process ).
His view of salvation put man at the center, and God as the servant.

You are confusing Pelaganism with semi-Peligianism and I doubt it would sit well with you if the shoe was on the other foot (if you were accused of fatalism because they believe in divine sovereignty or you were accused of anti-mission theology because they believe in divine election).

I can't speak for Austin, but I'm often accused of fatalism by members on this board.
I'm also aware that accusations fly around all over the place, and that my best course of action would be to simply state what I believe from the Scriptures without trying to offend anyone.


But, going back to why I think I'm accused of fatalism, is because I take literally many of the statements that God makes, and accept them in my own thinking...
For example:

" A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps." ( Proverbs 16:9 ).
" [There are] many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand." ( Proverbs 19:21 ).
" The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, [is] from the LORD." ( Proverbs 16:1 ).
" O LORD, I know that the way of man [is] not in himself: [it is] not in man that walketh to direct his steps." ( Jeremiah 10:23 ).

" And all the inhabitants of the earth [are] reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and [among] the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" ( Daniel 4:35 ).



As for Pelagianism versus Semi-Pelagianism, to me there is a fine line even though they differ in some respects...
But they are both in error, Scripturally.

 

[JonC]

"Orthodoxy" changes, Jon, depending on who is asked.

I often find that "Orthodoxy" is defined rather broadly, and includes many things that I consider false.
In other words, to me what is orthodox is defined by the largest group of professing Christians.

To me, the very fact that orthodoxy contains varying views, shows that it is based on a range of opinions and not a definite set of truths.

Pelagianism is well-defined and that definition can be found anywhere, if one wants to study it.

However, I also recognize that God's children can be carried about with every wind of doctrine ( Ephesians 4 ), so those that hold to unbiblical beliefs will be guided into the truth of them at some point in their lives the more they study His word.

Agreed.
Pelagius taught many things, not just denying "original sin" ( The "Federal Headship" of Adam and the taint of sin passed on through our natures through birth process ).
His view of salvation put man at the center, and God as the servant.

I can't speak for Austin, but I'm often accused of fatalism by members on this board.
I'm also aware that accusations fly around all over the place, and that my best course of action would be to simply state what I believe from the Scriptures without trying to offend anyone.


But, going back to why I think I'm accused of fatalism, is because I take literally many of the statements that God makes, and accept them in my own thinking...
For example:

" A man's heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps." ( Proverbs 16:9 ).
" [There are] many devices in a man's heart; nevertheless the counsel of the LORD, that shall stand." ( Proverbs 19:21 ).
" The preparations of the heart in man, and the answer of the tongue, [is] from the LORD." ( Proverbs 16:1 ).
" O LORD, I know that the way of man [is] not in himself: [it is] not in man that walketh to direct his steps." ( Jeremiah 10:23 ).

" And all the inhabitants of the earth [are] reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and [among] the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?" ( Daniel 4:35 ).



As for Pelagianism versus Semi-Pelagianism, to me there is a fine line even though they differ in some respects...
But they are both in error, Scripturally.

The difference, IMHO, is that Semi-Pelagianism and various views of "original Sin" (and sinning in or with, or in and with, or vis representation.. Adam) exist within orthodox Christianity (perhaps not within Christian sects but in what is accepted as Christian teaching as a whole). Pelagianism does not.

You present a good point about being called a fatalistic. Calvinists believe that God is sovereign. Fatilists believe God is sovereign. The difference between the two is not divine sovereignty but human responsibility and accountability.

Likewise the difference between Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism is not a rejection of inherited sin but the belief men are moral agents able to choose God apart from divine intervention.

 

[Dave G]

Pelagian/Pelagianism
Pelagius combatted the doctrine of original sin. He and his followers framed these six doctrines for example:
1. That Adam would have died even if he had not sinned
2. That the sin of Adam injured himself, not the human race
3. That newborn children are in the same condition as Adam was before the Fall; that infants have eternal life
4. That the whole human race does not die because of Adam's death or sin, nor will it rise again because of Christ's resurrection
5. That the Old Testament Law, as well as the New Testament Gospel, gives entrance to heaven
6. That even before the coming of Christ there were men who were entirely without sin.

I see many Scriptures that disagree with these points.
For example:

1) Adam would have died ( physically, not spiritually ) even if he had not sinned. I agree based on Genesis 3:22-23. Adam and Eve would have lived forever if they had eaten of the Tree of Life.

2) The sin of Adam injured everyone. I see this in Romans 5:12-14, where spiritual death was passed on to all men through Adam's sin, not physical death. I also see the effects of it in Psalms 58:3, and Romans 1:18-32 as well as John 3:18-19 and many other places.

3) Newborn children are dead in trespasses and sins as soon as they be born ( Psalms 58:3, Romans 3:10-18, Romans 3:23 ). There is none righteous, no not one.

4) The whole human race will die, physically, because Adam and Eve did not eat of the Tree of Life. The whole human race will rise again in two resurrections...the first unto eternal life, and the second to stand at the judgment. The second death is to be cast into the Lake of Fire ( Revelation 20:11-15 ).

5) The Old Testament Law was never intended to lead to God's grace in anything other than the earthly sense. It was given to a specific people and contained earthly blessings as well as earthly cursings. It was a covenant made between the Lord and His chosen nation of Israel ( and those Gentiles who joined themselves to Israel ). It's purpose for God's children was only ever to lead them to Jesus Christ and His sacrifice for them. It is the schoolmaster to show them their need for a Saviour, and nothing more.

6) There is none that does not sin among men ( Psalms 10:4, Romans 3:10-18, Romans 3:23, Ecclesiastes 7:20, etc. ). Therefore, there are no sinless persons except the Lord Jesus. He is the only Person who never sinned ( 2 Corinthians 5:21 ).


From my perspective, Pelagius had the answers right in front of him and didn't see them.

 

[Dave G]

The difference, IMHO, is that Semi-Pelagianism and various views of "original Sin" (and sinning in or with, or in and with, or vis representation.. Adam) exist within orthodox Christianity (perhaps not within Christian sects but in what is accepted as Christian teaching as a whole). Pelagianism does not.

Again, Jon...I don't look at "orthodoxy" the way you seem to.

To me, it's not what's "under the umbrella", but what's in the light of God's truth, based on His every word.

You present a good point about being called a fatalistic. Calvinists believe that God is sovereign. Fatilists believe God is sovereign. The difference between the two is not divine sovereignty but human responsibility and accountability.

Agreed, to an extent.

I see a big difference between what are known as "Calvinists" ( whether or not they believe the TULIP by tradition, or by their own independent reading of the Scriptures ) and "Fatalists":

With "Calvinism", God is sovereign and man is responsible;
God sovereignly elects, and man rebelliously rejects God's commands with all his being, even though completely responsible for our sins.
Until God works on the deadness within us, no man will ever seek God.
Plus, He does that only for His elect.

With "Fatalism", God is sovereign, and does whatever He wants to...whether it's just or unjust, and man's responsibility gets thrown "under the bus", so to speak.
The fatalist claims that everything, good or bad, happens as a direct result of God's sovereign decree, and men are puppets on the string.
They are unwilling objects that do His every whim and not responsible for their sins.


I see the Bible clearly teaching "Calvinism", at least in the TULIP.
Men are not "puppets", but responsible and rebellious creatures that have walked into the "barn door" of sin on our own, and love that "barn door".

We snuggle up to it because we are unwilling to let it go.
We are not unwilling objects.

 

[Yeshua1]

No. That is only a partial truth.

Orthodox theologies hold varying views of original sin, and many orthodox theologies hold infants to be born sinless. That does not make them Pelaganism any more than the Calvinistic view of divine sovereignty makes Calvinists fatalists.

Pelaganism is more than its view of original sin and its results. It holds that men can choose good or evil and choose good (and God) without divine intervention (without God drawing them).

You are confusing Pelaganism with semi-Peligianism and I doubt it would sit well with you if the shoe was on the other foot (if you were accused of fatalism because they believe in divine sovereignty or you were accused of anti-mission theology because they believe in divine election).

One should not be holding that we are born without any sin natures though, as that would be refuting the teaching concerning the Fall, how we are affected, and why Jesus had to come via the Virgin Birth!

 

[Yeshua1]

The thing is, you cannot pick out one belief and say because of it another accepts the view of a whole system.

Pelganism holds that men by nature choose or reject God. Men can choose God without God working in them towards that end.

Here (on this thread) people are calling others who deny Pelganism "Pelganists" because they believe all men are drawn by God and are able to choose.
by the Fall, that we are born as sinners, with sin natures, and that we can freely choose Jesus to save us, as no need for any additional "grace/help" by God!
This can be seen as semi-pelganism because it holds men can choose good or evil. But it is just as much semi-Calvinism as it holds all men are drawn by God and apart from this drawing cannot choose good.

Pelganism denies that we were affected by the Fall, that we are born sinners, that we have a sin nature, and that we need God to add any additional help/grace towards us in order to accept Jesus!

 

[Dave G]

Likewise the difference between Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism is not a rejection of inherited sin but the belief men are moral agents able to choose God apart from divine intervention.

I see "Pelagianism" and "Semi-Pelagianism" essentially like this:

Pelagius taught that man can approach God whenever, wherever.
We as men are "free moral agents" not tainted by sin, until we actually commit sin.

"Semi-Pelagianism" softens this by stating that only with God's grace are ALL ( not just the elect ) men made "free moral agents", and without it, we are rebellious sinners that will only ever choose evil.
With God's grace, we are then "released" and pop back to "neutral bouyancy" until we sink ourselves at the end of our lives with something known as "final rejection".
To me, "Semi-Pelagianism" literally permeates most of the visible churches.

I see neither of these in my reading of His word, and consider both to be the inventions of men.
Rather, I see that men are rebellious, and then after regeneration will be willing in our spirits to do the will of God and to seek Him.

Our filthy flesh is a problem until our physical deaths.

 

[Yeshua1]

First, any discussion of Pelagianism is separate from Pelagius himself, who may or may not have believed or taught everything that has been subsumed under Pelagianism, just as it's not clear that Nestorius was actually Nestorian.

That said, from a soteriological perspective, Calvinism/Augustianism, Arminianism, semi Pelagianism and Pelagianism my be described as four points along a scale. Pelagianism denies that the Fall made men unable to live virtuously, that as an act of will men may be righteous. Christ thus becomes an example for men, not their atonement.

Semi Pelagianism holds that the Fall wounded men's ability to respond to God, but men are still able — without special divine grace — to seek out God, who responds to their seeking and responds with grace to continue the journey to salvation.

Calvinism/Augustinianism and Arminianism agree that man's will is totally corrupted by the Fall (what Calvinists call total depravity or, more accurately, total inability) and that God's grace is required to free man's will to respond to God. For Calvinists that grace is effective to regenerate the individual; for Arminians that grace is "prevenient" in that it precedes salvation and frees a man's will to respond to God, whose continued grace can eventually lead to salvation.

Now, all that is a very truncated explanation, which I'm sure will please no one and be met by denials and refutations.

Very good summery, and that is why by default many Christians really hold to option 2 here! seems to be fre real Arms, as they seem to migrant from semi pel all way over to Calvinism!

 

[JonC]

I see "Pelagianism" and "Semi-Pelagianism" essentially like this:

Pelagius taught that man can approach God whenever, wherever.
We as men are "free moral agents" not tainted by sin, until we actually commit sin.

"Semi-Pelagianism" softens this by stating that only with God's grace are ALL ( not just the elect ) men made "free moral agents", and without it, we are rebellious sinners that will only ever choose evil.
With God's grace, we are then "released" and pop back to "neutral bouyancy" until we sink ourselves at the end of our lives with something known as "final rejection".
To me, "Semi-Pelagianism" literally permeates most of the visible churches.

I see neither of these in my reading of His word, and consider both to be the inventions of men.
Rather, I see that men are rebellious, and then after regeneration will be willing in our spirits to do the will of God and to seek Him.

Our filthy flesh is a problem until our physical deaths.

I agree with your definitions.

The reason I object to the treatment of some views on this forum is that I do not believe that human nature is "tainted by original sin". Instead I believe that Adam's sin demonstrated human nature in relation to God. So using Austin's criteria of Pelaganism I'd fall into that category. But I do not believe that any comes to God unless God draws them, that all who are saved are elected unconditionally from the foundation of the world, that Christ came to save those who believe (the "sheep"), and lay down His life for the "Bride". So obviously I do not fall into the category of Pelaganism or even semi-Pelagianism.

My concern is that it seems the title is used as an insult rather than engaging real discussion of real held doctrines. We see this when Calvinism is referred to as Fatalism (fatalism being denied in both Calvin's doctrine and the Canons of Dort).

 

[Dave G]

My concern is that it seems the title is used as an insult rather than engaging real discussion of real held doctrines. We see this when Calvinism is referred to as Fatalism (fatalism being denied in both Calvin's doctrine and the Canons of Dort).

I agree with your statement.

One's beliefs as a Christian should never be stomped on ( and I say this having participated in some of that "stomping" in the past, and hopefully not ever again ), but rather investigated and lovingly corrected from a Scriptural standpoint.

Someone coming into an assembly with the intention of drawing away people after themselves with a false doctrine or set of doctrines, should be admonished twice and then rejected as being divisive ( Titus 3:9-11 ).
However, this is not a local assembly, it is a forum.
And, like it or not, there are going to be many views represented here.

In this respect, those that participate should do so while respecting the feelings of the other person, even while maintaining their own position.
This keeps things from becoming an angry free-for-all and a jungle, to boot.

The rules are different here than in a local assembly, like it or not...
And I knew that coming in.

But the reality of it took a while to sink in.

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree with your definitions.

The reason I object to the treatment of some views on this forum is that I do not believe that human nature is "tainted by original sin". Instead I believe that Adam's sin demonstrated human nature in relation to God. So using Austin's criteria of Pelaganism I'd fall into that category. But I do not believe that any comes to God unless God draws them, that all who are saved are elected unconditionally from the foundation of the world, that Christ came to save those who believe (the "sheep"), and lay down His life for the "Bride". So obviously I do not fall into the category of Pelaganism or even semi-Pelagianism.

My concern is that it seems the title is used as an insult rather than engaging real discussion of real held doctrines. We see this when Calvinism is referred to as Fatalism (fatalism being denied in both Calvin's doctrine and the Canons of Dort).

Do you deny them that we are born as sinners? In? that we have a sin tainted/affect human nature?

 

[Yeshua1]

I agree with your statement.

One's beliefs as a Christian should never be stomped on ( and I say this having participated in some of that "stomping" in the past, and hopefully not ever again ), but rather investigated and lovingly corrected from a Scriptural standpoint.
That correction should also be on a voluntary basis, and never forced upon someone to "toe the line".

Rather, doctrinal correction from Scripture should always be lovingly done, and if the person disagrees, then they part ways.
Someone coming into an assembly with the intention of drawing away people after themselves with a false doctrine or set of doctrines, should be admonished twice and then rejected as being divisive ( Titus 3:9-11 ).
The balancing act is that we should always strive to be mindful of others, and realise that none of us here have all doctrines correctly and fully understood, but still need to address issues such as full preterism is heresy, as is WoF, and is salvation theology proper held y Sda and RCC!

However, this is not a local assembly, it is a forum.
And, like it or not, there are going to be many views represented here.

In this respect, those that participate should do so while respecting the feelings of the other person, even while maintaining their own position.
This keeps things from becoming an angry free-for-all and a jungle, to boot.

The rules are different here than in a local assembly, like it or not...
And I knew that coming in.

But the reality of it took a while to sink in.