Here is a portion of the paper ,DR.Bob;
HE COMMON GROUND BETWEEN EVANGELICAL ARMINIANISM AND MODERN PELAGIANISM
In general, both Wesleyan or Evangelical Arminianism936 and modern Pelagianism, as taught by Charles Finney, held to the following:
• Both approached the Scriptures with a rationalistic bent, rejecting what truths seemed to them to be contrary to or unworthy of God, ideas of justice or human reason. Both placed reason prior to or above faith, rather than the biblical order.937 Pelagianism, with its doctrine of plenary ability, viewed human reasoning a priori, or intuition, as almost infallible.
934 George P. Fisher, Loc. cit. 935 See Kenneth Scott Latourette, Christianity in a Revolutionary Age Vol. III, The Nineteenth Century Outside Europe, p. 29; G. M. Rosell, “Finney, Charles Grandison,” Dictionary of Christianity in America, pp. 439–440, where Rosell refers to Finney as a “New School Calvinist,” and then to “his special brand of ‘Arminianized Calvinism’”; Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, p. 260; Bruce L. Shelley, Op. cit., p. 376. 936 Evangelical or Wesleyan Arminianism marks a further departure from the truth than the older, theological Arminianism of the Dutch Remonstrants. 937 The essence of rationalism and Pelagianism is Intelligo et credo, “I understand and I believe.” Everything must be subjected to allegedly unimpaired human reason. Against such a view stands the priority of faith (as expressed by Augustine of Hippo [354–430], Anselm of Canterbury [1033–1109] and others), “I believe in order that I might understand” [Credo ut intelligam]. Note the Divine order in Heb. 11:1–3 (Pi,stei noou/men…i.e., “Through faith we understand…”). Scripture gives the priority to faith, not reason. 333
• Both denied the absolute sovereignty of God in the affairs of men, especially in the matter of salvation. They necessarily posited a finite “god,” i.e., a “god” of external moral self–limitations.
• Both taught that human accountability or responsibility is based on ability, i.e., that God has no right to command a person to do what he or she cannot do.938
• Both denied unconditional predestination and election. Both held to a predestination or election conditioned by or based upon foreseen faith and the actions of men.
• Both held to a general atonement, i.e., that the Lord Jesus Christ in some sense died for all men in general, and yet did not make a satisfaction for anyone in particular. They were necessarily driven to the Grotian or Moral Governmental Theory of the atonement, i.e., that God, upon the acceptance of the sufferings of Christ, is willing to accept men on their faith, the “atonement” was simply a removal of obstacles in God’s moral government of the universe. (When modern Arminians and Pelagians state that they believe in a “vicarious and substitutionary atonement,” they are either ignorant of the inherent contradiction or irrational, as such an atonement can only be consistently held by the actual or particular redemption of the Calvinistic system.)
• Both denied the efficacious or infallible nature of saving grace. They held to a general, fallible dispensation of grace, and that sinners may perish despite the attempts of both God and men to convert them.
• Both believed that true Christians, though converted and for a time living a godly life, may fall away and perish forever in damnation.
• Both consistently held that continued sanctification is necessary for continued justification, i.e., if one loses his sanctification [ceases to live a godly or holy life], he necessarily becomes unjustified and so lost. Inherent in this view is a denial of the forensic nature of justification and the believer’s union with Christ.
• Both held to a “relative perfectionism,” i.e., not a sinless perfectionism, as held by ancient Pelagianism, but a “Christian perfectionism” which is conditioned on the individual’s personal ability to conform to a given standard.939
• Both modified various truths in the realm of anthropology and soteriology to accommodate their central thrust, which was their perfectionist scheme.
• Both emphasized moral and social concerns as issues which arose from their views on human ability and responsibility.
938 The Calvinistic system, following the Scriptures, bases human responsibility on accountability to God as the absolute power and authority, Creator and Redeemer. 939 John Wesley was indecisive about his view of “Christian perfectionism,” wavering back and forth from sinless perfection to a relative perfection. Cf. Arnold Dallimore, The Two Wesleys, a taped lecture given at Toronto Baptist Seminary. Finney was very definite concerning his relative and individualistic view of perfection in the earlier Oberlin idea (c. 1837), but changed dramatically to a “sinless perfection” in the later development of Oberlin Theology (c. 1839). 334
THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EVANGELICAL ARMINIANISM AND MODERN PELAGIANISM
Although these two systems had much in common, there were differences to be noted, as modern Pelagianism marked a further departure from the truth than Evangelical Arminianism:
• Arminianism viewed man as possessing a sinful or depraved nature. Pelagianism denied the sinfulness of human nature and viewed sin as merely an act of the will.
• Arminianism viewed the nature of man as depraved to the extent that his will must be acted upon by the Holy Spirit in a liberating fashion in conversion and regeneration. Pelagianism totally denied the fall of man, viewing Adam as merely a bad example, and denying the immediate or even the mediate imputation of Adam’s sin. Pelagianism regarded the work of the Spirit in regeneration as mere moral suasion.
• Arminianism placed conversion [faith and repentance] before regeneration. Pelagianism maintained the identity of regeneration with conversion, reduced the Spirit’s role in regeneration or conversion to moral suasion, and man’s role to an immediate psychological “decision” or change in the direction of the will.
• Arminianism held that the Holy Spirit brings sinners to the point of conversion by prevenient grace, the final decision being left to man’s liberated will. Pelagianism held to the plenary ability of man, and thus held regeneration to be merely a change in the direction of the will. Conversion is thus not spiritual, but merely psychological.
• Arminianism viewed faith somewhat nebulously because of its doctrine of human depravity and prevenient grace. Pelagianism necessarily viewed faith as the natural ability and product of human nature—mere human trust—and so the trust or decision of the natural man. This is inescapably autosoterism.940
• Arminianism, giving a definite, though modified place to the work of the Holy Spirit in salvation, gave a prominent and necessary place for the work of the Spirit in revival. Pelagianism viewed revival [“revivalism”] as merely the result of certain promotional means, and entirely the work of man. It was “revival” upon demand, which could occur at any time the right conditions were met and the right measures were successfully adopted.
• Arminianism held to the priority of preaching and prayer in revival. Pelagianism majored on religious excitement, innovations, pragmatism, denunciatory preaching, and rousing the emotions or feelings to the highest pitch.
