"Pelaganists" who believe in depravity

[JonC]

On another thread @Calminian made a point but rightly did not want to hijack that thread. I am starting this to evaluate and discuss his observation.

I define Pelaganism as the teachings of Pelagius that man’s nature was unaffected by the Fall and men today can freely choose between good and evil without God’s intervention.

I define Semi-Pelaganism as the teaching that while men cannot choose good God makes the first move and enables men to choose good and then they freely choose between good and evil.

My understanding is that all men have gone astray and no one seeks God except God works in their lives, changes them, and draws them. Once God starts a work God accomplishes that work (all that God draws to salvation is saved because this is a work of God).

My view is that God chooses or elects men to be a part of a greater group called “the Elect”, or those who are saved. Salvation is accomplished by God and not by man. But I also believe that Adam was not created with a will equal to or greater than God. believe Adam was created with a human nature and as such allowed his own desires to lead him to sin.

@Calminian initially thought (per his posts) that this view was "Semi-Pelaganism".

But then I posted that I believe God created Adam with a human nature and a will that was less than God. So now I am a "full-blown Pelagian".

I would like to discuss definitions here. And I will use myself as an example (don't worry, y'all won't hurt my feelings).

Please explain how my view is "full blown Pelaganism" and provide definitions.

I wonder because it seems that Pelaganism and semi-Pelaganism is used most often dishonestly as an insult than to legitimately address differences in understanding.

 

[Calminian]

It's been a while since I hashed in this out in depth. But the pelagian position, in essence, denies the fall, positing that Adam really didn't undergo any type of change in his nature. This would seem to be contradicted by the knowledge Adam immediately received after partaking—knowing he was naked. This represented an innate knowledge he did not have before.

Adam had moral awareness prior to his fall, and the intelligence to understand God's command and warning. But he did not have the knowledge innately, as he did after partaking. This is akin to the innate knowledge Paul discussed in Romans 2, which convicts and excuses us. Prior to his fall, all moral knowledge was given to him via direct revelation.

Here is how I understand the 4 basic positions:

Pelagianism - No change in nature after the fall. Resisting and succumbing to sin are the same before and after parting of the TOK. (this is obviously incorrect)

Semipelagianism - There was a change in Adam and his descendants after the fall, but not to the point of total inability. Faith and salvation are still possible but with great difficulty. God provides grace that we can take advantage of, and successfully believe, without further transformation of our nature.

Arminianism - There was a change in Adam and his descendants after the fall that renders man completely unable to seek God and trust the Gospel. A special transforming grace is required—prevenient grace as Wesley called it—for man to become enabled to a state where he can believe. Man can, however, reject the Gospel in this state, by not embracing the Gospel he's been enlightened about. All men, at some point in their lives, are given this grace, but only those responding in faith will be saved.

Calvinism - There was a change in Adam and his descendants after the fall that renders man completely unable to seek God and trust the Gospel. An effectual transforming grace is therefore required (regeneration), causing man to believe and be saved. This grace cannot be resisted, and is only given to the elect.​

I'm sure the above can be tweaked and clarified. I do see Pelagianism as extremely problematic. I see Semipelagianism as problematic, but acceptable, not undermining the Christian faith to the point of heresy. I myself will fall between Arminianism and Calvinism, being I hold to eternal security (perseverance of the saints).

 

[JonC]

You and me both, brother. I have not studied this much since seminary but you had me digging up notes and memories.

Context here matters. It is true that Pelagius rejected that Adam's nature was changed due to the Fall. BUT it was within the larger context of defending the innate goodness of mankind in terms of free-will.

Pelagious' argument was that men can choose freely to do good or to do evil. This was either defended or arrived at by the argument that Adam's nature did not change. But Pelaganism itself is related to the freedom of man to choose good or evil.

I agree that Pelaganism is heresy. I personally believe that the other three positions are also wrong.

If you were going to place my position into one of those categories (Pelagianism, Semipelagianism, Arminianism, or Calvinism) you would be closer to the truth to have chosen Calvinism. You would still not be right, but I am closer to Calvinism than any of those mentioned in regards to innate human "goodness".

 

[Barry Johnson]

It's been a while since I hashed in this out in depth. But the pelagian position, in essence, denies the fall, positing that Adam really didn't undergo any type of change in his nature. This would seem to be contradicted by the knowledge Adam immediately received after partaking—knowing he was naked. This represented an innate knowledge he did not have before.

Adam had moral awareness prior to his fall, and the intelligence to understand God's command and warning. But he did not have the knowledge innately, as he did after partaking. This is akin to the innate knowledge Paul discussed in Romans 2, which convicts and excuses us. Prior to his fall, all moral knowledge was given to him via direct revelation.

Here is how I understand the 4 basic positions:

Pelagianism - No change in nature after the fall. Resisting and succumbing to sin are the same before and after parting of the TOK. (this is obviously incorrect)

Semipelagianism - There was a change in Adam and his descendants after the fall, but not to the point of total inability. Faith and salvation are still possible but with great difficulty. God provides grace that we can take advantage of, and successfully believe, without further transformation of our nature.

Arminianism - There was a change in Adam and his descendants after the fall that renders man completely unable to seek God and trust the Gospel. A special transforming grace is required—prevenient grace as Wesley called it—for man to become enabled to a state where he can believe. Man can, however, reject the Gospel in this state, by not embracing the Gospel he's been enlightened about. All men, at some point in their lives, are given this grace, but only those responding in faith will be saved.

Calvinism - There was a change in Adam and his descendants after the fall that renders man completely unable to seek God and trust the Gospel. An effectual transforming grace is therefore required (regeneration), causing man to believe and be saved. This grace cannot be resisted, and is only given to the elect.​

I'm sure the above can be tweaked and clarified. I do see Pelagianism as extremely problematic. I see Semipelagianism as problematic, but acceptable, not undermining the Christian faith to the point of heresy. I myself will fall between Arminianism and Calvinism, being I hold to eternal security (perseverance of the saints).

Great Post. My position would be that they are all false .

 

[Barry Johnson]

On another thread @Calminian made a point but rightly did not want to hijack that thread. I am starting this to evaluate and discuss his observation.

I define Pelaganism as the teachings of Pelagius that man’s nature was unaffected by the Fall and men today can freely choose between good and evil without God’s intervention.

I define Semi-Pelaganism as the teaching that while men cannot choose good God makes the first move and enables men to choose good and then they freely choose between good and evil.

My understanding is that all men have gone astray and no one seeks God except God works in their lives, changes them, and draws them. Once God starts a work God accomplishes that work (all that God draws to salvation is saved because this is a work of God).

My view is that God chooses or elects men to be a part of a greater group called “the Elect”, or those who are saved. Salvation is accomplished by God and not by man. But I also believe that Adam was not created with a will equal to or greater than God. believe Adam was created with a human nature and as such allowed his own desires to lead him to sin.

@Calminian initially thought (per his posts) that this view was "Semi-Pelaganism".

But then I posted that I believe God created Adam with a human nature and a will that was less than God. So now I am a "full-blown Pelagian".

I would like to discuss definitions here. And I will use myself as an example (don't worry, y'all won't hurt my feelings).

Please explain how my view is "full blown Pelaganism" and provide definitions.

I wonder because it seems that Pelaganism and semi-Pelaganism is used most often dishonestly as an insult than to legitimately address differences in understanding.

Which denominations are pelagians today ?

 

[Barry Johnson]

On another thread @Calminian made a point but rightly did not want to hijack that thread. I am starting this to evaluate and discuss his observation.

I define Pelaganism as the teachings of Pelagius that man’s nature was unaffected by the Fall and men today can freely choose between good and evil without God’s intervention.

I define Semi-Pelaganism as the teaching that while men cannot choose good God makes the first move and enables men to choose good and then they freely choose between good and evil.

My understanding is that all men have gone astray and no one seeks God except God works in their lives, changes them, and draws them. Once God starts a work God accomplishes that work (all that God draws to salvation is saved because this is a work of God).

My view is that God chooses or elects men to be a part of a greater group called “the Elect”, or those who are saved. Salvation is accomplished by God and not by man. But I also believe that Adam was not created with a will equal to or greater than God. believe Adam was created with a human nature and as such allowed his own desires to lead him to sin.

@Calminian initially thought (per his posts) that this view was "Semi-Pelaganism".

But then I posted that I believe God created Adam with a human nature and a will that was less than God. So now I am a "full-blown Pelagian".

I would like to discuss definitions here. And I will use myself as an example (don't worry, y'all won't hurt my feelings).

Please explain how my view is "full blown Pelaganism" and provide definitions.

I wonder because it seems that Pelaganism and semi-Pelaganism is used most often dishonestly as an insult than to legitimately address differences in understanding.

This is called the boogeyman . Creating a fear in order to try to strengthen your own position. Calvernists will do this because they are crippled by these same fears . The boogeyman can include ' universalism ' also .

 

[JonC]

Which denominations are pelagians today ?

I don't know of any.

 

[Dave G]

I define Pelaganism as the teachings of Pelagius that man’s nature was unaffected by the Fall and men today can freely choose between good and evil without God’s intervention.

I agree.
As I see it, "Pelagians" tend to ignore Romans 1:18-32, Romans 3:10-18, John 3:19-20, Psalms 10:1-11, Psalms 14:1-4, Psalms 53:1-4, Psalms 58:3, Jeremiah 13:23, Jeremiah 17:9 and many other things that God has to say on the matter.

I define Semi-Pelaganism as the teaching that while men cannot choose good God makes the first move and enables men to choose good and then they freely choose between good and evil.

Again I agree.

From my perspective, "Semi-Pelagians" tend to gloss over the above in favor of a reasoning not based on Scripture itself...
That God's grace enables all to freely choose good and evil.

My understanding is that all men have gone astray and no one seeks God except God works in their lives, changes them, and draws them. Once God starts a work God accomplishes that work (all that God draws to salvation is saved because this is a work of God).

I agree, and I've edited the above in my reply below, to reflect how I agree:

My understanding is that all men have gone astray ( Ecclesiastes 7:20, Romans 3:10, Romans 3:23 ) and no one seeks God ( Romans 3:11, Psalms 10:4, Psalms 14:4, Psalms 53:4 ) except God works in their lives, changes them ( John 3:3, Romans 7:5-6, Romans 8:1-11, 2 Corinthians 5:17, Ephesians 4:17-24 ), and draws them ( Jeremiah 31:3, John 6:44, John 6:65 ). Once God starts a work God accomplishes that work (all that God draws to salvation is saved because this is a work of God) ( Philippians 1:6, 1 Peter 1:5 ).

My view is that God chooses or elects men to be a part of a greater group called “the Elect”, or those who are saved. Salvation is accomplished by God and not by man. But I also believe that Adam was not created with a will equal to or greater than God. believe Adam was created with a human nature and as such allowed his own desires to lead him to sin.

Again I agree.

I see the word of God teaching that Adam was made in the image and likeness of God, that he willingly fell into sin, and that we all, as his progeny, fell with him.
Because of his fall from innocence and into sin, we all then fell in love with sin.

That love of sin precludes any of us from truly seeking God ( as He proscribes, with ALL our heart ), who commands us, as a race, to repent of it;
Nor does that love of sin allow us, as a race, to ever break that vicious cycle without being born again.

The problem is at the heart level, and cannot be remedied without a change of nature...
Which the Lord does not accomplish in anyone outside of the body of Christ.

 

[Dave G]

I'm sure the above can be tweaked and clarified. I do see Pelagianism as extremely problematic. I see Semipelagianism as problematic, but acceptable, not undermining the Christian faith to the point of heresy. I myself will fall between Arminianism and Calvinism, being I hold to eternal security (perseverance of the saints).

For many years ( 25, to be exact ) I fell between the two myself...
and for many years after that ( 14, to be exact ) I identified as a "4 Point Calvinist", not completely holding to the Lord giving His life for all men or giving His life for only His sheep, but both.

Now I hold completely to all five "points" of what many call "Calvinism", seeing election as being the framework of salvation.
God elects a people, sent His Son to die for them, and they are secure in all of it because of His love for them, even when they were dead in trespasses and sins.

But to respond to the OP, I know of no "Pelagians" who believe that we as men are so completely alienated from God that we are unable and unwilling to choose good over evil.
Rather, they think we can, and often do, choose good in and of ourselves with no help from God.

 

[Dave G]

@Calminian initially thought (per his posts) that this view was "Semi-Pelaganism".

But then I posted that I believe God created Adam with a human nature and a will that was less than God. So now I am a "full-blown Pelagian".

I would like to discuss definitions here. And I will use myself as an example (don't worry, y'all won't hurt my feelings).

Please explain how my view is "full blown Pelaganism" and provide definitions.

I wonder because it seems that Pelaganism and semi-Pelaganism is used most often dishonestly as an insult than to legitimately address differences in understanding.

Jon,

I don't see your view as "Pelagian" at all.
However, I do see something I would like to clarify myself as holding to, in the bolded.

I see Scripture stating that God created Adam with a will, emotions, etc. exactly as His...
But limited in scope and power...
So yes, it was "less than God".

After the Fall, that will changed / was corrupted because Adam and the rest of us became so enamored with having our own will and desires met, that God's will and desires for us have taken a permanent back-seat ( more like "thrown out completely" )...
Unless He returns us to the state, in our natures, that we were before the fall.

In other words, what we worked so hard to "accomplish" ( and that God gave us over to ), has to be returned to the state that we were in, as a race, before we fell into the pit.


We must be "born again".

 

[Calminian]

You and me both, brother. I have not studied this much since seminary but you had me digging up notes and memories.

Context here matters. It is true that Pelagius rejected that Adam's nature was changed due to the Fall. BUT it was within the larger context of defending the innate goodness of mankind in terms of free-will.

Pelagious' argument was that men can choose freely to do good or to do evil. This was either defended or arrived at by the argument that Adam's nature did not change. But Pelaganism itself is related to the freedom of man to choose good or evil.

I agree that Pelaganism is heresy. I personally believe that the other three positions are also wrong.

If you were going to place my position into one of those categories (Pelagianism, Semipelagianism, Arminianism, or Calvinism) you would be closer to the truth to have chosen Calvinism. You would still not be right, but I am closer to Calvinism than any of those mentioned in regards to innate human "goodness".

The view you express is consistent with one I've seen among some calvinists, particularly those subscribing to supralapsarianism, with the exception of the denial of the sin nature. I haven't head that, in fact, they vehemently affirm Adam's fall and postlapsarian sin nature. John Calvin certainly affirmed this, so they can't abandon this without abandoning Calvin.

As I've pointed out, however, they're inconsistent. If Adam's sin was inevitable and actively ordained as they claim, then it's impossible to say he wasn't created with a sin nature (or as you say, that Adam possessed the same nature before and after the fall.)

BTW, you say Adam had no sin nature at all, which is why I assumed you were espousing pelagianism.

But I'm curious where this stems from. Reformed seminaries have become a mess in regard to the Genesis account. Very few affirm a literal creation account. Maybe the discussion needs to go there.

 

[JonC]

Jon,

I don't see your view as "Pelagian" at all.
However, I do see something I would like to clarify myself as holding to, in the bolded.

I see Scripture stating that God created Adam with a will, emotions, etc. exactly as His...
But limited in scope and power...
So yes, it was "less than God".

After the Fall, that will changed / was corrupted because Adam and the rest of us became so enamored with having our own will and desires met, that God's will and desires for us have taken a permanent back-seat ( more like "thrown out completely" )...
Unless He returns us to the state, in our natures, that we were before the fall.

In other words, what we worked so hard to "accomplish" ( and that God gave us over to ), has to be returned to the state that we were in, as a race, before we fell into the pit.


We must be "born again".

I think it simply boils down to the flesh vs the spirit.

Man cannot choose the spiritual things because men are not spiritual but flesh. Personally I think this applied to Adam as well and his sin demonstrated this. When conflicted between the Spirit vs the flesh Adam chose the flesh (his desires).

So I would not choose this a hill upon which to die (you could very well be correct) but my understanding is a little different. I do not see a return to man's original state but something entirely different.

 

[Calminian]

I think it simply boils down to the flesh vs the spirit....

Oh, and I wanted to address this as well. This is a primary sentiment of the gnostic movement, where they emphasized this distinction. Flesh was bad, spirit was good. For this reason, they denied Jesus had any fleshly component. The problem, of course, was that he was flesh, in fact 100% flesh. He had to be to make atonement for us. As John said,

2John 7 I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist. 8 Watch out that you do not lose what we have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully.​

 

[JonC]

The view you express is consistent with one I've seen among some calvinists, particularly those subscribing to supralapsarianism, with the exception of the denial of the sin nature. I haven't head that, in fact, they vehemently affirm Adam's fall and postlapsarian sin nature. John Calvin certainly affirmed this, so they can't abandon this without abandoning Calvin.

As I've pointed out, however, they're inconsistent. If Adam's sin was inevitable and actively ordained as they claim, then it's impossible to say he wasn't created with a sin nature (or as you say, that Adam possessed the same nature before and after the fall.)

BTW, you say Adam had no sin nature at all, which is why I assumed you were espousing pelagianism.

But I'm curious where this stems from. Reformed seminaries have become a mess in regard to the Genesis account. Very few affirm a literal creation account. Maybe the discussion needs to go there.

My view holds some things similar with Calvinism (I was, at one time, a Calvinist).

I can only answer for myself (I did not attend a Reformed seminary, but one associated with the SBC).

The reason my view is not anywhere near Pelaganism is how we view Adam's nature pre and post fall. Pelaganism assumes that Adam had the will to choose obedience for obedience's sake (to choose God's will rather than Adam's will) and that there being no change with the Fall men are now in the same boat.

I deny that Adam had a "sin nature" only because it implies a human nature prior to Christ and man's rebirth that was different. I believe that the change in human nature (or sin nature) is when a soul is reborn, not with the Fall.

So there is a difference in how we view Adam but the difference is hypothetical. It is not focused on human nature and sin, but the hypothetical supposition regarding should Adam not have sinned.

 

[KenH]

Which denominations are pelagians today ?

I was born and raised in the Churches of Christ, part of the Stone-Campbell Restoration Movement of the 1800s. What I was taught was either Pelagianism or shares a common border with it. I became a Southern Baptist in 1999 so I would not be familiar with any changes to mainstream thought in Churches of Christ since then.

 

[37818]

. . . But the pelagian position, in essence, denies the fall, positing that Adam really didn't undergo any type of change in his nature. . . .

Taking the position that Christ having died for the "whole world," (1 John 2:2; 1 John 5:19) on the account that all mankind are affected by the fall (Romans 3:23, Romans 5:12). And on the merit of Christ all men are placed in God's book (Exodus 32:33) and yet can still have their names removed do to sin. Hince must not reject God's mercy which is not deserved. (Romans 9:11, Romans 9:15, Romans 3:11). This view of all names beginning in the book of life is not a common view is nevertheless not Pelagian! (Matthew 18:3; Mark 10:14-15, John 3:3-4. 1 John 5:4, Revelation 3:5, Revelation 20:15.)

 

[Calminian]

My view holds some things similar with Calvinism (I was, at one time, a Calvinist).

I can only answer for myself (I did not attend a Reformed seminary, but one associated with the SBC).

The reason my view is not anywhere near Pelaganism is how we view Adam's nature pre and post fall. Pelaganism assumes that Adam had the will to choose obedience for obedience's sake (to choose God's will rather than Adam's will) and that there being no change with the Fall men are now in the same boat.

I deny that Adam had a "sin nature" only because it implies a human nature prior to Christ and man's rebirth that was different. I believe that the change in human nature (or sin nature) is when a soul is reborn, not with the Fall.

So there is a difference in how we view Adam but the difference is hypothetical. It is not focused on human nature and sin, but the hypothetical supposition regarding should Adam not have sinned.

No question your view differs from Pelagius. I wouldn't say, however, that you are nowhere near him. Your view is unique to say the least. In common, you both deny a sin nature, and both see no significant change in Adam pre and post fall.

But I'm not saying you're a pelagian. You're definitely close to the supralapsarian who believes Adam's sin was inevitable. Pelagius would deny this.

But supralaps would affirm a postlapsarian sin nature.

(I'm not trying to focus on labels, mind you, just noticing the uniqueness of your view)

 

[Calminian]

Taking the position that Christ having died for the "whole world," (1 John 2:2; 1 John 5:19) on the account that all mankind are affected by the fall (Romans 3:23, Romans 5:12). And on the merit of Christ all men are placed in God's book (Exodus 32:33) and yet can still have their names removed do to sin. Hince must not reject God's mercy which is not deserved. (Romans 9:11, Romans 9:15, Romans 3:11). This view of all names beginning in the book of life is not a common view is nevertheless not Pelagian! (Matthew 18:3; Mark 10:14-15, John 3:3-4. 1 John 5:4, Revelation 3:5, Revelation 20:15.)

I would say the view you describe above, is actually a works based security, which is problematic. We all sin and John says. If we can sin our way out of salvation, we're in trouble.

 

[JonC]

No question your view differs from Pelagius. I wouldn't say, however, that you are nowhere near him. Your view is unique to say the least. In common, you both deny a sin nature, and both see no significant change in Adam pre and post fall.

But I'm not saying you're a pelagian. You're definitely close to the supralapsarian who believes Adam's sin was inevitable. Pelagius would deny this.

My view is unique on this board, I agree. But it is not unique in terms of Christianity.

Pelaganism was condemned at the Council of Carthage. My personal view is that the Catholic Church as an organization had already left the Christian faith, so there are things about their view that I do not agree with. I believe the Catholic Church was born an apostate organization.

I do agree with Pelagius in that I reject the Catholic understanding of "original sin". But I do not agree with Pelagius' view. So the only thing I have in common with him is rejecting the Catholic position as expressed in the late 4th Century to the early 5th Century.

 

[Calminian]

My view is unique on this board, I agree. But it is not unique in terms of Christianity.

Pelaganism was condemned at the Council of Carthage. My personal view is that the Catholic Church as an organization had already left the Christian faith, so there are things about their view that I do not agree with. I believe the Catholic Church was born an apostate organization.

I do agree with Pelagius in that I reject the Catholic understanding of "original sin". But I do not agree with Pelagius' view. So the only thing I have in common with him is rejecting the Catholic position as expressed in the late 4th Century to the early 5th Century.

I'm not sure what you believe I'm saying about your view. I'm merely repeating what you're telling me, and agreeing you're not a pelagian. I don't believe semipelagians are pelagian either.

If you want to expand on your disagreement with the catholic (and protestant) view of original sin feel free. You can certainly explain your differences with Pelagius there also.

Also, if your view is more common than I thought, explain. I've never heard anything like it. Is there a teacher or branch of christianity who espouses it? I'll plead ignorance, and listen.