The Pelagian heresy

[npetreley]

FYI, two summaries of Pelagianism. The second is, IMO, more informative. The first strikes me as almost silly, so I can't help but wonder if it's really accurate.

http://www.britannia.com/history/bb418.html

Occupied with the constant barbarian threat and the continental escapades of the usurper, Constantine III, the legitimate emperor, Honorius, "sent letters to the communities of Britain, bidding them defend themselves."

The preaching of the heresy of Pelagianism was outlawed by the Roman Emperor, Honorius. Pelagius was a Briton who had developed a theological response to what he considered to be the overly harsh teachings of Augustine of Hippo, which enjoyed wide acceptance in the Roman church. Simply put, Augustine taught that man was a sinner, by nature, and that, without the grace of God, his sin could only earn him eternal damnation. Man's salvation came solely through the grace of God, as presented in the person and sacrifice of Jesus Christ, and that this grace came only by God's pleasure, to whomsoever he chose to extend it, without requiring any effort on man's part to complete the transaction.

In Pelagius' view, this doctrine seemed to teach that God only saves specific, chosen individuals, and those that aren't chosen, are, therefore, without hope, no matter how badly they want salvation. To him, this doctrine was cruel and exclusionary, since it appeared to him to be based solely on the whim of a capricious God.

Pelagius had a more relaxed, less demanding theology. It said that man was basically good and did, indeed, have control of his own eternal destiny. It denied the doctrine of original sin, and by extension, the necessity for and the efficacy of Christ's sacrifice on the cross. These opposing and mutually exclusive views would divide Britain into factions and produce great tensions in society.

Here's what strikes me as silly (apart from denying the sinful nature, which is clearly unbiblical): those that aren't chosen, are, therefore, without hope, no matter how badly they want salvation. Augustine's view assumes that it is saving grace which initiates the desire for salvation. So it is impossible for someone to be denied salvation no matter how badly they wanted it. The situation could never occur.

Here's the other article:

A better, more complete version of the following:

http://www.markers.com/ink/bbwpelagian.htm

Original link:

http://www.graceonlinelibrary.org/full.asp?ID=461

In defending their [Pelagian] theory, as we are told by Augustine, there were five claims that they especially made for it.26 It allowed them to praise as was their due, the creature that God had made, the marriage that He had instituted, the law that He had given, the free will which was His greatest endowment to man, and the saints who had followed His counsels. By this they meant that they proclaimed the sinless perfection of human nature in every man as he was brought into the world, and opposed this to the doctrine of original sin; the purity and holiness of marriage and the sexual appetites, and opposed this to the doctrine of the transmission of sin; the ability of the law, as well as and apart from the gospel, to bring men into eternal life, and opposed this to the necessity of inner grace; the integrity of free will to choose the good, and opposed this to the necessity of divine aid; and the perfection of the lives of the saints, and opposed this to the doctrine of universal sinfulness. Other questions, concerning the origin of souls, the necessity of baptism for infants, the original immortality of Adam, lay more on the skirts of the controversy, and were rather consequences of their teaching than parts of it. As it was an obvious fact that all men died, they could not admit that Adam's death was a consequence of sin lest they should be forced to confess that his sin had injured all men; they therefore asserted that physical death belonged to the very nature of man, and that Adam would have died even had he not sinned.27 So, as it was impossible to deny that the Church everywhere baptized infants, they could not refuse them baptism without confessing themselves innovators in doctrine; and therefore they contended that infants were not baptized for forgiveness of sins, but in order to attain a higher state of salvation. Finally, they conceived that if it was admitted that souls were directly created by God for each birth, it could not be asserted that they came into the world soiled by sin and under condemnation; and therefore they loudly championed this theory of the origin of souls.

(Edited to add the better link for the second quote.)

[ November 15, 2002, 11:39 PM: Message edited by: npetreley ]

 

[Eric B]

By this they meant that they proclaimed the sinless perfection of human nature in every man as he was brought into the world, and opposed this to the doctrine of original sin; the purity and holiness of marriage and the sexual appetites, and opposed this to the doctrine of the transmission of sin;
So, as it was impossible to deny that the Church everywhere baptized infants, they could not refuse them baptism without confessing themselves innovators in doctrine; and therefore they contended that infants were not baptized for forgiveness of sins, but in order to attain a higher state of salvation.

This shows that Augustine was a mixed bag of truth and error, as the whole pagan notion of sex being evil in itself (a Satanic attack against God and His Creation, which caused untold grief in marriages, led to the celibate priests, and the whole perverted mess going in in that Church now, and fueled most of the modern rebellion against the Church as neurotic and controlling and rejection of the Bible as unnatural and anti-life) and infant baptism was mixed into the issues.
The Bible declares physical creation good, while it was the human soul that was fallen and evil, and simply misusing physical creation; but people like Augustine reversed it into a good soul trapped in an evil body (affected by a purely physical "original sin", 'salvation by grace alone', notwithstanding).

Therefore, detractors the rejected the Biblical truth (original sin and depravity, sexual continance until marriage, etc) along with the twisted error. Augustine was one of the worst influences in church history.

[ November 18, 2002, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Eric B:
Augustine was one of the worst influences in church history.

Please, brother, I believe you engage in hyperbole here. Would you have rather that the ideas of Pelagius had won the day and orthodox Christianity would be along the lines of the Church of Christ with baptismal regeneration and salvation by works, with the idea that man comes into this world pure as Adam was on the day he was created?

There is no man among us who does not have feet of clay. Remember the apostle Paul even reprimanded the apostle Peter and this after Peter had preached to Cornelius. Every man is both a victim and a maker of his times.

I see other things much worse in church history than anything you can ascribe to Augustine - such as the papacy and the revivalism of Charles Finney for glaring examples that still plague us to this very day.

Ken

 

[Primitive Baptist]

If the brethren would take the word of God for what it teaches and not look so much to what so and so taught we would all be in a better position.

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Primitive Baptist:
If the brethren would take the word of God for what it teaches and not look so much to what so and so taught we would all be in a better position.

Amen.

Ken

 

[Eric B]

Would you have rather that the ideas of Pelagius had won the day and orthodox Christianity would be along the lines of the Church of Christ with baptismal regeneration and salvation by works, with the idea that man comes into this world pure as Adam was on the day he was created?

I see other things much worse in church history than anything you can ascribe to Augustine - such as the papacy and the revivalism of Charles Finney for glaring examples that still plague us to this very day.

I didn't say those were better, but those are condemned by most of us, while Augustine is unreservedly praised.

There is no man among us who does not have feet of clay. Remember the apostle Paul even reprimanded the apostle Peter and this after Peter had preached to Cornelius. Every man is both a victim and a maker of his times.

Some of what he taught is just as bad as those other teachings, and he is considered one of the "four legs of the papal chair". If people realized how much damage the sex-is-evil teaching he helped promote (and out of guilt of his own previous vices) alone did to the Western ethic, they wouldn't be so angry at the world today for its rebellion against the Church. Pelagianism is definitely wrong, but speculating too much on predestination (to Heaven or especially Hell) and God's eternal decrees simply opened up another can of worms with no earthly resolution (it's all ultimately above our comprehension and should have been left at that) to provide centuries more of argument in the church. You don't try to contradict an error to the point of going to the opposite, and equally unbiblical extreme (as so many do in almost every issue under the sun).
I just think he was not a good church father, though some of his City of God sounded good from what I heard of it.

If the brethren would take the word of God for what it teaches and not look so much to what so and so taught we would all be in a better position.

But precisely my point, when people read the Word of God through the eyes of leaders like this, that's when the problems begin.

[ November 19, 2002, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

[KenH]

Originally posted by Eric B:
when people read the Word of God through the eyes of leaders like this, that's when the problems begin.

I understand your point. But we cannot be historyless and we cannot and should not reinvent the wheel. We should learn from our forefathers in the faith and test what they have taught with the Word of God.

Ken