Pelagianism
What is pelagianism, is it a heresy, is it something we
should hold to? And what does this view lead to? Is there anything in the bible
to back this view?
Well to
start it is a view that is to go agents the view of total depravity (original sin),
what is this view? Well the view in short says that all mankind fell with Adam,
“1Co 15:22
For as in Adam all die, so
also in Christ shall all be made alive.”
So, we see in1 Corinthians, that all died in Adam and so I have said
that all does not men all all the time, but in fact here it does. So this
brings sin to all that are born, and so with that bring the case then what is
sin? Well I would point you to my post on sin
http://reformedcm.blogspot.com/2010/10/sin-what-is-it-that-sin-does-and-were.html
so then what is, the teaching of pelagianism then? Well
(Pelagianism is a theological
theory named after Pelagius (AD 354 – AD 420/440), although he denied, at least
at some point in his life, many of the doctrines associated with his name. It
is the belief that original sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will
is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid. Thus,
Adam's sin was "to set a bad example" for his progeny, but his
actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin.
Pelagianism views the role of Jesus as "setting a good example" for
the rest of humanity (thus counteracting Adam's bad example) as well as
providing an atonement for our sins. In short, humanity has full control, and
thus full responsibility, for obeying the Gospel in addition to full
responsibility for every sin (the latter insisted upon by both proponents and
opponents of Pelagianism). According to Pelagian doctrine, because humans are
sinners by choice, they are therefore criminals who need the atonement of Jesus
Christ. Sinners are not victims, they are criminals who need pardon.
The history of this teaching is as
follows, Pelagius was opposed by Saint Augustine, one of the most influential
early Church Fathers. When Pelagius taught that moral perfection was attainable
in this life without the assistance of divine grace through human free will,
Saint Augustine contradicted this by saying that perfection was impossible
without grace because we are born sinners with a sinful heart and will. The
Pelagians charged Augustine on the grounds that the doctrine of original sin
amounted to Manichaeism: the Manichaeans taught that the flesh was in itself
sinful (and they denied that Jesus came in the flesh) – and this charge would
have carried added weight since contemporaries knew that Augustine himself had
been a Manichaean layman before his conversion to Christianity. Augustine also
taught that a person's salvation comes solely through an irresistible free
gift, the efficacious grace of God, but that this was a gift that one had a
free choice to accept or refuse.[1] Pelagianism was attacked in the Council of
Diospolis[2] and condemned in 418 at the Council of Carthage.[3] These
condemnations were ratified at the Council of Ephesus in 431. The strict moral
teachings of the Pelagians were influential in southern Italy and Sicily, where
they were openly preached until the death of Julian of Eclanum in 455.[4] The
man that was behind the teaching is this man Little or nothing is known about
the life of Pelagius. Although he is frequently referred to as a British monk,
it is by no means certain what his origins were. Augustine says that he lived in
Rome "for a very long time" and referred to him as "Brito"
to distinguish him from a different man called Pelagius of Tarentum. Bede
refers to him as "Pelagius Bretto".[5] St. Jerome suggests he was of
Scottish descent but in such terms as to leave it uncertain as to whether
Pelagius was from Scotland or Ireland. He was certainly well known in the Roman
province, both for the harsh asceticism of his public life, as well as the
power and persuasiveness of his speech. Until his more radical ideas saw daylight,
even such pillars of the Church as Augustine referred to him as “saintly.”
Pelagius taught that the human will, as created with its abilities by God, was
sufficient to live a sinless life, although he believed that God's grace
assisted every good work. Pelagius did not believe that all humanity was guilty
in Adam's sin, but said that Adam had condemned humankind through bad example,
and that Christ’s good example offered humanity a path to salvation, through
sacrifice and through instruction of the will. Jerome emerged as one of the
chief critics of Pelagianism, because, according to him, sin was a part of
human nature and we couldn't help but to sin.) <from wiki>
What are his views well wiki gives
us this for his views, Pelagius's views
In contrast, Pelagius taught:
Pelagius said, “Whenever I have to
speak on the subject of moral instruction and conduct of a holy life, it is my
practice first to demonstrate the power and quality of human nature and to show
what it is capable of achieving, and then to go on to encourage the mind of my
listener to consider the idea of different kinds of virtues, in case it may be
of little or no profit to him to be summoned to pursue ends which he has
perhaps assumed hitherto to be beyond his reach; for we can never end upon the
path of virtue unless we have hope as our guide and compassion…any good of
which human nature is capable has to be revealed, since what is shown to be
practicable must be put into practice.”[16]
Pelagius said, "It was because
God wished to bestow on the rational creature the gift of doing good of his own
free will and the capacity to exercise free choice, by implanting in man the
possibility of choosing either alternative...he could do either quite naturally
and then bend his will in the other direction too. He could not claim to
possess the good of his own volition, unless he was the kind of creature that
could also have possessed evil. Our most excellent creator wished us to be able
to do either but actually to do only one, that is, good, which he also
commanded, giving us the capacity to do evil only so that we might do His will
by exercising our own. That being so, this very capacity to do evil is also
good - good, I say, because it makes the good part better by making it
voluntary and independent, not bound by necessity but free to decide for
itself."[17]
Pelagius said, "Those who are
unwilling to correct their own way of life appear to want to correct nature
itself instead."[18]
Pelagius said, "And lest, on
the other hand, it should be thought to be nature's fault that some have been
unrighteous, I shall use the evidence of the scripture, which everywhere lay
upon sinners the heavy weight of the charge of having used their own will and
do not excuse them for having acted only under constraint of nature."[19]
Pelagius said, "Yet we do not
defend the good of nature to such an extent that we claim that it cannot do
evil, since we undoubtedly declare also that it is capable of good and evil; we
merely try to protect it from an unjust charge, so that we may not seem to be
forced to do evil through a fault of our nature, when, in fact, we do neither
good nor evil without the exercise of our will and always have the freedom to
do one of the two, being always able to do either."[19]
Pelagius said, "Nothing
impossible has been commanded by the God of justice and majesty...Why do we
indulge in pointless evasions, advancing the frailty of our own nature as an
objection to the one who commands us? No one knows better the true measure of
our strength than he who has given it to us nor does anyone understand better
how much we are able to do than he who has given us this very capacity of ours
to be able; nor has he who is just wished to command anything impossible or he
who is good intended to condemn a man for doing what he could not avoid
doing."[20]
Pelagius said, "Grace indeed
freely discharges sins, but with the consent and choice of the
believer."[21]
Pelagius said, "Obedience
results from a decision of the mind, not the substance of the body."[22]
An unknown Pelagian, "Is it
possible then for a man not to sin? Such a claim is indeed a hard one and a
bitter pill for sinners to swallow; it pains the ears of all who desire to live
unrighteous. Who will find it easy now to fulfil the demands of righteousness,
when there are some who find it hard even to listen to them?"[23]
An unknown Pelagian, "When
will a man guilty of any crime or sin accept with a tranquil mind that his
wickedness is a product of his own will, not of necessity, and allow what he
now strives to attribute to nature to be ascribed to his own free choice? It
affords endless comfort to transgressors of the divine law if they are able to
believe that their failure to do something is due to inability rather than
disinclination, since they understand from their natural wisdom that no one can
be judged for failing to do the impossible and that what is justifiable on
grounds of impossibility is either a small sin or none at all."[24]
An unknown Pelagian, "Under
the plea that it is impossible not to sin, they are given a false sense of
security in sinning...Anyone who hears that it is not possible for him to be
without sin will not even try to be what he judges to be impossible, and the
man who does not try to be without sin must perforce sin all the time, and all
the more boldly because he enjoys the false security of believing that it is
impossible for him not to sin...But if he were to hear that he is able not to
sin, then he would have exerted himself to fulfil what he now knows to be
possible when he is striving to fulfil it, to achieve his purpose for the most
part, even if not entirely."[25]
An unknown Pelagian, "Consider
first whether that which is such that a man cannot be without it ought to be
described as sin at all; for everything which cannot be avoided is now put down
to nature but it is impious to say that sin is inherent in nature, because in
this way the author of nature is being judged at fault… how can it be proper to
call sin by that name if, like other natural things, it cannot be avoided,
since all sin is to be attributed to the free choice of the will, not to the
defects of nature?"[
The most known plagain we have now
is a man by the name of Jessie Morrell. He is a plagin that is trying to not
only say that the bible truth of Calvinism is false but that anyone that is
holding to the doctrine of total depravity is a heretic and thus they are not
saved. This comes in to problems with the bible and what it teaches, so we know
that the bible teaches that we are all sinners and that no one is without sin
but Christ himself and that is because he is God. We see in the word that we are with sin.
“1Jn 1:7-9 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the
light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son
cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive
ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is
faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all
unrighteousness.” (Bold and italicized added) we see that in the parts that are
highlighted that if we say we have no sin the we are ling to ourselves. So we
need to look at what this heresy tells us and what the bible does. I want to in
a way talk about one of the biggest
heretics in this heresy in the states and that was Charles finny. But I think
that word would do any good so I will give a link to a YouTube video about him.
I want to say that we all have sin
and that we all sin. The reason that we don’t at times is because we have grace
that keeps us from this.
May the lord bless this to you and
also help you get a better understanding of his word.
Soli Deo Gloria
