Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism

PELAGIANISM AND SEMI-PELAGIANISM    1
ABSTRACT    1
PELAGIANISM AND THE FORMATION OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH    2
Who was Augustine?    3
Who was Pelagius?    3
THE TEACHINGS OF PELAGIUS VERSUS THOSE OF AUGUSTINE    4
THE ECCLESIASTICAL RESPONSE TO PELAGIUS    7
WHAT IS SEMI-PELAGIANISM?    7
Towards a modern Answer to Pelagianism    9
ARE THERE EXAMPLES OF PELAGIANISM IN THE BIBLE?    10
PELAGIANISM IN CHURCH HISTORY    12
PELAGIANISM, ALIVE AND WELL TODAY?    15
GENERAL REFERENCES    17

Abstract
Pelagius was a fifth century monk of British origin who, although initially an orthodox Christian, began teaching what has become the archetypical Christian heresy that has been condemned by more Christian councils and synods than any other heresy in the history of the Christian church. The nature of his heresy was made plane through debate and dissention with Augustine, the bishop of Hippo. The essence of Pelagian heresy hinges on several crucial doctrines. Pelagius taught that man was not an original sinner and that Adams fall had no impact on subsequent human generations. Man became a sinner through following Adam’s bad example. He taught that man’s will was not corrupt and that he could in fact choose salvation of his own volition. He taught that man could get saved if he chose to live a life imitating Jesus’ good example. Salvation was thus earned through good works. He did not believe grace was essential to salvation. He also did not believe in election and predestination. Pelagius’s teachings were robustly countered by Augustine. Semi-Pelagianism maintains that grace is necessary, but that the will is free by nature to choose whether to cooperate with the grace offered or in other words, the unaided will performs the initial act of faith. Orthodox Christianity now recognises the heretical nature of Pelagius’s teachings but despite this, much of what he taught is still embraced by ill informed Christians today.

Pelagianism and the Formation of the Christian Church
Over the first 300 years of the life of the early church some of the fundamental and crucial core doctrines of the Christian church had been worked on and had come to maturity and were embodied in widely accepted creeds. The Apostles creed was complete by the middle of the second century and by the fourth century the doctrines of the two natures of Christ (His deity and humanity) and the Trinity had been established. Councils in which these doctrines were established included the Councils of Nicea in 325 AD, Ephasus in 431 AD and Chalcedon in 451 AD.

It is interesting to note that theological controversies have over the duration of the life of the church often been helpful in resolving and crystallising doctrinal truth. Church history makes it clear that active controversy has served as a strong catalyst to move the church towards more accurate definitions and understanding. This is seen to be true in the controversies that broke out in the debates between Pelagius and Augustine in the fifth century. The conflict of opinion and hard fight fought between these two men has clarified the doctrines of grace and salvation for orthodox Christians. No heresy has ever been as widely or as frequently condemned as Pelagianism has. These debates however were set to continue and the Pelagian heresy could perhaps be said to be one of the most insidious of all time. Although it may not be broadly known by most Christians today by the term Pelagianism, it is the bent of a natural fleshly man who thinks logically about biblical doctrine, who may even be fervent in his pursuit of Christianity but is bereft of theological depth.

By the time Pelagius and Augustine were doing battle over grace and salvation, the church had been well established in the major teachings around God and Christ but what had not been established by this time were answers to questions along the lines of  “What did Christ accomplish in his life and death?” and “How is this work applied to man?” and “What is mans role (if anything) in his own salvation?”
Who was Augustine?
Augustine was born in Thagaste to African parents of Romanized Berber origins on the 13th of November 354 AD. He was educated in the prominent African city of Carthage and he established himself in history as being a formidable intellectual. He converted to Chrisianity from a self confessed life of paganism, debauchery and licentiousness (see his famous autobiography, ‘The Confessions of St. Augustine’, written between 397 and 398 AD). The strongest Christian influences in his life were a devout praying mother and an intellectual bishop by the name of Ambrose, whom he met in Milan. He converted to Christianity and was baptized by Ambrose in 387 AD after which he moved back to north Africa where the people of Hippo convinced him to become their bishop.

Although Augustine dealt with several heresies that threatened early Christendom, the one for which he best known is the problem of Pelagianism. Many writers have compared this dispute to the one Martin Luther waged in the 16th century reformation since the crucial issues contended for included original sin, justification by faith alone and the depravity of man. Luther was also an Augstinian monk before his reformation.

Who was Pelagius?
Pelagius was a British monk and zealous preacher who lived a rigorous life of asceticism (even going as far as castrating himself). He desired to live a life of perfect holiness – based completely on his own strength. Although in his early life he held to orthodox Christian teaching (believing the creeds), later in life he became what in church history could be described as the arch-heretic. He was well known for the power of his persuasive speech. He came to Carthage from Rome in 411 AD whilst Augustine was away attending the Council of Carthage. It was here that he began to teach the heresy that now bears his name. Having been shocked by the immoral life in Rome (the centre of Christendom) he taught a rigorous ascetic life which amounted to salvation through works without any requirement for Gods saving grace. His energetic moral crusade was an attempt to reform the conduct of the clergy and the laity and he found many supporters. The human will, tempered in good deeds and rigorous ascetism, was sufficient to live a sinless life. He told his followers that right action was all that was required for salvation. Gods grace was not essential, it was an added advantage should one need it, but in no way fundamental in salvation. He also did not believe in original sin. The only thing that seemed to stand in his way was the influential bishop Augustine from Hippo. Augustine held to a doctrine of salvation by grace alone. Pelagius felt this gave men the freedom to live as they pleased.

The Teachings of Pelagius versus those of Augustine
The opposing views of these two men can be summarised in the following points:
1.    Pelagius taught Adam was mortal and would have died whether he had sinned or not. Augustine held the opposite view; that the consequences of original sin are spiritual and physical death.
2.    Pelagius taught that the sin of Adam injured Adam alone, and had no effect on the human race after him. Augustine held that all people inherited the sin and guilt of Adams’ fall. Pelagius said man is only a sinner now (because he is not born one) if he chooses to follow Adams’ bad example. In the same sense, simply following the good example of Jesus saves man. Salvation thus becomes a system of human works. Augustine held that we are born sinners (he believed in what has become known as ‘total depravity’) by nature and require grace to even respond to God for salvation; good works or following Jesus’ example cannot save. Augustine taught that when we sin we are actually only doing what comes naturally because of the original corruption we live with being in Adam. A clear distinction is made between original sin and actual sin. Original sin is not simply the first actual sin. Original sin is the way we are born – independent of any actual deed. One should remember on this point that if you break the link between Adam and us and we are no in his (Adam’s) sin (as Pelagius taught), neither can we be in Christ. Pelagius argued that just as one is not sinful in Adam, one couldn’t be righteous in Christ. Grace, to Pelagius, was simply what helped humans to do what could be done naturally. It was thus not the essence of salvation. God, argued Pelagius, cannot blame us for the sin of another (Adam). He argued that this would be unfair and unjust of God. Since he broke the link between us and Adam he concluded that sin could only be transmitted through our imitation of Adam’s bad example. In the same way, the only way one can be made righteous, is not by the penal substitutionary sacrifice of Jesus, but by our imitation of his good life. In the Pelagian view it is considered unjust for Christ to have suffered vicariously for others. How can one righteous person suffer for unrighteous others? Augustine taught penal substitutionary sacrifice and the vicarious death of Jesus Christ in man’s stead. It is clear that Pelagius’s views of justice were adopted from his culture and not from scripture. It becomes clear that to avoid becoming Pelagian one actually has to be taught not to be. Natural man is automatically Pelagian (what is fair about being punished for another mans sin? How could God hold me responsible for sin I didn’t even commit?). It is good to remember that biblical doctrine is not firstly rational or the natural product of what man would consider good or fair. In more modern times Pelagian views have been held by Hugo Grotius (1583 – 1645) and Charles Finney (1792 – 1875).
3.    Pelagius taught that newborn children are in that state in which Adam was before the fall. The doctrine of original sin was denied completely. Augustine held the opposing view.
4.    Pelagius taught the law as well as the Gospel lead to the Kingdom of God. It is important to realise that Pelagius was a moralist, i.e. he was consumed in the priority of Christian conduct and he was convinced that a doctrine of salvation by grace alone would discourage holy Christian behaviour. Augustine held that a man could be saved by grace alone and that no amount of human adherance to any law could save him. It should be remembered that moralism is an attempt to get Christians to behave correctly. The question that should be asked at this point is, ‘Do we behave properly for justification, or because of it?’ Augustine would have answered, ‘because of it’. History and theology agree here – any attempt to modify human behaviour apart from divine grace has always failed. To the Pelagiest however, grace is superfluous. To Augustine it was utterly indispensable. Since we are not sinners in Adam (according to Pelagius), we have no need of grace from the beginning. Such a ‘gospel’ obviously lends itself to perfectionism – and in fact that is where Pelagius ended up – one could through struggle, according to him, and if we will, observe God’s commandments without sinning and thus be perfect through self-determination and self-effort. Such perfection was attainable by following the good example set for us by Jesus. What men need, he said,  is moral direction, not a new birth. Augustine held that a man needs transformation from within – a new birth.
5.    Pelagius held that even before the coming of the Lord there were men without sin. Augustine opposed this view.
6.    Pelagius taught that God may only require of us what we are capable in ourselves of freely doing thus man can decide in and of himself to get saved and he can decide to resist the grace of God and refuse to get saved. Pelagius held the human will was totally free and that this was a necessary postulate of moral responsibility. This denies any doctrine of election or predestination. Augustine held that mans’ will was corrupt through original sin and that without the grace of God his will could make no choice for righteousness. He taught what has become known as previent grace (grace which works first). Our will, in Augustine’s view, is so sin-impaired by Adams fall that it can only chose evil apart from grace. Augustine also strongly affirmed the doctrine of predestination and limited election. One believes because he is elect. To Augustine it was unthinkable that humans could exercise the initiative in salvation. Augustine also held to a doctrine of infant baptism as a means of washing away original sin.

The Ecclesiastical Response to Pelagius
The views of Augustine have never been condemned as heretical and won the day formally on numerous occasions. Pelagius was excommunicated by Pope Innocent I (410-417) and Pelagianism was condemned by four regional councils, one ecumenical council and at least one Roman Catholic council, not to mention the numerous Protestant synods, assemblies and confessions.
Councils of Carthage: Coelestius (one of Pelagias’s chief disciples and the man with who Augustine corresponded in written debate the most) was condemned in 412. Pelagiansm was condemned in 416 and 418.
Council of Ephasus: Pelagianism was anathematized at the Third Ecumenical council on the 22nd July 431 in Ephesus.
Council of Orange: The second Council of Orange held in Aurausio, France in 529 upheld Augustine’s view of grace and unequivocally condemned Pelagianism.
Council of Trent: On the 17th June, 1546, the Roman Council of Trent condemned Pelagius.
Protestant Synods and Confessions: Protestant movements universally condemned Pelagianism. Some notable examples include:
•    2nd Helvetic (1561/66; Swiss-German Reformed)
•    Augsburg Confession (1530; Lutheran)
•    Gallican Confession (1559; French Reformed)
•    Belgic Confession (1561; Lowlands, French/Dutch/German Reformed)
•    The Anglican Articles (1571; English)
•    Canons of Dort (1618-9; Dutch/German/French Reformed)

So it is easy to see that to stand with Augustine against Pelagius is not some narrow minded, small view held by just a few but it is to fall with the majority opinion of Christian orthodoxy through the centuries of church history.

What is Semi-Pelagianism?
At the height of the Pelagian controversy a monk of Syrian origin educated in the Eastern church moved to Marseilles in France and began teaching a scheme of doctrine that occupied a middle ground between that of Pelagius and Augustine. Followers were initially called Marsilians and later semi-Pelagianists. The term semi-Pelagian apparently appeared first in the Lutheran Formula of Concord in 1577 and became associated with the theology of the Jesuit Luis Molina. The teachings of this group gave birth to what we call Armenianism today. Faustus, bishop of Priez in France between the years AD 427 and AD 480 was a powerful advocate of this doctrine which was permanently accepted by the Eastern Church and for a time was widely disseminated throughout the Western as well. It was condemned by the synods of Orange and Valence in AD 529. Thus by the sixth century semi-Pelagianism as a historic movement died out but one of the pivotal issues of this scheme of theology persisted and is still rampant today – that is the belief in the priority of the human will over the grace of God in the initial work of salvation.

Semi-Pelagianism maintains that grace is necessary, but that the will is free by nature to choose whether to cooperate with the grace offered or in other words, the unaided will performs the initial act of faith. The term semi-Pelagian is probably less accurate than the term semi-Augustinian. This view rejects the teaching of Pelagius and respects Augustine’s but was not willing to follow through to the ultimate consequence of his theology. Their main points of objection to Augustine’s theology are the assertion of the total bondage of the will (Augustine said that man being a sinner by nature has a corrupt will and is incapable of making a decision for salvation without the help of God’s grace); the priority of the irresistibility of grace (Augustine taught that God’s grace upon a sinner cannot be ineffective); and of the rigidity of the doctrine of predestination. (Augustine taught that the number of the elect is set and cannot change). Semi-Pelagian thought has regard for the seriousness of sin and for original sin but it holds that man is capable of making a free will decision for Christ without God’s graceful help – and yet once a sinner has made that decision, it teaches that grace is necessary for salvation. Thus man’s will takes the initiative towards God. Thus divine grace and free will must work together according to the semi-Pelagianist. This is also known as synergism – where mans free will and God’s grace work together – thus man actually has a role to play in his own salvation. Augustine taught that man’s sinful nature held his will in bondage and that in fact without God’s preceding grace, no sinners’ will could ever make a decision for salvation. Predestination in this scheme is explained simply as God’s foreknowledge of how an individual will decide.


Towards a modern Answer to Pelagianism
The Westminster Confession of Faith is a Reformed confession of faith in the Calvinist theological tradition and was written in 1646. The section devoted to the fall of man reads as follows and could be seen as a more modern expression of belief around the issues that caused the debates between Augustine and Pelagius. It reads as follows:

Chapter VI
Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and the Punishment thereof

I. Our first parents, being seduced by the subtilty and temptations of Satan, sinned, in eating the forbidden fruit (Gen 1:3; 2 Cor 11:3). This their sin, God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel, to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory (Rom 11:32).
II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion, with God, (Gen 3:6-8; Ecc 7:29; Rom 3:23) and so became dead in sin, (Gen 2:17; Eph 2:1) and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body (Tit 1:15; .Gen 6:5; Jer 17:9; Rom 3:10-18).
III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed (Gen 1:27-28; 2:10 and 17; Acts 17:26; Rom 5:12-19; 1 Cor 5:21, 22, 45 and 49) and the same death in sin, and corrupted nature, conveyed to all their posterity descending from them by ordinary generation (Psalm 51:5; Gen 5:3; Job 14:4 and 15:14).
IV. From this original corruption, whereby we are utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all good (Rom 5:6; Rom 8:7; Rom 7:18; Col 1:21), and wholly inclined to all evil (Gen 6:5; Gen 8:21; Rom 3:10-12), do proceed all actual transgressions (James 1:14-15; Eph 2:2-3; Matt 15:19).
V. This corruption of nature, during this life, does remain in those that are regenerated (1 John 1:8, 10; Rom 7:14, 17-18, 23; James 3:2; Prov 20:9; Ecc 7:20) and although it be, through Christ, pardoned, and mortified; yet both itself, and all the motions thereof, are truly and properly sin (Rom 7:5, 8, 25; Gal 5:17).
VI. Every sin, both original and actual, being a transgression of the righteous law of God, and contrary thereunto (1 John 3:4), does in its own nature, bring guilt upon the sinner (Rom 2:15; 3:9, 19) whereby he is bound over to the wrath of God (Eph 2:3), and curse of the law (Gal 3:10), and so made subject to death (Rom 6:23), with all miseries spiritual (Eph 4:18), temporal (Rom 8:20), and eternal (Matt 25:41; 2Thess 1:9).


Are There Examples of Pelagianism in the Bible?
Because this heresy is so human, so consistent with a man centred way of thinking about justice and considering the fact that the Bible is a book describing God’s history with man, one might expect to find some description of pre-Pelagius expressions of what Pelagius taught.

Cain despised Able for his sacrifice. Abel’s sacrifice was accepted and as Hebrews 11 tells us, his was a sacrifice offered by faith. Cain’s sacrifice was the fruit of his own labour and God refused that. Even before this account one can see Adam and Eve’s attempts to cover up their own sin when they sewed leaves together. The Tower of Babel appears to be another clear expression of Pelagian thought. “Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves” (Gen. 11:4). This is clearly a human effort to get to God. God however, came down and scattered and confused this pagan attempt to get to him and they were forced to abort the project. This is God’s pattern: He comes to us, we don’t find Him through our own doing, He provides the sacrifice for us, we don’t provide our own way to Him, He comes down to dwell with us, we do not climb up to dwell with him.

The Israelites often found themselves reverting to pagan ways. God reminded them: “Thus says the LORD: Cursed is the man who trusts in man and makes flesh his strength, whose heart turns away from the LORD… Blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD, whose trust is the LORD… The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately sick; who can understand it? Heal me, O LORD, and I shall be healed; save me, and I shall be saved, for you are my praise.” (Jer. 17:5, 7, 9, 14).  Jonah learnt that God will save whom he has chosen to save. Just as soon as he had confessed, “Salvation comes from the Lord,” we read, “And the Lord commanded the fish, and it vomited Jonah onto dry land.” (Jonah 2:9, 10). King Nebuchadnezzar also had his self confidence turned to humiliation by God when we read he turned his eyes toward heaven and said, “all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and she does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, “What have you done?” (Dan. 4:35). The message comes through clearly: God saves freely, by his own choice, and to his own praise and glory.

We find Pelagian though permeating the way the Pharisees believed. Remembering that Pelagian teaching tells us that we are born morally neutral, that we do not sin because of an internal sinful nature but rather because of some external bad example that we follow, we find them avoiding bad company at all costs for fear of being corrupted by it. We find them looking in horror and disdain at Jesus’ association with sinners. Jesus however made it clear to them when he said, “And he called the people to him and said to them, “Hear and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but what comes out of the mouth; this defiles a person.” For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a person. But to eat with unwashed hands does not defile anyone.” (Matt. 15:10, 11, 19, 20). He later rebuked them very sharply saying, “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. You blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of lthe cup and the plate, that the outside also may be clean. “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs, which outwardly appear beautiful, but within are full of dead people’s bones and pall uncleanness. So you also outwardly appear righteous to others, but within you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness” (Matt. 23:25-28). The Pharisees believed that God’s grace had come to them in the Law and simply by following it, they were made righteous. Jesus made it clear however that they were not good people needing guidance, but that they were sinners needing new birth; that in and of themselves they would never find their own way to God (John 6:44; 15:5, 16).

Paul’s straight gospel message vigorously defends the grace of God against Judaizing heresy that sought to view Jesus as simply another Moses. The New Testament apostolic message denies any place for self confidence before God. It teaches clearly that we possess neither the ability, free will, power, or the righteousness to repair ourselves and escape the wrath of God. It must all be God’s work through Christ or there is no salvation at all.

And so we see that Pelagius himself actually did not invent a new heresy, he simply repackaged an old human understanding of self-righteousness that is as old as our parents in Eden. Interestingly we see the first council in Jerusalem attended by none other than Paul and Barnabas in Acts 15 was in fact the first church council to condemn this heresy. Augustine finds himself in good company!

Pelagianism in Church History
Dark-ages in church history are all characterised by the creep of a human-centred gospel that tends towards a message of self-will, self-confidence, self image and self effort. The more ‘human-centred’ the gospel becomes, the less powerful the church is. Health and vitality has come flooding back into church life whenever God is seen as the sole author and finisher of salvation. Although Pelagiansm was not officially preached during what is commonly known as the Dark-Ages, it’s tenants were widespread. Open Pelagianism was so widely condemned as heretical, no one declaring themselves as Christian would have identified themselves with the term but the core of its teachings, thinking good of our natures and for the possibility of our own self improvement, were (and remain) pervasive. This should not be surprising as we are in fact all Pelagianists by nature. Christians have to be taught not to be Pelagianists.

In the fourteenth century, on the eve of the reformation, fresh debates on grace and free will surfaced. Reformers actually benefited somewhat from a resurgence in Augustinianism. Two leading Oxford academics, Robert Holcot and the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Bradwardine, became leading antagonists in this fray.  Bradwardine wrote a book entitled ‘The Case of God Against the New Pelagians’. Holcot on the other hand predictably found this writing ‘was at the expense of human dignity’. Listening to the Archbishops own story sheds some valuable light on how he arrived at his anti-Pelagian views:

“Idle and a fool in God's wisdom, I was misled by an unorthodox error at the time when I was pursuing philosophical studies. Sometimes I went to listen to the theologians discussing this matter [of grace and free will], and the school of Pelagius seemed to me nearest the truth. In the philosophical faculty I seldom heard a reference to grace, except for some ambiguous remarks. What I heard day in and day out was that we are masters of our own free acts, that ours is the choice to act well or badly, to have virtues or sins and much more along this line." Therefore, "Every time I listened to the Epistle reading in church and heard how Paul magnified grace and belittled free will-as is the case in Romans 9, 'It is obviously not a question of human will and effort, but of divine mercy,' and its many parallels-grace displeased me, ungrateful as I was." But later, things changed: "However, even before I transferred to the faculty of theology, the text mentioned came to me as a beam of grace and, captured by a vision of the truth, it seemed I saw from afar how the grace of God precedes all good works with a temporal priority, God as Savior through predestination, and natural precedence. That is why I express my gratitude to Him who has given me this grace as a free gift."

Bradwardine begins his treatise, "The Pelagians now oppose our whole presentation of predestination and reprobation, attempting either to eliminate them completely or, at least, to show that they are dependent on personal merits." (Heiko Oberman, Forerunners of the Reformation (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1966), pp. 151-162).

These references are in fact interesting as many tend to think of Luther’s ‘The Bondage of the Will’ and the numerous writings of Calvin on this topic as extreme when in fact they were writing into a mainstream Augustinian revival. Luther’s’ main mentor, Johann von Staupitz, was himself a defender of Augustinianism against the spread of Pelagianism and wrote in his own work, ‘On Man’s Eternal Predestination’:

"God has covenanted to save the elect. Not only is Christ sent as a substitute for the believer's sins, he also makes certain that this redemption is applied. This happens at the moment when the sinner's eyes are opened again by the grace of God, so that he is able to know the true God by faith. Then his heart is set afire so that God becomes pleasing to him. Both of these are nothing but grace, and flow from the merits of Christ. Our works do not, nor can they, bring us to this state, since man's nature is not capable of knowing or wanting or doing good. For this barren man God is sheer fear."

Some have argued (and probably correctly so) that over the centuries, Augustianian views matured into what we would typically call Calvinism today; Pelagianism evolved into Socinianism (or Unitarianism) and semi-Pelagianism gave birth to what today call Armenianism.

Pelagianism, Alive and Well Today?
“Pelagianism is the natural heresy of zealous Christians who are not interested in theology” (JI Packer, “’Keswick’ and the Reformed Doctrine of Sanctification. Quoted from Wells, D. Beyond all Earthly Pow’rs. 2005. Wm. B. Eerdemans Publishing Co. pp 303).

Princeton theologian B. B. Warfield said, ‘There are fundamentally only two doctrines of salvation: that salvation is from God, and that salvation is from ourselves. The former is the doctrine of common Christianity; the latter is the doctrine of universal heathenism’ (B. B. Warfield, The Plan of Salvation (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, reprinted 1980). Paganism rests fundamentally on the premise that humans have it within themselves to save themselves. Pelagianism, although largely unknown by that name,  is alive and well and amongst us today.

The Enlightenment brought with it waves of rationalism and moralism and this made Pelagianism attractive. The architects of modern liberalism make it sound as if the idea that human nature is basically good, that history is marked by progress, that social and moral progress will bring with it peace, happiness and justice were some new theological understanding. This line of thinking is nothing more than a revival of that age-old religion of human nature in which salvation is seen as morality. Modern theologians are offended by the biblical view of human depravity and dependence on grace for a transforming new birth and see these as hindering their project of building a brave new word, like a tower reaching to heaven itself. This could be viewed similarly to the way Pelagius considered Augustine’s beliefs as hindering his project of moral reform through human effort.  

It is ironic that the Arminian revivals shared the same confidence in human strength as the Enlightenment thinkers. Charles Finny has been described as a nineteenth century reincarnation of Pelagius. Finny denied original sin saying, ‘Moral depravity is sin itself, and not the cause of sin’ and he explicitly rejects original sin in his criticism of the Westminster Confession (Charles Finney, Finney's Systematic Theology (Minneapolis: Bethany, 1976). He refers to the doctrine of original sin as “anti-scriptural and nonsensical dogma”. He held that our choices make us either good or evil. “Example” he declared “ is the highest moral influence that can be exerted.” In line with this he also denied substitutionary atonement because after all, if we are sinners simply because we followed Adam’s bad example, we are righteous through following Jesus’ example, not through being ‘in Him’. Such a ‘gospel’ can hardly be called good news to a man or women who needs atonement to overcome not only a selfish nature but to cover over the penalty for our selfishness as well. According to Finney each man had to make atonement for his own sins since Jesus could not have fulfilled the obedience we owed God. He also denied that regeneration was a supernatural gift of God – to him it was not a change produced from the outside. “If it were, sinners could not be required to effect it. No such change is needed, as the sinner has all the faculties and natural attributes requisite to render perfect obedience to God … regeneration consists in the sinner changing his ultimate choice, intention, preference”. Insisting that we depend on God’s mercy is to proclaim “the most abominable and ruinous of all falsehoods. It is to mock [the sinner’s] intelligence!” He held similar views of justification saying, "for sinners to be forensically pronounced just, is impossible and absurd. As has already been said, there can be no justification in a legal or forensic sense, but upon the ground of universal, perfect, and uninterrupted obedience to law...The doctrine of an imputed righteousness, or that Christ's obedience to the law was accounted as our obedience, is founded on a most false and nonsensical assumption" and "representing the atonement as the ground of the sinner's justification has been a sad occasion of stumbling to many."

We would do well to remember that an evangelist who preaches that it comes down to my choice to be saved are not only working from an Armenian understanding, but Pelagianistic assumptions as well. When preachers oppose those who say that the human problem is sinfulness and the wickedness of the heart, that’s Pelagianism. Some of what is embraced by evangelicals today that has been labeled Armenianism is in fact really nothing more than Pelagianism.

In American polls the majority of evangelical Christians indicated that they believed ‘human nature is basically good’ and a majority of conservative Protestants believed that in salvation ‘God helps those who help themselves’. Large portions of modern evangelicalism have embraced the assumptions of Pelagian heresy. This type of believing is at the bottom of much modern psychology – human nature is basically good; it has just been warped by its environment. Evangelistic crusades that see salvation as something man can bring or sees conversion as a natural process, like changing from one brand of toothpaste to another or entrepreneurial church growth pastors that tout recipes for church growth, or Christian counseling techniques that see our major problem as being an issue of self confidence and self-image or modern preachers who offer little more than self-help seven-step programs to being the better you have roots in Pelagian soil.

At its root the Reformation was an attack on Pelagianism. Reformers asserted that “Salvation belongs to the LORD!” (Jonah 2:9) and “So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy” (Rom. 9:16). The spirit and teaching of Pelagius is alive and well today shrouded in many deceptions and it must be confronted. Believers must be taught and encouraged in scripture to prevent this natural bent in human nature.

General References
1.    Pelagianism, From Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagius. Accessed 15 July 2008.
2.    Westminster Confession of Faith, From Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Confession_of_Faith. Accessed 6 August 2008.
3.    Clark, R S. 1997. Wheaton College, Theological Anthropology. Accessed on http://www.monergism.com 15 July 08.
4.    Horton, M S. Pelagianism: The Religion of Natural Man. Heresy, Volume 3, Number 1 - January/February 1994. Accessed on http://www.monergism.com 15 July 08.
5.    Hodge, A A. Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism and Augustinianism. Accessed on http://www.monergism.com 15 July 08.
6.    Kyle, R. Semi-Pelagianism (Advanced information).  Accessed on http://www.monergism.com 15 July 08.
7.    Hendryx, J W. A short response to the Arminian doctrine of prevenient garce. Accessed on http://www.monergism.com 15 July 08.
8.    Hendryx J W. Differences between Semi-Pelagianism and Arminian Beliefs and why both still appeal to natural human ability, apart from grace. Accessed on http://www.monergism.com 15 July 08.