So You Think I'm a Pelagian

Contrary to popular belief, Pelagius was not a heretic. Pelagianism was a strawman set up by Augustine in order for Augustine to transform heresy into orthodox. Pelagius was just a convenient target.
Augustine was born to a mixed household with a Roman-pagan father and Christian mother. His father allowed him to be raised by the mother, but he attends a Roman school and then eventually attends a school for rhetoric and philosophy. During this time, Augustine lived a very hedonistic lifestyle, particularly with regard to women. During this time of learning, he is indoctrinated with Plato's teachings and other heavily Greek philosophies.
After this time, he joins the Cult of Manichaeism, a sub-sect of Gnosticism and leaves that cult after nearly 10 years in 387 after Theodosius I decrees death for all Manichaean monks. The accounts of Augustine's conversion are murky, but it is clear that Augustine could not read Greek or Hebrew and thus would have only known the Latin. In Latin, the Hebrew idea of the dual nature of desire, yetzer ha (tov/ra), is not distinguished as it is in the Hebrew and Greek (ἐπιθυμία - epithymia). It is only translated as concupiscence which only has a negative connotation and thus Augustine only considered desire as an evil thing, which appealed to his Gnostic roots.
When Augustine becomes a Christian, he swears off women and hedonism for a bit. He puts away his 11 year old betrothed and his concubine of 15 years by which he had a son. But the draw of those physical desires for women resurfaced soon after and instead of marrying and giving them release in God's designed framework for being fruitful and multiplying (yetzer ha tov) he falls back into Manichaeism. It's a slow fall, but he begins to write with more and more of those Gnostic ideas included in those writings and starts to blame Adam as the reason he struggles so much with sexual sin.
That's when Pelagius writes to him and admonishes Augustine for incorporating the heretical ideas into his writings.
Rather than repenting of the drift into Manichaeism, Augustine gives way to pride and his abilities as an orator and goes further into these Gnostic beliefs needing to rationalize and defend his actions and his teachings. Out of this move by Augustine comes the doctrine of Original Sin. It is truly an attempt to shift the blame from Augustine to Adam by saying that all men inherited Adam's sin nature. This then gives rise to infant "baptism" because if Original Sin is true, then babies are born in sin and had to be washed clean of it as soon as possible after birth to avoid eternal damnation. [Back then, it was orthodox to believe that water baptism was salvific.] This of course gives rise to a host of logical problems with Mary and then extra-Biblical doctrines involving her, her immaculate conception, etc. as taught by the RCC and then later issues with Calvinism a millennium later, but that gets well beyond Augustine and my purpose here. It is important to note, however, that there are a number of denominations that never accepted [church of Christ, Eastern Orthodox] or eventually studied their way out [Anabaptists and other non-denominational groups] of Original Sin and its related doctrines.
Eventually, Augustine decides to attempt to get his ideas to be accepted as orthodox and so he sets up Pelagius as his straw man by inventing 14 teachings that Pelagius allegedly taught and submitting them to the Council/synod of Diospolis. One of these is a charge of asceticism that says that the wealthy are not saved because they have not given away all their wealth and power (a charge leveled against the Donatists). This of course gets the wealthy to side with Augustine as his rhetorical abilities are convincing and his reputation strong within the church (look up Augustine dixit) and the wealthy don't check with Pelagius to see if they are true (Matt. 18:15-17). In reality, Pelagius only affirms 1/2 of one of the 14 accusations. Pelagius comes before the council, states his beliefs, and they declare Pelagius orthodox. Augustine tries again and Pelagius is brought before synod and is declared orthodox.
Not satisfied, Augustine holds his own kangaroo court in Hippo and declares Pelagius a heretic based on this fake list. He then writes to Innocent I who temporarily suspends Pelagius until further examination. He dies and Zosimus takes his position. Zosimus gets letters from Pelagius defending himself and rejecting Augustine's list. Zosimus declares Augustine and his cohorts wicked liars and declares Pelagius orthodox and Augustinianism is heresy. Augustine, already known for using legal force to settle church matters, involves Emperor Honorius. Alypius, a close friend of Augustine, sends the Emperor 80 stallions to use his influence with Zosimus to overturn his earlier declaration. Furthermore, Honorius is fighting against the German tribes attempting to tear Western Rome apart and not wanting to have to deal with another "front" forces Zosimus on this basis to put an end to the conflict stating it is easier for one man to suffer (Pelagius) than for the Empire to be torn apart.
Neither seemed to understand that by declaring the man, Pelagius, heretical that they were declaring orthodoxy heretical in favor of the actual Gnostic heresy of Augustine that he had been trying to slip into the church since before his first encounter with Pelagius.
In this section I will examine each of Augustine’s accusations against Pelagius. Note, these were invented by Augustine and Pelagius rejected them all but half of one as far as we can tell from history and the writings of both men.
# Adam was created mortal so that he was going to die, whether he sinned or not.
# The sin of Adam harmed him alone and not the whole human kind.
# The law of Moses leads to Heaven in the same way as the gospel.
# Newborn infants are in the same state as Adam before his transgression.
# The whole human kind does not die through the death or transgression of Adam, and the whole human kind does not rise through the resurrection of Christ.
# Even if they are not baptized, infants possess eternal life.
# If wealthy persons who have been baptized do not renounce all their possessions, they have no merit, even if they seem to do something good, and they will not possess the kingdom of Heaven.
# God’s grace and help is not given for individual actions, but consists in free will and the law and teachings.
# God’s grace is given in accord with our merits, and for this reason grace itself is located in the human will, whether one becomes worthy or unworthy.
# Only those people can be called children of God who have become entirely without sin.
# Forgetfulness and ignorance are not sinful, because they do not come about willingly, but necessarily.
# A choice is not free if it needs the help of God, since everyone has their own will either to do something or not to do it.
# Our victory is not the result of God’s help, but of free will.
# From Peter’s statement: We are sharers in the divine nature [2 Peter 1:4], it follows that the soul can be as sinless as God.
1. Adam was created mortal so that he was going to die, whether he sinned or not.
True.
# Hebrews 9:27 - it has been appointed unto men once to die… That death was appointed means it was a function of our design, something that came from God not as a result of man’s sin.
# The Tree of Life - If physical death was not a part of creation, then the Tree of Life has no purpose. It was not needed before the fall of Adam and could not be accessed afterwards. The Tree of Life indeed gave Adam and Eve their perpetual life preventing their natural death due to entropy.
# Sin Didn’t Redesign Humans - Created as human in a world meant to be temporary, death was a doorway to eternity and not evil. If death ended immortality, it fundamentally had to redesign humanity so that we physically were no longer what God designed us to be overriding God’s original work. This is absurd wresting control away from God Omnipotent.
# For Adam’s punishment to be just, Adam needed to understand sin (eating of the Tree of Knowledge) and the consequences of that action (death). If there was no death before the sin, Adam could not have rightly understood the consequences for his action. He had no concept of death and could not have understood spiritual death because he didn’t even understand physical death.
2. The sin of Adam harmed him alone and not the whole human kind.
Mixed. Depends on how it is viewed.
# I believe this was originally meant in the sense of hereditary sin, in which case the statement is true. Adam sinned and only Adam was separated from God by that sin, that is, only Adam died spiritually because of Adam’s death. In Romans 5:12, all who die in Adam die because they all sin, not because Adam sinned.
# However, all of humanity was harmed in the sense that by eating the forbidden tree of knowledge of Good and Evil, man was given knowledge of sin. Sin is a learned - not inherited - behavior. Thus, if man never learned of these other sins he would never have sinned, remaining as innocent as Adam before the fall. Even those who personally remain sinless are harmed by sin. Case in point, Christ was murdered.
3. The law of Moses leads to Heaven in the same way as the gospel.
False.
# The New Testament is replete with examples and reasoning how there was no salvation to be found under the law of Moses. The entire book of Hebrews was written to show that the New Covenant was superior to the Old, primarily in that it could take away sins because it was dedicated by the blood of Christ rather than bulls and goats.
4. Newborn infants are in the same state as Adam before his transgression.
True.
# Romans 7:9 - “For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.” Paul was born a Jew under the law of Moses. Yet he was alive without the law once. Yet when the commandment came, sin came alive and he died. Yet here he was writing this letter. The context can only mean spiritually alive and then spiritual death when he could understand the law.
# Deuteronomy 1:39 - “Moreover your little ones, which ye said should be a prey, and your children, which in that day had no knowledge between good and evil, they shall go in thither, and unto them will I give it, and they shall possess it.” In Numbers 14, the children of Israel were fearful because of the spies report. Thus God cursed them to all die in the wilderness over the next forty years, everyone who was twenty years old and older. In Deuteronomy 1:39, just before they enter the Promised Land - all those who had been under twenty when Numbers 14 happened - Moses declares that the children had no knowledge between good and evil. Thus they were innocent of sin and not punished according to the curse laid on their parents. Ezekiel 18:20 says that sin and its guilt are not inherited from parent to child. We could not have inherited Adam’s guilt or sin.
# Matthew 19:14 - “But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.” The kingdom of Heaven is not made up of sinful, vile, little murderers worse than rats as some would have us believe. The kingdom of Heaven is made up of those who are pure, free from sin, those innocent of sin. Thus children are pure, free from sin, and the most innocent among us having never sinned.
5. The whole human kind does not die through the death or transgression of Adam, and the whole human kind does not rise through the resurrection of Christ.
True.
# A powerful point related to #4. If Christ undid what Adam did (Romans 5), then if Adam caused all of mankind to die spiritually/physically and become guilty of sin then what Christ died made all men alive spiritually/physically (immortal) and become free of sin.
# However, if what Adam and Christ did are done in potentiality rather than reality, we do not find ourselves reduced to such absurdities as Universalism and the obviously false return to physical immortality (we all still can and do die). If Adam’s sin brought about the potential for all men to commit their own sin by releasing knowledge of sin into the world by eating of the tree, then Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection brings potential for all men to be saved through knowledge of that good news.
6. Even if they are not baptized, infants possess eternal life.
True.
# Isaiah 59:2 says that sin separates from Jehovah God. One cannot be separated from what they were never in a relationship with.
# Eternal life is thus defined as a spiritual state in a right relationship with God; a spiritual life unseparated from God by sin. John taught that we have eternal life in this life: 1 John 5:11
# “And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.” 1 John 5:13 “These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.”
# As shown above in #4, children are innocent, free of sin. Thus, they possess eternal life and have no need of being baptized.
7. If wealthy persons who have been baptized do not renounce all their possessions, they have no merit, even if they seem to do something good, and they will not possess the kingdom of Heaven.
False and absurd.
# James 2 teaches that there can be rich in the assembly and that they should act righteously with regard to the poor.
# There are no passages that teach that to be saved one must give away all their worldly possessions. Only the rich young ruler was told this by Jesus because it was his wealth that was his idol. One can be wealthy without it becoming an idol. Wealth enables you to do much good as we see in folks like Lydia.
8. God’s grace and help is not given for individual actions, but consists in free will and the law and teachings.
Mixed. Depends on what grace is being considered.
# If we are talking about what is called “common grace” then the above is false. God, through His Providence, provides all manner of help throughout the lives of even sinners. In the Sermon on the Mount, we see that even the sparrows and the lilies are cared for how much more are humans - God’s reason for creating the universe - going to be taken care of? He provides rain for the just and the unjust. (Matthew 5-6)
# However, if we are talking about saving grace, the above is true. God is not a respecter of persons (does not show bias). Grace that saves (Jesus, the gospel/the New Testament/law of Christ) was given to all mankind before any of us living today were born (Romans 5:8; Titus 2:11-12). The gospel calls all men to Christ (John 12:32) but we were all designed with free will to accept or reject that call (2 Peter 3:9; Matt 7:21; Romans 6; John 3:21).
9. God’s grace is given in accord with our merits, and for this reason grace itself is located in the human will, whether one becomes worthy or unworthy.
False.
# This is Augustine’s misunderstanding of what God’s saving grace is. Grace is not found in man and, as shown above, was given before any of us today were born. Grace is not located in or based on the will of men, no matter how free that will is to choose.
# Grace is located in the person and teachings of Jesus Christ and it is in these that we find the power of God unto Salvation (Romans 1:16; 1 Cor. 15:1-4; 1 John 5:6-8).
# It is obedient faith, the conduit through which grace must flow (Eph. 2:8) to affect salvation, that we submit ourselves to God out of duty (Luke 17:10) rather than merit, trusting that He will save us as He promised for doing as He commanded.
10. Only those people can be called children of God who have become entirely without sin.
True.
# This one is so self-evident it’s mind blowing how much it is resisted. If we are cleansed of all unrighteousness by the blood of Christ (1 John 1:7,9) when we are immersed into Christ (Romans 6; Gal. 3:26-27), and then we are continually cleansed as we walk in the light (1 John 1:7), then we are entirely without sin who are sons of God (John 1:12).
# If you are a sinner, if you cling to your sin and do not repent of it, you are either not a candidate for salvation in baptism (2 Cor. 7:10) or one who was once saved and is in danger of spiritual death again (James 5:19-20).
# All those perpetual victim’s out there claiming to be Christians but still sinners don’t understand what salvation really means. You can’t be both hagios (holy, saint, purified one), and hamartalos (sinner, slave of sin).
# This does NOT mean that a person has to have never sinned or reached a point in their lives where they no longer sin to be a child of God.
11. Forgetfulness and ignorance are not sinful, because they do not come about willingly, but necessarily.
Mixed. This one is more about perspective than reality. Actions are sinful or not regardless if one knows they are sinful. See below.
# If we are talking about someone who “forgets” that it's a sin to lie or commit adultery etc. then ignorance is not an excuse. They still sin. 1 Thess 1:6 says that God will take vengeance on those who do not know Him.
# If we are talking about someone who doesn’t know everything there is to know about the Bible, perhaps is coming out of paganism or denominationalism (forgive my redundancy there) and haven’t quite learned about all the subtle things they had been taught with regard to the gospel, then the blood of Christ will cover them as they walk in the light and grow. No babe in Christ comes up out of the water with perfect knowledge of the gospel. From this perspective, their actions may still be sinful or not (eating meat offered to idols for example), but because they are washed in the blood, growing, and walking in the light they are immediately, perpetually cleansed of their sin.
# Those who are not capable of understanding the concept of sin and its consequences, such as a child, cannot sin (Deut. 1:39; Romans 7:9). In their ignorance, they are innocent regardless of actions they take.
12. A choice is not free if it needs the help of God, since everyone has their own will either to do something or not to do it.
False and silly.
# I needed my dad’s help to learn to read, to ride a bike, to cook, etc. In needing his help I didn’t suddenly not have the ability to choose to do those things.
# We should acknowledge that God helps us in all things that are righteous to do through His Divine Providence. There is no logical argument that means that this abrogates our free will. Nor is there an argument that says that since we have the ability to choose to obey God or not we are not and cannot be helped by God.
# God’s help and our free will are not mutually exclusive concepts.
13. Our victory is not the result of God’s help, but of free will.
False and absurd.
# God’s help and free will are not mutually exclusive concepts.
# Our victory is first and foremost because Christ won that victory for all mankind. This is what grace is.
# Obedient, living faith is how grace is accessed, the conduit through which the blood is applied to each individual. Faith is where the free will comes in, the choice to be faithful to Christ’s commands and be saved by grace or not.
14. From Peter’s statement: We are sharers in the divine nature [2 Peter 1:4], it follows that the soul can be as sinless as God.
True.
# Man was created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27).
# Man is born sinless and does not inherit guilt from his ancestors (see #s 4-6 above).
# Man is alive spiritually until they come to an age where they can understand what sin is and its consequences - we call this the age of accountability (Romans 7:9).
# With every temptation, God always provides a way out (1 Cor. 10:13).
# Even a person who has sinned can “go and sin no more” else Christ’s command was in vain (John 8:11).
# Even a person who has sinned and been saved can grow so full of Christ and the Holy Spirit that there is no more room for sin (Eph. 5:18; Gal. 2:20; 1 John 3).
# Christ was sinless and was tempted in all points “like as we are tempted” (Heb. 4:15). If Christ could live under the harder law (of Moses) and yet remain sinless, then we who live under the easier law (of Christ) can potentially do so as well. Those who object that He was God are then saying essentially that Jesus cheated to maintain His sinlessness and His sacrifice is a sham. Christ had to have exactly the same potential to sin that we do to be a sacrifice for us.
# There are other potential examples of righteous people who we have no record of any sin by them. The Bible is filled with the sins of those who found favor in the eyes of God and is not shy about talking about the things they did wrong. Abraham, Moses, David, Peter, Paul, etc. Yet what sin did Enoch, Noah, Job, or Joseph commit?
# Romans 3 is not a valid prooftext for showing that all individual humans have sinned. Romans 3:23 “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God” is often quoted, but is within the context of believers only. The same all of verse 23 is the all being justified freely by the grace that is found in Christ Jesus. To insist that the all of verse 23 is universal is to teach universalism - that all are saved. Romans 3:10-12 “As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.” This quotes several Psalms which in context is talking about those who reject God actively and is a generalization about Jews and Gentiles equally. It makes no sense for this to be universal individual truth because Paul is writing to those who are now made righteous, who understand, who sought and continue to seek after God, and who are doing good - the church at Rome. Thus, this passage does not prove what it must prove to reject the main premise (#14) and no other passage is available to do so as shown from a-h above. 
IV. Conclusion
The fallacious boogeyman argument brought to bear against those who reject Calvinism has zero effect on those who know the word of Jehovah. It is a scare tactic that has no real power and is usually used by those who have no actual scriptural argument to bring, or by those whose every objection has been answered from scripture.
I am accused of being a Pelagian. In truth, I have never followed any man but Christ. Do I believe the things Pelagius actually believed? I don't know, we don't have much of his own writings handed down because foolish people destroy the work of their enemies and we cannot trust their own quotations. Since Augustine admitted that he made the accusations up, he is a liar and not to be trusted.
If we accept the historical record as true, that Pelagius repudiated all of these points save half of one, then when judged by the statements Augustine made up, I would be more Pelagian than Pelagius!
To me, that's irrelevant. I only care about being Christian. My arguments, my positions stand on scripture alone. The challenge to those who disagree is not to call me names or assign me a label and try to make me feel bad or scare me into submission or agreement with them. The challenge for them is to refute what I have presented here from scripture using only the word of the Lord. If they cannot, they need to study the gospel, repent of their error, and obey the gospel to be saved.
In Truth and Love.
Category:Denominationalism