It is not by accident that Martin Luther considered The Bondage of the Will to be his most important book. He saw in Erasmus a man who, despite his protests to the contrary, was a Pelagian in Catholic clothing. Luther saw that lurking beneath the controversy of merit and grace, and faith and works was the issue of to what degree the human will is enslaved by sin and to what degree we are dependent upon grace for our liberation. Luther argued from the Bible that the flesh profits nothing and that this “nothing” is not a little “something.”
Augustine’s view of the Fall was opposed to both Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. He said that mankind is a massa peccati, a “mess of sin,” incapable of raising itself from spiritual death. For Augustine man can no more move or incline himself to God than an empty glass can fill itself. For Augustine the initial work of divine grace by which the soul is liberated from the bondage of sin is sovereign and operative. To be sure we cooperate with this grace, but only after the initial divine work of liberation.
Augustine did not deny that fallen man still has a will and that the will is capable of making choices. He argued that fallen man still has a free will (liberium arbitrium) but has lost his moral liberty (libertas). The state of original sin leaves us in the wretched condition of being unable to refrain from sinning. We still are able to choose what we desire, but our desires remain chained by our evil impulses. He argued that the freedom that remains in the will always leads to sin. Thus in the flesh we are free only to sin, a hollow freedom indeed. It is freedom without liberty, a real moral bondage. True liberty can only come from without, from the work of God on the soul. Therefore we are not only partly dependent upon grace for our conversion but totally dependent upon grace.
Modern Evangelicalism sprung from the Reformation whose roots were planted by Augustine. But today the Reformational and Augustinian view of grace is all but eclipsed in Evangelicalism. Where Luther triumphed in the sixteenth century, subsequent generations gave the nod to Erasmus.
Modern evangelicals repudiate unvarnished Pelagianism and frequently Semi-Pelagianism as well. It is insisted that grace is necessary for salvation and that man is fallen. The will is acknowledged to be severely weakened even to the point of being “99 percent” dependent upon grace for its liberation. But that one percent of unaffected moral ability or spiritual power which becomes the decisive difference between salvation and perdition is the link that preserves the chain to Pelagius. We have not broken free from the Pelagian captivity of the church.
That one percent is the “little something” Luther sought to demolish because it removes the sola from sola gratia and ultimately the sola from sola fide. The irony may be that though modern Evangelicalism loudly and repeatedly denounces Humanism as the mortal enemy of Christianity, it entertains a Humanistic view of man and of the will at its deepest core.
We need an Augustine or a Luther to speak to us anew lest the light of God’s grace be not only over-shadowed but be obliterated in our time.
My source for this article was: Http://www.leaderu.com/theology/augpelagius.html
I love how the implicit tone (at least as far as I sense it, anyway) is that Pelagius is some blithering nube at best; and that no rational person could ever arrive at such obviously foolish ideas.
Oh, the irony.
If man needs “grace” to do anything good, then man is ultimately and fundamentally worthless, and utterly contradictory to his own existence. If this is the case, then there is no reason to extend “grace” to him. In fact, extending “grace” to that which is both antithetical and irrelevant to its own existence makes it impossible to even DEFINE grace, because it denies the idea that grace can serve any purpose whatsoever. Grace given to nothing equals nothing. And if grace equals nothing then grace is a concept which has no meaning. For purpose and meaning are corollaries.
Now, off to do homework.
But, fair warning, I got a new dog. And he eats everything. 😉
Funny that you should mention the portrayal of Pelagius … I was reading one scholar and he was going out of his way to make excuses for Augustine’s inability to rebut Pelagius. He paid lip service to Pelagius intellectual abilities but his real analysis was that Augustine had the misfortune of being old when the debate happened.
Curiously it took close to 20 years to finally declare Pelagius a heretic. And can you guess at the deciding factor?
Hmmm…his rejection of the church’s “authority”? The papal succession?
I will be listening to your talk. I would love to see your sources on Pelagius. I admit my search was not exhaustive but just about everything I could find was basically what his detractors said he believed. IOW, they were interpreting his beliefs for us. I just cannot trust that at all.
I was starting to think they shut down a voice of reason because that would mean too much personal responsibility and liberty for believers if they listened to Pelagius.
Great fodder for thought and discussion, John.
1. What specific doctrine of Grace did Pelagius object?
Sproul writes “The will is acknowledged to be severely weakened even to the point of being “99 percent” dependent upon grace for its liberation. But that one percent of unaffected moral ability or spiritual power which becomes the decisive difference between salvation and perdition is the link that preserves the chain to Pelagius.” This seems to fly in the face of reason, and probably why Pelagius rejected the Augustinian doctrine of man’s inability to do anything except sin apart from God’s grace. Non-believers do good works, and many that I know personally are much less ‘wicked sinners’ than many self-professing Christians I know. So the former haven’t ‘figured out’ that God won’t allow them to do a good work, or the latter haven’t figured out that they can actually do a good work. Either way, the ‘modern evangelicals’ that Sproul mentions have been misinformed about the nature of God’s grace – which is not a mathematical formulae requiring our perpetual effort to achieve as the Modern Evangelicals (of which Sproul is most definitely a firm fixture) would have us believe.
As an aside, I find it interesting that, like many in positions of ‘authority’, Sproul uses an idiom to cast aspersions upon his foe, and then claim the stronghold Pelagius still has within the warm confines of his own realm: Humanism, in all its subtle forms, recapitulates the unvarnished Pelagianism against which Augustine struggled. Though Pelagius was condemned as a heretic by Rome, and its modified form, Semi-Pelagianism was likewise condemned by the Council of Orange in 529, the basic assumptions of this view persisted throughout church history to reappear in Medieval Catholicism, Renaissance Humanism, Socinianism, Arminianism, and modern Liberalism. The seminal thought of Pelagius survives today not as a trace or tangential influence but is pervasive in the modern church. Indeed, the modern church is held captive by it. Which brings to mind an appropriate little rhyme:
“Oho!” said the pot to the kettle;
“You are dirty and ugly and black!
Sure no one would think you were metal,
Except when you’re given a crack.”
“Not so! not so!” kettle said to the pot;
“‘Tis your own dirty image you see;
For I am so clean – without blemish or blot –
That your blackness is mirrored in me.”
2. How can the church be “captive” if we live in a determined world?
This is assumed to be a rhetorical question aimed at the Modern Evangelical mindset that God predetermined everything. The church is captive via the church’s own set of man-made chains brought about by two thousand years of Creeds and Councils designed to reduce individual rights and responsibility, and place more and more power and authority in the hands of the church (which God predetermined would run things while he was waiting for the right time for Jesus to come back). It’s a vicious cycle.
3. When did the doctrine of the “Fall of Man” come into existence?
Good question, around 200 AD via Irenaeus? (Yes, I peeked.) Wiki says: “Against the Gnostics, who said that they possessed a secret oral tradition from Jesus himself, Irenaeus maintained that the bishops in different cities are known as far back as the Apostles and that the bishops provided the only safe guide to the interpretation of Scripture.”
Sound anything like James McDonald and his gang or any other Modern Evangelical preacher/elder? In doing a cursory Google search I found much of the same old repeated Protestant mantra, which Bob Deffinbaugh (a solid Dallas Theological Seminary graduate) seems to summarize pretty fairly in his article The Fall of Man in God’s Perfect Plan (you can read the entire thing here): “In this lesson we will trace sin and suffering to its earthly origins and causes. God’s Word clearly and emphatically tells us why the world is in such a pathetic plight: By divine permission Satan tempted Adam and Eve; they sinned, and God has graciously pronounced upon all creation a curse for which He has provided the cure.” The Great Puppeteer giving permission to the world’s foe to cause the entirety of mankind to be doomed to curse and sin forever. Irenaius was fairly brilliant in terms of marketing. This is like convincing people in the Sahara desert to buy flood insurance each year. You are a miserable sinner because of this Adam and Eve couple, who ruined it for all of us forever and ever. BUT, if you’ll just trust me on this one, I’ve got a deal for you! And so it has gone for two millennia.
Well done Sean! and it is all right to peek. This is an open book test . . . which is one of the things that is so perplexing. There isn’t a modern day Reformed Theology Aficionado who can’t look up the historic detail but they never let facts get in the way of their sound doctrine.
As for the Doctrine of Original Sin . . . Yes it was Irenaeus who coined the doctrine of Original Sin, BUT here is some extra credit. Compare and Contrast Irenaeus version with Augustine’s version. this study is very enlightening and points to the error in Bob Deffinbaugh assertion. If it is such a clear and emphatic explanation how is it that the doctrine as Christianity believes it now didn’t show up until Augustine?
As usual, I am confused by much of this discussion. It seems to me that “enlightened self interest” (ESI) is the only motive for any human action. I do what I believe is going to produce the kind of outcome I desire. If I am given to philosophical or theological mastery, I will either buy into a worldview that renders me powerful or I will generate a worldview that renders me powerful. If I am not, I will choose to trust the leadership of those who offer me a worldview that seems to render me safe.
Christian theology seems to be identical to any other theology, in that it seeks to support the Clergy class by dint of their greater knowledge of the relevant texts. The theological constant is that Clergy deserve the power to control Laity, and it applies across the board.
The fundamental question seems to be whether ESI is “evil” or not. If ESI is evil, then it is equivalent to “Original Sin,” from which there is no escape.
If ESI is not evil, then it may be the instrument of salvation, for, once knowledge of the Savior has enlightened one to the “higher ESI” that Salvation represents, one may choose to accept the proposition.
Having “Accepted Salvation through Christ,” one is free to use ESI to accomplish good.
Indeed, ESL explains much of what sean was referring to: People who have a “more enlightened” Self Interest will do behaviors that will garner them kudos from their peers, authorities and the world at large.
Lydia, Actually you have run into the same problem that I have run into. I am still working my way through some sources to figure out if they represent Pelagius accurately or not.
There is one letter to Demetrius that is from Pelagius that was historically attributed to another church father that I’m reading now.
I’m trying to verify the drama behind this letter but basically the story is it was originally attributed to St. Jerome because the church made it a crime to own any of his work.
Interestingly enough eastern orthodox theologian seem to be the ones noting how Augustinian changed the doctrinal direction of Christianity FROM Apostolic and Patristic Tradition and have taken up the task to piece Pelagius real doctrine back together.
From the article:
“The controversy began when the British monk, Pelagius, opposed at Rome Augustine’s famous prayer: “Grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire.” Pelagius recoiled in horror at the idea that a divine gift (grace) is necessary to perform what God commands. For Pelagius and his followers responsibility always implies ability. If man has the moral responsibility to obey the law of God, he must also have the moral ability to do it.”
In some ways, I do believe history has proven Pelagius to be right if this is what he actually taught. (I am speaking of the trajectory of history as man became more “able” in terms of literacy, freedom of speech, etc)
That sort of thinking does not work well within a state church mentality or any tyrannical political thought reform situation. I honestly believe Pelagius was seen as a threat.
It seems that Jewish thought was more focused on “actions or non actions” as sin and that humans were responsible for such actions or non actions. (of course they were constantly trying to redefine that)
It is amazing how the entire concept of free will was so debated and controversial in a few hundred years after Christ walked this earth. I came across a French Monk who wrestled with this by the name of John Cassian who has been historically labeled as a “semi Pelagian:. Here is a snipped on him from wiki:
“According to the established traditional view among scholars, Cassian is the most prominent of the representatives of the monastic movement in southern Gaul who, in about 425, gave expression to the soteriological view that much later was called Semipelagianism.[21] This emphasized the role of free will in that the first steps of salvation are in the power of the individual, without the need for divine grace. His thought has been described as a “middle way” between Pelagianism, which taught that the will alone was sufficient to live a sinless life, and the view of Augustine of Hippo, which emphasizes original sin and the absolute need for grace.”
The point I am making is that this idea of man being “able” and “responsible” was very controversial in ways that are startling and seemed to scare the powers half to death through much of history.
Where I totally part ways with the cheap grace/we are all sinners crowd is the idea that God would actually tell us to do things or not do things that He knows we are totally “unable” to do or not do. That thinking is all over Christendom. “We are just sinners saved by grace” is their mantra. Thinking this paints God as compassionate is what really blows my mind. What they are really doing is painting God as a sort of monster who designs laws or commands we are “unable” to do. In many ways, what they are doing is to excuse horrible behavior and then blame God for making us so “unable”..
Excellent Lydia … Excellent