Is Pelagius doctrine heretical? Looking for opinions.

[ViaCrucis]

Pelagius' denial of original sin is certainly part of the problem, but even without a strictly Augustinian view in mind the ideas espoused by Pelagius should be understood as immensely problematic.

For Pelagius God's grace was fundamentally the giving of man free will and the Law; thus while Pelagius himself would never have said man was without need of divine grace and assistance for salvation, reducing grace to what might be called a "common grace" which all men possessed by virtue of being human turns the entire notion of grace on its head to the point of meaninglessness. Thus man, with the common grace of a free will could through his power of choice obey God's moral law, living it out with excellence.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[HatGuy]

That sounds like saying a glass is half full, rather than half empty. Aren't both descriptions true?

No. It would run like this.

1. Augustinian
2. Semi-Augustinian
3. Semi-Pelagian
4. Pelagian

There are differences between 2 & 3.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

No. It would run like this.

1. Augustinian
2. Semi-Augustinian
3. Semi-Pelagian
4. Pelagian

There are differences between 2 & 3.

If that's the case, then there must be middle ground which is neither Pelagian nor Augustinian. If the Semi-Augustinian is not Semi-Pelagian, then his non-Augustinian views must also not be Pelagian.

If I ask a yes or no question, I imagine one would say "yes," another say "no," and the third would say "orange."

 

[misput]

Not much to say here. Pelagius had a major criticism of Augustine's Original sin. He was a strong proponent of Free Will, which I would argue is in some sense where Arminianism stems from.

I think that with many of the church fathers (though I have not read much on this) they say some really good things, but are ultimately are sinful flawed creatures. Even Luther, the Catholic Church, [insert x church father here] have ideas and doctrines that are pretty off base. Luther was an anti-semite, the Catholic Church believes that is not by grace through faith. This is pretty much true across the board.

But there is a special place for heresy and I am just wondering how doctrines like from Pelagius are somehow being brought up again after he was branded strictly a heretic.

Most if not all "doctrines" contain some truth and some error. Trying to label them as either or is an error we make.

 

[d taylor]

Not much to say here. Pelagius had a major criticism of Augustine's Original sin. He was a strong proponent of Free Will, which I would argue is in some sense where Arminianism stems from.

I think that with many of the church fathers (though I have not read much on this) they say some really good things, but are ultimately are sinful flawed creatures. Even Luther, the Catholic Church, [insert x church father here] have ideas and doctrines that are pretty off base. Luther was an anti-semite, the Catholic Church believes that is not by grace through faith. This is pretty much true across the board.

But there is a special place for heresy and I am just wondering how doctrines like from Pelagius are somehow being brought up again after he was branded strictly a heretic.

People are sinners and many will seek out teachings that fit to what they believe. Whether these teaching are old or some new idea from the latest slick talker.

 

[fhansen]

Not much to say here. Pelagius had a major criticism of Augustine's Original sin. He was a strong proponent of Free Will, which I would argue is in some sense where Arminianism stems from.

I think that with many of the church fathers (though I have not read much on this) they say some really good things, but are ultimately are sinful flawed creatures. Even Luther, the Catholic Church, [insert x church father here] have ideas and doctrines that are pretty off base. Luther was an anti-semite, the Catholic Church believes that is not by grace through faith. This is pretty much true across the board.

But there is a special place for heresy and I am just wondering how doctrines like from Pelagius are somehow being brought up again after he was branded strictly a heretic.

The Catholic Church teaches that everything is by grace, but that man can resist grace; he cannot say “yes” to God without grace and yet God never completely overrides man’s ability to say “no”. Other theologies teach that man’s will is totally overridden and that God determines his eternal destiny without regard to the will.

Pelagius taught that man can save himself, so to speak, that grace was unnecessary for man to do the right thing, to fulfill his obligation to be righteous, to draw near to God.

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Not much to say here. Pelagius had a major criticism of Augustine's Original sin. He was a strong proponent of Free Will, which I would argue is in some sense where Arminianism stems from.

I think that with many of the church fathers (though I have not read much on this) they say some really good things, but are ultimately are sinful flawed creatures. Even Luther, the Catholic Church, [insert x church father here] have ideas and doctrines that are pretty off base. Luther was an anti-semite, the Catholic Church believes that is not by grace through faith. This is pretty much true across the board.

But there is a special place for heresy and I am just wondering how doctrines like from Pelagius are somehow being brought up again after he was branded strictly a heretic.

They both had defincincies in their doctrine. Unfortunately there was no one to represent the true doctrien of the Gospel. Free Grace and free will simultaneously. Be blessed.

 

[fhansen]

They both had defincincies in their doctrine. Unfortunately there was no one to represent the true doctrien of the Gospel. Free Grace and free will simultaneously. Be blessed.

That's actually pretty much what the church taught historically, and officially in later years, taking neither of the radical extremes presented by either side.

 

[JohnT]

What are you talking about?

My only comment, here was this:

"Agree. Most Churches no longer teach actual Doctrine to their congregants."

And you extrapolate all this out of that?

It is better if I no longer continue this digression from the OP topic. Each of us stated our positions, and neither of us "wins" if the pursuit of this tangent goes further.

That is because I assumed you were referring to the pastor in the pulpit, and a restful deep sleep permitted me to see that it is possible that you were referring to the church Sunday school classes.

 

[Mark Quayle]

By the way, the OP has it reversed. Pelagius didn’t react against Augustine. Augustine reacted against Pelagius. Indeed Pelagius represented what was in some sense traditional theology before Augustine. But he went too far.

Some Calvinists accuse Arminianism of being Pelagian, but you shouldn’t accept that as true. Arminius is far from Pelagius. Indeed Arminius accepted original sin.

Yet the same mindset plagued Arminianism. True, he didn't go as far as to deny original sin, but he did advocate freewill as though some spiritual good is possible for man, apart from God.

Many, maybe most, modern day Christians, while they will vehemently deny being Arminian, nevertheless insist on some degree of autonomous freewill, and will say that God does not do the whole work of the Gospel, or if they say that he DOES the whole work of the Gospel, somehow work synergism into it --that a person MUST "cooperate" with God for the Gospel to be effective in a person's life. And therefore they say, a person must "accept the gift" of salvation, for it to work.

To my mind, it is heresy to hinge a person's eternal destiny on that person's will, but worse, to attribute the work of salvation of one's soul, to ANY degree, on the work of man instead of being wholly the work of God. But I will happily admit that even Calvinists don't know what God did, though we may know something about it. All humans are ignorant by virtue of being temporal beings.

 

[fhansen]

Yet the same mindset plagued Arminianism. True, he didn't go as far as to deny original sin, but he did advocate freewill as though some spiritual good is possible for man, apart from God.

Many, maybe most, modern day Christians, while they will vehemently deny being Arminian, nevertheless insist on some degree of autonomous freewill, and will say that God does not do the whole work of the Gospel, or if they say that he DOES the whole work of the Gospel, somehow work synergism into it --that a person MUST "cooperate" with God for the Gospel to be effective in a person's life. And therefore they say, a person must "accept the gift" of salvation, for it to work.

To my mind, it is heresy to hinge a person's eternal destiny on that person's will, but worse, to attribute the work of salvation of one's soul, to ANY degree, on the work of man instead of being wholly the work of God. But I will happily admit that even Calvinists don't know what God did, though we may know something about it. All humans are ignorant by virtue of being temporal beings.

Man will always be obligated to be righteous and obedient; he was not created to be a sinner after all. Once freely and graciously forgiven, cleansed, and made new creations, as newly adopted children of God-once reconciled-we're expected to act like it, with more demanded from those given more. But we can either attempt to be righteous on our own, under the law, which is impossible, or we can do it the right way now, under grace, with God, with whom all things are possible.

The obligation remains for man to do his part but the burden Jesus gives us is light (not non-existent), because He takes the heavy part. He wants us involved in working out our salvation with Him for our good, and only in our willingness to cooperate with Him, 'apart from whom we can do nothing' (John 15:5). Otherwise man would be nothing more than a completely morally unaccountable beast. And that's simply not the way things are in this life even in our fallen condition. Anyway, we cannot possibly save ourselves but we can still refuse to be saved. That is the historical (in the eastern and western churches), non-heretical position.

"But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." Rom 6:22-23

"Therefore, brothers and sisters, we have an obligation—but it is not to the flesh, to live according to it. For if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live." Rom 8:12-13

 

[HatGuy]

If that's the case, then there must be middle ground which is neither Pelagian nor Augustinian. If the Semi-Augustinian is not Semi-Pelagian, then his non-Augustinian views must also not be Pelagian.

If I ask a yes or no question, I imagine one would say "yes," another say "no," and the third would say "orange."

Don't see why that would need to be the case. It's like saying on a gradient of four colours, the two in the middle can't be real because they are too similar to the colours on the outside. There are simply different shades here with some shared beliefs either one way or another.

 

[HatGuy]

Yet the same mindset plagued Arminianism. True, he didn't go as far as to deny original sin, but he did advocate freewill as though some spiritual good is possible for man, apart from God.

To be fair to Arminius himself, he did not do that. He taught salvation is not possible without the Holy Spirit giving faith through the hearing of the gospel (much like Luther) and taught that the human heart is prepared for this work by God's grace and God's grace alone (prevenient grace). The difference between him and his Calvinist counterparts lies in predestination, not in free will. Nowhere did he actually teach free will as some spiritual good apart from God.

But true, others did, and have.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Don't see why that would need to be the case. It's like saying on a gradient of four colours, the two in the middle can't be real because they are too similar to the colours on the outside. There are simply different shades here with some shared beliefs either one way or another.

It's mathematical. Semi means half. If something is halfway one thing, then it must be halfway another thing. If it is less than halfway another thing, then it must be at least partially a third thing, also, to make up the difference.

Otherwise, if all you mean to say is that there's a gradient between the two, then that's an easy argument. We can divide the middle ground into as many or as few categories as we choose. Hence, if someone would define the middlemost position as Semi-Pelagian, then he isn't wrong for defining the spectrum by three categories, when you would define it by four. It's completely arbitrary, so long as the semi- prefix isn't being used literally.

 

[fhansen]

Pelagianism became known as the teaching that grace isn't necessary for man to attain salvation; he can pull himself up by his own bootstraps, so to speak. Semi-Pelagianism teaches that grace is unnecessary at the beginning; that man comes to faith on his own after which God provides the grace for him to attain salvation. Both were ruled as heretical positions by the Church. They're different in kind while both nonetheless dismiss the need for grace at different points.

 

[WanderedHome]

However, if you think about it for a half second, you will see that translations of the Bible into the vernacular did not come until John Wycliffe in the 1300s, and later with Luther and Erasmus.

Actually, that's not true. Saints Cyril and Methodius (800's AD) are 2 Orthodox saints that created the Slavonic language for the Slavic people and translated the Scriptures, as well as service books, into Slavonic so the people could understand.
Also, St. Innocent of Alaska (Russian Orthodox missionary-1800's) did the same for the Aleuts in Alaska... There are others, but these two quickly come to mind.

 

[Biltong65]

Actually, that's not true. Saints Cyril and Methodius (800's AD) are 2 Orthodox saints that created the Slavonic language for the Slavic people and translated the Scriptures, as well as service books, into Slavonic so the people could understand.
Also, St. Innocent of Alaska (Russian Orthodox missionary) did the same for the Aleuts in Alaska... There are others, but these two quickly come to mind.

And the Yupik language, in Alaska.

Alaskan Orthodox texts (Aleut, Alutiiq, Tlingit, Yup'ik)

 

[WanderedHome]

My best friend believes that Pelagius may have been sand bagged and seems to echo Wesley's sentiments.

Many of those condemned as heretics were actually of good intention in trying to protect the Orthodox understanding of Christ, the Father, the Holy Spirit, Theotokos, etc. but just took things a bit too far.

Sometimes the heresy label wasn't actually stuck to them until after they had passed and were no longer able to defend themselves.
For example, Diodore of Tarsus was considered a pillar of the Church in his lifetime and he was even friends with St. John Chrysostom!
... But 100 years after his death, Nestorianism became a big problem, and the Church traced the roots of Nestorianism back to Diodore.

That is not to say any of these heretical ideas were not really heresy, but we can see how easy it is for any of us to fall into it if we are not careful.

 

[JohnT]

Actually, that's not true. Saints Cyril and Methodius (800's AD) are 2 Orthodox saints that created the Slavonic language for the Slavic people and translated the Scriptures, as well as service books, into Slavonic so the people could understand.
Also, St. Innocent of Alaska (Russian Orthodox missionary-1800's) did the same for the Aleuts in Alaska... There are others, but these two quickly come to mind.

Thank you. I stand corrected.

I did not study anything of the Eastern Church in grad school, and therein lies the root of my ignorance

 

[WanderedHome]

Thank you. I stand corrected.

I did not study anything of the Eastern Church in grad school and therein lies the root of my ignorance

That's common. I didn't learn anything about it in my undergrad either. Years later, I stumbled upon the Eastern Fathers and found that their Church still existed, being the 2nd largest Christian confession in the world.