Is Pelagius doctrine heretical? Looking for opinions.

[dms1972]

Not a lot of his work is preserved. But I read what little I could find. It seemed to me that he didn't just advocate free will in the Arminian sense, but that he saw no real role for God's grace in enabling us. I think Augustine went to the opposite extreme at times, but Pelagius did seem wrong.

I think Arminianism is sometimes refered to as semi-pelegian, rather that outright Pelegian. I haven't read a lot of either though.

 

[HatGuy]

I think Arminianism is sometimes refered to as semi-pelegian, rather that outright Pelegian. I haven't read a lot of either though.

Rightly speaking, Arminianism is more semi-Augustinian. Calling it semi-Pelagian is a popular criticism usually based in rhetoric and not fact.

 

[nolidad]

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.

Human pride always seeks to accomplish things apart from god so that pride can somehow make God obligated to reward us for our efforts.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Rightly speaking, Arminianism is more semi-Augustinian. Calling it semi-Pelagian is a popular criticism usually based in rhetoric and not fact.

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

 

[dms1972]

Rightly speaking, Arminianism is more semi-Augustinian. Calling it semi-Pelagian is a popular criticism usually based in rhetoric and not fact.

I'll not argue as I haven't read a lot of his works. I think it depends a lot on his emphasis, the more emphasis there is on grace the closer I suppose to Augustinianism. I know there is the disagreement between Arminians and Calvinists on the basis of God's choice, is it because God foresees a person coming to faith in Christ, or has the person who came to faith been already chosen before time? Jesus did say to his disciples that they didn't choose him, but he chose them. (John 15:16)

 

[Biltong65]

people are reading the Bible less for themselves, and many "pastors" lack any depth in their teaching/sermons.

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

 

[JohnT]

• JohnT said: ↑

That means that they once held the truth delivered by the Disciples and Apostles

when was that. Matt does come out some rubbish sometimes.

Do a web search on "Matt Slick Roman Catholics" to get the URL; it is not nice to post his web site on this site. 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.

Therefore there was no other church "denomination" for almost 1500 years of church history

 

[JohnT]

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

I truly object to that "drive-by insult". Only those who have stood in pulpits know what it is like agonize over a specific message , and then know for sure that this message, not that one is the one that God wants your congregation to hear.

Then because your particular itch is not scratched, you throw a blanket condemnation over many hard-working pastors.

In this, I tell the truth:
Never did I try to "scratch the itch" of anyone in the congregation, and some tried to have me do so.
Always, I left the pulpit knowing that I preached what God wanted me to say.

 

[Biltong65]

I truly object to that "drive-by insult". Only those who have stood in pulpits know what it is like agonize over a specific message , and then know for sure that this message, not that one is the one that God wants your congregation to hear.

Then because your particular itch is not scratched, you throw a blanket condemnation over many hard-working pastors.

In this, I tell the truth:
Never did I try to "scratch the itch" of anyone in the congregation, and some tried to have me do so.
Always, I left the pulpit knowing that I preached what God wanted me to say.

That is not a "drive-by insult" and nothing for you to take personally, indeed it was not directed at you. It is a very generic statement about the state of Christianity today.

There is very little actual doctrine of the various denominations taught to the congregants (young and old) of many churches. Kids get safe "Bible Stories" and Noah's Ark play-sets, adults get what is passed off to them as practicalities for daily living (safe enough), but little in the way of hard doctrine.

 

[JohnT]

That is not a "drive-by insult" and nothing for you to take personally, indeed it was not directed at you. It is a very generic statement about the state of Christianity today.

Let me put it another way, this time less gently so you can understand better:

It is certain that you never have been a pastor, and perhaps never in a pulpit.

Therefore you know nothing of the burden to be well pleasing unto God, and not scratch the "itches " in the congregation.

No, I did not take what you posted personally, for if I did, there would be a different tone. W

It is a very generic statement about the state of Christianity today.

That I did take from your comment was indeed an insult to ALMOST EVERY pastor because these are your words that cannot be changed:

Biltong65 said: ↑
Most Churches no longer teach actual Doctrine to their congregants.

Please do not attempt to equivocate; own your words, and you wrote them from ignorance of facts, which I attempted to explain.

It is a very generic statement about the state of Christianity today.

The bottom line is that we are all entitled to have our generic opinions, but there is no such thing as "My facts" because it is the nature of facts to be objective.

Biltong65 said: ↑
Agree. Most Churches no longer teach actual Doctrine to their congregants.

It is a very generic statement about the state of Christianity today.

There is very little actual doctrine of the various denominations taught to the congregants (young and old) of many churches

What empirical evidence do you have to back such wild and uninformed statements? Your statements are not based in facts, but are simply irrational attacks upon the Bride of Christ and smothered in a sulfurous layer of self-righteous criticism.

Sorry if you do not like what I post, but this also is the truth: Jesus Christ protects His Bride, for you to continue to malign His Bride, and His servants, the pastors, it shall be at your peril. I saw things befall those who malign His pastors and His churches, and if you ever see that, then you will understand the meaning of the Scripture verse, "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of an angry God".

Deuteronomy 32:
35 Vengeance is mine, and recompense,
for the time when their foot shall slip;
for the day of their calamity is at hand,
and their doom comes swiftly.’

 

[dms1972]

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

I cannot say I know what goes on in most churches. But a church I went to quite a few years ago, was when I began going working through a popular book - Richard Foster's during the sunday evening services. I think this was a one off and I think he adapted some of the material rather than just read chapters from the book. I do occasionally see some churches trying to be like other churches at times. For instance there seems to be a desire to have a praise and worship band, and a focus the service more around singing.

 

[Biltong65]

Let me put it another way, this time less gently so you can understand better:

It is certain that you never have been a pastor, and perhaps never in a pulpit.

Therefore you know nothing of the burden to be well pleasing unto God, and not scratch the "itches " in the congregation.

No, I did not take what you posted personally, for if I did, there would be a different tone. W


That I did take from your comment was indeed an insult to ALMOST EVERY pastor because these are your words that cannot be changed:



Please do not attempt to equivocate; own your words, and you wrote them from ignorance of facts, which I attempted to explain.




The bottom line is that we are all entitled to have our generic opinions, but there is no such thing as "My facts" because it is the nature of facts to be objective.





What empirical evidence do you have to back such wild and uninformed statements? Your statements are not based in facts, but are simply irrational attacks upon the Bride of Christ and smothered in a sulfurous layer of self-righteous criticism.

Sorry if you do not like what I post, but this also is the truth: Jesus Christ protects His Bride, for you to continue to malign His Bride, and His servants, the pastors, it shall be at your peril. I saw things befall those who malign His pastors and His churches, and if you ever see that, then you will understand the meaning of the Scripture verse, "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of an angry God".

Deuteronomy 32:
35 Vengeance is mine, and recompense,
for the time when their foot shall slip;
for the day of their calamity is at hand,
and their doom comes swiftly.’

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?

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

That is not a "drive-by insult" and nothing for you to take personally, indeed it was not directed at you. It is a very generic statement about the state of Christianity today.

There is very little actual doctrine of the various denominations taught to the congregants (young and old) of many churches. Kids get safe "Bible Stories" and Noah's Ark play-sets, adults get what is passed off to them as practicalities for daily living (safe enough), but little in the way of hard doctrine.

I agree with this. I know my pastor does his best, but I feel I have learned more about doctrine on my own than in church.

 

[Jesse Dornfeld]

but this also is the truth: Jesus Christ protects His Bride

I also agree with this.

 

[Biltong65]

I agree with this. I know my pastor does his best, but I feel I have learned more about doctrine on my own than in church.

Churches tend to teach what is "safe". They do not want to lose membership if they teach what is not "safe".

 

[Pavel Mosko]

Pelagius was probably a heretic, but there has been a lot of discussion that lots of theology etc. that are labeled Pelagian or semi-Pelagian are not heretical. This especially comes up when talking about Eastern Christianity, and the Church Fathers, saint Augustine was a bit extreme on a number of issues much more so than his predecessors which is one of the big reasons why you there ends up being a big difference in the later Latin Christian West vs. the Greek, Syriac etc. East.

And personally I got to say, I have seen this first hand. Most Eastern folks do not have the hard dictomy of Faith vs. Works, they seem them largely being complimentary etc. But if you really have that view you are a "Semi-Pelagian" in may people's eyes, Calvinists especially...


I got to say, I have enjoyed reading some of John Wesley's quotes on Pelagius, especially when I've had some misgivings about some of Augustine's legacy on western Christendom. My best friend believes that Pelagius may have been sand bagged and seems to echo Wesley's sentiments.

Wesley on Pelagius | John Wesley | Commonplace Holiness

 

[Redwingfan9]

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.

Arminianism is semi-pelagian in nature. If Pelagianism is becoming more popular it's because modern American evangelicalism is completely divorced from the historic church. So many heresies that have long ago been discarded have reappeared because American evangelical pastors are uneducated and the rank and file know nothing about scripture. For example, a majority of American evangelicals believe that Jesus is the first creation of God, a heresy long ago condemned by the church. (Jesus is God, he wasn't created)

As for Pelagianism, it is man centered humanism and it doesn't surprise me that Americans love it. It places the individual at the center of salvation, making choices for himself while God is utterly incapable of saving anyone and Jesus is crying crocodile tears for sinners in Heaven. It's completely divorced from scripture which is perfect for a people who view scripture as a collection of one off self help verses. That this is popular is what happens when the church hates doctrine.

 

[chilehed]

the Catholic Church believes that is not by grace through faith.

This is absolutely false.

And yes, Pelagianism is a heresy.

 

[Randy777]

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.

All have sinned. Some more than others. We need Jesus.

Slaves to Sin

To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

33They answered him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?”

34Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed

 

[Philip_B]

The Pelagian difficulty is the suggestion that each of us has the capacity of our own volition to achieve a moral and spiritual perfection for ourselves. Essentially that we can in ourselves achieve such a perfection would seem essentially mistaken. The means of grace include the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ upon the Cross, and our response to grace. Augustine's Original Sin is not absolutely a doctrine of original guilt, but rather more a recognition that the Sin of Adam is something we all participate in. Calvin of course pursued an idea of predestination, and indeed double predestination, which at the extreme suggests that observer status in our salvation.

Christ's offer of salvation os for all people, and we are called to respond to grace with grace and in grace.

We have all sinned and we are all falling short of the glory of God, but to those who believe he has given power to become the children of God.