Pelagius

[Danfrey]

As you look at information about Pelagius, you have to wonder if this guy got a bum rap.

Most of the information we have about what he believed came from his occusers.

He was one of few that went against the norm of infant baptism, which is what most protestants agree with in our time.

The main stream church had a habit of labeling anyone a heretic who threatened their stronghold on Christianity.

 

[Blackhawk]

As you look at information about Pelagius, you have to wonder if this guy got a bum rap.

Most of the information we have about what he believed came from his occusers.

He was one of few that went against the norm of infant baptism, which is what most protestants agree with in our time.

The main stream church had a habit of labeling anyone a heretic who threatened their stronghold on Christianity.

They labeled him a heretic because he wa sa heretic.

 

[Danfrey]

Oh OK,

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[HiredGoon]

Here's my ultra short summary of the Pelagian controversy. Rufinus the Syrian, Pelagius and their followers who were influenced by the Greek East, thought the Latin West should think the same way they did. The Latin West, especially those in North Africa, thought otherwise.

And I think it would be more accurate to say that some Protestants of our time disagree with infant baptism, rather than most.

 

[artrx]

Some early misunderstandings were influenced by cultural differences and lack of communication. As I understand it, Pelagius' ideas were accepted in the Eastern church because the synergistic piety of the East allowed for human cooperation in salvation. The West took his ideas to an extreem, believing him to have said salvation could be achieved by human efforts alone. Pelagius on the other hand was offended by teachings that seemed to make God responsible for human failings by creating a defective nature and denied the goodness of God's creation. Pelagius did not deny that we need the grace of God, but our sin is laid at our own feet and so is our virtue as we need to participate with the Grace of God.
The differences between Augustine and Pelagius were over the degree of responsibility we have in working out our salvation, not so much in our need for God's grace. Pelagius's spokesman served him badly by pushing his doctrine to extreems at a time when it was difficult to communicate with different parts of the church over long distances. Augustine and Pelagius never met to actually explain or debate thier views. How Pelagianism was defined was probably not a correct view of his actual doctrine.

 

[depthdeception]

Some early misunderstandings were influenced by cultural differences and lack of communication. As I understand it, Pelagius' ideas were accepted in the Eastern church because the synergistic piety of the East allowed for human cooperation in salvation. The West took his ideas to an extreem, believing him to have said salvation could be achieved by human efforts alone. Pelagius on the other hand was offended by teachings that seemed to make God responsible for human failings by creating a defective nature and denied the goodness of God's creation. Pelagius did not deny that we need the grace of God, but our sin is laid at our own feet and so is our virtue as we need to participate with the Grace of God.

Good summary.

The differences between Augustine and Pelagius were over the degree of responsibility we have in working out our salvation, not so much in our need for God's grace. Pelagius's spokesman served him badly by pushing his doctrine to extreems at a time when it was difficult to communicate with different parts of the church over long distances. Augustine and Pelagius never met to actually explain or debate thier views. How Pelagianism was defined was probably not a correct view of his actual doctrine.

Pelagius and Augustine had a letter corrspondence. The few bits of Pelagius' thought which are extant are found in Augustine's interpretations of and response to them in some of his letters of rebuttal. Sadly, I am sure Augustine--like all--grossly misrepresented his theological "opponent." I doubt most today, were the whole of Pelagius' thought to be discovered, would consider his teachings heretical.

In reality, Pelagius--like many of the "heretics" of the first few centuries, was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time and his anathematization was due to his disagreements/misunderstandings with Augustine, rather than a real departure from orthodox theology.

 

[davidoffinland]

From Finland.

I should study Pelagius...but from my studies of different "heretics"...it seems it comes down to 2 issues

1. Mary the Mother of God. In the Eastern Church this topic was debated and argued and lines were drawn between those who believed Mary was the Mother of God or not. The Western Church had no problems with this.

2. Yeshua`s divine and human nature. The argument laid in acknowledging God, the 2nd person of the Trinity, coming in the flesh. Again, the Western Church had no problems, but the Eastern Church had 2 schools of thought concerning this. Read my last post on Mary...Seed of David in the Paterology, Christology and Pneumatology forum

Shalom,
davidoffinland

 

[Dmckay]

1. The Pelagian Heresy—The heresy known commonly as “Pelagianism” was formulated in the fifth century by three men named Pelagius, Coelestius, and Julian. They were all learned men having cultural prominence and known character. Pelagius was a Briton and a monk, Coelestius a teacher, and Julian an Italian bishop.

a. Pelagian thought was fundamentally defined by a single, overarching principle, namely ability limits obligation. As such, Pelagius reasoned that it was absurd for God to demand from man what he was unable to render, and he developed his theology around the understanding that man must have the plenary ability to do and be whatever God could justly require of him.

b. This understanding drove out ideas concerning fallen man, his sin, and salvation that were immediately recognized and condemned as heresy by the Church.

i. With regard to free will Pelagius reasoned that man had absolute freedom and control of his will. Not only was the will of man entirely self-determined so as to depend solely on his inward states, those states themselves were under complete subjection to the man. This is what Pelagius meant by plenary ability; at any given time, and under any given circumstance, every person has absolute ability to choose between that which is inherently and practically good and that which is evil. Consequently, he believed that it was possible for a person, through his own diligent pursuit of holiness, to live a life free from sin.

ii. Because of this plenary ability, a man’s sin is nothing more than his deliberate, volitional choice of evil over good. For this reason, Pelagius necessarily rejected the doctrine of original sin, teaching that the actual guilt attributable to each person was the result only of the sinful deeds personally committed. Adam, also responsible only for his own sin, did not impute any guilt to his descendents.


iii. As such, every man is born into the world in the same state in which Adam was created. Logically, then, Adam’s sin only affected himself, except insofar as it provided a sinful example for his progeny. There was, therefore, no imputation of Adam’s sin to his descendents; every person was condemned purely for the sins he actually committed.

c. Because of the nature of this heresy, Pelagius held that man was indeed capable of living a sinless life; not only theoretically, but in actuality. The power to do so was retained by every person subject only to his own choices in the free exercise of his will.

i. A necessary corollary to this belief is the idea that man does not need the gospel, or even the sacrifice of Christ, to be saved. He is fully capable in and of himself of living an obedient, holy life, the gospel simply rendering such obedience much easier.

ii. Another corollary that proceeds out of this heresy is the denial of the necessity of God’s grace in effecting the salvation of men. Pelagius redefined grace as nothing more than the generic goodness of God as it expresses itself in the lives of people, a goodness that has granted to all men their faculties of reason and free will whereby they are able to order their own lives in accordance with true godliness. It was in this sense, then, that he understood the place of, and need for, God’s grace.

2. Semi-Pelagian And Derivative Theologies

a. Arminian Soteriology—Early in the seventeenth century Jacob Arminius introduced a system of soteriology in the Reformed churches of Holland. Immediately this doctrine was formally and unanimously rejected as heretical by the Synod of Dort. Subsequently, advocates of the system presented a remonstrance against the pronouncement of the Synod. Initially known as the Remonstrants, they later were called Arminians after the founder of the system. The major tenets of this system as they pertain to the doctrine of salvation are as follows:

i. All men inherit from Adam a corrupted nature that inclines them toward sin. There is, however, no culpability due to original sin because there is no imputation of the sin of Adam to his offspring. Men are accountable solely for their own voluntary acts of sin and the consequences that inevitably proceed from those acts.

ii. Though all men have a corrupted nature they have not lost all capacity to do that which is good. This system teaches that such ability is necessary to human nature so that the loss of it would constitute the loss of essential humanity.

iii. Despite the retention of the essential capacity to do good, this is insufficient to cause a person to return to God. Men are in need of the assisting, motivating grace of God in order to attain salvation and achieve a life of holiness.

iv. All men are granted sufficient grace from God as would secure their salvation. As such, the grace of God is distributed in equal measure to everyone, that grace being intended to bring all men to repentance, faith, and obedience.

v. It is those who, in the capable, autonomous exercise of their own free will, cooperate with, and continue in, this divine grace who are ultimately saved.

vi. The predestination unto life belongs only to those who thus believe. In this sense, then, predestination is directed toward a class of people rather than distinct individuals. Therefore, this system holds that election refers generically only to God’s intention to save men; it does not in any way refer to the specific election of certain individuals.

 

[Grigorii]

Dearest to Christ Danfrey,

As you look at information about Pelagius, you have to wonder if this guy got a bum rap.

He probably did.

Most of the information we have about what he believed came from his occusers.

In fact some of his writngs have been preserved under the pseudonym of his accusers,.. what's that say about how opposed their thoughts really were?

He was one of few that went against the norm of infant baptism, which is what most protestants agree with in our time.

Pelagius, like all early Christians (and those ina agreement with them), believed and practiced padeo-baptism (infant baptism). The difference between St. Augustine and Pelagius was that to Augustine infant baptism is the only way to get rid of "original guilt" (also called original sin), whereas to Pelagius infant baptism meant that the child is incorporated into the life of the Church by receiving the sacrament of re-birth.

The main stream church had a habit of labeling anyone a heretic who threatened their stronghold on Christianity.

Not necessarily.

The Church generally took action when it perceived certain notions to be or imply heresy. The thought of Pelagius was unbalanced and the Church perceived his line of thought to mature into Pelegianism. Even if Pelagius did not teach it, his line of thought is still the way to it. So by closing that way down, people are warned of the spiritual danger it represents so that the salvation of their souls may be guided in the Way, the Truth and the Life.

IC XC

Grigorii

 

[JCrawf]

Pelagius, like all early Christians (and those in agreement with them), believed and practiced padeo-baptism (infant baptism). The difference between St. Augustine and Pelagius was that to Augustine infant baptism is the only way to get rid of "original guilt" (also called original sin), whereas to Pelagius infant baptism meant that the child is incorporated into the life of the Church by receiving the sacrament of re-birth.

The Catholic Church takes essentially both positions - that Baptism removes Original Sin and incorperates the infant/person into the life of the Church. So, ultimately, the main argument was about Original Sin. This argument remains among Christianity, with some going more toward the view that there is no Original Sin, or others even go towards Augustine's view, or even further into the view of total depravity.

The Church generally took action when it perceived certain notions to be or imply heresy. The thought of Pelagius was unbalanced and the Church perceived his line of thought to mature into Pelegianism. Even if Pelagius did not teach it, his line of thought is still the way to it. So by closing that way down, people are warned of the spiritual danger it represents so that the salvation of their souls may be guided in the Way, the Truth and the Life.

Indeed. Some people become rather shrill when they hear the word herecy. Generally, herecy is placed on a certain teaching that has been looked over, and decided to go contrary to the orthodoxy of Church teaching. There are sometimes things called hetereodoxy which, is generally not orthodoxy, but it isn't quite orthodox either. Something isn't considered herecy merely on a whim - it generally is considered so when it is destructive to a certain part of the Christian faith. And even then, if a person is found to be a heretic, there is still the possibility to repent and reconcile.

Pax Tecum,

John

 

[JCrawf]

They labeled him a heretic because he wa sa heretic.

Interesting. Yet, others have said contrary. Recently, one person told me that of another heretic by the name of Heldivus was instead really a martyr, and that the Church was in the wrong. Could that be true with Pelagius as well, considering that, by some standards, it was about the time of Pelagius that the Church supposedly had become corrupt?

Just posing discussion.

Pax Tecum,

John

 

[Grigorii]

Dearest to Christ JCrawf,

Even if Pelagius was not a Pelagian (he seems to have not been), his thought and influence still produced pelagianism. Pelagius represents this erroneous line of thought, as its beginning even if he is not its end; it seems Coelestius was the true Pelagian, and Julian of Eclanum, as I understand him, is not Pelagian so much as he is anti-Augustinian.

Pelagianism is a heresy, and even if a new investigation would exonorate him as a person, the condemnation of the heresy itself remains a binding dogmatic decision of the Church. At least, as I understand it?

IC XC

Grigorii

 

[JCrawf]

Even if Pelagius was not a Pelagian (he seems to have not been), his thought and influence still produced pelagianism.

So, essentially, Pelagius is similar to Nestorius and Cornelius Jansen, Bishop of Ypres, who also had thoughts and influence that produced herecy, but they themselves did not follow through in such reasoning, and thusly were not under herecy?

Pelagius represents this erroneous line of thought, as its beginning even if he is not its end; it seems Coelestius was the true Pelagian, and Julian of Eclanum, as I understand him, is not Pelagian so much as he is anti-Augustinian.

I see, though I'm not quite familiar with the two.

Pelagianism is a heresy, and even if a new investigation would exonorate him as a person, the condemnation of the heresy itself remains a binding dogmatic decision of the Church. At least, as I understand it?

It's how I understand it. I was just posing the question due to the differences of opinions that are out there. Concerning the discussion itself, it may help to discuss what exactly Pelagianism is and why it is considered herecy.

Pax Tecum,

John

 

[Danfrey]

From the Wikipedia

Pelagianism is the Christian belief that original sin did not taint human nature (which, being created from God, was divine), and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without Divine aid.

I question the part in parathesis. We know very little about Pelagius. We do know that he was an opponent of infant baptism, which by itself was enough to get someone labeled a Heretic. As far as I know the idea of Original Sin wasn't held until the time of Augustine. He claimed that sin was passed from parents to child in the physical act of intercourse. The ante-nicene writers upheld the idea of Free Will which supports the view of Pelagius. I believe it is a distortion of the facts to say that he believed man could be saved without Christ.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia
It was due to the intervention of St. Augustine and the Church, that greater clearness was gradually reached in the disputed questions and that the first impulse was given towards a more careful development of the dogmas of original sin and grace.

Pelagius was aquitted twice in the East. It was through the work of Augustine that he was finally excommunicated. The following "Canons" were finally written to put an end to the controversy. I have to ask, how many do you believe? If you do not accept them all you are a Heretic in the eyes of the same church that condemned Pelagius.

1. Death did not come to Adam from a physical necessity, but through sin.
2. New-born children must be baptized on account of original sin.
3. Justifying grace not only avails for the forgiveness of past sins, but also gives assistance for the avoidance of future sins.
4. The grace of Christ not only discloses the knowledge of God's commandments, but also imparts strength to will and execute them.
5. Without God's grace it is not merely more difficult, but absolutely impossible to perform good works.
6. Not out of humility, but in truth must we confess ourselves to be sinners.
7. The saints refer the petition of the Our Father, "Forgive us our trespasses", not only to others, but also to themselves.
8. The saints pronounce the same supplication not from mere humility, but from truthfulness.
9. Some codices containing a ninth canon (Denzinger, loc. cit., note 3): Children dying without baptism do not go to a "middle place" (medius locus), since the non reception of baptism excludes both from the "kingdom of heaven" and from "eternal life".

 

[ImagoDei]

Pelagius was aquitted twice in the East. It was through the work of Augustine that he was finally excommunicated. The following "Canons" were finally written to put an end to the controversy. I have to ask, how many do you believe? If you do not accept them all you are a Heretic in the eyes of the same church that condemned Pelagius.

1. Death did not come to Adam from a physical necessity, but through sin.
2. New-born children must be baptized on account of original sin.
3. Justifying grace not only avails for the forgiveness of past sins, but also gives assistance for the avoidance of future sins.
4. The grace of Christ not only discloses the knowledge of God's commandments, but also imparts strength to will and execute them.
5. Without God's grace it is not merely more difficult, but absolutely impossible to perform good works.
6. Not out of humility, but in truth must we confess ourselves to be sinners.
7. The saints refer the petition of the Our Father, "Forgive us our trespasses", not only to others, but also to themselves.
8. The saints pronounce the same supplication not from mere humility, but from truthfulness.
9. Some codices containing a ninth canon (Denzinger, loc. cit., note 3): Children dying without baptism do not go to a "middle place" (medius locus), since the non reception of baptism excludes both from the "kingdom of heaven" and from "eternal life".

Off the top of my head I reject #s 2 (improper mode of baptism and function), 3 (confuses Justification with Regeneration and Sanctification), and 9.

Whoops. 3 Strikes. Guess I am out.

 

[Philip]

3 (confuses Justification with Regeneration and Sanctification)

Assuming such a distinction exists.

 

[ImagoDei]

Assuming such a distinction exists.

It does:

Justification ................Sanctification
Legal Standing............. Internal Condition
Once for all time .............Continuous througout life
Entirely God's work .............We cooperate with God
Perfect in this life ....................Not perfect in this life
Same for all Christians ...............Greater in some than others

Justification is a legal declaration by God that we are "not guilty" of our sins by virtue of what Christ has done. It is God's response to our faith. We are in effect covered by Christ.

The greek term dikaioO (justify) like any other word has varied definitions depending on context but a prominent one is "to declare righteous" (James uses the term differently). This can be seen in passages like Luke 7:29 "When they heard this all the people and the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John." Did they make God righteous? No of course not for he is already righteous but rather they declared him to be righteous.

Justification can be shown to be a legal delcaration simply by contrasting it with condemnation. "Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies; who is to condemn?" (Rom 8:33-34). Condemnation is to declare a person guilty and justification is here presented as the opposite of condemnation. Its finality is made clear when Paul says, "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Rom 8:1). This is because Christ's righteousness is imputed to us. Paul quotes Genesis when he says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness" (Rom 4:3). It is understood that though they did not have full revelation they had complete trust in God's future promises and thus recieved the benefits of Christ.

Sanctification is different. Sanctification is the process by which we are made more and more free from sin and is an act wherein the believer cooperates with God. We are called to be obedient. It is also clear the moral change begins at regeneration. Titus 3:5 and 1 John 3:9 make it abundantly clear that those who have been regenerated (born again as they say) that they cannot continue on in sin as they once had been. It is progressive: "Just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification" (Rom 6:19). Sanctification is completed at death (at least for our souls) but it is fully complete when we recieved glorified bodies at the return of Christ.

So, justification is how God deals with the guilt of our sin. Sanctification is as Theologian Millard Erickson beautifully puts it, [FONT=&quot]“Sanctification is a process by which one’s moral likeness is brought into conformity with one’s legal status" (Erickson, Christian Theology pg. 980). and now we come to regeneration. Regneration is God's work within us allowing us to respond to the Gospel message. John Murray puts it like this, "The distinction is like that of the distinction between the act of a surgeon and the act of a judge. The surgeon when he removes an inward cancer, does something in us. That is not what a judge does--he gives verdict regarding our judicial status. If we are innocent he declares accordingly" (Murray Redemption Accomplished and Applied pg. 121).

Orthodoxy and Rome confuse the distinctions which affects the purity of the Gospel message. If the lines become obscurred then it effects how we view our relationship with and our response to God.

[/FONT]

 

[Philip]

It does:

Justification ................Sanctification
Legal Standing............. Internal Condition
Once for all time .............Continuous througout life
Entirely God's work .............We cooperate with God
Perfect in this life ....................Not perfect in this life
Same for all Christians ...............Greater in some than others

I am well aware of the supposed differences taught in recent Western theology.

Justification is a legal declaration by God that we are "not guilty" of our sins by virtue of what Christ has done. It is God's response to our faith. We are in effect covered by Christ.

In Western theology, yes. However, this idea is completely foreign to Eastern theology, as well as most Western theology prior to the Reformation. There is even significant evidence that Luther himself did not believe it.

In the East, we teach that they are one and the same, a real union with Christ.

The greek term dikaioO (justify) like any other word has varied definitions depending on context but a prominent one is "to declare righteous" (James uses the term differently).

I know the term.

This can be seen in passages like Luke 7:29 "When they heard this all the people and the tax collectors justified God, having been baptized with the baptism of John." Did they make God righteous? No of course not for he is already righteous but rather they declared him to be righteous.

Yet, they declared the truth: that God is righteous. And so it is with God, He declares that we are righteous because we have in fact been made righteous.

Justification can be shown to be a legal delcaration simply by contrasting it with condemnation. "Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who justifies; who is to condemn?" (Rom 8:33-34).

This is hardly proof of forensic justification. It makes at least as much sense with effective justification: 'Who shall bring any charge against God's elect? It is God who [has made them truly righteous]. Who is to condemn [someone who is truly righteous]?

Condemnation is to declare a person guilty and justification is here presented as the opposite of condemnation. Its finality is made clear when Paul says, "There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus" (Rom 8:1).

I disagree. Justification is not presented as the opposite of condemnation, but as protection from it. Because we are truly justified/made righteous, we can not be condemned.

This is because Christ's righteousness is imputed to us.

Nope. Christ's righteousness is not merely imputed to us. Christ Himself is given to us. We no longer live, but Christ lives in us. Because Christ abides in us, sin is forced out.

Paul quotes Genesis when he says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness" (Rom 4:3). It is understood that though they did not have full revelation they had complete trust in God's future promises and thus recieved the benefits of Christ.

And? This hardly proves forensic justification. It can just as easily be understood as meaning that God made Abraham righteous on account of his faith. Further, it is not entirely clear that this passage refers to individual salvation. Rather, it may just as well be understood as an argument that Gentiles are acceptable to God without them having to become Jews: Abraham was righeous before he was circumcised. It follows that circumcision is not a prerequisite of righeousness. Therefore, the Gentiles do not need to be circumcised to be righteous before God. Only faith is necessary.

Sanctification is different. Sanctification is the process by which we are made more and more free from sin and is an act wherein the believer cooperates with God. We are called to be obedient. It is also clear the moral change begins at regeneration.

Indeed, we participate in the divine nature though faith. Because Christ lives in use and abides in us, we can abide in Him.

Titus 3:5 and 1 John 3:9 make it abundantly clear that those who have been regenerated (born again as they say) that they cannot continue on in sin as they once had been. It is progressive: "Just as you once yielded your members to impurity and to greater and greater iniquity, so now yield your members to righteousness for sanctification" (Rom 6:19).

Agreed, justification/sactification is a process by which we partake in the divine nature. However, you have not established a necessary separation between them. Indeed, you can not. They are two different names for the same thing: the gift of Christ, Christ Himself, given to us. What you call justification is the driving out of previous sin by Christ presence in us. What you call santification is the protection from further sin by Christ's presence in us. Calling them separate names does not make them separated.

Orthodoxy and Rome confuse the distinctions which affects the purity of the Gospel message.

Actually, the Roman position is much closer to the Protestant position than to the Orthodox position.

If the lines become obscurred then it effects how we view our relationship with and our response to God.

I would just as quickly say the artificially erecting a barrier between the two 'effects how we view our relationship with and our response to God.'

You have done a good job of presenting the standard Western Protestant beliefs on the matter. What you have failed to do is prove that those beliefs are the necessary conclusion of Scripture or the historic teachings of Christians. The split between the ideas of justification and sanctification begins is do to the Scholastic theology of medieval Catholics. They defined 'faith' as 'incomplete or imperfect knowledge' and concluded that something incomplete or imperfect could not be sufficient for salvation. Thus were born their ideas of fides charitate formata, the elevation of human love to divine love, infused grace/infused righteousness, merits, and so on. Protestants were right to reject this, but their solution never escaped the philosophies of the day. They, for the most part, never recognized that faith in Christ is nothing short of union with Christ. Through this union, we have both the forgiveness of sins and the strength to resist sin. If I might borrow from Luther:

Just as the Word became flesh, so it is certainly necessary also that the flesh become may become Words. In other words, God becomes man so that man may become God. Thus, power becomes powerless so that weakness may become powerful. The Logos puts on our form and gestalt, our image and likeness, so that He may clothe us with His image, His gestalt, and His likeness. Thus, wisdom becomes foolish so that foolishness may become wisdom, and so it is in all other things that are in God and in us, to the extent that in all these things He takes what is ours to Himself in order to impart what is His to us.​

The concept of justification and sanctification are the same thing: Christ takes what is ours (sin) and imparts (not imputes) what is His (rightousness). Such is the beauty of the Incarnation.

 

[Danfrey]

Philip,

I am sure there are areas that we don't agree on, but I wanted to take a moment to tell you I appreciate your style. You present your thoughts well. I know very little about Eastern Orthodox, but I do have a great appreciation for the ante-nicene fathers. Our western theology has strayed quite far from the teachings of the early church.

 

[Philip]

I am sure there are areas that we don't agree on, but I wanted to take a moment to tell you I appreciate your style. You present your thoughts well. I know very little about Eastern Orthodox, but I do have a great appreciation for the ante-nicene fathers. Our western theology has strayed quite far from the teachings of the early church.

Thank you. I am sure we can learn from each other.