Born around 350, Pelagius was a monk from Britain who moved to Rome with aspirations to teach the Bible.[1] Unlike previous persons disposed as heretics, Pelagius held to orthodox Trinitarianism and Christology, it was his struggle with the doctrine of original sin that got him in trouble.[2] Pelagius’ doctrinal landslide begins with the inevitable “secularization” of Christianity throughout the now Christianized Roman Empire. Simply put, the age of martyrdom made allegiance with Jesus a serious, life-threatening decision which lessened the risks and subsequently loosened the common Christians ascetic worship and obedience to Christ’ moral commands.[3] Once in Rome, Pelagius’ reputation became what we might call an attempt at reformation of Christian character. To counter the laxity and power grabbing of the nominal Roman church, “Pelagius developed an ascetic form of Christianity with an optimistic theology of human nature.”[4] In the past, those who sought a more ascetic religious experience isolated to desert caves and monasteries. Pelagius’ ambition was to create an ascetic fit for remaining within societal frameworks.[5]
Pelagius’ ascetic created for him a moralistic theology. He believed God’s prevailing grace necessary only for forgiveness of sins, however, he located human obedience to God in terms as “free will,” meaning, Christians had a moral obligation to fulfill what was within their own power to accomplish. As Ferguson explains, “he located grace in things external to ourselves, in the law and the teaching of Jesus Christ, in forgiveness, and in the example of Christ… God, the Father of all justice, makes no exception of persons, and he does not demand the impossible. Human perfection is possible; therefore, it is obligatory.”[6] In essence, graceless exertion of the human will. What led to his denial of original sin is (1) God would not call Christian’s to be sinless if they were not able to be perfect and sinless; (2) he believed, in our current terms, that being born again came with an initial grace which made Christians good. Therefore, human nature was good because God created it to be good; and (3) because we are not “puppets” being providentially strung along like a remote-controlled robot, humans have “free will,” and are without excuse if they avoid walking in perfect obedience to God.[7] For his synthesis to work, the next logical step was to deny original sin, which made sin (in our terms), something learned, rather than, inherited. Holcomb summarizes this well, writing:
“Adam was a bad example for his decedents, but his sins affected only himself. Pelagius rejected as absurd and unjust the doctrine Augustine termed “original sin.” Why should a person be punished for another person’s sin? The human duty to self-improvement could not be abandoned. People are born sinless, just like Adam. We sin not because we are born sinners but because we make a deliberate choice to do so. Sin exists only in the act. Pelagius taught that many Old Testament heroes were able to remain sinless, and since it had been done before, we are therefore without excuse.”[8]
By the time Augustine (354-430) enters the picture, Pelagius and Celestius have caused an uproar in Northern Africa with their takes on the freedom of the human will. Before moving forward, it is important to note that this debate shared significance for infant baptism.[9] It is plausible to consider Pelagius’ denial of original sin as a reaction against infant damnation. For Augustine, original sin implied unbaptized infants, like all flesh, were damnable. Infant baptism, inasmuch as many proponents today point to it as a sign for covenantal community, was very much about consecrating them to God to avoid their impending damnation, should an infant die. Nevertheless, if Pelagius promoted sin as something learned, leaving its increase or decrease in the hands of exerting human will to obey God’s good and reject evil, then Augustine was the counterpart. Holcomb summarizes Augustine well, writing, “The range of freedom one enjoys is narrowed the deeper one is in sin, and broadened the deeper one is in Christ.”[10] In other words, sin is an inherited evil passed down from Adam, and the only way to counter sin and move toward the good is found in the revelation of Christ’ salvific work and continued dependance upon the Holy Spirit to assists one’s nature in the putting to death sinful nature. For Pelagius, sin was something learned and succumbed to, but for Augustine, sin was inherited and something Christ had to deliver humanity from. Pelagius believed one could be sinless, but Augustine compared “the church as a hospital where fallen humanity could recover and grow gradually in holiness through grace.”[11] For Pelagius, grace was God showing us what we must do (without any help), but for Augustine, grace was a supernatural assistance which helped us grow in holiness.[12]
Prior to Pelagius and the controversies surrounding what we affectionately call the doctrines of grace, the church mostly agreed on the following concerning the human will: “1. Humanity is fallen and requires divine help for salvation. 2. Humans have a will and are responsible for their sin.”[13] The Semipelagians may have sympathized more with the mystery of grace and human responsibility than they did with Augustine’s treatment of grace and the human will. Nevertheless, the non-ecumenical Council of Carthage (418) favored Augustine’s interpretation over and against Pelagius, he was “banished from Jerusalem” (his home at the time), and pretty much “vanished from the historical record.”[14] The Council of Carthage marked not only Augustine’s position on original sin and human will, it also declared infant baptism as a documented necessity for the washing away of sin, not merely a symbol.”[15] As Baptists, we should be grateful Carthage is not ecumenical. So, Pelagius’ ideas on original sin and the possibility of living a sinless life were rejected. With Augustine, Carthage affirmed that grace is a supernatural help from God which enables the human will to obey God, which was over and against Pelagius’ idea that grace merely supplied humankind with the natural ability to will themselves toward the good.[16] The first ecumenical Council of Ephesus condemned Pelagius and his teachings in 431.[17] Carthage, and no doubt, Ephesus, sent waves of division throughout Western Christianity. More than one-hundred years later, at the non-ecumenical Council of Orange (529), the decisions of Carthage were reinforced, and “Twenty-five canons were passed that ruled out the arguments of those who questioned Carthage.”[18]
Many in the Western Church and a great number of the Eastern Church never accepted the rulings at Carthage, Ephesus I, and Orange. Arminianism is an offshoot expression of this. Therefore, the issue of original sin, infant damnation, and to what degree humans have freedom of the will are all observably relevant. In my observation, often what is popularized are their respective hyper-positions. I was pleasantly surprised several years back when I found that many in the early church were satisfied with the tension of mystery. For more than a decade, I have said it this way: God is far more providentially involved in the affairs of humanity than we want to acknowledge, and we are far more responsible for our actions than we want to admit. Humankind requires far more grace and dependence on God for obedience than our need for autonomy wants to attribute, and our sinful behavior is far more related to our pursuit of autonomous hyper-independence than we wish to acknowledge. God reveals Himself supernaturally to us and grows us in grace by the Spirit (Ephesians 1:15-19). I have met many Calvinists who side with Augustine, and yet they live life striving in the flesh to be perfect. I have met many “free-will” thinkers who cherish Arminianism, and yet they pray to God with Calvinists language. It is a strange thing to witness on both sides. Certainly, a controversy which won’t likely end until Jesus returns.
[1]Justin S. Holcomb. Know the Heretics. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014. P. 109. Print.
[2]Ibid., Holcomb. Know the Heretics. P. 109.
[3]Ibid., Holcomb. Know the Heretics. P. 110.
[4]Ibid., Holcomb. Know the Heretics. P. 110.
[5]Everett Ferguson. Church History, Vol. I: From Christ to the Pre-Reformation: The Rise and Growth of the Church in its Cultural, Intellectual, and Political Context. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2013. P. 280. Print.
[6]Ibid., Ferguson. P. 280.
[7]Ibid., Holcomb. Know the Heretics. P. 112, 113.
[8]Ibid., Holcomb. Know the Heretics. P. 133.
[9]Ibid., Ferguson. Know the Heretics. P. 278, 279.
[10]Ibid., Holcomb. Know the Heretics. P. 115.
[11]Ibid., Holcomb. Know the Heretics. P. 115.
[12]Ibid., Holcomb. Know the Heretics. P. 116.
[13]Ibid., Holcomb. Know the Heretics. P. 109.
[14]Ibid., Holcomb. Know the Heretics. P. 110.
[15]Justin S. Holcomb. Know the Creeds and Councils. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2014. P. 90. Print.
[16]Ibid., Holcomb. Know the Creeds and Councils. P. 91.
[17]Ibid., Holcomb. Know the Heretics. P. 110.
[18]Ibid., Holcomb. Know the Creeds and Councils. P. 93.