Is Pelagianism a straw man?

[pgwolv]

In my thread on the personal nature of God in Calvinism, several of you mentioned that Provisionism seems to be a new form of semi-Pelagianism. I had mentioned this to the other party before. His response was as follows:

Semi-pelagianism is construct made up by Beza to boogieman his opponents. It is a figment of his imagination. Beza called his opponents Semi-pelagians in order to boogieman them by comparing them to some Fransican Monks that argued with Augustine. The specific monks that he called semi-pelagian were embraced as brothers by Augustine, while he challenged their spiritual doctrine, so not even Augustine would have called them heretics. There is no such thing as a pelagian or semi-pelagian. I have spent many hours trying to find a single one and have totally failed. Even Pelagius was not pelagian by his own denial of the 14 points of that Augustine accused him with, and I have yet to see a single one of those points in Pelagius' writings. He called the 14 points that Augustine accused him with anathema and was cleared by 3 separate church councils before he was finally condemned as a heretic by a 4th council who tried him in absentia.

Pelagianism, and subsequently semi-pelagianism, has no school of thought espoused by a teacher and followed by students. Scholars are unable to agree on a definition of 'Pelagianism' or on criteria by which to classify texts as 'Pelagian' (or not). The history of scholarship on 'Pelagianism' shows that, when examined, the concept did not stand up to scrutiny; it cannot be defined, nor are there criteria by which a text can be classified as 'Pelagian'. There is also plenty of evidence to show that Augustine simply wanted to establish his theology as an argument against Pelagius, whether or not Pelagius believed it. His motivation was about fighting against this imaginary argument which Pelagius never presented and history has always been on the side of the winner. I agree with Pelagius that Augustine's 14 points against "pelagianism" are anathema and heresey. The problem is that no one actually ever taught it. It is the most influential strawman in all of church history and Augustine annihilated that strawman. Much of Calvinism and Reformed theology points at that strawman and throws anyone who says that they can respond positively to the work of the Holy Spirit into the heretic Pelagius' camp when no one argues the strawman."

I don't have enough knowledge on the subject to know what the evidence for his claims are. Can any of you give me pointers, or should I ask him directly? It's been months since we've had this conversation, so I would rather not discuss it with him now; rather, I want to know if any of you have come across this stance.

 

[Deleted member 11889]

Wow. I would start, if you do discuss this with him, by asking him to positively assert what he thinks Pelagius taught, and what he (your friend) believes.

 

[Eyedoc84]

The definitions are well-established, it doesn’t really matter for the purposes of discussing doctrine whether Pelagius (or Cassian) believed them or not.

It is my understanding that there are no surviving writings of Pelagius, so not sure what he’s talking about there anyway. It is often the case that heretics deny what they are being accused of then turn around and keep teaching it.

 

[Taylor]

His whole response is just one unargued assertion after another. He states all these things as if they are common knowledge, yet provides not a shred of evidence. I would start by demanding evidence. There must be something for him to produce, since he mentioned with confidence “the history of scholarship.” I think that, when you demand that he substantiate his claims, you will find that he, like many others who have great skills in pontification, has no clue what he’s talking about.

 

[Ed Walsh]

I would start by demanding evidence. There must be something for him to produce, since he mentioned with confidence “the history of scholarship.” I think that, when you demand that he substantiate his claims, you will find that he, like many others who have great skills in pontification, has no clue what he’s talking about.

Good point but I think he's already got you there. Most of his evidence was that there is no evidence of pelagianism. What evidence can you produce that there is no evidence of something? Pretty slick guy, huh?

Edit: I guess the best way to answer him is to produce evidence where he says there is none and see what he says about that.

 

[Taylor]

Good point but I think he's already got you there. Most of his evidence was that there is no evidence of pelagianism.

There’s plenty of evidence—Augustine’s writings, the decrees of church councils, centuries of writings throughout church history. But what good will it do mentioning that to someone whose a priori conclusion is that all such stuff is “made up”? Besides, he opened the door to a legitimate demand for evidence by mentioning “the history of scholarship.” My response: “Okay, big guy. Show me this scholarship. I want references.”

 

[Ed Walsh]

I don't have enough knowledge on the subject to know what the evidence for his claims are.

What I am writing now is similar to your request above.

Pelagianism, and subsequently semi-pelagianism, has no school of thought espoused by a teacher and followed by students. Scholars are unable to agree on a definition of 'Pelagianism' or on criteria by which to classify texts as 'Pelagian' (or not). The history of scholarship on 'Pelagianism' shows that, when examined, the concept did not stand up to scrutiny; it cannot be defined, nor are there criteria by which a text can be classified as 'Pelagian'.

Here's a simplistic question that may reveal how little I understand the subject.

Isn't semi-Pelagianism similar or even the same as our modern Arminianism? If so, then I think it has been the default opinion of mistaught Arminian Christians and most men in the world.

Or am I, as I said above, being too simplistic?

 

[Tom Hart]

I’d like to see this fellow’s sources.

 

[Taylor]

Isn't semi-Pelagianism similar or even the same as our modern Arminianism?

It depends on which brand of Arminianism. I’m not sure I would classify, for example, John Wesley as a semi-Pelagian. He had a darker view of human nature than many Calvinists and, contrary to many Arminians today, believed original sin consists not only in pollution, but corruption, as well.

 

[Eyedoc84]

It depends on which brand of Arminianism. I’m not sure I would classify, for example, John Wesley as a semi-Pelagian. He had a darker view of human nature than many Calvinists and, contrary to many Arminians today, believed original sin consists not only in pollution, but corruption, as well.

The more “evangelical” Arminians would call themselves “semi-Augustinian.” They believe that due to depravity, God must move in the heart of a sinner first in order for him to come.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

I’d like to see this fellow’s sources.

I agree with this. I would start there because those are some big assumptions. We all need to be sure our stances are grounded in historical reality, and not fiction.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

The more “evangelical” Arminians would call themselves “semi-Augustinian.” They believe that due to depravity, God must move in the heart of a sinner first in order for him to come.

That's classical Arminianism. Arminians affirm Total Depravity.

 

[Eyedoc84]

That's classical Arminianism. Arminians affirm Total Depravity.

Right. I think Dordt correctly notes that what they give with the right hand, they take away with the left, but Arminius and Wesley both strongly affirmed Total Depravity/Original Sin in principle.

 

[pgwolv]

The definitions are well-established, it doesn’t really matter for the purposes of discussing doctrine whether Pelagius (or Cassian) believed them or not.

It is my understanding that there are no surviving writings of Pelagius, so not sure what he’s talking about there anyway. It is often the case that heretics deny what they are being accused of then turn around and keep teaching it.

Thanks for the perspective; it's true that the definitions are well-established, irrespective of the origin.

 

[Taylor]

This is one of the many problems with labels. People tend to focus on the label itself—its origins, its various meanings and uses, its baggage, etc.—and ignore the substance behind the label, so that the conversation ends up being really about the label and not about the fact that we need to be conforming all our doctrine to the Word of God, and that alone. The fact that your friend objects to the history and use of the term "Pelagian" does not absolve him one iota from the fact that his soteriology is in error. Pelagian, semi-Pelagian, Arminian, Calvinist, Provisionist—who cares? "Salvation is of the Lord"—full stop; end of story; nothing further, your honor.

In other words, the best thing you can do for this gentleman is to hold his feet to the fire of Scripture. Do not let him turn to the right or to the left, but let the sword of the Spirit do what it is intended to do: piercing and dividing even unto the joints and marrow.

 

[ReformedCuban]

The definitions are well-established, it doesn’t really matter for the purposes of discussing doctrine whether Pelagius (or Cassian) believed them or not.

It is my understanding that there are no surviving writings of Pelagius, so not sure what he’s talking about there anyway. It is often the case that heretics deny what they are being accused of then turn around and keep teaching it.

I'm aware of an English translation of Pelagius's commentary of Paul's Epistle to the Romans, which I found just recently.

Amazon.com: Pelagius's Commentary on St Paul's Epistle to the Romans (Oxford Early Christian Studies): 9780198269809: Pelagius, De Bruyn, Theodore: Books

Amazon.com: Pelagius's Commentary on St Paul's Epistle to the Romans (Oxford Early Christian Studies): 9780198269809: Pelagius, De Bruyn, Theodore: Books

www.amazon.com

Any takers?

 

[Taylor]

I'm aware of an English translation of Pelagius's commentary of Paul's Epistle to the Romans, which I found just recently.

Looking at the review of that book, it seems the gentleman in the OP is not the only one who thinks the way he does. Apparently, original sin is a "Gnostic heresy."

 

[retroGRAD3]

Looking at the review of that book, it seems the gentleman in the OP is not the only one who thinks the way he does. Apparently, original sin is a "Gnostic heresy."

Indeed, very sad to see so many advocating for pelegius teaching. Men do oh so love their "free will" though. I once heard someone say God's greatest gift to mankind was "free will". I asked, "so not Jesus and the forgiveness of sins?". Nope, free will.

 

[Hamalas]

The OP is saying that Franciscian monks were arguing with Augustine, but the Franciscian order wasn't established until almost 1,000 years after Augustine. I feel like I'm missing something...

 

[Deleted member 11889]

The OP is saying that Franciscian monks were arguing with Augustine, but the Franciscian order wasn't established until almost 1,000 years after Augustine. I feel like I'm missing something...

Maybe he was saying that 1,000 years later some monks took issue with Augustine's teaching and Beza called them semi-Pel for that? Just trying to put a charitable spin on it...

 

[pgwolv]

The OP is saying that Franciscian monks were arguing with Augustine, but the Franciscian order wasn't established until almost 1,000 years after Augustine. I feel like I'm missing something...

For some reason I overlooked that! I'll go with JP's spin...