The Pelagian Captivity of the Church

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Here is a new article dealing with how Pelagius affects theology today, and the history behind how he has affected the church negatively. It demonstrates quotes from Billy Graham, TD Jakes, Norman Geisler and others who have been profoundly affected by Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian doctrine.

The Pelagian Captivity of the Church
by Yours Truly

 

[raderag]

Originally posted by webmaster
Here is a new article dealing with how Pelagius affects theology today, and the history behind how he has affected the church negatively. It demonstrates quotes from Billy Graham, TD Jakes, Norman Geisler and others who have been profoundly affected by Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian doctrine.

The Pelagian Captivity of the Church
by Yours Truly

You might consider retitling that. RC Sproul wrote an article with the very same title.

 

[raderag]

Speaking of Pelagianism, have you ever read this?

The Pelagian heresy is a bit more narrow than most would admit."


At least Jerome though so. In my view, this 5th century writing does a better job of describing the heresy than almost anything else written. It is not presented in a straw man fashion, and contains most of the valid arguments.

Pelagianism was never theology devoid of Grace; rather it was theology that relied on grace and free will.


Here is the intro:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-14.htm

From the intro (sound familiar)


The following is a summary of the argument: Atticus, the Augustinian, at once (c. 1) introduces the question: Do you affirm that, as Pelagius affirms, men can live without sin? Yes, says the Pelagian Critobulus, but I do not add, as is imputed to us, "without the grace of God." Indeed, the fact that we have a free will is from grace. Yes, replies Atticus, but what is this grace? Is it only our original nature, or is it needed in every act. In every act, is the reply (2); yet one would hardly say that we cannot mend a pen without grace (3), for, if so, where is our free will? But, says Atticus (5), the Scriptures speak of our need of God's aid in everything. In that case, says Critobulus, the promised reward must be given not to us but to God, Who works in us. Reverting then to the first point stated, Atticus asks, does the possibility of sinlessness extend to single acts, or to the whole life? Certainly to the whole as well as the part, is the answer. But we wish, or will to be sinless; why then are we not actually sinless? Because (8) we do not exert our will to the full. But (9) no one has ever lived without sin. Still, says the Pelagian, God commands us to be perfect, and he does not command impossibilities. Job, Zacharias, and Elizabeth are represented as perfectly righteous. No, it is answered (12), faults are attributed to each of them. John says, "He that is born of God sinneth not" (13); yet, "If we say we have no sin we deceive ourselves." The Apostles, though told to be perfect (14) were not perfect: and St. Paul says (14a), "I count not myself to have apprehended." Men are called just and perfect only in comparison of others (16), or because of general subjection to the will of God (18), or according to their special characteristics (19), as we may speak of a bishop as excellent in his office, though he may not fulfil the ideal of the pastoral epistles (22).



and the actual dialouge:

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-06/Npnf2-06-15.htm#TopOfPage

Here is a snipet. It is very revealing in my opinion.


1. Atticus. I hear, Critobulus, that you have written that man can be without sin, if he chooses; and that the commandments of God are easy. Tell me, is it true?

Critobulus. It is true, Atticus; but our rivals do not take the words in the sense I attached to them.

A. Are they then so ambiguous as to give rise to a difference as to their meaning? I do not ask for an answer to two questions at once. You laid down two propositions; the one, that1 man can be without sin, if he chooses: the other, that God's commandments are easy. Although, therefore, they were uttered together, let them be discussed separately, so that, while our faith appears to be one, no strife may arise through our misunderstanding each other.

C. I said, Atticus, that man can be without sin, if he chooses; not, as some maliciously make us say, without the grace of God (the very thought is impiety), but simply that he can, if he chooses; the aid of the grace of God being presupposed.

A. Is God, then, the author of your evil works?

C. By no means. But if there is any good in me, it is brought to perfection through His impulse and assistance.

A. My question does not refer to natural constitution, but to action. For who doubts that God is the Creator of all things? I wish you would tell me this: the good you do, is it your's or God's?

C. It is mine and God's: I work and He assists.

A. How is it then that everybody thinks you do away with the grace of God, and maintain that all our actions proceed from our own will?

C. I am surprised, Atticus, at your asking me for the why and wherefore of other people's mistakes, and wanting to know what I did not write, when what I did write is perfectly clear. I said that man can be without sin, if he chooses. Did I add, without the grace of God?

A. No; but the fact that you added nothing implies your denial of the need of grace.

C. Nay, rather, the fact that I have not denied grace should be regarded as tantamount to an assertion of it. It is unjust tosuppose we deny whatever we do not assert.

A. You admit then that man can be sinless, if he chooses, but with the grace of God.

C. I not only admit it, but freely proclaim it.

A. So then he who does away with the grace of God is in error.

C. Just so. Or rather, he ought to be thought impious, seeing that all things are governed by the pleasure of God, and that we owe our existence and the faculty of individual choice and desire to the goodness of God, the Creator. For that we have free will, and according to our own choice incline to good or evil, is part of His grace who made us what we are, in His own image and likeness.



The straw man that most have given to the heresy of Pelagianism has ensured that no one is such. When the contraversy is seen from a more historical viewpoint, especially Orange, there are many more heretics to go around.

 

[RamistThomist]

I can't wait for your other Historical Theology stuff to come out!

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Originally posted by raderag

Originally posted by webmaster
Here is a new article dealing with how Pelagius affects theology today, and the history behind how he has affected the church negatively. It demonstrates quotes from Billy Graham, TD Jakes, Norman Geisler and others who have been profoundly affected by Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian doctrine.

The Pelagian Captivity of the Church
by Yours Truly

You might consider retitling that. RC Sproul wrote an article with the very same title.

But his was not very good.

 

[Irishcat922]

That's what I been talkin bout, but nobody will listen!

 

[SmokingFlax]

This looks good. I'm onto it.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Originally posted by Irishcat922
That's what I been talkin bout, but nobody will listen!

Sproul appeals to the simple and new in the faith. If you have caught onto him, whenever he speaks he talka botu ONE thing in the sermon or lecture. One point driven home. That is what makes him a good teacher.

My article is a bit more indepth, and deals with a lot of history. I am appealing, in everything I write most of the time, to get people to think a bit deeper than on the surface.

Sproul's article was good in what it said. It is just not very deep.

 

[Irishcat922]

I was just saying that I have been griping about the heresy of Pelagianism in the Church today but no one will listen to me, or no one really cares. I thought your article was great Matt, I have not read Sproul's. I think your point is very well established.

 

[lwadkins]

Of course no one listens, you are talking about doctrine and "docrtine divides."

 

[ReformedWretch]

Very good work yet again Matt!