As Protestants, one of the themes we champion is that man is saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. We have this position from thinkers like Martin Luther and John Calvin, who re-energized this position from Augustine, a foremost thinker in the Western Church. Augustine formulated this theological position in response to a heresy that was threatening the church around the turn of the fourth century. It was a heresy that stressed man’s freedom and righteousness against the saving grace of God, and it was started by a British believer who emphasized monasticism and personal holiness.
The Pelagian controversy was named for its originator, Pelagius, who wrote in the late fourth century.[1] Although it is uncertain whether he was a monk, he did live a monastic lifestyle and was concerned more about practice than theology.[2] His mentality viewed that as one acts, one merits blame or praise.[3] Pelagius was writing in a time of the Roman Empire where Christians being martyred had long stopped.[4] Toleration of Christianity had been promised by the Edicts of Galerius and Milan.[5] Prior to this, martyrdom had been seen as the ultimate act of love and sacrificial glory.[6] It was also the threat of death that solidified and strengthened resolution in a believer’s life to truly “take up your cross and follow me [Jesus]”. Martyrdom additionally produced saints who set the example, where holiness was concrete, and evil was identifiable: the Roman Empire.[7] After Christians were guaranteed protection, their apparent moral laxity was deeply troubling to Pelagius.[8] His sentiment reached its peak upon reading Augustine’s prayer, “Oh Lord, give me what You command, and command whatever You will”.[9]
It is impossible to talk about Pelagian history or theology without bringing St. Augustine into the conversation. In the fourth century, he wrote against many heresies and writings in the church including Pelagius’. In Augustine’s writings against Pelagius, he stressed the doctrine of original sin, strengthened by a Latin translation of Romans 5:12. Augustine notes that when it says, “in Adam all sin,” it is stressing the corporate nature of humanity.[10] In the beginning, Adam and Eve were created good and had the freedom to respond obediently to God.[11] Even this power to choose was not inherent, and they still needed to depend on God for everything.[12] Adam chose to sin and therefore, lost freedom and moral integrity and became a slave to sin, facing death.[13] The death of the body was unavoidable and the death of the soul now became possible.[14] In this way, original sin has disastrous effects as it has all humanity trapped. Sin also alters our free will because it still exists but is now cursed and is bent toward actions, thoughts, and words that are not godly.[15] All people freely choose to sin but are not free not to sin because sin is pleasurable.[16] With a depraved human nature, it is impossible for mankind to choose God over sinfulness. Therefore, God must directly intervene and regenerate a person’s nature so that they will accept His lordship in their lives. This is known as the saving grace of God, and without it, a person is still in sin leading to condemnation.[17]
Pelagius had a much different view of this concept, and it can be seen by looking at the same passage mentioned earlier. Looking to his commentary on Romans 5:12-21, Pelagius does not believe that death and sin passed on from Adam and is now inherent through all mankind.[18] Adam, being created mortal, would have died even if he did not sin.[19] Pelagius also rejected the idea of original sin because he viewed each individual person as being created directly by God.[20] If God has created each individual then no one can have an inherently sinful nature because then God would be responsible, leading to an idea that God is not all good.[21] To even say that human nature has any inclination to choose evil because it is predisposed to doing so charges God with injustice.[22]
According to Pelagius, in Romans 5 when Paul says that all are dead, he is only generalizing humanity’s condition and ignoring a few righteous ones.[23] He cites Luke 20:37, 38 in which Jesus uses the three Israelite patriarchs (Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob) to show that God is Lord over the living, not the dead.[24] Pelagius also notes his belief that some righteous figures in biblical history actually lived without sin: Job, Zacharias, Elizabeth, Abel, Enoch, and Noah.[25] Pelagius interpreted Romans 5:12 as saying that spiritual death comes to all who living in a worldly manner, not a heavenly one, and chases after sinful desires.[26] He further argued that if Adam’s sin affected those who are not sinners, then Christ’s righteousness must affect those who are not believers, which was illogical in his mind.[27] Another example is Ezekiel 18:2-29 which proclaims that it is wrong to blame one’s parents for one’s own sin, and Pelagius used this in his denial of original sin.[28] To recap, 1) Pelagius argues that original sin cannot exist because they it would have had to originate with God, who by nature cannot sin, and hence, no human can come into the world soiled 2) Adam was moral and would have died even without sinning 3) before Christ came, some people had lived without sin and 4) all of humanity does not suffer spiritual death because of Adam or life because of Christ.[29]
Turning to the subjects of grace and free will, Augustine’s views have already been mentioned briefly. It is worth stressing that it is only God’s predetermined grace that saves a person, and that person can do absolutely nothing to remedy the problem.[30] God, by this grace, gives salvation and transforms human nature and the will to now choose the good over evil. It is your spiritual condition that decides the choices you make, and who you are determines what you do.[31] Sin is internally within the human heart while grace is external, from God, and foreign to humanity.[32] This saving grace of God is the precondition for true freedom, but not freedom from God or completely human autonomy to sin.[33] It is freedom to obey God out of love and thankfulness. Grace transforms the human will to do what it originally cannot do: obediently respond to God’s call.[34] Augustine cited Paul in Romans 7:19 to substantiate the answer to how man can be created good and yet still be evil.[35]
Not surprisingly, Pelagius had a staunchly different view on both free will and grace. Pelagius saw Adam as setting the example for sin, which leads people to disobedience.[36] In other words, sin is something external in acts, not innate as seen above in Augustinian theology.[37] Every human being is born with unconditional, untainted free will and moral responsibility.[38] Humanity retained its goodness after the Fall, and Adam only gave us a habit of sinning, which Christ subsequently broke.[39] In Pelagianism, two simultaneous wills exist: the will to sin and the will not to sin.[40] Adam’s actions have upset the balance of these wills and a majority of humanity is now trapped in the will to sin, but there have been a few that have exercised their will not to sin (some mentioned above).[41] Christ’s mission was to set the example of perfection, restore the will not to sin, and point to a time of eradication of the will to sin.[42] For Pelagius, free will is everything and he argues his point like this: by creating humanity, God gave them freedom to choose the divine good.[43] By constantly choosing the divine good, of which people retain the knowledge even after the fall, they can live without sin and follow God’s commandments.[44] After all, to say that God demands obedience to His Word then punishes us for disobedience if He did not give us the will to obey is an unjust God who has no right to condemn us.[45] Pelagius’ outlook is an obvious reflection of his emphasis on morals and his believe that God does not demand the impossible by requiring obedience.[46] He also rejected the idea that moral failure can be excused by human weakness resulting from sin.[47]
It is within the realm of obedience that Pelagius puts and defines grace. According to him, redemption is humanistic and is earned by merit alone.[48] The path of holiness lies in the breaking of bad habits, customs, and examples resulting from sin.[49] Grace is not necessary as humanity can live a perfectly sinless life without divine intervention.[50] To his credit, Pelagius did admit that this is not easy.[51] God’s grace is an aid to help humans obey His commands, but it does not save anyone.[52] Rather, it is God’s law revealed through reason, and it is natural to obey.[53] Because sinful habits and customs have obscured that grace, God has revealed it in other ways as well including the Law of Moses, examples of biblical figures, and in Jesus Christ’s actions.[54] It is opposite of Augustine’s view because grace is internal while sin is external.
Pelagius, as most heretics, did not start out to break away from the established church. He simply wanted Christians to live morally as they had done in the empire when they were being persecuted.[55] He wanted to instill into them a sense of accountability for their actions, and he was the conduct and mentality of the church influenced by Augustine’s writings as a threat to that sense.[56] After all, if a Christian can never escape sinfulness through works but continues to sin, then why even try to live morally? Looking at early Christian writings, they did focus on conduct but agreed that grace was necessary for salvation.[57] They placed such a high emphasis on morals that some could vie them as moralistic, if not legalistic.[58] The view these authors took on salvation is that it must be divine grace and human will working together.[59] God’s grace enters our lives and then cooperates with our striving for God to accomplish salvation in a believer’s life.[60]
Furthermore, Pelagius wanted to promote an ideal version of the church being the perfect bride of Christ. It is only in regards to this subject does Pelagius emphasize Christ’s atoning death and resurrection rather than his righteous life. Because has died once, been resurrected once, and now has paid the sin debt in full, Christians must walk in perfect likeness to their Savior.[61] He also promoted the idea of casting sinners out of the church, forbidding the unclean to enter, and reforming behavior of the believers because the body of Christ becomes polluted when sin is present.[62] He continually stressed martyrdom and total discontinuity between one’s old, sinful life and new life in Christ. Within the Scriptures, he additionally promoted doing God’s will, good woks, rewards & punishments, and following Christ’s example. However, the end results of his theological premises is that unredeemed man is good not evil and free to do all good, rendering Christ’s death unnecessary.[63]
In 410 A.D. after gaining a following in Rome, Pelagius had to flee because the Visigoths had invaded the city.[64] He fled to Africa, avoided Augustine as he had gained a reputation of writing against the Bishop of Hippo, and arrived in Jerusalem where he attracts a following as he teaches.[65] While here, Pelagius has a student, Caelestius who expounded on his teachings.[66] Caelestius taught, like Pelagius, that Adam was created mortal and that humanity has the innate ability and free will to obey God without needing grace.[67] He also taught that infants and children can attain eternal life without being baptized.[68] The reason is that newborn children are in the same spiritual condition and Adam and Eve before the Fall.[69] While both Pelagius and Caelestius accepted the practice of infant baptism, they did not view this as eradicating the innate sinful nature but only for the forgiveness of committed sins (whatever sins a baby could possibly commit).[70]
In 411/412 A.D., Paulinus of Milan, deacon of the church brought charges against Caelestius who was zealously promoting Pelagianism in Africa.[71] The council at Carthage charged these Caelestius with heresy, and Augustine condemned him for not believing in the remission of the sinful nature upon baptism of infants because, in doing so, he is denying original sin.[72] This belief promotes the idea that man is, by nature, good and renders Christ’s death unnecessary.[73] The council of Carthage condemned Caelestius and excommunicated him.[74] In further response to the heresy, Augustine sent his own disciple, Orosius to the Eastern Church to condemn Caelestius and Pelagius, since Palestine was closer to Constantinople than Rome.[75] In 415, Orosius started a revolt against Pelagius in Jerusalem, forcing the bishop to call a synod to examine Pelagius, and he found him innocent of any heresies.[76] Later on that year, the East called another council at Diospolis. Sympathetic to Pelagianism in regard to free will and human deeds, the council inquired him about the condemned writings of Caelestius, and he also condemned these writings, leading the council to exonerate him again.[77]
Pelagius’ enemies were still not content with the fact that he had been found innocent twice. They called two more councils in 416 in Carthage and Mileve respectively, and letters were crafted to send to Innocent I, bishop of Rome calling for Pelagius’ excommunication.[78] Innocent condemned Pelagius in 417 but died before an official council could be called.[79] By the time his successor took his place, this new bishop, Zosimus, was more sympathetic to Eastern thought because he was Greek and reinstated Pelagius.[80] The bishops of Carthage struck back in 418 and issued three canons on original sin: 1) Spiritual death is the result of Adam’s sin, 2) newborn children are condemned because of Adam, and 3) the kingdom of heaven and eternal life are one and the same.[81] They also constructed three canons on grace: 1) Grace brings forgiveness of all sins, not just those past, 2) grace aids us in understanding the things of God, and 3) grace is not simply a helper to us in doing what we normally do.[82] Finally, on April 30, 418 the Emperor Honorius of the West banished all new heresies from Rome for unknown reasons and Zosimus turned and followed suit, reversed his earlier declaration, and excommunicated both Pelagius and Caelestius.[83] In 431, the council of Ephesus decided to dispose Pelagius and all his followers, and they wrote a letter to Pope Celestine to confirm this.[84] This came after nearly a decade of Augustine using his writings to blast all Pelagianism, especially its main proponent Julian of Eclanum.[85]
Although Pelagianism was buried by this council, strands of it continued in the writings of John Cassian and Vincent of Lerins, and this has been known as semi-Pelagianism.[86] This theology views that although human beings are saved by divine grace, they can take the first step to salvation out of free will with no help from divine grace.[87] Cassian had a modern sounding idea in that “God helps those who help themselves”.[88] The human will is fallen but not so destroyed that it cannot reach out and search for God, contributing to salvation.[89] Cassian used a more moderate Pelagian response to Augustinian criticism and part of this response was considered to be adopted as teaching.[90] In 529, the Synod of Orange affirmed Augustine’s teachings on original sin, the bondage of the human will to sin, and sin being inherent in human nature, but it did not agree with Augustine’s teaching on predestination.[91] It had a problem accepting the idea that God’s salvation was only for those whom he predestined to accept it rather than for all humanity.[92] The synod also had dilemma in this: if faith is a gift of God and grace is within this faith, and if grace must be present before the hearer’s response, and if grace must be given before the first step to God, then how does one respond to the fact that not all respond to this invitation?[93] By rejecting predestination, the synod was able to say that God’s grace is for all people everywhere, and it is up to human choice to respond.[94] This emphasis on the power of the human agency left some of the Pelagian ideas to grow in popular belief, and the medieval church patterned these ideas, stressing that human merit was essential to salvation.[95]
The main principle that can be learned from this controversy for the current church is being able and willing to listen to each side’s viewpoint. Augustine spoke well of Pelagius but disagreed with him theologically. However, one mistake that was made was the impatience and quickness that the church pursued to get Pelagius and Caelestius excommunicated. While its zeal is commendable, the church may have acted to harshly and pronounced Pelagius guilty until proven innocent. Remember, he had been declared innocent by two separate councils, and it was political pressure combined with Augustinian influence that finally sealed his fate. His views were wrong and unorthodox according to Scripture and early tradition, but he only wanted to see his generation of Christians living more morally. He stressed a striving for the holiness of God. We in the church today, even when we disagree with someone’s viewpoints and condemn them as heretical, we should listen as to the reason for the heresy and use our knowledge of truth to change that heresy into orthodoxy. After all, many heresies started out as writings of those who wanted to change the church for the better. Pelagius helped the church inadvertently by forcing the church to further clarify the place of works in a believer’s life. If Pelagius’ mistake has taught us anything, it is that we as Christians do not act righteously to be saved; we act righteously because we are saved, and we should honor God in thanksgiving by our acts.
[1] Elwell, Walter A. ed. Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001.pg. 897
[2] Peterson, Robert A., and Michael D. Williams. Why I am not an Arminian. Downers Grove: InterVaristy Press, 2004. pg. 32
[3] Elwell, pg. 897
[4] Stortz, Martha Ellen. “Pelagius Revisited.” Word & World, no. 8 no. 2 (1988): pg. 134
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid. pg. 135
[7] Ibid.
[8] George, Timothy. “The Pattern of Christian Truth.” First Things, no. 154 (2005): pg. 23
[9] Ibid., pg. 23
[10] Lawrence, John Michael. “Pelagius and Pelagianism.” Restoration Quarterly, no. 20 no. 2 (1977):pg. 96; George pg. 24
[11] Peterson, pg. 23
[12] Ibid.
[13] Sell, Alan P. F. “Augustine versus Pelagius: A Cautionary Tale of Perennial Importance.” Calvin Theological Journal, no. 12 no. 2 N (1977):pg. 126; Peterson 24
[14] Sell, pg. 128
[15] Peterson, pg. 25
[16] Ibid.
[17] Elwell, pg. 897
[18] DeBruyn, Theodore. Pelagius’ Commentary on St. Paul‘s Epistle to the Romans. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993. pg. 92
[19] Sell, 121
[20] Peterson, pg. 32
[21] Ibid. pg. 33
[22] Stortz, pg. 136
[23] De Bruyn, pg. 92
[24] Ibid.
[25] Lawrence, pg. 97
[26] De Bruyn, pg. 93
[27] Ibid, pg. 94
[28] Lawrence, pg. 96
[29] Ferguson, Everett. Church History Volume 1: From Christ to Pre-Reformation. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005. pg. 280
[30] Peterson, pg. 22
[31] Margret Peterson, pg. 271
[32] Peterson, pg. 27
[33] Ibid., pg. 23
[34] Ibid., pg. 27
[35] Sell, 124
[36] DeBruyn pg. 94
[37] Ferguson, pg. 276
[38] Peterson, pg. 32
[39] Stortz, pg. 140
[40] Ibid. pg. 137
[41] Ibid.
[42] Ibid.
[43] Elwell, pg. 897
[44] Ferguson, pg. 281
[45] Peterson, pg. 32
[46] Ferguson, pg. 280
[47] Peterson, pg. 32
[48] Ibid., pg. 35
[49] Margret Peterson, pg. 271
[50] Peterson, pg. 35
[51] George, pg. 24
[52] Pg. 897
[53] Peterson, pg. 34
[54] Ibid.
[55] Ibid. pg. 35
[56] Ibid.
[57] Ibid. pg. 36
[58] Ibid.
[59] Ibid.
[60] Ibid.
[61] Stortz, pg. 138
[62] Ibid.
[63] Elwell, pg. 897
[64] Ibid.
[65] Ibid.
[66] Ibid.
[67] Elwell, pg. 898
[68] Ibid.
[69] Ferguson, pg. 280
[70] Ibid.
[71] Lawrence, pg. 98
[72] Elwell, pg. 897
[73] Ibid.
[74] Lawrence, pg. 99
[75] Elwell, pg. 897
[76] Lawrence, pg. 99
[77] Ibid.
[78] Ibid.
[79] Ferguson, pg. 281
[80] Ibid.
[81] Ibid.
[82] Ibid.
[83] Lawrence, pg. 101
[84] Ferguson, pg. 282
[85] Lawrence, pg. 101
[86] Peterson, pg. 35
[87] Ibid. pg. 36
[88] Ibid. pg. 37
[89] Ibid.
[90] Ferguson, pg. 301
[91] Peterson, pg. 37.
[92] Ibid. pg. 38
[93] Ibid.
[94] Ibid.
[95] Ibid.