Pelagius said, “Whenever I have to speak on the subject of moral instruction and conduct of a holy life, it is my practice first to demonstrate the power and quality of human nature and to show what it is capable of achieving, and then to go on to encourage the mind of my listener to consider the idea of different kinds of virtues, in case it may be of little or no profit to him to be summoned to pursue ends which he has perhaps assumed hitherto to be beyond his reach; for we can never end upon the path of virtue unless we have hope as our guide and compassion…any good of which human nature is capable has to be revealed, since what is shown to be practicable must be put into practice.” (The Letters of Pelagius and his Followers by B. R. Rees, pg 36-37, published by The Boydell Press)
What is said to Christians today is that sin will always have dominion over us until we die. Many Christians believe that born-again Christian’s sin daily in thought, word, and deed. Our hope is not that we can actually be victorious over sin, but that God the Father will not see our ongoing sin and damn us, but will see the obedience and righteousness of Jesus Christ instead. Our hope is in this fictitious imputation of righteousness. Is there any wonder why Christians do not repent of their sins? We are told not to hope for actual victory over sin but to hope in a false belief of fictional righteousness. No wonder why Christians settle down in their sins?
Pelagius said, “It was because God wished to bestow on the rational creature the gift of doing good of his own free will and the capacity to exercise free choice, by implanting in man the possibility of choosing either alternative…he could do either quite naturally and then bend his will in the other direction too. He could not claim to possess the good of his own volition, unless he was the kind of creature that could also have possessed evil. Our most excellent creator wished us to be able to do either, but actually to do only one, that is, good, which he also commanded, giving us the capacity to do evil only so that we might do His will by exercising our own. That being so, this very capacity to do evil is also good – good, I say, because it makes the good part better by making it voluntary and independent, not bound by necessity but free to decide for itself.” (The Letters of Pelagius and his Followers by B. R. Rees, pg 38, published by The Boydell Press)
You gainsayers can actually claim that this last paragraph is purely Pelagian, since this author claims it is the words of Pelagius. Now that we have dispensed with that, tell me what is wrong with the thoughts revealed in his words? Can you show me how what Pelagius said was unbiblical and unreasonable? This sounds very much like what the early church fathers thought about free will and ability.
Pelagius said, “Those who are unwilling to correct their own way of life appear to want to correct nature itself instead.” (The Letters of Pelagius and his Followers by B. R. Rees, pg 39, published by The Boydell Press).
I will limit my responses, but I must not want to overlook this Pelagian statement. I see this very thing in Augustine’s writings and in contemporary evangelical Christianity. “Those who do not want to correct their own way of life appear to want to correct nature itself instead.” How many evangelical leaders tell their churches that ongoing sin is to be expected in the life of a Christian because the sin nature we inherit from Adam’s original sin will always be with us and will never give us substantial victory over sin, despite the power and promises of God to the contrary? That is precisely what Pelagius noticed many centuries ago, and it is just as true today. If you disagree, you must do more than to claim that Pelagius was a heretic.
Pelagius said, “And lest, on the other hand, it should be thought to be nature’s fault that some have been unrighteous, I shall use the evidence of the scripture, which everywhere lay upon sinners the heavy weight of the charge of having used their own will and do not excuse them for having acted only under constraint of nature.” (The Letters of Pelagius and his Followers by B. R. Rees, pg 43, published by The Boydell Press)
As I have said many times, the inability coming from Original Sin is the best legitimate excuse for sin ever devised by the serpent. Scripture declares the opposite. We are able, and that makes us blameworthy when we sin. If we were truly unable to obey God, there would be no sin or guilt on our part.
Pelagius said, “Yet we do not defend the good of nature to such an extent that we claim that it cannot do evil, since we undoubtedly declare also that it is capable of good and evil; we merely try to protect it from an unjust charge, so that we may not seem to be forced to do evil through a fault of our nature, when, in fact, we do neither good nor evil without the exercise of our will and always have the freedom to do one of the two, being always able to do either.” (The Letters of Pelagius and his Followers by B. R. Rees, pg 43, published by The Boydell Press)
If our nature made it impossible to sin, it would not be virtuous on our part.
Pelagius said, “Nothing impossible has been commanded by the God of justice and majesty…Why do we indulge in pointless evasions, advancing the gravity of our own nature as an objection to the one who commands us? No one knows better the true measure of our strength than he who has given it to us nor does anyone understand better how much we are able to do than he who has given us this very capacity of ours to be able; nor has he who is just wished to command anything impossible or he who is good intended to condemn a man for doing what he could not avoid doing.” (The Letters of Pelagius and his Followers by B. R. Rees, pg 53-54, published by The Boydell Press)
Again, that sounds very much like what the early church fathers before Augustine taught.
Pelagius said, “Grace indeed freely discharges sins, but with the consent and choice of the believer.” (The Letters of Pelagius and his Followers by B. R. Rees, pg 92, published by The Boydell Press)
The grace of God forgives our sins if and when we confess and repent of our sins. That is the truth of the Word of God, is it not? But today, in large measure, due to the false teaching of Augustine and his children, the grace of God forgives our sin even when we do not confess and forsake it.
Pelagius said, “Obedience results from a decision of the mind, not the substance of the body.” (The Letters of Pelagius and his Followers by B. R. Rees, pg 90, published by The Boydell Press)
If our nature did not allow us to disobey God, then our nature and our obedience have no virtue whatsoever.
An unknown Pelagian, “Is it possible for a man not to sin? Such a claim is indeed a hard one and a bitter pill for sinners to swallow; it pains the ears of all who desire to live unrighteously. Who will find it easy now to fulfill the demands of righteousness, when there are some who find it hard even to listen to them?” An unknown Pelagian (The Letters of Pelagius and his Followers by B. R. Rees, pg 167, published by The Boydell Press)
Sinners want to be told that they will continue to sin as Christians. They do not want to hear that they must stop sinning. That is a bitter pill. Augustine provides sinners with that desired relief. Now, who is actually doing the work of God? Was it Augustine or was it a follower of Pelagius?
If we are honest, we all know of non-Christians who repent of certain sins all on their own without God’s help. If non-Christians can stop committing some sins, how about Christians? We all should know that every person has the ability to obey God but don’t because they are selfish and have given themselves over to self-gratification as the end for which they live.
An unknown Pelagian, “When will a man guilty of any crime or sin accept with a tranquil mind that his wickedness is a product of his own will, not of necessity, and allow what he now strives to attribute to nature to be ascribed to his own free choice? It affords endless comfort to transgressors of the divine law if they are able to believe that their failure to do something is due to inability rather than disinclination, since they understand from their natural wisdom that no one can be judged for failing to do the impossible and that what is justifiable on grounds of impossibility is either a small sin or none at all.” (The Letters of Pelagius and his Followers by B. R. Rees, pg 167-168, published by The Boydell Press)
How could anyone not agree with this biblically moral reasoning? Everyone knows that a just and holy God would never condemn anyone for not doing what is impossible for them. Disobedience is a crime and a sin against a holy God because it is voluntary. Nothing involuntary is sinful.
An unknown Pelagian, “Under the plea that it is impossible not to sin, they are given a false sense of security in sinning…Anyone who hears that it is not possible for him to be without sin will not even try to be what he judges to be impossible, and the man who does not try to be without sin must perforce sin all the time, and all the more boldly because he enjoys the false security of believing that it is impossible for him not to sin…But if he were to hear that he is able not to sin, then he would have exerted himself to fulfill what he now knows to be possible when he is striving to fulfill it, to achieve his purpose for the most part, even if not entirely.” (The Letters of Pelagius and his Followers by B. R. Rees, pg 168, published by The Boydell Press)
Again, how can honest Christians disagree with this moral logic? I have never worried about Adam’s sin being charged against me. Have you? It is simply irrational to feel guilt for another person’s sins when we did not exist when they sinned. And if you are convinced that you will continue to sin all the days of your life, then you will never seriously attempt to stop sinning, believing it is impossible. No thinking person seriously attempts to do the impossible. If God commanded us to fly, who in their right mind thinks they are sinning if they do not flap their arms and fly? If God commanded us to run a mile in less than 60 seconds, who in their right mind would sense any culpability for not doing as commanded? The absurdities are endless.
Yet many Christians believe that God gives us commands to obey, under the penalty of eternal death, knowing it is impossible for us to do as commanded. Why do we feel guilty when we sin against God and our neighbor? Because we know that we could have done otherwise.
An unknown Pelagian, “Consider first whether that which is such that a man cannot be without it ought to be described as sin at all; for everything which cannot be avoided is now put down to nature but it is impious to say that sin is inherent in nature, because in this way the author of nature is being judged at fault… how can it be proper to call sin by that name if, like other natural things, it cannot be avoided, since all sin is to be attributed to the free choice of the will, not to the defects of nature?” (The Letters of Pelagius and his Followers by B. R. Rees, pg 168-169, published by The Boydell Press)
Sin is always voluntary. Sin is always an evil choice when a good choice could have been made. If by nature we do evil, then there is no good or evil. There is no sin and no virtue. How can it be otherwise?
From what I know of the early church fathers (I do not pretend to be an expert), they would agree with everything Pelagius and his followers taught and believed. I believe it and have used some of these arguments myself before I knew anything of what the early church fathers believed or what Pelagius believed. I came to these conclusions by reading the Bible and using my reason. Don’t just call me a Pelagian and write me off; tell me why these propositions are not biblical, rational, and reasonable.
Pelagius and the Doctrine of Free Will-from Holding Firmly, Mike DeSario
“After his acquittal in Diospolis, Pelagius wrote two major treatises, which are no longer extant, “On Nature” and “Defense Of The Freedom Of The Will.” In these, he defends his position on sin and sinlessness, and accuses Augustine of being under the influence of Manicheanism (this hyperlink to Manicheanism is very interesting, and I encourage you to consider it) by elevating evil to the same status as God and teaching pagan fatalism as if it were a Christian doctrine.
Augustine had been converted to Christianity from the religion of Manicheanism, which stressed that the spirit was God-created, while the flesh was corrupt and evil, since it had not been created directly by God. Pelagius argued that Augustine’s doctrine that humans went to hell for doing what they could not avoid (sin) was tantamount to the Manichean belief in fatalism and predestination, and took away all of mankind’s free will.
Pelagius and his followers saw remnants of this fatalistic belief in Augustine’s teachings on the Fall of Adam, which was not a settled doctrine when the Augustinian/Pelagian dispute began. Their view that mankind can avoid sin and freely choose to obey God’s commandments lies at the core of Pelagian teaching and comes through even in the writings of Pelagius’ opponents.
An illustration of Pelagius’ views on man’s “moral ability” not to sin can be found in his Letter to Demetrias. He was in Palestine when, in 413, he received a letter from the renowned Anician family in Rome. One of the aristocratic ladies who had been among his followers was writing to several eminent Western theologians, including Jerome and possibly Augustine, seeking moral advice for her 14-year-old daughter, Demetrias. Pelagius used the letter to argue for morality, stressing his views on natural sanctity and man’s moral capacity to choose to live a holy life. It is perhaps the only extant writing in Pelagius’ own hand, and it was, ironically, long thought to be a letter by Jerome, though Augustine himself references it in his work, “On the Grace of Christ.”
Pelagius was in full agreement with the Early Church Fathers on the doctrine of free will.
In Rome, Pelagius became concerned about the moral laxity of society. He blamed this laxity on the theology of divine grace preached by Augustine, among others.
Pelagius did not believe that salvation was something that happened to an “Elect” group of people, but rather that anybody could achieve salvation. Salvation is achieved not through the arbitrary action/election of God, but through the repentance of sins.
However, simply asking for forgiveness is not repentance. For Pelagius, repentance entails not only asking for forgiveness, but also choosing not to sin again. While Pelagius recognizes that people might, through habit or choice, sin again, he maintains that those sins need to be confessed, and an effort be made to avoid sin and act righteously (Pelagius,1995,39). In line with this argument, Pelagius maintains that Christ died for all humanity. For Pelagius, Christ’s death provided a counterexample of virtue to Adam’s example of wickedness (Pohle, 1913). Also, Christ’s resurrection was proof that from sacrifice comes the joy of virtue (Pelagius,1995, 41).
Mike goes on to say, “Notice that under the guise of condemning ‘hyper-Calvinism’, Charles Finney expressly attacked the idea that people are fallen and depraved because of a sinful nature inherited from Adam. That is the doctrine of original sin, not a hyper-Calvinist dogma, but a standard tenet of Christian doctrine—and recognized as such by all mainstream Christians since the Pelagian heresy of the Fifth Century.
“Pelagius said, “Obedience results from a decision of the mind, not the substance of the body.” (The Letters of Pelagius and his Followers by B. R. Rees, pg 90, published by The Boydell Press)
An unknown Pelagian, “When will a man guilty of any crime or sin accept with a tranquil mind that his wickedness is a product of his own will, not of necessity, and allow what he now strives to attribute to nature to be ascribed to his own free choice? It affords endless comfort to transgressors of the divine law if they are able to believe that their failure to do something is due to inability rather than disinclination, since they understand from their natural wisdom that no one can be judged for failing to do the impossible and that what is justifiable on grounds of impossibility is either a small sin or none at all.“ (The Letters of Pelagius and his Followers by B. R. Rees, pg 167-168, published by The Boydell Press)
Tell me why this comment doesn’t explain the danger of Original Sin and the inability to do as God commands?
An unknown Pelagian, “Under the plea that it is impossible not to sin, they are given a false sense of security in sinning…Anyone who hears that it is not possible for him to be without sin will not even try to be what he judges to be impossible.”
I do not know when this was written, but it expresses a timeless truth. If we believe that Christians sin daily, we will not even attempt to stop our sinning, and we will know that a holy and just God will never condemn us for involuntary and unavoidable sin. A just and loving God could never do that.
An unknown Pelagian, “Consider first whether that which is such that a man cannot be without it ought to be described as sin at all; for everything which cannot be avoided is now put down to nature, but it is impious to say that sin is inherent in nature, because in this way the author of nature is being judged at fault…
If you believe in the false doctrines of Augustinian Calvinism, you must know that God is the ultimate author of sin and evil. They, of course, deny it, but their denial falls on deaf and dumb ears only.
Dr. Ali Bonner’s book, The Myth of Pelagianism, is an important work. Most of what is attributed to Pelagius is refuted by Pelagius. She says that Augustine wanted to change Christian Orthodoxy, and he created a caricature of Pelagius, making him out to be a monster of heresy, so that everyone would join Augustine in condemning him.
According to Dr. Bonner on page 2 of her book, there are 14 claims about the teachings of Pelagius, developed over the years by scholars, that Pelagius denied having believed or taught.
- Adam was created mortal, not immortal. He was going to die, whether he sinned or not.
- Adam’s sin harmed him alone and not the whole human race.
- The law, if obeyed, leads to heaven in the same way as the Gospel.
- Newborn infants are in the same state as Adam before his sin.
- The whole human race does not die physically or spiritually through the death or transgression of Adam, and the whole human race doesn’t rise through the resurrection of Christ.
- Infants possess eternal life even if they are not baptized.
- If wealthy persons, who have been baptized, do not give away all their possessions, they have no merit. And even if they seem to do something good, they do not possess the kingdom of heaven.
- God’s grace and help are not given for individual actions. His grace and help consist in free will, and the law and teaching.
- God’s grace is given in accord with our merits, and for this reason. Grace is located in the human will, whether one becomes worthy of it or unworthy.
- Only those people who are entirely without sin can be called children of God.
- Sin doesn’t consist in forgetfulness and ignorance unless that is willful ignorance. Only that which is done willingly is sin. All the rest is done by necessity.
- A choice is not free if it needs the help of God. Each person has their own free will, either to do something or not.
- Our victory is not the result of God’s help alone, but of our will also.
- From Peter’s statement, we hold that Christians are sharers in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4); it follows that the sinning soul can become as sinless as God.
Dr. Bonner states that, of the 14 supposed errors of Pelagius, he attests in writings that survived, only 1 part of 1 of the 14 tenets above that Augustine claimed were the heresies of Pelagius. I seem to remember a commandment against bearing false witness against our neighbor and brother? Check out Exodus 20:16 and Deuteronomy 5:20. Call it what you will, but is this not a false witness by Augustine against a brother in Christ, Pelagius? It looks that way to me. What am I missing?
Pelagian Heresy 1. Adam was created mortal, not immortal. He was going to die, whether he sinned or not.
I read the quotes of Pelagius as cited by Dr. Bonner in her book. You will not find him affirming any of what Augustine accuses him of. But you will find this remarkable position by Pelagius.
Pelagius cites that Adam’s one sin brought death. Therefore, how is it that Christians assume they can continue to sin and not suffer the same fate as Adam? And do not think that Adam’s sin was so grave that only his sin was deserving of such a great penalty. Adam’s sin was when he ate the forbidden fruit. It was the fact that Adam rejected that commandment of God, not that he ate a piece of fruit.
In another quote from Pelagius, he wrote the following, and I paraphrase, “I ask you, after so many deaths and with such explicit scriptural truth, why do so-called Christians feel immune from punishment for our sins?” Too bad the evangelical church today does not seem to take this seriously at all. They rest on the false doctrine of eternal security so that they feel immune from punishment for their sins. They are constantly told that Jesus paid for their sins, including the sins they are yet to commit.
Pelagius’s comments are right on target. Think of this. Pelagius, around 1500 years ago, was fighting against the problem we still face in Christian Churches today. Also note that it was primarily due to Augustine’s false teachings that this apostasy began to grow.
Pelagian Heresy 2. Adam’s sin harmed him alone and not the whole human race.
Dr. Bonner quotes Pelagius, who stated explicitly that Adam’s sin damaged all of his descendants. That is a direct refutation of this false claim made by Augustine against Pelagius. And must we not assume that Augustine knew of this claim by Pelagius? How do we justify Augustine?
According to Pelagius, Adam, by his one sin, established for his descendants an example and habit of normalizing sin so strong that it seemed part of human nature itself, according to Pelagius. This inclination to sin was not part of Adam’s nature.
But Augustine taught that Adam’s sin damaged human nature (eventually Calvin and others claimed the damage was absolute, consisting of total depravity and total inability) and that all humans inherited Adam’s guilt through the procreative act.
Pelagius’s position is much closer to the early church than Augustine’s position. Is this not accurate?
Pelagian Heresy 3. The law, if obeyed, leads to heaven in the same way as the Gospel.
Pelagius made it clear that if men can be righteous before the law was given, and under the law of Moses, and now under the grace of Jesus Christ, then it is possible to be righteous before God. In fact, under the New Covenant, it is much more of a possibility. Pelagius quotes Romans 6:14, “Sin will have no dominion over you. For you are not under the law but under grace.” Pelagius believed we are saved by imitating Christ, which made Christians dependent on knowing the teachings of the New Testament.
Augustine thought this was heresy. Why? Could it be that he had already determined that all men and women were born sinners and that no one, not even born-again Christians, could actually live a righteous life? Or could it be that he had some sins he was unwilling to forsake?
Pelagian Heresy 4. Newborn infants are in the same state as Adam before his sin.
Dr. Bonner states that nowhere in Pelagius’s writings did he claim this. This claim comes from his opponents. And when he had the opportunity to condemn this heresy, Pelagius did. But did that stop his opponents? Not at all, and it is still used today. How do we justify such gross false witness and duplicity?
This is all about the supposed need for infant baptism to remove the guilt of Adam’s sin. Many Christians over the centuries have rejected the false doctrine of infant baptismal regeneration and paid with their lives.
Pelagius believed in infant baptism. Pelagius did assert the goodness of human nature to encourage Christians to live righteous lives. In contrast, Augustine asserted that human nature, the body, the mind, and the spirit are corrupted and have no goodness or capacity for goodness at all.
Pelagian Heresy 5. The whole human race does not die physically or spiritually through the death or transgression of Adam, and the whole human race does not rise through the resurrection of Christ.
Pelagius believed that the example set by Adam caused or led mankind to sin and to die spiritually, and Christ raised mankind from this destruction. He also believed that we are saved by the cleansing of Christ’s passion.
This is much different from what Augustine taught. He believed that we were all born sinners who could do nothing but sin and that Adam’s guilt was imputed to us. Do you honestly believe that a just and holy God would condemn you for another person’s sin? That is not the teaching of the Bible, which says that everyone dies for their own sin and not the sin of another person.
Pelagian Heresy 6. Infants possess eternal life even if they are not baptized.
See also my response to Heresy 4. The issue of unbaptized infants not possessing or possessing eternal life was not dealt with in Pelagius’s surviving written documents, according to Dr. Bonner.
Pelagian Heresy 7. If wealthy persons, who have been baptized, do not give away all their possessions, they have no merit. And even if they seem to do something good, they do not possess the kingdom of heaven.
According to Dr. Bonner, there is no evidence that Pelagius ever taught what is claimed about his views on wealth. Just the opposite seems to be the case. He did attempt to elevate spiritual riches over material possessions. Once again, what Augustine claimed can’t be backed up with evidence.
Pelagian Heresy 8. God’s grace and help are not given for individual actions. His grace and help consist in free will, and the law and teaching.
Dr. Bonner points out that, in the time of Augustine and Pelagius, the word grace might mean 7 different things. Grace was used for anything that might refer to any gift of God. They include the following:
- The gift of creation and the gift of free will. The issue is the extent of free will. Are we free to do good or evil, or only evil, as Augustinian Calvinists think?
- Then there is the grace of God’s teaching, including the Word of God and the life of Jesus Christ.
- Third, there is the grace of Christ’s passion and suffering, which washes away our sins. F
- Fourthly, the grace of God in the sacrament of baptism.
- Fifth, the grace of salvation.
- Sixth, the grace of God as seen in an individual’s special blessing, such as healing.
- Seventh, there was prevenient grace, in which the Spirit of God worked, making us love virtue and choose it.
However, this last tenet assumes that there is only one true kind of grace, namely the seventh, absolute prevenient grace. And that all Christians must endorse this grace, which caused all of our good works. Augustine thought grace was always a free gift. And if God gave grace to us for anything we might do, it was not grace at all. For Augustine, grace was never earned or deserved.
But this narrow definition of grace was not used commonly in his day, when it implied mutual reciprocity. It also diverged from texts associated with Roman Law. One scholar noted that, in legal usage, gratia was a “moral ambivalent concept” with negative, not positive, connotations. The word favor/gratia meant favoritism or improper influence. This was a type of injustice. The meaning and definition of words are critically important. Read pages 12 and 13 of Dr. Bonner’s book for much more detail on this heresy. Pelagius sought compromise with Augustine, which was denied at every turn, it seems.
Bottom line is that Augustine objected to Pelagius’s belief that man actually had a free will that could choose good or evil. Pelagius asserted that we have a daily need for God’s help. That was not the issue. Augustine, according to Dr. Bonner, did not accept that God’s grace was prevenient. Augustine did not accept Pelagius’s view of human goodness and genuine free will. Pelagius saw synergy, while Augustine saw only God’s sovereignty and predetermination (unconditional election) in salvation.
Pelagian Heresy 9. God’s grace is given in accord with our merits, and for this reason, grace is located in the human will, whether one becomes worthy of it or unworthy.
Dr. Ali Bonner says that this tenet (the first part) comes close to what Pelagius actually taught and believed. Pelagius said that in James we are told to resist the devil and thereby earn/merit, and receive god’s grace in abundance. Pelagius did teach that there is a causal relationship between merit and the receipt of God’s grace. Grace was merited and freely given by God. And this was the orthodoxy of the early church, but Augustine wanted to change that. Like Augustine’s children today, we are asked to believe that grace is an unmerited and undeserved favor, while it is more than just that.
Only the strict Calvinist thinks there are no conditions to salvation that we must meet to be saved. For many evangelical Christians, there is at least one condition for being saved that rests on us: believing in Jesus Christ. Think of this as meriting God’s favor or grace by meeting the condition of faith. Augustine rejected this. But the early church, before Augustine, believed it. They also believed that repentance from sin was a condition of salvation, whereas many today do not.
Pelagian Heresy 10. Only those people who are entirely without sin can be called children of God.
Pelagius never claimed this. He believed that all of us have sinned and that none of us has achieved absolute perfection. Christ came to save sinners who are, by definition, imperfect. But he also stressed that children of God should be visibly holy, so that all will know that Christians are children of God.
Pelagian Heresy 11. Sin doesn’t consist in forgetfulness and ignorance. Only that which is done willingly is sin. All the rest is done by necessity.
Dr. Bonner states that none of this is found in Pelagius’s writings. Look at how many have assumed that he taught this over the centuries based entirely on Augustine’s accusation. It is easy to see why Augustine called this a heresy. Augustine did not believe, as far as I can ascertain, that sin must be voluntary. For he believed that sinning was determined and therefore necessary.
Pelagian Heresy 12. A choice is not free if it needs the help of God. Each person has their own free will, either to do something or not.
Pelagius did not write that God’s help negated free will. He acknowledged that we need God’s help every day. He argued that God’s help is resistible, but Augustine disagreed, claiming that grace is irresistible. Pelagius argued that man and God must cooperate, divine grace and human will. What does ‘help’ mean? For Augustine, it was irresistible help and irresistible grace that compelled us to do God’s will.
Pelagian Heresy 13. Our victory is not the result of God’s help alone, but of our will also.
Pelagius acknowledged that we need God’s help, and that Christ was the source, not the direct cause, of man’s victory over death. Our victory is a result of our cooperation with God.
Pelagian Heresy 14. From Peter’s statement, we hold that Christians are sharers in the divine nature (2 Peter 1:4); it follows that the sinning soul can become as sinless as God.
Pelagius never wrote this, according to Dr. Bonner. This is not present in the surviving documents by Pelagius. This arose because Pelagius believed that we are made in the image and likeness of God and that we should pursue perfect righteousness. Can you imagine Augustine not quoting Pelagius if he ever taught that humans could achieve perfect sinlessness?
Summary
Very few Christians know anything about this work by Dr. Ali Bonner or that of Dr. Kenneth Wilson. If they did, they might reconsider their position on Pelagius and the character of Saint Augustine. Almost all of what is charged against Pelagius can’t be found in his extant writings. But that did not stop Augustine, nor has it stopped other so-called Christians from denigrating Pelagius’s motives, nature, and character. That is not how a child of God should act. God expressly forbids false accusations in the 10 commandments.
Dr. Bonner writes the following on page 21 of her book. “The two axioms that Pelagius stated and defended in his Letter to Demetrias, his careful manifesto for this position, were that human nature was innately inclined to goodness, and that man had to have effective free will in order to make God’s punishment and reward just.” This Augustinian Calvinism denies. How misguided and tragic that such an error passes for Christian truth.
Pelagius’s position sounds very much like the ancient Hebrew understanding of human nature, Yetzer Ha-Ra and Yetzer Ha-Tov. See my article on that title. We are all born inclined to virtue and vice. Our will must choose.
Dr. Bonner goes on to say that Augustine conflated much of this false testimony regarding Pelagius as he sought to create a new and novel Christian Orthodoxy, replacing the consensus of the early church fathers. Who did he think he was? I can see a proud man doing this, but not a humble one. How about you?
I wonder if you can see the truth in what the early church fathers and, after them, Pelagius taught Christians to believe. Does it sound anything close to Augustine’s warped interpretations of the scripture? For my part, I fully believe that the God of Augustinian Calvinism is another Jesus and another gospel. I also think that there are Christians who believe some of the false ideas and are walking with God and living about what is permitted within this false system of error. The bottom line is this. If your Christian doctrines allow you to continue to live in unrepentant sin, then you are deceived and on your way to perdition. Repent before it is too late.
