Augustine and Pelagius Part 2 - Seek God in Truth

August 2024

During my research, I recently discovered several names and websites of individuals who have rejected the errors of Augustinian Calvinism. One of these is Dr. Ken Wilson, who completed his doctoral dissertation, “The Foundation of Augustinian-Calvinism,” at the University of Oxford in 2012. Dr. Wilson also has an M.D. alongside his Ph.D. in Philosophy from Oxford. He practices medicine as a Board-Certified Hand Surgeon in the USA. He is an Augustinian scholar.

I watched Dr. Leighton Flowers interview Dr. Wilson, with comments by Dr. James White, a well-known Christian Calvinist apologist who often debates across the country. Dr. White was critical of Wilson’s scholarship and, of course, his conclusions. I saw another video where Dr. Wilson responded to Dr. White’s comments. Dr. White seemed defensive as a Calvinist and apparently hadn’t really read or understood what Wilson said. For example, Wilson stated that Augustine (354 to 430) got his idea of grace from pagan philosophy, not that Augustine got his God from pagan philosophy, as White seemed to suggest.

To prepare for his doctoral thesis, Wilson carefully read all of Augustine’s surviving works, letters, and sermons in chronological order. Wilson mentioned that one of his professors told him he knew only six people who had read all of Augustine’s works in the correct order. Dr. Wilson compared Augustine’s views with various religious and philosophical ideas about fate and free will from 2000 BC to AD 400, including early Christian authors known as the early church fathers. According to Dr. Wilson, Calvinists overlook the connection between Augustine and early pagan philosophies of determinism. They understand Augustine’s scriptural interpretations but ignore how his ideas about determinism relate to pagan philosophies. How much of what Augustine taught later in life was based on scripture, and how much was influenced by pagan sources? In his earlier works, Augustine supported traditional church teachings on free will and human ability, but later he was influenced again by some pagan philosophies, including determinism. Dr. Wilson states that Augustine incorporated all five points of Calvinism into Christian doctrine from pagan ideas about 400 years after Jesus’ resurrection. This article will explore some of those links.

We will see that the conflict between Augustine and Pelagius is crucial to understanding how pagan deterministic philosophies became linked with Christianity. Let us examine Pelagius and what is often said about this heretic named Pelagius. Even today, calling a professing Christian a Pelagian is like calling someone a racist. Being called either a racist or a Pelagian can be offensive and disarming. I definitely understand that my views on theology will be called Pelagian and heretical. Calling someone a derogatory term is much easier than actually refuting their arguments.

According to the Ligonier Ministry site, established by R. C. Sproul.

Pelagius took issue with this saying or prayer from Augustine. “Oh, God, grant what Thou commandest, and command what Thou dost desire.’ Pelagius had no problem with the last part of the prayer, but objected to the first part, “grant what thou commandest.” Pelagius said that God had every right to demand that his people (creation) obey His righteous laws. “It was the first part of this prayer that exercised Pelagius”. Pelagius reacted by saying that if God commands something, by definition, we have the power to comply. Man need not ask for the ability to obey. It appears that a seemingly innocuous statement is just what Augustine was looking for to make a significant change in Church orthodoxy and theology.

My response to the Ligonier Ministry site comments

When Sproul states that Pelagius said, “man need not ask for the ability to obey,” it highlights the core issue. Calvinists argue that people are born sinners who can do nothing but sin. They are so entirely depraved that they lack the ability to obey God, believe in Jesus Christ, or repent of their sins.

Let’s suppose Pelagius actually said, “Man need not ask for the ability to obey.” That doesn’t mean that man can’t or shouldn’t ask for grace to obey. It simply states the truth that a holy God, who is kind and just in all His ways, would never command us to do the impossible. Furthermore, God would never send us to hell for not obeying Him if we were incapable of obeying Him. Our own natural sense of justice recoils at such a satanic view of our God.

We all face temptations that we can handle on our own. We don’t need special grace from God to overcome some of them. For example, I am no longer tempted to get drunk because God delivered me from that sinful bondage over forty years ago. I don’t need extra grace for that issue. However, I am tempted to sin in other ways, and I rely on God’s grace for help to resist those temptations that are very challenging for me. Technically and honestly, I can say no to those sins; I have the ability. Yet, I look to God’s grace for extra help and encouragement when I need it to say no. If this is all Pelagius means by that statement, then what is wrong with it? The only problem is that it denies the deterministic idea of total and complete depravity that Augustine was promoting. More on this later.

How could any rational and thoughtful Christian not agree with Pelagius on this point? God, as the righteous and just ruler of the universe, would never command His children, under penalty of eternal hellfire, to obey His laws if He did not first give them the power to obey. Any earthly parent who commanded their children to do the impossible or face eternal damnation would be considered very evil. Believing that God grants His people the ability to obey His commands is the only reasonable stance. To think, as most Calvinists do, that God gave Israel laws He knew they could not keep is to portray God as an unreasonable and wicked despot. I cannot believe that. (That doesn’t mean I am unable to believe that proposition. It means I refuse to think it-I am unwilling to accept it—because it makes God out to be more cruel and wicked than Satan himself.

If God gave impossible commands, then it cannot be a sin not to follow them. Sin is the violation of God’s law. Sin is lawlessness. In other words, sin happens when we do not obey God’s laws, especially when obeying those laws was possible but we choose not to out of selfish motives. Is there any other reasonable (and Biblical) way to see this?

The fact that this ministry, created by R. C. Sproul, can seriously claim this is beyond me. God would never give us impossible commands and then punish us for failing to do the impossible. I refuse to believe this lie because it makes God the greatest evil in the universe and the creator of sin.

Even though mankind has the ability to obey God, we don’t because, like Adam and Eve, we are voluntarily selfish. We seek self-gratification because we are more interested in satisfying our own lusts than in pleasing the God who made us. Mankind is desperately wicked and depraved, but not because God created us sinners. We make ourselves sinners—that makes us guilty and blameworthy. However, inability to obey makes us innocent, not guilty or blameworthy. Calvinists love to pontificate about how totally depraved mankind is, but their system exonerates mankind and makes God the problem. I do not understand how they fail to see this. If what I am saying is correct, it makes us humans all the more wicked and corrupt, for which we have no excuse. Inability to obey is the best excuse for sin ever devised.

Where does God’s grace come into play? Without God’s grace reaching out to us, stubborn and sinful people, we would never seek or obey Him. It’s not because we are born incapable, but because we are unwilling to obey God and say no to our own desires. God’s grace wins us over and influences us to agree with Him. Think of all the parables in the gospels that show how God takes the initiative to find the lost. The good shepherd seeks the one lost sheep and even sacrifices himself for it. Scripture says that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for the ungodly. If God, in His grace and love, did not seek us out, no one would ever get right with Him on their own. That’s not because they are unable, but because they are sinfully unwilling to turn to God. God is the one who first calls us. Some of us respond by our own free will, and others, also by their own free will, do not respond. It is not God’s arbitrary election that causes them to refuse Him. They decline the offer of grace and salvation. How does that not honor God and make perfect sense?

More on Ligonier Ministry

That prayer of Augustine and the initial response by Pelagius, according to Ligonier Ministry, started the discussion. Further debates expanded on the nature of Adam’s fall, the level of corruption in our humanity that we call “original sin,” and the doctrine of baptism, according to the website.

Sproul states that Pelagius believed Adam’s sin affected only Adam. In other words, Adam’s sons and daughters did not inherit a sinful nature that compelled them to sin. Pelagius argued that humans are born righteous and do not have to sin, and when they do sin, it does not permanently alter their nature. Adam and his descendants are always capable of obedience to God. Every person after Adam is born the same way, making it possible for everyone to choose God and reject sin. Additionally, Pelagius believed that some individuals could achieve perfect righteousness, according to Sproul. Sproul provided no evidence for this claim, so we are to accept it on faith. Later in this article, we will read of a scholar’s opinion that most of what we have been told about Pelagius’s teachings is false.

Sproul further explains that Pelagius was not opposed to grace itself but only to the idea that humans need grace to avoid sin. He argues that grace is not necessary for obeying God; rather, it facilitates obedience but is not a prerequisite. There is no transfer of guilt from Adam to his descendants, nor any change in human nature after the fall. The main negative aspect was the poor example set by Adam and Eve. According to Pelagius, if his followers imitate Adam’s disobedience, they will share in his guilt, but only then. Pelagius teaches that guilt is not transferable to others, a view that has led to his condemnation for hundreds of years.

My additional responses to Ligonier Ministry

Some of the consequences of Adam’s sin affected all of humanity. For example, Adam’s sin brought death into the world. We all experience physical death. Pelagius apparently disagreed with Augustine’s view that Adam’s guilt was passed down to every subsequent child, nor did he believe that Adam transmitted a sinful, totally depraved nature to humanity that could only sin. According to Sproul, Pelagius did not think that babies were born sinful, headed for hell, or responsible for Adam’s sin. Oh my, how could anyone believe such blasphemy—that babies are not born with a totally evil nature and are not guilty of Adam’s sin?

Calvinists love to tell everyone that if they don’t accept the absurdities of their system, that by definition means you are Pelagian or semi-Pelagian in your beliefs. And everyone knows that Pelagius was a heretic of the worst kind. Do all real born-again Christians believe that newborn babies are under condemnation for Adam’s sin? I do not think so personally, nor do I believe that most Christians believe that babies are guilty of Adam’s sin.

Do all true born-again Christians believe that we are born with a completely depraved, sinful nature that only leads to sin? I do not believe it. I know that Calvinists hold this falsehood, but I also know others who deny that it is taught in scripture. Reason certainly objects to such an odious belief. Most other Christians claim that we are born ‘inclined’ (not compelled) to certain sins, or that we have a tendency toward sin because of Adam’s sin. We certainly come into a world that is inclined toward sin. I’m not exactly sure what they mean by that.

Scripture states that Jesus was a real man in every way like us. Was Jesus Christ born with a totally depraved, sinful nature like us? May it never be. Was Jesus born with a bent toward sin like us? May it never be. So, how does Jesus understand what it’s like to be tempted as we are if He wasn’t born a sinner or born with a nature inclined to sin? None of this makes sense and cannot be reconciled with Scripture.

Moreover, we are told that with every temptation, God provides a way of escape. That is a lie if the doctrine of inability and total depravity is true. And if we inherit an irresistible bent toward sin, this passage is not true. But could a bent toward sin be a stronger temptation to sin, but not so strong as to make sinning ineluctable? Is there any other reasonable way to understand this?

I understand that Jesus achieved perfect righteousness and sinlessness. I also know that men like Job were highly regarded by God as upright and righteous. Additionally, the Bible tells us that all of us have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. Does this mean 100%? Jesus was a real man, so it can’t mean 100%. Jesus, a real man, never sinned even once. I think it is safe to say that almost every person has sinned, and if there are any exceptions, they are few and far between. Only God knows. I am pretty sure I have never met anyone who is completely sinless. I am not one of the exceptions. Are you?

Explaining sin in people who are not born with a sinful nature is no more difficult than explaining sin in Satan, Adam, or Eve. None of them were born with a sinful nature, yet they sinned despite knowing God personally and intimately. They had advantages that none of us have ever had, which did not prevent them from sinning. Either God willed them to sin and caused their sin (As Augustinian Calvinists believe), or they yielded to lust and temptation.

Ligonier Ministry continued

Augustine rejected the ideas proposed by Pelagius. Augustine believed that the fall, or the first sin, affected Adam and his descendants from that point on. After Adam, humanity was no longer able to obey God. According to Augustine, moral ability was fatally wounded by Adam’s original sin. Original sin refers to the consequences of Adam’s sin being passed down to his children. God judged the entire human race because of Adam’s sin, giving us a depraved, sinful nature as an inheritance. See Romans 5 as a proof text. Augustine refused to believe that man had the moral ability to obey God after Original Sin. Before the fall, Adam and Eve enjoyed free will and moral liberty. The will is the faculty by which choices are made. Liberty refers to the ability to use that faculty to pursue the things of God. After the fall, man can still choose what he wills, but his will is now polluted by sin. The original liberty Adam and Eve once had was lost after the fall.

My response

See my section in Chapter Two on Free Will in my book, When Lies Become Truth. Augustinian Calvinists do not believe in free will as Augustine originally defined it. They deceptively change the definition of free will after the fall. They present a complicated argument about liberty and free will. The truth is, the kind of free will Adam’s descendants have is a non-free, yet free, will. This new free will is a slave to sin. It can only choose various sins (maybe), but cannot choose not to sin. Calling that free will is obscene. According to Sproul, the only way to restore this lost ability was for God to do a supernatural work of grace in the soul. Moral inability (loss of free will) is at the core of original sin.

Says Sproul, “Today we are fighting against semi-Pelagianism, which seeks a middle ground between the view of Pelagius and Augustine. Semi-Pelagians believe that humans make an initial step toward God, and God responds with grace. It is a mixing of grace and works”.

How Sproul and other Calvinists can’t see that their teachings make God the author and perpetrator of sin and evil in the universe is a marvel to me. Their system is devoid of grace but full of injustice. Calvinists often claim to be a system of grace, but nothing could be further from the truth. There is no grace whatsoever in Calvinism. See my article on “Doctrines of Grace.”

What is semi-Pelagianism?

According to the website Got Questions, we read the following about semi-Pelagianism. This site supports eternal security and sees it as basically the same as the Calvinist doctrine of Preservation. It believes that semi-Pelagianism still exists today wherever people “want to take credit for their salvation and mitigate the grace of God.”

“Pelagius also emphasized the freedom of the human will, as opposed to the sovereign grace of God. He taught that we are born innocent, without the stain of Original Sin or inherited sin. Pelagius believed God created every soul directly. Therefore, everyone comes into this world innocent. He essentially taught that when we sin, it is a result of our conscious choice of evil over good. Following God’s commandments is a matter of the will and does not require a supernatural change of heart. Pelagianism is heretical because the Bible clearly teaches that we are sinners by nature as well as by choice (see Romans 7:25) and that salvation is all of grace apart from works. (2 Timothy 1:9-10.)”

“This site believes that Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism deny total depravity, which says that every part of man- his mind, will, emotions, and flesh-has been corrupted by sin. Being totally depraved, mankind is incapable of coming to God on his own. We are by nature enemies of God. (Romans 5:10). Semi-Pelagianism denies total depravity and takes a middle position, believing that mankind can cooperate with the grace of God on its own. It is partial depravity as opposed to total depravity. We need God’s grace to be saved, but we can take the first step toward Christ on our own, apart from grace. This author believes that it is all false and that God must call or draw us first (John 6:44). Salvation is totally attributable to the work of God and His grace, not man.”

My response to the Got Questions web page

This site simply offers more unbiblical and unreasonable material. I will address one of his most absurd points: “This site, Got Questions, believes that semi-Pelagianism is still alive today and exists wherever people want to take credit for their salvation and mitigate the grace of God.”

I have never met a genuine Christian who tries to take credit for their own salvation. By definition, a true Christian is someone who recognizes that their sin separates them from God. Additionally, a true Christian understands that they need God’s forgiveness and grace to be reconciled to Him and saved. A true Christian knows that Jesus Christ made atonement for their sins, and that without His work on the cross, forgiveness is impossible, even if we repent of all our sins. Without Jesus Christ’s atonement, there is no forgiveness. Genuine Christians understand that salvation is a gift from God to undeserving people, even though we meet the conditions of repentance and faith. We are saved by grace through faith, and that not of ourselves; it is a gift from God. As sinners, we have nothing to boast about.

See my article titled, Romans 7, which refutes this author’s contention that the Bible declares that we are sinners by nature. (Also see my appendix on the myth of Original Sin, and the article Augustine, Part 1, appendices.)

From the website, Reformed Arsenal, we find the following comments regarding Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, and Arminianism

I appreciate the introduction, which urges Christians to be cautious about bearing false witness against a brother. This demonstrates a concern for God, His laws, and our fellow believers. All parties should be careful to convey only the truth and avoid making assumptions unless those assumptions are explicitly stated. Augustine apparently never held that attitude, as you will read later.

Pelagianism according to the Reformed Arsenal

“Pelagius argued from the Book of Romans that humans did not inherit any of the guilt or corruption of Adam’s first transgression.” There was no radical and permanent change to the nature of man or man’s moral status because of the sin of Adam. Adam’s children sinned as they followed his and others’ bad example. Humans begin their lives innocent or morally upright, and they could merit salvation unaided by grace.

My Comments to the Reformed Arsenal site

Let us look more closely at this sentence. “Humans begin their lives innocent or morally upright, and that they could merit salvation unaided by grace”. The following excerpt is taken from my book, When Lies Become Truth, and the appendix on Original Sin. This is one of the common objections that Calvinists bring against those who refuse to believe the unbiblical dogma of original sin.

“Objection: If we do not have a sin nature, then it might be possible that someone never sins and doesn’t need Jesus to save them from their sins.

This objection is frequently raised and is actually one of several additional objections used by those who support the doctrine of Original Sin and the concept of the Sin nature. For a more thorough study of this topic, I recommend purchasing the following book. Much of this appendix is taken from Mr. Overstreet’s book. Are Men Born Sinners? The myth of Original Sin, by Alfred T. Overstreet. His book provides an exhaustive and definitive treatment of this subject, including a comprehensive examination of the objections. The following is a direct quote from his book.

Overstreet’s Response: “This objection reveals the sinister and ungodly nature of the original sin dogma. What does this objection imply? It implies that it would be criminal, wicked and sinful for anyone to live a life without sin. It implies that men ought to be born with a sinful nature, lest it be possible for someone to live a life without sin! It implies that God wants men to be depraved sinners…It implies that God would be insulted and dishonored if someone obeyed God all his life and never sinned against him. It implies that it would be sinful to be free to obey God. And why? Because if we were free to obey God, someone might do it and would not need to be saved. What logic!”

The truth is that we can obey God. We are born with that ability, contrary to the dogma of Original Sin and Sin Nature. We are able to obey God, but we don’t; that makes us sinners who are blameworthy and deserving of eternal death. But if we were not able to obey God’s commands, then sin is not sin, and we are not blameworthy and have nothing to repent of.” (End of the excerpt).

Semi-Pelagianism according to Reformed Arsenal

Augustine defeated Pelagius, who was declared a heretic. No one in the Western church wanted to be associated with his views. (As you will read later, Pelagius’s views were actually similar to those of most Christians at that time. In the East, the Christian church did not accept Augustine’s views.) However, some sought a middle ground between Augustine’s idea of total depravity and Pelagius’s. This became the view of the Roman Catholic Church during the Medieval period. This perspective also holds that from Adam, mankind inherits a corrupt nature (but not necessarily guilt), though not so corrupt that it affects the entire person. Some also questioned the idea of imputing Adam’s guilt. Regarding salvation, a person must choose to follow God, and grace is not necessarily required to do so, by engaging the unfallen faculties remaining within them. God then extends grace to further sanctify the individual. The person now also uses their will to follow God and become more sanctified, prompting God to extend additional grace. All of this leads to final justification and glorification.

Arminianism according to the Reformed Arsenal

Around the time of John Calvin, a group of followers of Jacob Arminius emerged who rejected certain key doctrines of the Reformed movement. These individuals believed that salvation was available to everyone, unlike the Reformed perspective. God’s election of individuals was based on His prescience, not arbitrary choice. Prescience means foreknowledge. God knew in advance that He could secure their salvation. Therefore, He chose them.

Jacob Arminius accepted the doctrine of Total Depravity. John Wesley is another example of someone who accepted this doctrine. They believed in the total depravity of the entire person but also thought that God extended prevenient or preparatory grace to everyone, partially reversing their total depravity. These individuals were now able to follow Christ, and to these, God extends saving grace.

In summary, Arminian people are sometimes called Pelagian or semi-Pelagians, which is considered more accurate than the previous label of being full Pelagians, according to this author. Both arrive at their positions through different methods, but they ultimately reach the same conclusion. All humans choose to follow or reject God through some unfallen faculty. It is also important to note that Arminianism does not accept eternal security as biblical. The saved can be lost.

My Comments on the three websites.

This last website isn’t much different from the others. It seems that all these Calvinists can’t distinguish between the ability to obey and the willingness to obey, or actual obedience. Being able to obey and actually obeying are two very different things. Ability is a prerequisite for moral accountability. Can it be any other way and still make sense in any rational understanding of the word of God? Can it be any other way and still be just and righteous?

The truth is that although mankind has the ability to obey God, they are often unwilling to do so. God’s grace ensures their voluntary submission and cooperation. Without God’s grace in drawing us, seeking the lost, and calling us, no one would ever be saved, even if our moral ability remained intact. The issue with Adam and the rest of us is not our incapacity to fulfill God’s requirements but our reluctance to do so. Ability is just a neutral level of potential, nothing more. It holds no inherent righteousness. Ability is neither a virtue nor a vice. It is morally neutral but morally essential. How we choose to use this ability determines the nature of the act. Isn’t it more honoring to the grace of God to believe this than to adopt the view that says God creates us, directly or indirectly, unable to obey Him, and then sends us to hell for not doing what is naturally impossible for us? That idea dishonors God and is deeply repulsive to even consider.

Calvinism is not a system of grace, even while it pretends to be the only system of grace

If we are born completely depraved in every part of our being, by God’s plan, then there is no grace involved in His salvation of mankind. The elect are not saved by God’s grace but by His justice, while the non-elect are condemned by His injustice. There is no grace at all in Calvinism. The atonement and salvation are necessary for justice, not grace, for the elect. And the non-elect are condemned by God’s injustice and the absence of His grace.

There is no grace in His election, no grace in the atonement, no grace in His ‘irresistible grace’, and no grace in perseverance. (Refer to my article on the Doctrines of Grace.) God owes this to us because He created us sinners, who can only sin. God determined this before we even came into existence.

Moreover, the Bible makes it clear that everyone dies for their own sins. The father will not be put to death for the sins of the son, and the son will not be put to death for the sins of the father. Why isn’t that obvious? We serve a good, righteous, and holy God.

Many people are emerging from what some call the cult of Augustinian Calvinism. Why? They see the absurdity and the inherent contradictions, as well as God dishonoring the tenets of the theology. Could it be that not all, but much of what Augustine taught in his later years and influenced the church to believe, was shaped by pagan philosophy? Could it be that some or even most of what we have been told about Pelagius is simply untrue?

Will the real Pelagius please stand up?

I just watched a YouTube video produced by Soteriology 101 with guest Ali Bonner. Ali Bonner wrote a book titled “The Myth of Pelagianism.” She claims that Pelagius never taught that we don’t need God’s grace to be saved! She claims that Augustine created lies to smuggle into Christianity the determinism he was taught earlier in his life. To do that, Augustine needed to create a caricature of the real Pelagius. That caricature exaggerated Pelagius’s position on grace, free will, and other doctrines. The Pelagius we have all heard about did not exist as we have been told, according to Dr. Bonner. She reviewed all four of Pelagius’s extant letters, and he most certainly emphasized our need for God’s grace to be saved. Pelagius taught what many others believed during this time, as an ascetic. Many ascetics sought spiritual gain over earthly gain. To most of us today, all of that seems extreme and, in some respects, unbiblical. This is what many Christians taught and believed until Augustine smuggled in pagan deterministic ideas into Christian doctrine.

Calvinists and Democrats

Does this Augustinian-Pelagian controversy, fueled by Augustinian Calvinists, not remind you of what Democrats do constantly? Anyone who refuses to embrace the depraved views of the Democrat Party machine is labeled a racist, a white supremacist, a homophobe, or some other derogatory term. It seems that this is exactly what Calvinists have done and continue to do regarding Pelagius. They keep demonizing a caricature of the real man. And any Christian who rejects their unbiblical views on grace, election, depravity, and salvation is called a legalist, semi-Pelagian, or full Pelagian. It’s like being called a racist by a Democrat—meaningless anymore. At least to me, it means nothing. When I first heard of Pelagius, I never wanted to be known as one of his followers. No one I’ve read ever spoke kindly of Pelagius. Meanwhile, many Christian leaders praised Augustine and others with some unbelievable, far-fetched ideas.

Sproul, in his book Willing to Believe, recounts a story about his use of Charles G. Finney’s theology in his classroom. Finney’s clarity is marvelous compared to most theologians, including Sproul. In Sproul’s mind, that makes Finney an easy target. He discusses Finney’s belief that moral ability is necessary for moral accountability. Sproul tells his class that Finney was more Pelagian than Pelagius but never tries to explain why Finney’s logic is unbiblical or unreasonable. Sproul simply declares that Finney was Pelagian, and that ends the discussion. This is how many Calvinists respond to others’ objections, much like Democrats, by saying you are Pelagian or a racist.

Who the real Pelagius is according to scholar, Dr. Ali Bonner

Who is Ali Bonner? Dr. Ali Bonner, according to Wikipedia, is an Associate Professor of Celtic History in the Medieval period in the Department of Anglo-Saxon, Norse, and Celtic at the University of Cambridge. She is a Fellow of Queens’ College, Cambridge. She is a specialist on Pelagius. She is a distinguished scholar. Her doctorate is from Cambridge.

Dr. Ali Bonner drew the following conclusions (beginning on page 302 of her book) regarding Pelagius. These conclusions provide evidence that the myth of Pelagianism was deliberately invented.

Pelagius did not teach the things attributed to him. Augustine did not care if these were or were not false accusations. (If true, what does that tell us about the integrity of Augustine?)

Pelagius defended two things. The goodness of human nature and the effective free will of man. Both of these ideas were taught everywhere. Pelagius did not invent these ideas. To attach his name to them is misleading. (She did not go into what was meant by the expression “the goodness of human nature.” Humans have the capacity for good and bad. We see it all the time. We see goodness and wickedness. People are not all as bad as they could be, nor as good as they might be. One thing most Christians agree on is that everyone, except Jesus Christ, has sinned and needs God’s grace and forgiveness.)

There was no one individual who held the set of beliefs attributed to Pelagius or Pelagianism. Nor was there a group of Christians who held to this set of beliefs. The only group was the ascetic movement, which conveyed a wide stream of Christian thought.

‘When subjected to scrutiny, the concept of ‘Pelagianism’ falls apart. It cannot be defined, nor is the classification ‘Pelagian’ workable about texts. The descriptor ‘Pelagian’ has no fixed meaning other than that the text is ascetic paraenesis. Texts labeled ‘Pelagian’ are more accurately described as ascetic literature. Page 302.”

“Sociological analysis of how deviance is created and comparative studies of heresy accusations reveal that the invention of heresy in order to relocate orthodoxy was the norm in the development of religious doctrine.” Page 302.

Apparently, it was common back then to interpret hostile implications in comments from supposed heretics. Then, the alarm would be raised by claiming a group was threatening the unity or safety of the larger community. This was a widespread practice. To challenge the prevailing consensus, they constructed the heresy of ‘Pelagianism’. Augustine pushed for the issue of original sin (which also had to include determinism and meticulous sovereignty) to be declared Christian church doctrine. Until then, the doctrine of original sin had not been agreed upon. Augustine had the support of some others, especially his African bishops. In the fifth century, a group aimed to introduce a new set of doctrines for most Christians (Original Sin, total depravity, determinism). To replace the existing mainstream view on free will, this plan was carried out. Before this, there was no doctrine of original sin, and Augustine and his allies sought to establish one. That is how and why the accusation of Pelagian heresy started. Questions about free will, determinism, and fate have been around since the beginning of mankind. Augustine aimed to establish determinism, so he incorporated his deterministic view into Christian doctrine by creating the heresy of Pelagianism.

It all sounds disgustingly familiar. Consider the actions of politicians, especially Democrats and progressive Christians, as they are being taken today. Are you a climate change-denying heretic? Are you an anti-vaccine and mask heretic? Are you a racist heretic, a white nationalist heretic, a Christian nationalist heretic, a homophobe heretic, or an only two-genders heretic? Maybe you are the worst of all possible heretics, a Pelagian heretic, because you believe we have free will, which allows us to choose between good and evil. Is there any hope for you? No, if Calvinism is true, God placed that thinking in you without your permission or consent.

The traditional Christian view for the first 400 years

According to Dr. Wilson, the traditional view of free will was accurate for the first 400 years, and even Augustine believed in free will, at least initially. All the early church fathers supported this traditional view and rejected pagan determinism. However, then Augustine was converted back to some, but not all, of his former pagan beliefs in Stoicism, Neoplatonism, Gnosticism, and Manichaeism, as Dr. Ken Wilson states.

I have watched and considered everything Dr. John White has said about Dr. Ken Wilson and his book, titled “The Foundation of Augustinian Calvinism.” White challenges Wilson’s scholarship, which is interesting because Wilson holds a Ph.D. from Oxford, one of the world’s most prestigious universities. White’s Ph.D. (or D. Min.) is from Columbia Evangelical Seminary (formerly Faraston Theological Seminary), an unaccredited online school. White might want to be a little more humble about his own academic credentials before criticizing Wilson’s. Both men are brilliant, knowledgeable, and profess to love God. I think White is being defensive because Wilson has gone after the root of the tree that White is rooted in. That said, I have appreciated White’s comments on the Roman Catholic Church. I agree with him on the Catholic Church. However, I do not agree with White on textual criticism and Augustinian Calvinism. I have seen a few clips of White’s defense of Calvinism, and some are quite harsh, to be honest.

Augustine influenced the corruption of the Christian church, as I discussed in my first article on Augustine, part 1. Even before all the apostles died, false Christs, prophets, and teachers were already trying to distort the truth of Jesus Christ and the gospel. John wrote about those who denied that Jesus Christ came in the flesh and called them antichrist. See the book of 1 John. Some of the church fathers held strange beliefs and may not have even been born again. The Bible began to be corrupted during this period. Constantine the Great, after making Christianity a legal religion in the Roman Empire, started to corrupt the pure church of Christ and brought in pagan ideas beginning in the early 300s. Augustine was a supporter of the centralized Christian Church, which later became the Roman Catholic Church. Please see my first article for more details about the issues surrounding Augustine.

In Conclusion

Dr. Wilson points out that Augustine, as a Christian, believed in what all other patristics believed, which was the doctrine of free will or free choice regarding salvation. Augustine later returned to determinism (in AD 412, not 396), influenced by ideas from Stoicism, Neoplatonism, and Gnostic Manichaean determinism. He reverted to some beliefs he held as a practicing Manichaean for 10 years, specifically concerning “unilateral determinism of eternal destinies (heaven or hell).” Wilson argues that the Augustinian Calvinistic foundation is unstable because it is built on pagan syncretistic ideas. He combined or mixed pagan and Christian concepts, ultimately blending various pagan ideas with Christian doctrine and his interpretations of Scripture. Even today, the heretical Manichaean interpretations of certain scriptures are still employed by Reformed theologians, according to Wilson, most of whom appear to be unaware of this fact.

Stoicism taught that every minute detail was ordered by fate. They taught a non-free free will. People make bad choices because their ability to make good ones is faulty. Nonetheless, they are accountable for their own bad decisions, albeit by fate. “Stoicism’s strict determinism was hidden within a mere façade of ‘free will’. It was a fateful free will, an oxymoron. (Page 7 of Wilson’s book). Stoics believed that every event in the universe, no matter how small and seemingly insignificant, was and is fated by the gods. Augustine also felt this way concerning the Providence of God. Augustine never stopped believing it, according to Dr. Wilson. Augustine thought this meticulous micromanaging applied not to gods but the Christian God.

Augustinian Calvinism essentially teaches the same principles. The only free will they acknowledge is the ability to become a slave to sin. The Calvinist’s idea of free will is merely an illusion. Adam’s descendants are not free to choose good but only to choose evil. They redefine free will to mislead us. Augustine described free will as the capacity to choose between good and evil. After Adam’s fall, they can only choose what is bad and have no real ability to choose good. That is not free will.

Neoplatonism was the next influence on Augustine’s life. Plotinus (250 AD) rejected the Jewish and Christian view that humanity retained the image and likeness of God after Adam’s fall into sin. He believed the divine image was totally lost when the immaterial soul became connected with matter. According to Plotinus, the divine image would only return at death. He believed that a person in a body can’t have free will.

Wilson quotes scholar Georges Leroux, who stated that in this system developed by Plotinus, all persons involuntarily commit evil, yet they are still morally culpable for their sin. Humans are free to choose only what our totally corrupted will desires. According to Wilson, “Scholars and others (familiar with Augustine’s writings) recognize Augustine was heavily influenced by the pagan deterministic writings of Plotinus, Porphyry, and Cicero.” (Page 11).

I must comment. After the flood, there are passages of scripture that address the truth that humanity is created in the image of God. That image is marred because of sin but not obliterated. Check it out for yourself. The idea that people involuntarily sin or commit evil is absurd. It is ridiculous. Here again is the lie, that we are free to choose only what our totally corrupted evil will desires. If you see a direct parallel between Neoplatonism and Augustinian Calvinism today, your eyesight is 20-20.

Gnosticism requires belief in a rival evil god that created the evil cosmos composed of evil matter. Everything physical or material is evil. Everything spiritual is good. Humans are born evil because they are born physically and possess a physical body. Therefore, we are damned at birth. One gnostic taught that God offered the message of salvation to every human being equally. But only the predetermined elect of God was empowered by God to accept the offer. God gave man back his reason and helplessly corrupted will, as a gift to the mind. When God, by grace, infused that spiritual seed, then and only then was the elect’s salvation compelled by their new free will and by their own free choice. All works are predestined or determined. Discipline and abstinence change nothing. The elect are saved by knowing they are saved. The non-elect are damned at birth according to the Gnostic belief. “The Gnostic God must regenerate a person before that person can believe. Also, in Gnosticism, both free will and ‘forced grace’ are taught simultaneously.” (Page 13). Does that remind you of the Calvinist doctrines of Original Sin and of “Irresistible Grace?” It should, because this is where it originated.

I can’t think of a more antinomian statement than “Discipline and abstinence change nothing.” Augustinian Calvinism is a tree that produces the bad fruit of carnal Christianity.

“Jewish, Christian and pagan philosophers alike unanimously rejected Gnostic Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Individuals Eternal Destinies’ (DUPIED) because it robbed humans of free will choice, self-determination, and the universal opportunity of salvation”. (Page 13). Wilson mentions a couple of individuals who refuted some of these Gnostic false teachings. He cites Irenaeus and Clement. Clement refuted the Gnostic teaching that faith itself was a gift of God that some persons who were unable or incapable of belief did not receive from God. I quote John MacArthur in my book, saying this very thing. MacArthur says faith is a condition of salvation and a gift from God at the same time. This is simply deceptive. Irenaeus claimed that Gnostic determinism was comparable to Stoic determinism and both were unbiblical.

Wilson closes this section with a quote from the church historian, Chadwick. Chadwick had this to say about the early Christian Church’s response to Gnosticism. He claimed that the early church rejected Gnosticism as a corruption of truth consisting in the teachings of salvation by arbitrary predestination of only the elect, and the total depravity of the lost who possessed no rational judgment. And this is what five-point Calvinism today believes.

Manichaeism was another negative deterministic influence on Augustine. Manichaeism was the most significant offspring of Gnosticism. It was dualistic. The physical body is evil, and the spirit is good. To bear a child was sinful. Persons were chosen by the good god (who did not create matter) to either heaven or hell before they were conceived, irrespective of their moral character or their own choice. The inventor of this system, Mani, also taught the idea of an enslaved will that can’t choose good. Only when God unilaterally releases this person by reconciliation to God can that person be saved.

Adam misused his free will and fell from his position in the light, descending into matter and darkness. There was no escape from this. Mani, who invented Manichaeism, created it as a syncretic religion for all humanity worldwide. Initially, he combined elements of Judaism and Buddhism, and later incorporated Christianity.

Mani’s view on sex condemned sexual intercourse even within marriage. He considered sex sinful and evil, believing that the natural desire for it was bad. Mani thought that sexual passion during intercourse transmitted sin from parents to their children. In my first article on Augustine, I deliberately didn’t mention what I had learned about Augustine regarding sex in marriage being sinful. I thought no one would believe it because it sounds so foolish and far-fetched. At the time, I didn’t know that this idea did not originate with Augustine. Augustine adopted it from his years following the teachings of Mani, also known as Manichaeism.

Mani also taught the concept of total depravity of man and his inability to respond to God. God must raise man from the death of sin and depravity to new life by giving man grace to believe and live. God gives what He commands because man has no ability to respond. After the fall, man lost free will. This is like some of the other pagan deterministic beliefs that Augustine was exposed to. Augustine was involved in Manichaeism for 10 years as a “hearer.” Many of Augustine’s later Christian doctrines come directly from this syncretistic philosophy of Manichaeism. Augustine found passages from the Bible which seemed to teach this deterministic view, such as Romans 9. Wilson stated that Augustine used the Manichaean interpretation of such passages.

Summary of Dr. Wilson’s comments

In these pagan ideas comes the doctrine of Divine Unilateral Meticulous Providence or DUPIED. DUPIED stands for Divine Unilateral Predetermination of Individuals’ Eternal Destinies. This is precisely like the doctrines of Augustinian Calvinism (TULIP), which Augustine converted back to in 412 AD. All these pagan ideas require:

Divine micromanagement or specific sovereignty of all details in the cosmic order.

That the Jewish and Christian idea that man still has the image of God, after the fall of Adam, be substituted for the idea that man is totally depraved in his entire being. Thus, man is undeserving of any of God’s attention or care. Man is also unable to call out to God on his own.

That the concept of free will was destroyed and done away with in the fall. Man is not even capable of asking God for help.

That God alone must raise dead men and women by infusing them with His grace, faith, and love.

Believing all this is true, it must mean that God unilaterally predetermines the fate of each individual to heaven or hell.

Comments

According to Dr. Wilson, Augustine was applauded for his anti-Pelagian work with his novel theology. However, Augustine’s views on determinism were not accepted until the Protestant Reformation. Why is that the case? Martin Luther was a Roman Catholic Augustinian monk who revived Augustine’s pagan deterministic theology. In 1525, Luther wrote a book titled “On the Bondage of the Will” as a response to Erasmus’s book, “Free Will.” Luther went to the extreme against Roman Catholic abuses by trying to make everything depend on God and not human works. Luther even made faith a gift of God.

John Calvin adhered to the Stoic view of sovereignty. He often quoted Augustine because of Augustine’s significant influence on his theology. Augustine was the originator of the five points of Calvinism. “In the final 18 years of his life, Augustine taught pagan divine unilateral determinism-the opposite of the theology of most Christian authors and contrary to his own earlier doctrines.” (Page 110). He reverted to the teachings he encountered in Manichaeism. Although he and others condemned these pagan interpretations of scripture as heresy, Augustine ultimately returned to them. Wilson believes that Luther and Calvin mistakenly—and perhaps innocently—thought that Augustine was simply teaching what the early church fathers taught. They were misled. Augustine continued to use Christian terminology but redefined it to subtly introduce pagan ideas into the church. He claimed he was teaching what the early church fathers had taught, using the same terms but with different definitions. For example, the concept of free will shifted from a Christian understanding to a Stoic one. I made this point clear in my book, When Lies Become Truth.

Calvinists believe that over fifty early church fathers were incorrect, while only Augustine was correct, regarding free will and Augustine’s doctrine of divine determinism. Dr. Wilson quotes the well-known Reformed theologian, Benjamin Warfield, who recognized that in Augustine’s theology, “it was the radicalized grace of the Manichaean god that triumphed” (Page 114). Modern Calvinism has much more in common with ancient pagan philosophies than it does with early Christian doctrine, according to D. Wilson.

Grace

Dr. Wilson explains what early Christians believed by using the word grace. Grace stands for:

G = God offers salvation to all people (not just some people, the atonement is unlimited.

R = Residual free choice response (depraved but not total depravity)

A = Atonement is universally available to all (not just a few elect)

C = Conditional election based on foreknowledge. (Salvation is not unconditional.)

E = Eternal life for those who respond in faith

Notwithstanding Augustine’s background in pagan philosophy, he rejected much of it to become a Christian. He taught what other Christians taught about free will and God’s general sovereignty before AD 412, according to Dr. Wilson. It wasn’t until around this time that Augustine converted back to Stoic, Neoplatonic/Gnosticism-Manichaean determinism thereafter. No other patristic writer (or early church father) before Augustine taught anything but genuine free will or free choice, combating these pagan philosophies. (Page 18). Augustine changed all that. Augustine gave us the Calvinism we know today.

Augustinian Calvinism (TULIP) of today

Total Depravity. Fallen man, in his natural state, lacks all ability to believe the gospel and obey the law. Mankind can’t participate in redemption. Salvation is unconditional.

We see this thinking in the pagan philosophies mentioned earlier. Matter is evil. Babies are born sinful and helpless. Babies share in Adam’s guilt. Humanity has lost the entire image of God, and every part of mankind is evil, corrupt, and sinful.

Wilson says that Augustine developed the five points of Calvinism around a thousand years before Calvin lived, and the most important one was Total Depravity. R. C. Sproul agrees that total depravity (total inability) is the most essential and ties all the rest together. With total depravity comes the loss of free will; humanity is now unable to respond to God. Believing this to be true, the next tenet must be unconditional election. God must unilaterally give the ones He chooses the gift of regeneration and faith to believe in Him. The other doctrines follow the same logical pattern. Irresistible grace must only be given (forced) to the ones Christ died for (limited atonement).

Decades ago, I wrote my book, When Lies Become Truth. My very first chapter was on ability and inability. My thinking, at the time, was that if I could prove that the idea of inability was not scriptural or reasonable, then the whole Calvinistic edifice would fall with it. There is no doubt in my mind that the Bible does not teach inability to believe, or to repent, or to obey God. Inability is an essential part of the idea of Total Depravity.

Unconditional election/salvation. God’s election is a sovereign and unconditional choice of some, not all, sinners to be saved by Christ, given faith, and brought to glory. Man contributes nothing to it at all. God chooses to save the elect. The atonement is limited to just the elect.

Again, we just read about pagan ideas that are identical to these Augustinian Calvinistic doctrines. God picks and chooses winners and losers based on His own choice and decree. God could have chosen all to salvation, but instead chose only a few. It is said that God did this to glorify Himself. It is hard not to believe that God would not receive more glory and honor by saving everyone instead of damning most people.

Limited atonement. The redeeming work of Christ on the cross saves only the elect. The non-elect are passed by or damned because the sovereign decree of God does not save them. Christ died for only the ones He chose to save, apart from anything they might do or say. Christ brings the elect to Himself by the force of grace.

Based on what Wilson describes regarding the beliefs of pagan philosophies, this doctrine of limited atonement has pagan origins. No Christian father taught this, but strenuously rejected it before Augustine.

Irresistible grace. The work of the Holy Spirit in bringing a few, when He could have just as easily chosen all souls, to faith in Jesus never fails. The elect will be saved without their prior permission or consent and will be made to desire salvation. The grace of Christ never fails to bring the elect to initial and final salvation. Final particular perseverance or preservation is decreed for all elected believers.

This is clearly part of pagan beliefs and particularly Gnostic Manichaean ideas. God must give man grace to believe and to respond to Him. Grace must be irresistible. God must force grace on the elect.

Perseverance/Preservation. Believers are kept in faith and grace by the raw, irresistible power of God. Sin and unbelief in the believer no longer damn the soul, while it does in the unbeliever.

Paganism claimed that God saves whom He chooses and damns all the rest because humanity is sinful. Salvation is not based on man’s responses to God but on God’s predetermined choice. Ultimately, there are no conditions for being saved.

Augustinian Calvinism makes God into someone worse than the devil

In my opinion, none of these five tenets of Augustinian Calvinism is reasonable, gracious, kind, lovely, beautiful, compassionate, just, or biblical. All of them make God out to be the most wicked being in the universe. Far from revealing the beauty and holiness of our God is this caricature of the one true God, created by Augustinian Calvinists.

The God of Calvinism is:

Cruel and unjust because He charged humanity with the guilt of Adam’s sin. Even in our corrupt and depraved judicial system today, we are righteously indignant when an innocent person is convicted of a crime that they did not personally commit. Calvinism demands that we embrace injustice in God when He damns us for Adam’s sin. In addition, God is cruel in that He could have chosen all humanity to salvation, but decided to elect only a small number when He could have just as easily chosen everyone to salvation. This choice was made by God before we came into existence.

A tyrant expecting perfect obedience to His laws, knowing that humanity was not capable of perfect obedience or any obedience at all before God regenerated that person.

Devilish because He sends those who don’t perfectly obey laws that are impossible to follow to hell to suffer an eternity in torment, all to bring some twisted honor and glory to His name.

Demented and perfectly wicked because He thinks that people will truly love Him for making them no better than a robot (meticulous determinism) and treating most of humanity like disposable garbage through no fault of their own. In addition, their God is pleased to torture these lost souls for eternity in hell, when He could have decided to save them and bless them for eternity.

Source of all the evil in the universe and the cause of sin. God determines in His meticulous, exhaustive providence and sovereignty all the evil that people will do to each other. God willed the Holocaust, the genocide of Stalin and Mao, the Inquisition and Crusades, all of the many wars throughout our history, all of the other acts of evil and abuse of children, all sexual sins, the murder of over a billion babies in abortion, and on and on it goes. God decided on everything and then carried it all out.

If salvation is unconditional because humanity is unable to meet any condition, then God alone is responsible for the lost being lost. If salvation is conditional, then human beings must know and meet those conditions. They must have that ability. Conditions, such as repentance and faith, are the “that not without which.” The love of God toward sinners is the procuring cause of our salvation, the “that for the sake of which.”

This Augustinian Calvinistic God is not the God of scripture, not even close. The God of scripture created humanity to love and be loved in return. Love requires risk and free will. God provided everything we need to live a blessed life and to enjoy Him forever. When we sinned and rejected God, for which we alone are responsible, God made a way for us to be forgiven and saved if we will only repent of our sins and believe the gospel. Christ died for us while we were yet sinners. There is no other God that is so beautiful, kind, compassionate, and gracious in holiness and righteousness as the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, and all the prophets and apostles.

After writing these articles on Augustine, I began researching the topic of Classical Theism. In that study, I gained a much deeper understanding of how Plato and other thinkers influenced Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and the Christian Church. Those Greco-Roman ideas about God have polluted our Christian understanding of the God of the Bible. (See my three articles on Theism).

Final Comments

Sproul stated that Augustine may be the greatest theologian of all time, and for sure, the first thousand years of history. This is what blind allegiance does to the mind. Luther, Calvin, Edwards, and many others elevated a man named Augustine to a position of near reverence. Augustinian Calvinism is not Biblical, and it does not glorify God, who deserves to be worshiped and obeyed. This is what Augustine gave to the Christian world. The following excerpt is from my first article on Augustine.

“Some of us believe that the source of most that is wrong within the Christian Church can be traced back to Augustine’s unbiblical theology. He and those who followed in his footsteps;

got salvation wrong,

got sin wrong,

got guilt wrong,

got justice wrong,

got mercy wrong,

got grace wrong,

got forgiveness wrong,

got sacraments and the church wrong, and

got justification and sanctification wrong.

Augustine began with a false foundation, rooted in pagan philosophy that humans are naturally sinful from birth. He relied on the doctrine of Original Sin and the complete inability of Adam’s descendants. As a result, he and his followers misunderstood many other Christian doctrines.

Let us suppose that the two scholars I have quoted in this article (Wilson and Bonner) are incorrect about church history and their views on Augustine and Pelagius. Let us set all that aside. My two final arguments are that Calvinism is 1) unbiblical and 2) unreasonable. None of what the Calvinists claim is true is Biblical. The first chapter in my book dispels the myth that humanity is incapable of responding to God in simple faith, obeying God’s law and will, and believing and repenting. Ability is not virtue. What we do with that ability determines virtue or vice. The second argument is that Calvinism is unreasonable. It contradicts what we know to be true of ourselves and what we know to be true about God. The true God (the God of the Bible) is nothing like the God of Calvinism (Classical Theism by Plato). To believe Calvinism, we must reject the testimony of reason, consciousness, and the Word of God. The Bible, taken as a whole, does not teach any of what Augustinian Calvinists say it does.

I have not examined the proof texts that Calvinists use to justify their doctrines. Some of these are Romans, Chapters 9-11, John, chapter 6:44, John, chapter 17, and Ephesians, chapter 1. There are many resources available if you are interested. In another article, I mentioned some of the YouTube programs. Check them out.

The God of the Bible is not a cruel, capricious, unloving tyrant and thug of Augustinian Calvinism. I do not know how anyone could worship and adore their God. The God of the Bible is the picture of moral perfection in every sense of the word. I do not know how anyone can stop from worshiping and adoring Him.