Augustine and Pelagius

Augustine and Pelagius
By R. C. Sproul http://www.leaderu.com/theology/augpelagius.html "It is Augustine who gave us the Reformation." So wrote B. B. Warfield in his assessment of the influence of Augustine on church history. It is not only that Luther was an Augustinian monk, or that al!in "uoted Augustine more than any other theologian that pro!oked Warfield#s remark. $ather, it was that the $eformation witnessed the ultimate triumph of Augustine#s doctrine of grace o!er the legacy of the %elagian !iew of man. &umanism, in all its su'tle forms, recapitulates the un!arnished %elagianism against which Augustine struggled. (hough %elagius was condemned as a heretic 'y $ome, and its modified form, Semi) %elagianism was likewise condemned 'y the ouncil of *range in +,-, the 'asic assumptions of this !iew persisted throughout church history to reappear in .edie!al atholicism, $enaissance &umanism, Socinianism, Arminianism, and modern Li'eralism. (he seminal thought of %elagius sur!i!es today not as a trace or tangential influence 'ut is per!asi!e in the modern church. Indeed, the modern church is held capti!e 'y it. What was the core issue 'etween Augustine and %elagius/ (he heart of the de'ate centered on the doctrine of original sin, particularly with respect to the "uestion of the e0tent to which the will of fallen man is 1free.1 Adolph &arnack said: (here has ne!er, perhaps, 'een another crisis of e"ual importance in church history in which the opponents ha!e e0pressed the principles at issue so clearly and a'stractly. (he Arian dispute 'efore the 2icene ouncil can alone 'e compared with it. 3&istory of Agmer 4/I4/56 (he contro!ersy 'egan when the British monk, %elagius, opposed at $ome Augustine#s famous prayer: 17rant what (hou commandest, and command what (hou dost desire.1 %elagius recoiled in horror at the idea that a di!ine gift 3grace6 is necessary to perform what 7od commands. 8or %elagius and his followers responsi'ility always
implies a'ility. If man has the moral responsi'ility to o'ey the law of 7od, he must also ha!e the moral a'ility to do it. &arnack summari9es %elagian thought: 2ature, free)will, !irtue and law, these strictly defined and made independent of the notion of 7od ) were the catch)words of %elagianism: self)ac"uired !irtue is the supreme good which is followed 'y reward. $eligion and morality lie in the sphere of the free spirit: they are at any moment 'y man#s own effort. (he difference 'etween %elagianism and Semi)%elagianism is more a difference of degree than of kind. (o 'e sure, on the surface there seems like there is a huge difference 'etween the two, particularly with respect to original sin and to the sinner#s dependence upon grace. %elagius categorically denied the doctrine of original sin, arguing that Adam#s sin affected Adam alone and that infants at 'irth are in the same state as Adam was 'efore the 8all. %elagius also argued that though grace may facilitate the achie!ing of righteousness, it is not necessary to that end. Also, he insisted that the constituent nature of humanity is not con!erti'le: it is indestructi!ely good. *!er against %elagius, Semi)%elagianism does ha!e a doctrine of original sin where'y mankind is considered fallen. onse"uently grace not only facilitates !irtue, it is necessary for !irtue to ensue. .an#s nature can 'e changed and has 'een changed 'y the 8all. &owe!er, in Semi)%elagianism there remains a moral a'ility within man that is unaffected 'y the 8all. We call this an 1island of righteousness1 'y which the fallen sinner still has the inherent a'ility to incline or mo!e himself to cooperate with 7od#s grace. 7race is necessary 'ut not necessarily effecti!e. Its effect always depends upon the sinner#s cooperation with it 'y !irtue of the e0ercise of the will. It is not 'y accident that .artin Luther considered The Bondage of the Will to 'e his most important 'ook. &e saw in ;rasmus a man who, despite his protests to the contrary, was a %elagian in atholic clothing. Luther saw that lurking 'eneath the contro!ersy of merit and grace, and faith and works was the issue of to what degree the human will is ensla!ed 'y sin and to what degree we are dependent upon grace for our li'eration. Luther argued from the Bi'le that the
flesh profits nothing and that this 1nothing1 is not a little 1something.1 Augustine#s !iew of the 8all was opposed to 'oth %elagianism and Semi)%elagianism. &e said that mankind is a massa peccati, a 1mess of sin,1 incapa'le of raising itself from spiritual death. 8or Augustine man can no more mo!e or incline himself to 7od than an empty glass can fill itself. 8or Augustine the initial work of di!ine grace 'y which the soul is li'erated from the 'ondage of sin is so!ereign and operati!e. (o 'e sure we cooperate with this grace, 'ut only after the initial di!ine work of li'eration. Augustine did not deny that fallen man still has a will and that the will is capa'le of making choices. &e argued that fallen man still has a free will 3liberium arbitrium6 'ut has lost his moral li'erty 3libertas6. (he state of original sin lea!es us in the wretched condition of 'eing una'le to refrain from sinning. We still are a'le to choose what we desire, 'ut our desires remain chained 'y our e!il impulses. &e argued that the freedom that remains in the will always leads to sin. (hus in the flesh we are free only to sin, a hollow freedom indeed. It is freedom without li'erty, a real moral 'ondage. (rue li'erty can only come from without, from the work of 7od on the soul. (herefore we are not only partly dependent upon grace for our con!ersion 'ut totally dependent upon grace. .odern ;!angelicalism sprung from the $eformation whose roots were planted 'y Augustine. But today the $eformational and Augustinian !iew of grace is all 'ut eclipsed in ;!angelicalism. Where Luther triumphed in the si0teenth century, su'se"uent generations ga!e the nod to ;rasmus. .odern e!angelicals repudiate un!arnished %elagianism and fre"uently Semi)%elagianism as well. It is insisted that grace is necessary for sal!ation and that man is fallen. (he will is acknowledged to 'e se!erely weakened e!en to the point of 'eing 1-- percent1 dependent upon grace for its li'eration. But that one percent of unaffected moral a'ility or spiritual power which 'ecomes the decisi!e difference 'etween sal!ation and perdition is the link that preser!es the chain to %elagius. We ha!e not 'roken free from the %elagian capti!ity of the church. (hat one percent is the 1little something1 Luther sought to demolish 'ecause it remo!es the sola from sola gratia and ultimately the sola from sola fide. (he irony may 'e that though modern ;!angelicalism
loudly and repeatedly denounces &umanism as the mortal enemy of hristianity, it entertains a &umanistic !iew of man and of the will at its deepest core. We need an Augustine or a Luther to speak to us anew lest the light of 7od#s grace 'e not only o!er)shadowed 'ut 'e o'literated in our time. R. C. Sproul is now the distinguished visiting professor of systematic theology and apologetics at Knox Theological Seminary. <sed 'y permission of Ligonier .inistries, copyright =-->. $e!iew postings to a discussion forum on this article#s su'?ect at Ligonier .inistries# pre!ious We' site location: http://www=.gospelcom.net/&yper2ews/get/tt/ttsu'rc)@>)->.html.

Augustine and Pelagius

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Augustine and Pelagius

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Augustine and Pelagius

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Augustine and Pelagius

You might also like