Against Pelagianism

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ

In “The Spirit & the Letter IV”, Bishop Aurelius Augustinus Hipponensis wrote, “There is an opinion that calls for sharp and vehement resistance - I mean the belief that the power of the human will can of itself, without the help of God, either achieve perfect righteousness or advance steadily towards it.” 

Pelagius was an ascetic who opposed the idea of predestination and asserted a strong version of the doctrine of free will.  He was accused by Bishop Augustinus and others of denying the need for Divine Aid in performing good works.  They asserted that for him, the only grace necessary was the declaration of the law; humans were not wounded by Adam’s (a.s.) sin and were perfectly able to fulfill the law apart from any Divine Aid.  He denied the more specific doctrine of Original Sin developed by Bishop Augustine.  Pelagius was declared a heretic by the Council of Carthage.  His interpretation of a doctrine of free will became known as Pelagianism. 

He was well educated, fluent in both Greek and Latin, and learned in theology.  He spent time as an ascetic.  His surviving teachings clearly reflect his focus on practical asceticism.  He was well known in Rome both for the harsh asceticism of his public life as well as his eloquence and mastery of rhetoric.  His early reputation in Rome earned him praise even from the pillars of the Church.  Bishop Augustine himself referred to him as a “saintly man.”  He was later accused of lying about his own teachings in order to avoid public condemnation.  Most of his later life was spent defending his doctrine against Catholic theologians who held that Catholicism came from the apostles, and that Pelagius was spreading novelties in the faith unknown to the apostolic tradition.  Due to his status as a heretic, little of his work has come down to the present day except in the quotes of his opponents.  However, more recently, some have defended Pelagius as a misunderstood orthodox. 

Pelagianism itself is the belief that Original Sin did not taint human nature and that mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special Divine aid.  This is also sometimes called Limited Depravity.  This rejects the assertion of Pauline Christianity, developed by Augustus himself. 

1 Corinthians 15:19-22

¹⁹ If the hope we have learned to repose in Christ belongs to this world only, then we are unhappy beyond all other men.  ²⁰ But no, Christ has risen from the dead, the first fruits of all those who have fallen asleep; ²¹ a man had brought us death, and a man should bring us resurrection from the dead; ²² just as all have died with Adam, so with Christ all will be brought to life. 

¹⁹ εἰ ἐν τῇ ζωῇ ταύτῃ ἐν Χριστῷ ἠλπικότες ἐσμὲν μόνον, ἐλεεινότεροι πάντων ἀνθρώπων ἐσμέν.  ²⁰ Νυνὶ δὲ Χριστὸς ἐγήγερται ἐκ νεκρῶν, ἀπαρχὴ τῶν κεκοιμημένων.  ²¹ ἐπειδὴ γὰρ δι' ἀνθρώπου θάνατος, καὶ δι' ἀνθρώπου ἀνάστασις νεκρῶν: ²² ὥσπερ γὰρ ἐν τῷ Ἀδὰμ πάντες ἀποθνῄσκουσιν, οὕτως καὶ ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ πάντες ζῳοποιηθήσονται. 

¹⁹ Si in hac vita tantum in Christo sperantes sumus, miserabiliores sumus omnibus hominibus.  ²⁰ Nunc autem Christus resurrexit a mortuis primitiæ dormientium, ²¹ quoniam quidem per hominem mors, et per hominem resurrectio mortuorum.  ²² Et sicut in Adam omnes moriuntur, ita et in Christo omnes vivificabuntur. 

Pelangianism is of the view that Adam’s (a.s.) sin set a bad example for his progeny, but his actions did not have the other consequences imputed to Original Sin.  Pelagianism views the role of Jesus (a.s.) as setting a good example for the rest of humanity, thus counteracting Adam’s (a.s.) “bad example” as well as providing an atonement for our sins.  In short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility, for obeying the Gospel in addition to full responsibility for every sin.  According to Pelagian doctrine, because humans are sinners by choice, they are therefore, criminals who need the atonement of Jesus Christ (a.s.).  Sinners are not victims; they are criminals who require pardon. 

Many of the Church Fathers taught that humans have the power of free will and the choice over good and evil.  In “The First Apology”, Justin Martyr wrote, “Every created being is so constituted as to be capable of vice and virtue.  For he can do nothing praiseworthy, if he had not the power of turning either way.  Unless we suppose man has the power to choose the good and refuse the evil, no one can be accountable for any action whatever.” 

Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus argued that no reward can be justly bestowed, no punishment can be justly inflicted, upon him who is good or bad by necessity, and not by his own choice.  This was the same with Origen Adamantius and Titus Flavius Clemens. 

Justin Martyr wrote, “Let some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever occurs happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain.  We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions.  Now, if this is not so, but all things happen by fate, then neither is anything at all in our own power.  For if it is predetermined that this man will be good, and this other man will be evil, neither is the first one meritorious nor the latter man to be blamed.  And again, unless the human race has the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions.” 

Justin Martyr also wrote, “I have proven in what has been said that those who were foreknown to be unrighteous, whether men or angels, are not made wicked by God’s fault. Rather, each man is what he will appear to be through his own fault.” 

Tatian the Syrian wrote, “We were not created to die.  Rather, we die by our own fault.  Our free will has destroyed us.  We who were free have become slaves.  We have been sold through sin.  Nothing evil has been created by God.  We ourselves have manifested wickedness.  But we, who have manifested it, are able again to reject it.” 

Bishop Melito of Sardis wrote, “There is, therefore, nothing to hinder you from changing your evil manner to life, because you are a free man.” 

Patriarch Theophilus of Antioch wrote, “If, on the other hand, he would turn to the things of death, disobeying God, he would himself be the cause of death to himself.  For God Made man free, and with power of himself.” 

Bishop Irenaeus of Smyrna wrote, “But man, being endowed with reason, and in this respect similar to God, having been made free in his will, and with power over himself, is himself his own cause that sometimes he becomes wheat, and sometimes chaff.” 

Tertullian said, “I find, then, that man was constituted free by God.  He was master of his own will and power.”  He continued, “For a law would not be imposed upon one who did not have it in his power to render that obedience which is due to law.  Nor again, would the penalty of death be threatened against sin, if a contempt of the law were impossible to man in the liberty of his will.”  He concluded, “Man is free, with a will either for obedience or resistance.” 

Pelagius taught, “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.”  He continued, “Any good of which human nature is capable has to be revealed, since what is shown to be practicable must be put into practice.” 

He wrote, “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.” 

He also wrote, “Those who are unwilling to correct their own way of life appear to want to correct nature itself instead.” 

He further wrote, “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.” 

He also wrote, “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.” 

He also wrote, “Why do we indulge in pointless evasions, advancing the frailty 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.” 

He also wrote, “Grace indeed freely discharges sins, but with the consent and choice of the believer.” 

He also wrote, “Obedience results from a decision of the mind, not the substance of the body.” 

Pelagianism disagreed with Catholicism’s teachings on grace, sin and the Fall.  It rejected Original Sin, because the sin of Adam (a.s.) had no bearing on subsequent generations; essentially, man was inherently good and unaffected by the Fall.  This meant that anyone could come to God by his own free will, no grace needed.  Bishop Augustine was his most vehement critic.  Against Pelagius, Bishop Augustine put it, “We for our part assert that the human will is so Divinely Aided towards the doing of righteousness that, besides being created with the free choice of his will, and besides the teaching which instructs him how he ought to live, he receives also the Holy Spirit, through which there arises in his heart a delight in and love of that supreme and unchangeable Good which is God; and this arises even now, while he still walks by faith and not by sight.” 

Pelagianism’s beliefs on human will versus Divine Will was echoed by Islam, centuries later.