Augustine and Pelagius

8/13/2019 Augustine and Pelagius

1/4

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 theprinciples 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


2/4

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 upongrace. %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 thee0ercise of the will.

It is not 'y accident that artin Luther considered The Bondage of

the Willto '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


3/4

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 1messof 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'erty3libertas6. (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 isacknowledged 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


4/4

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 lightof 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.

)->.html.
http://www.leaderu.com/cgi-bin/external?link=http://www.ligonier.org/http://www.leaderu.com/cgi-bin/external?link=http://www1.gospelcom.net/HyperNews/get/tt/ttsubrc-06-96.htmlhttp://www.leaderu.com/cgi-bin/external?link=http://www1.gospelcom.net/HyperNews/get/tt/ttsubrc-06-96.htmlhttp://www.leaderu.com/cgi-bin/external?link=http://www.ligonier.org/

Documents

Augustine and Pelagius