Theology: Ephesus
(Pelagianism and Augustine) (Kelly, pp. 353-372)

CPC Church History I
March 29, 2009
Pelagianism and Augustine

Introduction

The Pelagian debate is over the role of human will in salvation. This debate will present difficulties of a type we have not faced before, because it will push the boundaries of what is considered dogma and what is considered doctrine. In order to understand this, we must
distinguish these two terms.

1. Doctrine is a teaching about some matter.
2. Dogma are those doctrines that are so central that, unless one believes in them, one cannot be a Christian.

Therefore, several things are to be noted:

• All dogmas are doctrines, but not all doctrines are dogmas.
• Christians may disagree about various doctrines without breaking of fellowship or the need for discipline.
• Christians may not disagree about dogmas. To not believe in something that is a dogma is to be a heretic.
• The original meaning of “Catholic” was universal, i.e., it was what all Christians everywhere have always believed. As such, it was originally referred only to dogmatic propositions. It was meant to express unity, and as such, it allowed for doctrinal (but not dogmatic) variation. Thus, it was inclusive and exclusive at the same time.

The problem with Pelagianism is that the original issues were original sin and a doctrine of grace, which at this time were doctrines, not dogmas. Thus, even Augustine agrees that those who disagree with this doctrine should be called “fools, not […] heretics, for there is no dogma” (De Gestis Pelagii 6.16).

Dogma at this time was determined by the content of the creeds. As we shall see, a dogmatic issue does eventually come into play. Nevertheless, it will be very important to separate what belongs to dogma and what belongs to doctrine here.

Pelagianism

Pelagius, like many early Christians, was concerned about the fatalism of the culture around him. Both classical mythology and Stoic philosophy (very popular among Roman nobility) emphasized the strong hand of fate in human affairs—Pelagius felt that Christianity needed to distance itself from this, that it would never be able to proclaim its moral message without a strong emphasis on the human will. This leads him and his followers to the following positions:

• Humanity is marked by the gift of unconditional free will. Whatever we do is of our own choosing, and therefore we are rightly held accountable for our actions.
• Because of this, he denies that the human will has a propensity for sin—it is neutral with respect to good and evil.
• This amounts to a denial of at least one aspect of the doctrine of original sin, because it is the damage done to our nature by Adam’s sin that accounts for our propensity to evil.
• He will go further in rejecting original sin. He believes that God creates each soul directly, without using any mediator; therefore, how could these souls be corrupt at their birth? How can anything impure be transferred from Adam to a soul that God alone creates?
• Further, even if there were such a thing as original sin, and it is removed by baptism, then wouldn’t the children of baptized parents not get it?
• Therefore, Adam’s sin introduced physical and spiritual death, and a habit of disobedience against which all men must struggle, but this habit is not conferred by physical descent, but rather by custom and example.
• Furthermore, God cannot exert too much pressure on man to choose the good, for this would take away the freedom in our choice. Thus, he will restrict the range of grace to revelation, God’s law, and the various ways in which we come to know what the good is—everything short of whatever goes into our actual choice of the good. But the forgiveness of sins is baptism is an exception, for that too is grace.
• Baptism, in adults, takes away the sins they have committed. In children, there is nothing to take away, so it is merely a blessing.
• Because of all of this, Pelagius believes that it is possible for a man to live a life without sin. He argues that we are commanded so to live in Scripture, and that there are many examples in Scripture of people who have lived this way.
• Disciples of Pelagius take these ideas even further. Celestius, in whose name the teaching is finally condemned, argues that children may be saved even without baptism, and argues that grace and free will are incompatible.

Augustine’s Response

It must be stated at the outset that Augustine’s reaction to the Pelagian teaching was one of the great over-reactions in the history of the Church. The extremity of his position was one that many of his contemporaries lamented, and much of what he argued was to be quietly abandoned by the Church until it was taken up again by John Calvin. Briefly, his ideas are as follows:

• We all chose sin along with and in Adam’s first sin—his sin is our sin, not merely because it is passed on to us, but because we committed it.
• Adam’s sin is transmitted through sexual desire (not the sexual act itself, but that pleasure which attaches to it). Augustine doesn’t seem to make his mind about whether souls are immediately created by God or not, but for him it doesn’t really matter. If they are created by procreation, then they get their share in original sin then; if not, when they are joined to bodies (which happens at the creation of the body, again, sexual pleasure) they become sinful.
• This is the reason for the virgin birth, for only in this way could Jesus avoid inheriting Adam’s sin.
• As a result of this sin, man lost the right exercise of the freedom of the will. We still have free will, but now we can only choose to use it for evil, unless God’s grace intervenes. No worthwhile action can be done by us without grace having first moved us to that action and given us the power to accomplish it.
• Thus, no one in the Bible lived without sin, except Jesus.
• Unbaptized infants go to Hell with the Devil, though they will not suffer as badly as adults who, in addition to original sin, also have actual committed sins held against them.
• Because the initiative in man’s move to salvation belongs to grace, the sole deciding factor in who is saved is God’s decision to give or withhold grace.
• The number of those who will receive grace, set from all eternity, is equivalent to the number of angels who fell, so that we take their place in Heaven.
• Thus, when Scripture says that “God wills all men to be saved” (1 Tim. 2:4), Augustine will interpret this to mean that there will be elect from every people.
• God’s choice does not depend on foreknowledge of the good things they will do; rather, whatever good the elect will do is the result of God’s having freely chosen them.
• How then does God choose John to salvation and Judas to damnation? Who are you to question God?

Orthodox Response

As alluded to before, Augustine’s doctrines caused uncertainty and dismay in many of the other bishops of his day, including such notable names as Prosper of Aquitaine and John Cassian. Such men’s opposition as much to Pelagius as to Augustine’s construal of grace and predestination led them to be branded Semi-Pelagians by the supporters of Augustine.

Concerning the will and predestination, as I mentioned before, the Church had no formal need to pronounce, for they were matters of doctrine, not dogma. What was not a matter of doctrine, however, was the status of baptism. For the Creed had confessed that we believe in one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, yet the Pelagians were possibly teaching two baptisms—one for children whose result was blessing, and one for adults whose result was forgiveness—and at the very least teaching that there were some baptisms that were not for the forgiveness of sins. This becomes the key question upon which the Church must pronounce, and it would do so at Ephesus in 431 AD (the 3^rd Ecumenical Council).

• The pronouncement is actually quite vague, saying only that those who agree with Celestius are anathematized and to be deprived of their bishoprics. The Council neither spells out in particular what it is that Celestius says that is condemned nor what is to be held in its place. By contrast, the views of Nestorius, condemned at the same council, were thoroughly explicated. The name of Pelagius does not appear in the texts.
• Thus, while Orthodoxy condemns Pelagianism in the person of Celestius, it does not approve of Augustine’s particular way of defending the faith from Pelagian claims. This was to be of decisive importance, for it means that the Council refuses to elevate Augustine’s peculiar doctrine of grace and predestination to the level of dogma.
• Subsequent theologians, following John Cassian as well as Augustine himself in works the pre-date the Pelagian controversy (and his more sober pronouncements during the controversy itself), adopt a more balanced view of the relationship between free will and grace than is represented by either Pelagius or Augustine.