Pelagius was deeply disturbed by the lack of spiritual devotion and “holiness” of Christians in Rome, which he blamed on the doctrine of divine grace as expressed in Augustine’s Confessions. Pelagius said this teaching removed all motivation to follow moral law. He denied original sin and instead attributed the existence of sin to the bad example set by Adam. He taught that Christ “saves” us by setting a good example, in contrast to Adam. Pelagius insisted that humans have a good moral nature and that salvation can be achieved by choosing to live a life of self-discipline and self-denial (i.e., asceticism). In his Commentary on Romans, Pelagius taught that grace is God’s revelation in the Old and New Testaments, which enlightens us and encourages our holiness by providing explicit instruction in godliness and many worthy examples to imitate.
So according to Pelagius, holiness is achieved by the exercise of our will. Our holiness does not result from the substitutionary work of Christ, nor is it based on the imputed righteousness of Christ. When you boil it down to one short phrase, Pelagianism is human-centered religion.
Beyond the ideas about how we become a Christian (God waits for us to choose him; God has come most of the way to us, but we must close the remaining gap; etc.), Pelagius’ thinking infects and pollutes our beliefs about how we live the Christian life day to day.
Anything that contradicts or undermines God’s pure grace can wear the label Pelagian. Here are some common manifestations:
•The belief that we deserve — or can earn — God’s blessings. This one plays itself out in so many ways I can’t list them all. The more good things I do, or the more I obey God, the better shot I have of getting my prayers answered. If I become a better person, God will bless me more. If I have more faith, God will bless me more. Life is better for me because I’m a better person than you. This disease, tragedy, bad day, etc. is God’s punishment for my disobedience (we often turn this one on other people — “this is happening to you because you deserve it”). The list goes on and on, but the bottom line is that we believe God relates to us as Christians on the basis of our own righteousness, rather than the righteousness of Christ.
•Believing that rules are the proper motivation for morality. Emphasizing rules, multiplying rules, adding rules not contained in the Bible, ranking rules, etc., etc., are examples of this humanistic mindset. The thinking is that the more rules we keep, the more holy we are. Thus holiness is not Christ-based, but self-based.
•Being sin-focused rather than Savior-focused. I’m not saying sin doesn’t matter, but we can fairly easily identify what our primary focus is. Perhaps we focus more on our own sin; perhaps we focus more on others’ sins. Either way, we don’t live in the celebration of what Christ has done. Martin Luther’s testimony is that he lived focused on his sin and haunted by guilt until he saw the truth of Romans 1:17, that righteousness is a gift from God that is received through faith. It was then that he came to experience the joy of Christ.
•Believing that the old covenant must be kept (followed) by Christians. OK, now that I think about it, all of these bullet-points play themselves out in so many ways I can’t begin to list them all. Ever heard a Christian say that if America will just humble herself, pray and seek God’s face, and turn from our wicked ways, God will hear from heaven, forgive our sin, and heal our land (2 Chronicles 7:14)? Ummm, I’ve got news for you — America isn’t Israel. That command and promise was made to ancient Israel, and was part of the old covenant. That command and promise does not apply universally to all nations (and not specifically to America), and is not part of the new covenant. The old covenant has been declared obsolete (Hebrews 8:13). Therefore, we should not assume that we should follow (reinstate) bits and pieces of the old covenant (think contract) when the entire covenant has been declared obsolete. We are no longer bound by it, and to put ourselves under it is to step down, not up. The conditional commands and promises of the old covenant have been replaced by the terms of the new covenant, which we are told in 2 Corinthians 3:6ff gives life, in contrast to the old that kills. So reverting to the conditional commands and promises given specifically to Israel under the old covenant is not the Christ way, or the Christian life. (Morals and ethics still matter, but the old covenant has been superseded by the new.) Pelagius taught that the Law of Moses is equal to the gospel of Christ, and we should pursue righteousness by means of the law. Too many professing Christians believe the same thing — or some variation of it.
•Believing in performance-based acceptance by God. Perhaps this should be assumed by one of the previous points, but I want to make sure you see this. Many Christians believe God’s acceptance of them fluctuates. But God’s acceptance of us, and his love for us, does not fluctuate. He doesn’t accept or love us any less when we are “bad,” and he doesn’t accept or love us any more when we are “good.” As Christians, God’s relationship to us is based solely on what Christ has done. God loved us before we turned to Christ (Romans 5:8), and now he accepts us through Christ (Rom. 14:3; Rom. 15:7).
Here’s what the Bible teaches — our salvation, from start to finish, from its initiation to its completion, is all of grace. Through (and because of) Christ, God gives us what we cannot earn and do not deserve.
You say, “But I believe in Jesus.” But ask yourself if you’re trying to add Jesus to Pelagianism? That won’t work any more than my visiting a tanning salon will change my ethnicity. I’ll be back with more next week, Lord willing.
From this series: part 1 and part 2
______________________________
- A little addendum for those who like to be nit-picky -
For you hairsplitters that might wander in here, I’m using the Pelagian label a bit loosely in an attempt to simplify and shorten what could be a never ending black-hole of discussion. Thankfully God protected me from a few of those black-holes that exist in Cyberland. There are people trying to sort out all the distinctions between Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, Semi-semi-Pelagianism (B.B. Warfield and others have used this term), and Semi-Augustinianism (a term used by the esteemed historian Philip Schaff and others). I’m going to leave the endless hairsplitting for others. If you’re interested in engaging in such discussions, you can easily find them, but we’re not interested in that here.