This series is from the From the Editor’s Desk column of the Sword and Trumpet. The articles were co-authored by Paul Emerson and myself.
The theological disagreement that we know today as the Arminian/Calvinist controversy is an age-old schism. It first revealed itself in a major way through Pelagius (circa 354-418 AD). We will attempt here to give a thumbnail sketch of Pelagius and his contribution to this debate. A British monk, he taught that man is essentially free and is expected to take charge of his own salvation. He saw human nature as basically good and not hampered by sinfulness. Thus, he denied any concept of original sin. Adam’s sin was solely his own; all humankind since are born without a sin nature. Pelagius taught that salvation is based on human merit. Though he did admit that God’s forgiveness flows out of His grace, he saw it as God’s response to inherent human goodness.
Augustine (with whom we disagree on several points) wrote strongly against Pelagius and Pelagianism. The conflict continued for a number of years and Pelagius was ultimately labeled a heretic by the Council of Carthage in 418. The pope condemned Pelagianism and expelled Pelagians from Rome. The church officially condemned Pelagianism at the Council of Ephesus in 431.
Pelagianism is generally considered heretical by Bible-believing Christians today. Not even the staunchest Arminians would accept such a label.
Semi-pelagianism was developed in an attempt to avoid the errors of Pelagius. It opposed both Pelagianism and Augustinianism. While the term “Semi-pelagianism” was not widely used until the 16th century, the concept predates the term. The important distinctive of Semi-pelagianism is the belief that man must make the first move toward salvation. As opposed to Pelagianism, Semi-pelagianism believes salvation is based on Christ’s merit, not man’s. But it still looks to man to make the first move toward God. Once man has reached out to God, God helps him reach the goal. In other words, man initiates and God responds.
Regarding sin nature, Pelagianism denies it entirely. Man is seen as able both to desire good and to do good. Salvation is based on man’s initiative and effort; grace is only necessary to compensate for his lack. Semi-pelagianism believes man is unable to do good, but he is able to make the first move toward God unaided by His grace. That is, man is sinful in deed but not in desire. Though he cannot do what is right on his own, he needs no divine aid to see his sin and come to God for salvation. Arminianism, by contrast, believes that man is sinful in deed and desire. It is not just the outside that needs cleansing. The soul itself needs to be changed. Grace is necessary both to overcome our sinful actions and to change our sinful hearts. Arminius himself defined human sinfulness as man’s inability to “think, will, or do anything truly good.” Thus grace is necessary both to cover man’s sinful behavior and to correct his sinful heart. While Arminianism is neither Pelagian or Semi-pelagian, it is important to note the historical stream from which it flows and to which it reacts.
As we seek to position ourselves squarely within Biblical truth it is beneficial see how error has developed in church history and how it has been dealt with. The controversy between Pelagius and Augustine helped pave the way for the Arminian/Calvinist controversy 1200 years later. While the issues and particularly the emphases were somewhat different, the subject matter was similar. We plan to further discuss the role Augustine played in this debate in the next installment.