Are Calvinism's roots found in Pelagianism?

[HypoTypoSis]

Are some of Calvinism's roots in Pelagianism?
Or, at the least, Semi-Pelagianism?
There would also appear to be some Universalism/RCC thinking within Semi/Pelagianism.Pelagianism (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1E1-Pelagian.html)
Semi-Pelagians also rejected the Augustinian doctrine of predestination and held that God willed the salvation of all men equally. At the instance of St. Caesarius of Arles, Semi-Pelagianism was condemned at the Council of Orange (529). By the end of the 6th cent., Pelagianism disappeared as an organized heresy, but the questions of free will, predestination, and grace raised by Pelagianism have been the subject of theological controversy ever since (see Molina, Luis (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1E1-Molina-L.html) ; Arminius, Jacobus (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1E1-ArminiusJ.html) ). Pelagius' Expositions of Thirteen Epistles of St. Paul was edited in English by Alexander Souter (3 vol., 1922-31).

[JacobHall86]

They are in opposition to it.

Of course Calvinism vs Arminism is not as accurate as Augustine vs. Pelagus, but A and P are ECF so they are overlooked.

[arunma]

They are in opposition to it.

Of course Calvinism vs Arminism is not as accurate as Augustine vs. Pelagus, but A and P are ECF so they are overlooked.

Yes, this is an unfortunate consequence of modern Christianity. But personally, I've read more of Augustine than Calvin!

[DeaconDean]

Yes, this is an unfortunate consequence of modern Christianity. But personally, I've read more of Augustine than Calvin!

Hi Brother, one thing I was taught in my seminary classes by a very dear professor of mine, was that in order to make an informed decision, one must read not only all they get their hands on, but they must be willing to read the opposing viewpoint too. I have read most of Augustine, and I have studied Calvins "Institues." And nowhere in either one have I found evidence of Pelagianism. By definition, pelagianism is:

"It is a heresy dealing with the nature of man. Pelagius, whose family name was Morgan, taught that people had the ability to fulfill the commands of God by exercising the freedom of human will apart from the grace of God. In other words, a person's free will is totally capable of choosing God and/or to do good or bad without the aid of Divine intervention. Pelagianism teaches that man's nature is basically good. Thus it denies original sin, the doctrine that we have inherited a sinful nature from Adam. He said that Adam only hurt himself when he fell and all of his descendents were not affected by Adam's sin. Pelagius taught that a person is born with the same purity and moral abilities as Adam was when he was first made by God. He taught that people can choose God by the exercise of their free will and rational thought. God's grace, then, is merely an aid to help individuals come to Him."

I quote:


"Augustine's view of the Fall was opposed to both Pelagianism and Semi-Pelagianism. He said that mankind is a massa peccati, a "mess of sin," incapable of raising itself from spiritual death. For Augustine man can no more move or incline himself to God than an empty glass can fill itself. For Augustine the initial work of divine grace by which the soul is liberated from the bondage of sin is sovereign and operative. To be sure we cooperate with this grace, but only after the initial divine work of liberation. Augustine did not deny that fallen man still has a will and that the will is capable of making choices. He argued that fallen man still has a free will (liberium arbitrium) but has lost his moral liberty (libertas). The state of original sin leaves us in the wretched condition of being unable to refrain from sinning. We still are able to choose what we desire, but our desires remain chained by our evil impulses. He argued that the freedom that remains in the will always leads to sin. Thus in the flesh we are free only to sin, a hollow freedom indeed. It is freedom without liberty, a real moral bondage. True liberty can only come from without, from the work of God on the soul. Therefore we are not only partly dependent upon grace for our conversion but totally dependent upon grace."

However, Pelagian said:

"If man has the moral responsibility to obey the law of God, he must also have the moral ability to do it."

The basic Pelagian dispute was over the nature or original sin. Pelagius believed that the consequences of Adam's (and Eve's) sin were restricted to themselves only and, as a result, he denied the belief that original sin was passed on or transferred to the children of Adam and thus to the human race. His teaching was that human beings are born in a state of innocence with a nature that is as pure as that which Adam was given at his creation.

As a result of his basic assumption, he taught that man has an unimpaired ability to choose that which was spiritually good and possesses the will, within himself, to do that which is spiritually good. This is possible, because man is not affected by the original sin of Adam and Eve.

This gospel of salvation that resulted from the Pelagian belief was based on human works. Man could choose to follow the precepts of God and he could then follow those precepts because he had the power within himself to accomplish the task.
The controversy came to a head when Pelagian teaching came into contact with Augustine. Augustine did not deny that man had a will and that he could make choices. But, Augustine recognized that man did not have a free will in moral issues related to God, asserting that the original sin was passed to the children of Adam and Eve and that the state of man was in a wretched condition, being unable to refrain from sin. Man could choose what he desired, but those desires were corrupted and influenced by the sin that was within.
Pelagianism gave birth to semi-Pelagianism. Although there are differences in the two doctrines, they are very much related and ultimately teach that man has the ability to choose or cooperate with the grace of God. Whereas Pelagianism denied that original sin had any effect on the descendants of Adam and Eve, semi-Pelagianism does not deny that man suffers from the effects of the fall and is considered fallen. However, semi-Pelagianism asserts that there is within the human character an inherent ability to choose or reject the precepts of God. The Grace of God, as extended to the individual, can have no effect unless in accepted by the individual or unless the individual cooperates with that offer by the use of the will.

The heresy in both Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism is the assertion that the will or choice of man takes precedence over the action or sovereignty of God. Both doctrines place God in the secondary position and elevate man to the primary. The actions of man determine the reaction and direction which God will take and, therefore, God is dethroned and man is elevated to the throne of his will.

Out of Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism, came the Arminian theology developed by Jacobus Arminius. Like semi-Pelagianism, Arminianism recognizes the fallen condition of man, but asserts that God grants a type of common grace that overcomes the effects of that fallen condition to the extent that allows man to exercise an ability to choose the precepts of God that is not affected by that fall. Just like in the doctrines of Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism, Arminianism proposes a belief that is not supported in scripture. There is no teaching in the Scripture that supports the idea of a "common grace" that is granted to man, allowing him to choose the precepts of God.

Arminianism is the primary doctrine held by Methodists, many Baptists and those in Pentecostal and other charismatic groups. Arminianism is not necessarily considered to be heretical in nature, but it is certainly a false teaching, because of the assertion that God grants the common grace, something that is not taught in the Scripture and is appended from the outside. However, Arminianism does border on heresy because it places the choice of man above the sovereignty of God and makes God respond and react to the choice and will of man instead of man responding and reacting to the sovereignty of God.

There is the teaching in the Scripture that man has the ability to choose and is responsible for at least the rejection of the gospel message. At the same time, the Scripture teaches that God is sovereign in salvation and brings it about by His will and not the will of man. How this ability to choose is reconciled to the sovereignty of God is not explained in the Scripture and the difficulty of resolving the opposite teachings must be left to God.

From John Calvin's Institutes of Christian Religion, I quote:

"Book II, Chpt. 1:

Therefore original sin is seen to be an hereditary depravity and corruption of our nature diffused into all parts of the soul . . . wherefore those who have defined original sin as the lack of the original righteousness with which we should have been endowed, no doubt include, by implication, the whole fact of the matter, but they have not fully expressed the positive energy of this sin. For our nature is not merely bereft of good, but is so productive of every kind of evil that it cannot be inactive. Those who have called it concupiscence [a strong, especially sexual desire, lust] have used a word by no means wide of the mark, if it were added (and this is what many do not concede) that whatever is in man from intellect to will, from the soul to the flesh, is all defiled and crammed with concupiscence; or, to sum it up briefly, that the whole man is in himself nothing but concupiscence. . . ."

From:

Book II, Chpt. 3

"3. Objection, that some of the heathen were possessed of admirable endowments, and, therefore, that the nature of man is not entirely corrupt. Answer, Corruption is not entirely removed, but only inwardly restrained. Explanation of this answer.

Here, again we are met with a question very much the same as that which was previously solved. In every age there have been some who, under the guidance of nature, were all their lives devoted to virtue. It is of no consequence, that many blots may be detected in their conduct; by the mere study of virtue, they evinced that there was somewhat of purity in their nature. The value which virtues of this kind have in the sight of God will be considered more fully when we treat of the merit of works. Meanwhile however, it will be proper to consider it in this place also, in so far as necessary for the exposition of the subject in hand. Such examples, then, seem to warn us against supposing that the nature of man is utterly vicious, since, under its guidance, some have not only excelled in illustrious deeds, but conducted themselves most honourably through the whole course of their lives. But we ought to consider, that, notwithstanding of the corruption of our nature, there is some room for divine grace, such grace as, without purifying it, may lay it under internal restraint. For, did the Lord let every mind loose to wanton in its lusts, doubtless there is not a man who would not show that his nature is capable of all the crimes with which Paul charges it, (Rom. 3 compared with Ps. 14: 3, &c.) What? Can you exempt yourself from the number of those whose feet are swift to shed blood; whose hands are foul with rapine and murder; whose throats are like open sepulchres; whose tongues are deceitful; whose lips are venomous; whose actions are useless, unjust, rotten, deadly; whose soul is without God; whose inward parts are full of wickedness; whose eyes are on the watch for deception; whose minds are prepared for insult; whose every part, in short, is framed for endless deeds of wickedness? If every soul is capable of such abominations, (and the Apostle declares this boldly,) it is surely easy to see what the result would be, if the Lord were to permit human passion to follow its bent. No ravenous beast would rush so furiously, no stream, however rapid and violent, so impetuously burst its banks. In the elect, God cures these diseases in the mode which will shortly be explained; in others, he only lays them under such restraint as may prevent them from breaking forth to a degree incompatible with the preservation of the established order of things. Hence, how much soever men may disguise their impurity, some are restrained only by shame, others by a fear of the laws, from breaking out into many kinds of wickedness. Some aspire to an honest life, as deeming it most conducive to their interest, while others are raised above the vulgar lot, that, by the dignity of their station, they may keep inferiors to their duty. Thus God, by his providence, curbs the perverseness of nature, preventing it from breaking forth into action, yet without rendering it inwardly pure."


So I ask, with the evidence given here, how can one rightfully say that John Calvin's roots are found in Pelagianism? If anything, Calvin refutes Pelagian's theory.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[Theophorus]

Calvin's roots are found in Augustine, who directly took on this heresy until his death.

[DeaconDean]

Calvin's roots are found in Augustine, who directly took on this heresy until his death.

So I guess King David was lying when he penned:

"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." -Psa. 51:5

So original sin is heresy? And Paul taught heresy. Hum...

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world,(Adam's original sin of disobeying God, Gen. 3:17-19) and death by sin; (for the wages of sin is death Rom. 6:23) and so death passed upon all men, (For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God, Rom. 3:23) for that all have sinned:" -Rom. 5:12

As Artie Johnson used to say: "Interesting, veryyyy interesting."

As Homer Simpson would say: "D-ooh!" :doh: :doh:

taken from: www.apuritansmind.com (http://www.apuritansmind.com)

Heresy in the Church
A look at some bad doctrine going around Christendom.

What is Heresy?:
The word "heresy" admits a threefold signification and use. 1) Sometimes it is taken for any new and select opinion, contrary to the common and usually-received opinions of other men; in which the word "heresy" may sometimes bear a good construction, Acts 24:14, "For after that which the Jews called heresy, did Paul worship the God of his fathers." 2) Sometimes it is taken for any false opinion whatsoever, wherein a person recedes from any divine truth, and, thereby, creates division, sects, and contentions. 3) But strictly among divines, it is taken for some notorious, false, and perverse opinion, opposing and subverting the faith once delivered to the saints, as Jude says, or overthrowing the form of wholesome words, as Paul says.
Thus, it may be described: "Heresy is an erroneous or false opinion, repugnant unto and subverting the doctrine of faith revealed in the Word as necessary unto salvation; and obstinately maintained and perniciously adhered unto by a professed Christian.
To make an erroneous opinion amount to heresy, two things must occur: 1) The error must be about faith; matters of divine faith. 2) It must be against the faith. This type of error is heresy two fold: 1) When it is not concordant to every truth in Scripture, and 2) When it is repugnant to the truth, or any truth, which is necessary to salvation, and here, no doubt, the error against faith will prove to be heresy.
Of the Danger of Heresies:
1) The Scriptures charge sin, perniciousness, and damnation upon them. Paul reckons them among those works of the flesh which shut persons out of the Kingdom of God (Galatians 5:20-21). Peter calls them pernicious and damnable, and such as bring swift destruction; and, speaking of the authors of them, he says that their damnation slumbers not (2 Peter 2:1-3).
2) Heresies are compared in Scripture sometimes to gangrene or canker, 2 Timothy 2:17, "Their word will eat as doth a canker." The canker is an invading ulcer, creeping from joint to joint, corrupting one part after another till, at length, it eats out the very heart and life.
3) Jesus Christ and His apostles give special charges and caveats against them, to take heed and beware of them, which they never would have done had they not been dangerous. Mark 8:15, "Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees." Matthew 7:15, "Beware of False Prophets." Philippians 3:2, "Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision." 2 Peter 3:17, "Beware, lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own steadfastness."
10 chief heresies:
1) The Scriptures of the Old and New Testament do not bind us Christians.
2) That God never loved one man more than another before the world, and that all the decrees are conditional.
3) That there is no original sin.
4) That the will of man is still free.
5) That the saints may fall totally and finally from grace.
6) That Christ died alike for all, yea, that his salvific virtue of His death extends to all the reprobates as well as the elect, yea, to the very devils as well as unto men.
7) That Jesus Christ came into the world not for satisfaction, but for publication; not to procure for us and to us the love of God, but only to be a glorious Publisher of the Gospel.
8) That God is not displeased at all if His children sin.
9) That the doctrine of repentance is a soul destroying doctrine.
10) That the souls of men are not immortal but mortal.

Take Heed:
Let everyone take heed lest he be carried away with any part of this flood of heresy. Be on guard that you are not light or proud Christians. Be on guard that you are not loose Christians. If ungodliness is in the heart, it will not be hard for error to get into the head. Take heed that you are not weak Christians. Take heed that you are not , worldly, nor hypocritical, nor unstable. Let everyone strengthen his soul that he may stand and withstand, and not be carried away. Take all in word: A judgment solidly principled, a heart sincerely renewed, a faith truly bottomed, truth and love of it cordially matched; profession and practice well joined, a fear of ourselves and dependence upon God still maintained, God's ordinances and the society of the humble and growing Christians still frequented, watchfulness and prayer still continued are the best directives that I can deliver to keep us in the truth, and the best preservatives that I know to keep us from error.
Obadiah Sedgwick is biblically correct. The information above ought to be wisely heeded. Heresy is cancer of the mind. It destroys churches, souls, pastors, deacons, men, women, and the children who grow up to be them. It has infected contemporary Christendom more than most are aware of, simply because they are not reading their Bibles. May the God of understanding bring those who are in error to the truth of His Word, for the glory of His Son.

"My people are destroyed for a lack of knowledge" Hosea 4:6.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/PuritanWorship/HeresyInTheChurch.htm

These are not my words, so don't come complaining to me if you disagree. But there are tid-bits of truth there.

So if Augustine, Luther, and Calvin (are heretics, as well as myself) since they (and me) perpetuate heresy by teaching orginal sin, not to mention Paul and David, then I guess, just a shot in the dark here, by your standards (original sin=heresy) that would make Pelegian and Jacobus Arminus saints? Since they taught exactly opposite than these men. Hum....

this heresy

To the EOC, heresy. To the Baptist, (at least me anyway) truth!

I gotta make a note of that one. Just goes to show you learn something new every day!

When, oh when am I going to learn not to take this forum so serious? :scratch:

Oh well, in any case, God Bless you brother in your convictions.

God Bless

Till all are one.

[HypoTypoSis]

Out of Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism, came the Arminian theology
This being aptly demonstrated it would seem, also, coming out of this we see, too, the roots, or genesis, of what Calvin later reasoned.

The difficulty is understanding how free will and free choice can exist if God did more than foreknow who would later exercise that free will to freely choose.

To predestine one to something based upon the choices they will eventually make is totally different than an active force determining what one will eventually do.

Just as no one comes to the Father but through the Son none come to the Son but that the Father first draw them and this must first be predicated by one's setting aside their pride and assuming a submissive state of the will that they may, indeed, be drawn.

The implausibility of predestination being a controlling or over riding of the will is tantamount, in its own way, to the inane belief that 144,000 JW's will go to heaven but the multi-millions of JW's cannot tell if they are among the 144k.

The question could be posited, does the atomic bomb find its roots in WW 2? Obviously, WW 2 did not 'cause' the atomic bomb to come to be but the bomb did, nonetheless, come out of WW 2.

By the same token, because of the Pelagian - Semi-Pelagian issue both Arminianism and Calvinsim do appear to have roots that sprang forth as a result of that problematic issue of the times and, as quoted in the the OP,

"the questions of free will, predestination, and grace raised by Pelagianism have been the subject of theological controversy ever since."


Now, if the Semi-Pelagians were rejecting the pre-Calvinist concept of a "predestination that over ruled free will" there does not appear to be a problem, at least, not from an Arminian view.

"Semi-Pelagians also rejected the Augustinian doctrine of predestination and held that God willed the salvation of all men equally"

However, holding to the concept that "God willed the salvation of all men equally" would seem to deny this for, in effect, what we see here is an embrace of Universalism which has its own built in problematic contradiction with respect to Augustine and the Catholic Church as since this was something that was not only widely prevalent in Paul's time as well as the period of the early state church but, also, evidenced in both the concept of Purgatory and the Universalist belief in eternal torment.

[wmc1982]

the roots were in Calvin's brain :doh: ^_^

[wmc1982]

most Baptists are Calvanist, some people don't know that

[Theophorus]

So I guess King David was lying when he penned:

"Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." -Psa. 51:5

So original sin is heresy? And Paul taught heresy. Hum...

Original sin is not heresy. Psalm 50 (LXX) is probably the most recited psalm in Orthodoxy :). We have our views of that verse, not too different than you own.



To the EOC, heresy. To the Baptist, (at least me anyway) truth!

I gotta make a note of that one. Just goes to show you learn something new every day!

When, oh when am I going to learn not to take this forum so serious? :scratch:

Oh well, in any case, God Bless you brother in your convictions.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I was referring to Pelagius.