The Problem with Pelagianism

Pelagius: The Monk who did it “his own way”

Background: Pelagius was a British Monk who was born around 354. “Pelagius was a moralist: his primary concern was for people to live good and decent lives. It seemed to him that an unduly negative view of human nature was having an unfortunate effect upon human behavior.” (Erickson, Christian Theology, p. 632) Pelagius traveled to Rome around 388,and was appalled at the moral laxity that seemed to be everywhere. In his opinion, the low state of affairs was due to a deficient presentation of grace, and a heavy focus on the Sovereignty of God, found primarily in Augustine’s teaching.

His Teaching: Pelagius taught that man was primarily responsible for his own salvation, instead of the biblical teaching of God having to take the initiative. “Pelagius taught that God holds man responsible only for those things that man is able to do. Since God warns us to do good, therefore, we must have the ability to do the good that God commands. The Pelagian position rejects the doctrine of “original sin” and maintains that sin consists only in separate sinful acts.” (Grudem, Systematic Theology, p. 499)

Pelagius taught that Adam’s sin only directly impacted Adam. His descendants were not adversely affected as in inheriting a sin nature. He believed that God creates each soul directly without the taint of Adam. Each person is therefore a moral neutral and is capable of choosing to do what is right in accordance with his or her own will - people do not need the Grace of God to do that which is right and good.

Scriptural Teaching:

; ; , , ,

It is clear from Scripture that man is born with a sin nature. He sins because that is his nature. All of Adam’s posterity was corrupted by the fall in the Garden. While the image of God was not eradicated, it was marred by sin. On our own, man cannot come to God - we must have grace!

The Results: As his teachings are contrary to Scripture and sub-Christian, Pelagius and his teachings were condemned repeatedly by several church councils.

Modern followers of Pelagius: Charles Finney

Charles Finney

Finney was a revivalist preacher in the 1820’s - 1830’s. He is known as the Father of the modern Revival Movement in America and was known as an innovator. Finney’s contributions to the modern evangelical church are still being felt today. “He was the first to ask converts to “come forward” in evangelistic meetings to indicate their acceptance of Christ. He is the one who first applied the term “revival” to evangelistic campaigns. It was Finney who popularized the after-meeting for inquirers seeking salvation. He also left his mark in the American preaching style, encouraging young preachers to be extemporaneous, anecdotal, more conversational and less doctrinal than preachers traditionally had been. All those ideas - pretty much standard fare in evangelicalism today - were part of the “new measures” Finney introduced.” (MacArthur, Ashamed of the Gospel, p. 233)

The problem is that Finney had a pragmatic outlook on revivals. He was of the opinion that if “something worked” then it was good. His mindset was to ensure that if the meeting was set up and operated in the correct way, the result would be sinners being converted. Finney himself stated, “There is nothing in religion beyond the ordinary powers of nature. A revival is not a miracle, nor dependent upon a miracle, in any sense. It is a purely philosophical result of the right use of the constituted means - as much so as any other effect produced by the application of means … a revival is as naturally a result of the use of means as a crop is of the use of its appropriate means.” (Charles Finney, Lectures on Revivals of Religion, pp. 4-5)

He reached these conclusions because he did not hold with the doctrine of original sin, and he could not accept the biblical concept of Christ imputing His perfect righteousness to a sinner for justification through faith. Finney was a lawyer prior to becoming a preacher, and he applied his legal understanding to the doctrine of the Atonement and Justification. His conclusion that no one could be justified by another person’s righteous (denying the imputed righteousness of Christ), and that Justification by faith could not result in a one-time, forever position of security (contra , and )

Sadly, the results of Finney’s own efforts were not long term and ended up leaving him disillusioned. “ The Western half of New York became known as the “burnt-over district,” because of the negative effects of the revivalist movement that culminated in Finney’s work there.” (Phillip R. Johnson, “A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing” accessed from the romans45.org website on 7/25/18)

The renowned Princeton theologian, B.B. Warfield wrote about the results of Finney’s revivals in his 1932, two volume work Perfectionism, a critique of Finney’s later teaching. In that work, Warfield analyzes the end result of Finney’s revivals by quoting Asa Mahan, one of Finney’s long-time partners in revival work in the New York area.

Asa described it as “everyone who was concerned in these revivals suffered a subsequent lapse: the people were left like a dead coal which could not be reignited; the pastors were shorn of all their spiritual power” (MacArthur, Ashamed of the Gospel, p. 234)

Take away from Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism.

First, we need be cautious in throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Not all of Finney’s teachings and innovations were bad things. He was over reacting to a cold orthodoxy of his day, but he allowed the pendulum to swing too far the other way.

Our methodology can and should change to reflect our present culture, but we dare not modify or alter the biblical teaching in an effort to gain results. Pragmatism is not a reliable approach to pleasing God in His holiness.

While we should have a desire to see people become Christians we must focus on the Role of the Holy Spirit in conversion. (,; ) If the Spirit is not convicting and drawing a person, we are not to attempt to manipulate the situation. (We often attempt this through music and emotional appeal in invitations)

f the Spirit is not convicting and drawing a person, we are not to attempt to manipulate the situation.