The Gospel...A History Lesson Part 2

The failure of the church to learn from the past has caused a multitude of problems with regard to false teaching and heresy creeping into, then hanging around within, the church.    The heresy of Arius was thought to be dead until it was brought back to life through the teaching of the Jehovah's Witnesses.  Granted, this heresy is not even remotely orthodox so it cannot be classified as false teaching within the church.  However, had the church in the late 19th century took a stand, this soul damning false teaching may not be nearly as prevalent as it is.  

In the 5th century, another heresy sprang up, from within and not outside of the church, that was quickly squashed by the early church fathers.  There are pockets of this teaching, sporadic at best, that are still around to this day.  However, after initially being defeated by the early church, it re-emerged later with some modifications.  That mutated, metastasized version is still very much alive and kicking, within and outside the church.  It is the forerunner of the works-based system within the Roman Catholic Church, as we will see as we move along.  It is also the dominant view within the Protestant church as well, if people will be completely honest about the situation.

"If I ought, I can."

Those words were uttered by the 5th century British monk, Pelagius.  He broke onto the scene when he became exercised over a prayer that was circulating around the Christian world.  That prayer was written by Aurelius Augustine, also known as St. Augustine of Hippo.  He was the preeminent church leader at this time.  The prayer simply stated this:

"Lord, give what Thou commandest, and command what Thou wilt."

Pelagius took a massive amount of exception to that statement.  He believed that God would never command mankind to do something that they were incapable of doing through  the power of their own free will.  He also believed that man was not completely and totally corrupted by sin through the fall.  Man could still do things, through his own free will, to please God.  No one was contaminated by sin through the fall.  Adam was responsible for his sin and his alone.  Sin, and it's corruption, was not passed on to Adam's posterity.  Men were not born in sin.  According to Pelagius, a baby was born TABULA RASA, which is Latin.  That phrase translated means A BLANK SHEET OF PAPER.  In other words, Pelagius believed that every baby was born totally and perfectly capable of obeying and pleasing God through its own free will.  He denied the doctrine of Original Sin. 

As this controversy progressed, it became clear that this wasn't merely a squabble over minute details and words.  The arguments struck to the very core of Christianity.  It called into question the nature of God, man and, ultimately, the gospel.  The arguments became more crisp and what was at stake came into focus:  Does mankind need God's grace to stand before Him in righteousness?

Pelagius said no.  God's grace is nice but it is not necessary.  Man can exercise his will, obey God and choose not to sin.  Augustine said yes.  Man is dead in sin, ruined in Adam.  Man is completely dependent on God's grace and can do nothing apart from it.

Augustine's prayer was, for lack of better terminology, a plea for help.  He realized that everything in our life depended on grace.  Basically, he was saying, "God, you command us to do this; grant us the ability and help us to do this.  God, you command us to do that; grant us the ability and teach us how to do that."  This thinking was ridiculous according to Pelagius because he believed that man already had the ability within himself to do all these things.  To ask God to grant the ability to do what man was already able to do was belittling and stupid.  We were not that dependent on God to need to ask for His grace to do anything.  In other words, Pelagius believed that to ask God to grant us grace to do anything was an affront to human nature because humans were capable to do anything God commanded. He was a humanist, a moralist.  Front and center, now in the church, were the humanistic teachings of the Greco-Roman empire, with the doctrine of the natural ability of man, that had been a major influence for centuries.

Pelagius, because of his humanism, believed that man was born perfect.  Man was not tied to the sin of Adam.  Adam was responsible for his sin.  Man was responsible for his.  He was completely capable of obeying God.  Of course, there were those people who did choose to sin and the death of Jesus on the cross was beneficial to them.  With a mental understanding, man could then use his own intelligence and free will to choose forgiveness without any kind of NECESSARY influence outside of himself.  NECESSARY is the key word here. 

What Pelagius believed and taught is flatly rejected by the testimony of Scripture.  Scripture plainly teaches that because of Adam's first sin, he died spiritually and physically as well.  Because of that sin, all mankind carries a corrupt nature and the guilt of it is passed on to his posterity; namely, all mankind.  If you deny this doctrine, known as Original Sin, and deny the fact that man is dead in trespasses and sin then there is going to be problems.  If you deny the effect of Adam's sin on his posterity and believe that each individual is created with the same capacity as Adam then everything else you believe and build upon that foundation is going to be wrong, too.  The logical conclusion to this teaching, that man is born in the same way that Adam was created, is that man does not need a Savior.  Only a sinner needs a Savior.

Pelagius rejected the doctrine of Original Sin.  Adam sinned for Adam and no one else.  His sin did not pass on to the rest of man.  Each individual man was born with the same clean slate as Adam.  Sin was not inevitable.  He even taught that there were many people who never sinned.  Of course, the question becomes, "Well, did these sinless people die?"  Pelagius taught that these people would have died anyway.  Adam would have done the same.  He was created as a mortal being and would have died even if he had not sinned.  By putting together his belief that man's will is not subject to the consequences of the fall and the denial of a corrupt, sinful nature, Pelagius effectively made salvation by grace through faith unnecessary.

In 412 AD, the Council of Carthage was convened to address this issue.  Both sides of the argument were there to make their case for their beliefs.  The Council overwhelmingly agreed with Augustine.  They concluded that the Word does teach that men are conceived and created in sin.

Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity,
And in sin my mother conceived me...(Psalm 51:5)

Man's will is not free as Pelagius taught but is bound up and held in bondage to the sin nature present in every individual.  Men will choose according to their nature when they are unregenerate.  Men will ALWAYS choose according to their nature unless God moves.

Pelagius and his followers were declared heretics.  In part, the Council said:

Whoever says that Adam was created mortal and would, even without sin, have died by natural necessity, let him be anathema...(Council of Carthage 412 AD)
                                                   
Romans 6:23 says that the wages of sin is death.  Wages are something you earn.  Because of our disobedience, death was what was earned.  It was the wage. One of the main proofs of the fact that we are sinners is because we die physically, since we are living in a state of spiritual death as well.  The teaching of Pelagius that man was going to die anyway removes the biblical evidence for God having the warrant to place the curse of death on man for his disobedience.  If un-fallen man was going to die anyway then God making the claim and threatening that "the wages of sin is death" becomes goofy and gobbledygook.  

In today's "church", where anything and everything goes, it's the height of arrogance and "not Christ like" to pronounce any kind of judgement or curse on anybody.  But, the council realized the importance of what was being taught.  This issue changed the gospel, plain and simple.  The "anathema" was taken from Galatians 1:

But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!  As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!  (Galatians 1:8-9)

The word translated accursed is the Greek word anathema.  It means exactly what the translation says...accursed.  Doomed to destruction.  Without hope of being redeemed.  Basically, Paul was saying they were going to hell and to let them go.  They were cut off from salvation or the possibility of being saved.  In a broader sense, he was also saying it was to "cut them off" from the church, from being able to teach in the church so as to lead souls to destruction through heretical teaching.

There were 3 different councils that condemned Pelagianism in all its forms.  6 years after the council of Carthage, a general council of African churches reaffirmed what the council of Carthage stated.  But, in the time between Carthage and the general council, Zosimus, the bishop of Rome, sided with Pelagius and what he taught.  He wrote a letter in 412 condemning the Council of Carthage, its anathema of Pelagius and what it concluded.  The council disregarded Zosimus and his letter, knowing that the Scripture was on their side.

Church historian Philip Schaff stated:

This temporary favor of the Bishop of Rome towards the Pelagian heresy is a significant presage of the indulgence of later popes for Pelagianizing tendencies.

History of the Christian Church
Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.
Volume III
P. 798 

It was these Pelagian beliefs, advocated by the Bishop of Rome, that led to the development of the works righteousness system of the RCC.  We will launch from there in the next round.  It is not going to be an RCC bash session but the history will help to explain the need for the Reformation and beyond.

The Gospel...A History Lesson Part 1

As I was thinking about how to move on from one petal on the TULIP to another, I realized that I couldn't just yet.  We need to do a little history lesson.  This post, and the next 1 or 2 that follow, should've been how I started this series.  For that, I apologize because I'm afraid that this may be a confusing point to insert this bit of information.  It is, however, going to be good information that'll help give understanding where it may be lacking.  It may also be the revelation of some new understanding, which was my case.  I have learned new things through studying for this series of posts.  The historical information in this post has been taken almost entirely from a set of videos I found on you tube called Amazing Grace:  The History and Theology of Calvinism.  They are produced by theapologeticsgroup.com, a website that was created by Eric Holmberg, the host / narrator in this series.  They are probably the best I have seen on this topic.  Thanks to my friend Doug Gilliland for telling me about them.  

Paul told the Ephesians as he was preparing to leave them:

I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.  (Acts 20:29-30)

Paul knew that people from without, and within the church, would come and begin to teach things that were not in accordance with "the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints"  (Jude 3).  That is exactly what began to transpire.

Ever hear of the JW's?  Jehovah's Witnesses?  The heresy they teach is nothing new.  The teaching that Jesus was not God and a created being was proposed and taught long before the Jehovah's Witnesses were even a thought in anyone's mind.  Arianism was unleashed on the church by a man named Arius in the 4th century.  He taught that Jesus was a created being and not divine, just like the JW's.  In 325 AD, a meeting in the city of Nicea, consisting of more than 300 leaders of the church, was convened to discuss this teaching of Arius.  The council concluded that Arius' teaching was heresy and he was condemned as a false teacher.  Athanasius led the charge, the heresy was defeated and, for the most part, put in check in just a few years.  That is where it stayed for many years....defeated.  This is pure speculation on my part but I can only assume that this teaching raised it's head from time to time throughout the years.  But it didn't make a "comeback" until a group of students, led by Charles Taze Russell in the late 19th century, began a bible study and published what they were "learning" in a journal called The Watchtower--Announcing Jehovah's Kingdom.  Had the leadership of the church did in modern times what the leadership did in the time of Arius, the heresy of the JW's would have been squashed.  But, and this is just personal opinion, the churches at large were already infected by horrible doctrine and couldn't take a stand against this or anything else for that matter.  They had not learned from their past.  That is the problem.

At this point, the video made a very good point.  Tradition and church councils do not trump or override Scripture.  R.C. Sproul, who has since passed on to glory, said this:

"Although tradition does not rule our interpretation, it does guide it.  If, upon reading a particular passage, you have come up with an interpretation that has escaped the notice of every other Christian for two thousand years, or has been championed by universally recognized heretics, chances are pretty good that you had better abandon your interpretation"
         
Dr. R.C. Sproul
The Agony of Deceit, pp. 34-35

Protestant churches today, except for the confessional churches such as confessional Lutherans and Presbyterians, do not recite the old creeds of the church fathers and councils from ages past.  Those churches will tell you that they HOLD to these confessions but you will not hear those confessions recited or taught. Why?  I think sometimes it is merely an oversight.  I know solid churches where the biblical gospel is preached and the Scripture is taught and held in high regard but creeds and confessions are not recited, studied or taught.  But then there are churches that intentionally stay away from them.  People who intentionally do not read early church fathers or attempt to learn from them.  Why is this?

People who are raised in a situation that is very rules oriented, strict, overbearing and critical will either become the same way or will have a response of swinging to the other side and be more likely to let things slide and give the benefit of the doubt, even when it may not be the best course of action.  This is because they are trying to be charitable to other people and do not want to offend or hurt.  They do not want to become what they didn't like.  People coming out of churches like this will either embrace that or they will go in the opposite direction.  They may not necessarily go into lawlessness but they will most definitely have a soft edge.  They have been confronted so much and called to the carpet so much that they will be non-confrontational and too forgiving.  In an attempt to keep the peace, things that should be addressed are swept under the rug.  In much the same way, in an attempt to distance themselves from the Roman Catholic Church, which adopted the confessions, creeds and traditions to a fault and elevated them to a status on par with, or even above, Scripture, Protestant churches went in the complete opposite direction, ignoring church history altogether.  This mistake in judgment has been to the detriment of the church as a whole.  Philosopher George Santayana said many years ago:

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it".

This holds true to the church.  If the church cannot remember where it has been; if the church will not remember and learn from the men who have gone before; if the church refuses to hold on to the truths from the past then when some new type of heretical thinking comes our way, which is really not a new type of heretical thinking but something from the past under a different name, the church is caught off guard and horrid teaching is allowed in.  You need look no further than the Word of Faith movement (Montanism and metaphysical cults), the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) movement (Montanism), the progressive (Read:  Emergent church, liberal "christianity") movement (thank you Enlightenment).  These sects teach heresy, plain and simple.  And they are mainstream.  Their ideas have infiltrated to a staggering degree.  Yet, the church slumbers away.  

The list could go on and on.  When people say, "Well, I don't need to study commentaries from old, dead guys...I'll just let the Spirit tell me what that means", there's going to be trouble.  Yes, the Spirit is to lead us and illuminate the truth.  But it is not always the Spirit that is leading your understanding, especially if you are coming at the Word or a topic with a decided bent already.  The "spirit" will make the thing mean or say what you want it to mean or say.  It's arrogant to the core to think you don't need to read what those who have gone before think on a subject.  That type of thinking has caused much damage to individuals in particular and the church at large.