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.