Free Will
The name of Pelagius has usually been associated with heresy. Was he a heretic for advocating free will? The controversy can best be understood by beginning with Augustine of Hippo (a town in modern-day Algeria, according to William J. Bennett’s book, Tried By Fire). This theologian is sometimes referred to as Augustin or St. Augustine (206).
Augustine (354-430) wrote two books that are still read and studied. Confessions concerns "the story of his journey to faith" (212). As a young man, he "developed an almost insatiable obsession with sex" (207). Among other things, he "lived with a concubine for a decade, having a child out of wedlock…" (208). He was successful in a worldly sense, but his mother always desired strongly that he become a Christian. His "conversion" is unlike any that one would read about in the New Testament. At age 32, his separation from God overwhelmed him (209). Hearing a child in the house next door chanting, Tolle, lege, tolle, lege (Latin for "Take up and read," he grabbed a Bible and at random read Romans 13:13-14, which says:
Let us walk properly as in the day, not in revelry and drunkenness, not in licentiousness and lewdness, not in strife and envy. But put on the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh, to fulfill its lusts.
He responded: "Instantly, as the sentence ended—by a light, as it were, of security infused into my heart—all of the gloom of doubt vanished away" (209-10). Bennett then adds his own comment: "Augustine had finally become a Christian" (210). The reader probably noticed the absence of words similar to the eunuch’s, such as, "See, here is water. What hinders me from being baptized?" (Acts 8:36). An Internet source named Midwest Augustinians adds that he was baptized by Ambrose on April 24, 387.
The other book of note that he wrote is The City of God, which he contrasts with The City of Man. Among other things, he wrote:
The city of humanity contrasts with the City of God: the struggles of secular human beings for sex, power, and possessions are juxtaposed with the condition of Christians who have surrendered their own desires and now regard themselves as journeying on a lifelong pilgrimage to the City of God (212).
Certainly Augustine is right in his contrasting the two cities, but one of his crucial points of philosophy we must object to—when he said that "all human beings, as well as all creation, were tainted with sin because of the Fall" (these are Bennett’s words—not a quote from Augustine himself) (213). The Fall changed many things, but it did not affect our free will.
Augustine acknowledges that the Fall came as a result of man having free will (213). Right. So, when mankind chooses to sin because of free will, then why take it away to explain why we sin? Free will is already the explanation. Why remove that and say we are born tainted with sin to explain further sins? Yet, that is precisely what Augustine (and a millennium later, John Calvin) did. In other words, if Adam sinned by virtue of having free will and not due to any tainting of the soul, then why could not Cain sin for the same reason? Why does Cain need to be tainted with sin to explain his sinful decisions? He does not, and in Genesis 4:7 God essentially tells him he has freedom of choice.
Pelagius
Enter Pelagius, who lived in the same time period. According to Wikipedia, he lived from about 360 to 418. He "was a theologian of British origin who advocated free will and asceticism." They add that "Pelagius denied Augustine's theory of original sin. His adherents cited Deuteronomy 24:16 in support of their position," which says, "The fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor shall the children be put to death for their fathers; a person shall be put to death for his own sin." Ezekiel would later record the same concept in 18:19-20. Bennett’s description of this controversy is most interesting. He writes:
As Pelagius looked around the church, he saw rampant immorality, and he decided that an overreliance on God’s grace was to blame for this kind of wantonness. Pelagius developed a theology that denied the existence of man’s inborn sinful nature. He believed that man was able to perform good works apart from God’s grace; will power was enough to avoid being tainted by sin (197).
What do these words mean?
1. They affirm that Augustine did believe and teach that man had an inborn sinful nature. (Sinful nature is one of the favorite phrases of the NIV, which erroneously uses these words instead of "flesh.") This idea is probably believed by most Catholics and Protestants. Pelagius was right to challenge it. All of us are born into a world tainted by sin, but we do not enter it tainted. What Moses wrote in Deuteronomy 24:16 and Ezekiel was told to speak by God in 18:20 is the truth. Everyone is condemned for his own sin—not his father’s, not Adam’s.
2. Pelagius saw rampant immorality in the church, yet this is the one realm where one would not expect to find much sin, if any. How can immorality among "Christians" be explained? It was the existence of such sin that led to Augustine’s "conversion." If a person is no better after conversion, what good is it? In Augustine’s case, he was willing to surrender these inordinate desires as he journeyed to the City of God. But what about the others? Why were they still participating in immorality when they were supposed to be "Christians"?
3. There was an overreliance on grace. Hmm. What does that mean? An overreliance on grace means this: "I am a Christian. And I sin. But God’s grace is so wonderful, so powerful, and so inclusive—that whatever sins I commit, His grace covers them up." Even though this idea is not quoted directly from Augustine, it is the teaching of Calvin, however. God’s grace is irresistible. He saved me. And once I am saved, I cannot lose that salvation (once saved, always saved). "So, if I am immoral, the grace of God covers me. And the more immoral I get, the greater His grace." Paul wrote that God should forbid that anyone should think this way (Rom. 6:1-2).
According to Wikipedia, "Pelagius was declared a heretic by the Council of Carthage. His interpretation of a doctrine of free will became known as Pelagianism" (418). So, if a Christian is having a Bible study with someone over free will and is accused of Pelagianism, this is what the controversy is all about.
Certainly Pelagius stood with the Scriptures in arguing against the "tainted soul" concept, which under Calvin became "hereditary total depravity." A true Calvinist believes that no one can do anything good on his own. He cannot even believe the gospel on his own. God has already decided who is going to be saved and who will be lost. So how does He save someone who is so depraved that he does not even have the power to believe or come to God?
God sends the Holy Spirit to make the heart receptive to His Word. This process is referred to as irresistible grace. Just as no one has the ability to read the Scriptures and obey God without His grace, so no one can resist God’s grace once it is extended. The point is that salvation is all on God. He decides who is saved (in fact, He did so even before creating us), and He decides who will be eternally lost. None of this has anything to do with us. We have nothing to decide. We just act in the play that God wrote.
If this is the case, then it does not matter how we behave after we are saved because God has already made the decision. Anyone who chooses to live immorally will be saved anyway. He may commit adultery once a week; he may steal from his fellow employees and his customers; he may get drunk every weekend and not have attended worship in years. But he is saved because God already determined it. Who can believe it?
If God makes up His mind about our destiny, and it has nothing to do with our behavior, we play absolutely no part in our salvation. So what credit should we receive? Why should we be rewarded as a Christian if we had nothing to do with procuring our future home? In fact, why should anyone be punished, either? On earth, we reward good behavior and punish bad behavior. Why? The reason is that we know people make choices. We build prisons to punish those who violate our laws. Students in a classroom can either behave or not behave. Those who misbehave are given a detention or sent to the principal’s office. Parents spank their children for bad behavior. All of these disciplinary efforts are predicated on the fact that adults, students, and children possess free will. But then Augustine and Calvin want to argue that God does not give us free will to obey or disobey Him? Who can believe it? The very pattern we use in the home, in schools, and society is based on the way God deals with us—as individuals possessing free will.
Good Works Apart from God’s Grace?
Although Pelagius is correct concerning the freedom God has given us concerning the moral and doctrinal choices we make (how we live and what we believe), did he go too far when he said that man does good works apart from God’s grace? It depends on what he meant. If he meant that non-Christians can choose to do good things, the answer is yes. The fact is that they can love their families, contribute in a positive way to the good of all, and even sacrifice their lives for others. How can they do such things if they are not Christians?
The answer is that Christianity and the Bible have influenced society and the world. The good principles that people live by come from God. When they are absent from any culture, it becomes far different than what we have grown up with. Consider Genesis 6:5 and 11. Ideas concerning goodness come from God, which results from His grace. Pelagius, therefore, may have overreached on this point, depending on what he meant.
The same is true with his statement about willpower. Can a non-Christian give up smoking or drinking alcoholic beverages on the basis of his own willpower? Yes; they do so all the time. So by a person’s own strength he can quit a sinful activity—or several practices. But can he, in the same way, keep from being tainted by sin? No. He’s already been tainted, or he would not have anything to repent of. Can he keep from being tainted after he makes that decision? He can do so only in certain areas. A person may, through the force of his own will, determine to quit participating in fornication or adultery—and never engage in it again. But is he no longer tainted by sin at all? Of course, he is. John writes that, if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us (1 John 1:8, 10).
We have all sinned (Rom. 3:23), and we will all continue to sin (although as a Christian, it is not intentional). We all need the grace of God, who gives us time to repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of our sins (Acts 2:38). Salvation is available only through God’s grace. We all need the blood of Jesus to wash away our sins. Jesus died on the cross so that we might be saved. God also gives us the choice to accept or reject that salvation. May we all freely choose to accept it.