Customer Reviews

Pelagius: A Historical and Theological Study

5 star:		(2)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Pelagius is a very strange case in church history. He has been universally condemned as a heretic since shortly after the time of Augustine, and is held up as one of the great heretics of the early church. However, very few people seem to actually examine what it is that Pelagius actually wrote. Instead, they look at what his opponents said about his views, which turn out to be serious distortions of Pelagius' teachings. Ferguson does an excellent job of separating claims made about Pelagius' teaching from what writings we still have of Pelagius (unfortunately, most were destroyed after his condemnation). A close examination of Pelagius' writings reveals that Pelagius did not actually teach the heresy so ofter attributed to him, namely that humans can earn their salvation.

The main point of controversy between Pelagius and Augustine was over the nature of human nature. Pelagius was shocked by Augustine's deterministic undertones in The Confessions, and connected the moral laxity in Rome with the view that we cannot help ourselves because our actions are determined by our sinful nature. Pelagius advocated the view that humans are born neutral (NOT inherently good, as many seem to think that he taught), with the capacity to freely choose to do good or evil. Human nature is not inherently sinful, or even prone toward sin, as Wesley would later teach. The reason we sin is not, as Augustine taught, that human nature was corrupted through Adam's sin, and thus we are now all born in bondage to our sinful nature. Rather, Adam's sin introduced into the world the bad example of sinful action, and we are born into a sinful environment which influences our neutral nature toward sin. The world, rather than human nature, is what is fallen. Since human nature is free to choose either good or evil (however prone it may be to sin because of the world in which it finds itself), it must be logically possible for a human to in each and every instance choose good, and thus not need to be redeemed by Christ. This teaching is the primary reason (along with the general emphasis on doing good) that Pelagius was represented as teaching that humans can earn salvation. This is not, however, what Pelagius was saying. He was saying that it was possible for someone to be in a state in which they did not need forgiveness, not because they could earn their own salvation, but because they were never in a state of needing salvation in the first place. A person who has not sinned has no need of salvation, for they have no sin to be saved from. Early on Pelagius thought that some Old Testament figures may have been sinless, but later he changed his mind and taught that there was probably no one but Christ who had been sinless, but that logically it must theoretically be possible for everyone to live a sinless life in order for God to be justified in condemning us for falling into sin.

Ferguson actually does not spend much time vindicating Pelagius, but he provides all the tools one needs to do so. He shows how much of the conflict between Pelagius and Augustine resulted not from Pelagius himself, but from his follower Celestius, who took Pelagius' teachings to extremes which Pelagius himself anathamatized. Unfortunately, Pelagius was unable to shake off the perceived connection with his former student, and Celestius' views were identified with Pelagius. Despite the fact that several councils found Pelagius innocent of heresy, Augustine became obsessed with the Pelagian "heresy," and eventually either Augustine or friends of Augustine influenced the emperor to ban Pelagius from Rome. In a series of farcical trials held in Africa (where Augustine had huge influence), Pelagius was condemned as a heretic, though Pelagius himself was not in attendance to defend himself. Soon, the condemnation was accepted by most of the church because of Augustine's influence and obsession, and eventually Pelagius was universally condemned as a heretic.

Ferguson does an excellent job of presenting the case of Pelagius as the tragedy it was. Pelagius had created his doctrine out of a desire to promote Christian morality in the face of the immoral (nominally) Christian society he saw in Rome. Despite vicious attacks on both his beliefs and his person (especially from Jerome, who hurled insults at Pelagius), he never condescended to insult his attackers. He ended up spending his last years writing a commentary on Song of Songs, and died completing his commentary on the book of Job.

Fegruson's work is not necessarily ground breaking; a few scholars have been attempting to defend Pelagius since the early 20th century. However, this was the best introduction to the issue that I have found, as it journeyed through both the theology of the principal characters as well as the chronological series of events which defined the debate. Ferguson clearly had done immense amounts of research to write this.

The only complaints I have against this book are the lack of translations (he frequently quoted writings in Latin without translating them, which is not especially helpful to someone who doesn't know much Latin) and the lack of evaluation of the thought of other modern scholars on Pelagius. I would have liked to see some sort of review of other views of Pelagius, but there is very little of this scattered througout the book.

Overall, I definitely recommend reading this. I discovered I was quite wrong about Pelagius, and now have significantly more respect and sympathy for him. While I do not argee with all of his views, I certainly do not think he deserves to be remembered as a great heretic. He affirmed that we are saved solely by the work of Christ, through no merit of our own, and, as far as I can tell, he did not deny anything essential to the faith. It is unfortunate that he was so misunderstood by his contemporaries, and that the church through the ages has uncritically accepted the misrepresentations of Pelagius created by his opponents.

This reading has confirmed my impression that Pelagius is wrongly and unjustifiably, as is James Arminius and Charles G. Finney, called a heretic by many. Ferguson shows that Pelagius' concern centered not on mere theoretical questions of theology for its own sake but rather on their moral implications (p.97). He also makes note of the little known fact that Augustine's doctrine of predestination was never really accepted as orthodox by the Church universal; the real heirs of Augustine were the "heretics" Luther and Calvin (p.184).

The author reviews the historical circumstances and the theological issues revolving around the controversy, which began when Pelagius, reading Augustine's prayer, felt it "minimized moral effort" and was evidently "asking God what He already granted to us" (p.181). Ferguson also analyzes Pelagius theology on several points, thus giving a more general and fair assessment of his thoughts as being orthodox. The author contends that Pelagius "did not regard himself as unorthodox. Nor does he suggest that his opponents are unorthodox. He regards the issues between them not as dogmatic, but as a legitimate difference of opinion on a matter concerning action in which there should be freedom of opinion" (p.91; this is similar to what Arminius' opinion was in controversy with his critics).

At one point the author suggests that while Pelagius' view of human nature was harsher than his critic's, Augustine's view of God was harsher than Pelagius'. This is especially so considering Augustine's views on divine predestination and his lack (if not absence) of understanding on divine love (p.100,176). Furthermore, from my perspective, Ferguson shows Pelagius to hold a more logically balanced view of man's moral responsibility and an equally, if not more, generous view of divine grace. In his treatise on the freedom of the will, the author asserts, "Pelagius concluded with his central and definitive assertion: man has always the freedom to sin or not sin, and always stands in need of the help of God."

It is unfortunate that there are virtually no books in English devoted to the thorough, scholarly, and objective study of Pelagius' person, history, and theology on the basis of his writings; nor is there any English translations of Pelagius' writings (at least, not that I know of). I can only suggest that those who hold a negative and harsh view of Pelagius read this book and see if their opinion remains opposed to him as both a Christian and an orthodox theologian.