So today we're going to start looking at another controversy of the early fifth century, that of Pelagianism. Some of you have likely heard this term before, particularly in its teachings of God's sovereignty that are in clear opposition to Calvinism. This is often considered a side debate of the early church, which I think is something of a pity. It's not considered a side debate because of the gravity of the topics discussed, but because of the near unanimity of the early church against Pelagianism. Although Pelagius' teachings were refuted in a council in Carthage, and later ecumenical councils, the debate did not engender a major split in the church like we've seen in a lot of previous controversies. So given this outcome, you might rightly ask, why spend any time on it at all? And if it wasn't that big of a deal in the fifth century for the church to combat it, then why does that term still get thrown around to this day? Well, surprisingly, while the early church was largely united in affirming the doctrine of God's sovereign will, it has not always been so afterwards. A number of influential teachers in the church have done much to undermine God's sovereignty in the name of defending man's free will, as we'll see in this lesson. This controversy caused the church to examine a number of fundamental questions, including in what state did God create Adam? And in what state was Adam after the fall? In what state was man descended from Adam after the fall? What's the role of Christ in salvation? And what's the role of man in salvation? These very important questions spilled over into one of the greatest questions of Western philosophy and theology. Does man have free will? And what does free will even really mean? Just as with the Donatist controversy, which we looked at the last few weeks, Augustine again is going to be the main defender of orthodoxy. Unlike last time, where he only managed to get baptism less wrong than the Donatists, his arguments against Pelagianism are where Augustine's theology shines. His deep understanding of the state of fallen man is in no small part why Calvin was so eager to embrace Augustine centuries later. Rather than starting with who Pelagius was and what he taught, we're going to do something a little different today. We're going to start with a story from Augustine's Confessions, wherein he recollects about a youthful indiscretion where he stole a neighbor's pears. This might seem like a strange way to talk about Pelagianism, but as we work through the story, we'll see how Augustine views man in his natural fallen state. Now, many have historically objected that this story just shows that Augustine was overly sensitive. I mean, is it really such a big deal to steal a few pears? This is, of course, the very crux of the debate. If a man can't even do good in the small things, like leaving alone a neighbor's pear tree, in what kind of wretched state is fallen man? Rather than Augustine being overly sensitive about his sin, I'm going to argue that I think most people are not sensitive enough. My hope is that these excerpts from the confessions might be an approachable introduction to the doctrines that we're going to look at. So if you want to put in front of you the handout that starts with the story of Augustine's poetry, we're going to read the first paragraph. There was a pear tree close to our own vineyard, heavily laden with fruit, which was not tempting, either for its color or for its flavor. Late one night, a group of scoundrels, and I among them, went to shake and rob this tree. We carried off a huge load of pears, not to eat ourselves, but to dump out to the hogs, after barely tasting some of them ourselves. Doing this pleased us all the more because it was forbidden. Such was my heart. O God, such was my heart, which thou didst pity even in that bottomless pit. Behold now, let my heart confess to thee what I was seeking there, when I was being gratuitously wanton, having no inducement to evil, But the evil itself. It was foul, and I loved it. I loved my own undoing. I loved my error. Not that for which I erred, but the error itself. A depraved soul, falling away from security in thee, to destruction in itself. Seeking nothing from the shameful deed, but shame itself." So why does Augustine say that he stole the pears? It doesn't seem like he was hungry. It's not even clear that he liked pears. Why did he steal the pears? Yeah, because he wasn't supposed to. It was purely for the fact of transgressing the law of God, right? He wasn't tempted by gluttony or quality of the pears. I mean they were thrown to the hogs and it doesn't seem like he cared much for the hogs either in the story. So how does he view the fallen state of man as he looks back at why he stole them? What does this anecdote from his early life teach him about the state of man and his natural fallenness? Yeah, he was depraved, right? That's right. He was transgressing purely for the sake of transgression. And I would say he even spoke more strongly, right? I mean, he knew that it was shameful what he was doing. And he said it was for the sake of shame itself. That the only thing in which he delighted was in bringing himself shame. So in his fallen state, Augustine wasn't tempted by evil, right? Some people think, you know, we're fundamentally good people, but sometimes we're tempted by evil. And he's saying, no, those pairs were not tempting at all. They weren't tempting in their flavor or their color or their appearance. There was nothing there to tempt me. I purely did it out of no inducement but the fact that I wished to do evil in my own heart. And the only joy I received was the joy of transgressing the law of God as a fallen man. Does that make sense? Yeah, he loved it. Does that make sense to people? So let's keep reading in the second paragraph in the handout, and let's see how Augustine himself analyzes his fallen state. He wrote, thus the soul seeks apart from thee what she cannot find pure and untainted until she returns to thee. All things thus imitate Thee, but pervertedly, when they separate themselves far from Thee and raise themselves up against Thee. But, even in this act of perverse imitation, they acknowledge Thee to be the Creator of all nature, and recognize that there is no place whither they can altogether separate themselves from Thee. What was it then that I loved in that theft? And wherein was I imitating my Lord, even in a corrupted and perverted way? Did I wish, if only by gesture, to rebel against thy law, even though I had no power to do so actually, so that even as a captive I might produce a sort of counterfeit liberty? By doing so with impunity deeds that were forbidden, in a deluded sense of omnipotence? Behold this servant of thine fleeing from his Lord and following a shadow. Oh rottenness, oh monstrousness of life and abyss of death. Could I find pleasure only in what was unlawful and only because it was unlawful? So in this excerpt, what is, what is Augustine saying about the freedom of fallen man, right? He talks about counterfeit liberty and being a rebel and yet also a captive. So what, what is he saying about the freedom of fallen man? It's fallen man free. You know, people will say, look, you know, as a, as a Christian, you have to do all these things, right? You're, you're, you know, you have to follow God's law. I don't, I don't want to follow God's law. I want to be free. Is, but as Augustine's saying, is, is natural man really free? I would argue he's saying no. Fallen man is not free, right? That's right. whether he was fighting against it and trying to put himself on the throne or not, he still knew there was... That's exactly it. And just to repeat the point he knew what he was doing was wrong. Right. He knew that he was transgressing God's law even though he was outside of God. Right. And this is really what he's saying that even in a perverted way he is in a sense still acknowledging God to be creator in his sin. Right. Because what is sin. Yeah Exactly transgression of her any lack of conformity to her transgression of the law of God, right? We all know her catechism. Well So the notion that sin exists requires the notion of God's holy law which sin is the transgression of So for him to say all I desire to do is evil is to acknowledge that there is a law of God Which can be transgressed, right? And in that sense, the fallen man is not at all free. He's just under the condemnation of the law. He's still under the law. He's just under the wrong side of it. Does that make sense? He acknowledges that he was a captive to the devil, and yet he imagined himself to be free. Now, we find similar themes in scripture itself, of course. Paul writes in Romans 7, And then continuing in verse 7, he writes, What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means. Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, you shall not covet. But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. So how does Paul relate the law and sin? you That's right, the law lets us see sin as sin, and he would even perhaps go further, right? He said he would not have known sin, he would have not known what it is to covet if the law had not said, you shall not covet. And then he says, that commandment produced in him all kinds of covetousness, right? Our natural state of desiring to not follow God, to rebel against God, means that when God has given the law, that our natural desire is not to follow the law, but to pervert the law and to transgress the law. Does that make sense? And then Paul rightly goes on a defense of the law, however, right? Perhaps people in the Roman church were arguing that, look, if that's your view of the Jewish law, then, you know, are you saying that the law is sinful? And he's saying, by no means. We're the ones who are sinful, right? Sin through us makes us want to transgress the law. The law itself is holy and perfect, right? Does that make sense? So just as Augustine, he stated that even Paul was desiring to do things for his own shame, right? That he knew that the law said that you shall not covet. And that aroused in him a desire to covet, right? So let's finish out the story of the pear tree and let's look at what Augustine has to say about man's state and sinfulness after being regenerated by the work of the Spirit. So reading in the third paragraph of the handout. What shall I render unto the Lord for the fact that while my memory recalls these things, my soul no longer fears them? I will love Thee, O Lord, and thank Thee, and confess to Thy name, because Thou hast put away from me such wicked and evil deeds. To Thy grace I attribute it, and to Thy mercy, that Thou hast melted away my sin as if it were ice. To thy grace also I attribute whatsoever evil I did not commit. For what might I not have done, loving sin as I did just for the sake of sinning? Yea, all the sins that I confess now to have been forgiven me, both those which I committed willfully and those which by thy providence I did not commit. What man is there who, when reflecting upon his own infirmity, dares to ascribe his chastity and innocence to his own powers, so that he would love thee less, as if he were in less need of thy mercy, in which thou forgivest the transgressions of those that return to thee? So what is Augustine saying is the proper response of a Christian upon receiving forgiveness for wanton acts against God's sovereignty and deliverance from those desires? What's the right response? An attitude of gratitude. That's right. Yeah. Gratitude. Right. He says I will love thee thank thee confess you that thy name. Right. We're to be thankful to God. In John 15 Jesus calls his flock to show their love by following his commandments as it is written. By this my father is glorified, that you bear much fruit and so prove to be my disciples. As the father has loved me, so I have loved you. Abide in my love. If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my father's commandments and abide in his love. So what are Augustine and John saying is the right place of works in the Christian life? So Augustine, it seems like from the quote, has a relatively low view of works in terms of trying to merit salvation. Augustine is saying, how could someone, when reflecting upon their own infirmity, ascribe chastity and innocence to their own powers that he should love God less? Augustine is saying, look, I have no power to make myself well. I just described how utterly depraved and sinful I was and how my only desire, my only love was my own shame. So I certainly can't ascribe any goodness in myself to my own power, right? And if I did that, that would cause me to love God less because I would be taking away things that God did for me and ascribing them to myself. Now, does that mean that we shouldn't do good works? That it doesn't matter, right? That God has providentially done everything and we don't need to desire to do good works? What does Jesus say here as John is recollecting Jesus' statements? What's the right role of works? The works were because of our salvation, because we have a heart of gratitude, and he commands us to love our neighbor and all the other things he commands us to do. So it's not to earn our salvation, it's because of our salvation that he's done, because of the works he's done, that our hearts should want to. That's exactly right, right? So just to repeat for the sake of the audio, we should desire to do good works in thankfulness for the works that have been done for us, right? Jesus said, if you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my father's commandments and abide in his love, right? So our works should come not out of a fear of God's wrath, or out of a desire to merit our own salvation, which we're wholly unable to do, and we're fully deserving of God's wrath regardless of our good works. It is out of a love of God. Jesus is imploring his sheep, if you love me, keep my commandments. Right? Does that make sense? So Augustine also is noting that the mortification of the flesh and the gift of sanctification is not a work of man, but of the indwelling spirit. Augustine notes that it's God who put away his wicked deeds. This relates to Romans 8 13 which reads for if you live according to the flesh you will die. But if by the spirit you put to death the deeds of the body you will live. The last thing that he notes is an interesting point that he's thanking God not only for his actual forgiveness for his actual sins that he committed, but what else is he thanking God for with regards to his sins? Sorry, could you speak up? Exactly. Yeah. Just to repeat the answer that's that's exactly right that that he's saying I think God not only for forgiveness for the sins that I have committed but thank him for restraining me from committing the sins that I would have committed were it not for his restraining providence. Does that make sense to people? Because he's saying, look, all I desired was my own shame, right? This is a common argument against the biblical view that you'll hear in the world, is they'll say, look, you think everyone's so bad, but I mean, not everyone is as bad as they could be, right? You can pick your favorite terrible person in history. Not everyone is Hitler, right? Not everyone is whomever, right? Sure That's not because of any indwelling goodness in us that is because God has restrained our evil in his good pleasure and Augustine is saying not only did I need forgiveness for my actual sins But I needed restraint for the sins that would have been actual sins had I not been restrained by God's providence. I So now that we have perhaps a better understanding on Augustine's views on sin and on man's ability to render works unto God, let's actually turn to the man of Pelagius. Before we get into what he taught, let's spend a couple minutes on historical backdrop. He was a British monk who appears first in the historical record as an ascetic living in Rome in the 380s. And he was particularly concerned about the moral laxity of the church. To Pelagius, there seemed to be a couple significant problems in the church. The first one was that he saw that there was easy believism in the state church of his day. If you remember back to a few lessons ago, this was right around the time of when Christianity became the state religion under Theodosius. Unbelievers and lukewarm Christians were flocking into the churches. And he saw that there were a lot of people in the churches who were sitting and listening to the word, and perhaps even taking of the sacraments, who he didn't see bearing good fruit. And he was more interested in a church that bore good fruit than a church which filled the pews. In this concern, he may have very well been right. Unfortunately, when he looked at what was going on and tried to identify the root of the problem, he identified the root of the problem as the teachings on grace by theologians like Augustine. He said they were downplaying the role of works in the life of the Christian believer. He said, look, if we cannot tie works to salvation, how can we make people do good works? Now, as we saw from scripture, not a very good way to approach works. But you can see where he was coming from and how he arrived at that point. And the reason I bring that up is not to try to justify Pelagius, but to explain why this is a constant problem in the church, right? It is a constant problem that people, when wishing to make people do good works, rather than trying to change hearts, wish to put the fear of God in people, even in going further than what scripture allows. And whenever we go further than what scripture allows, very, very bad consequences happen, which we'll see as we go through the theology of Pelagius. Understanding what Pelagius taught is done most simply by explaining how the Augustinian-Pelagian debate developed historically. The controversy started around some of the most famous words in Augustine's confessions. Augustine, in his confessions, as we've seen, delved into the depths of his own fallenness and frailty, told the story of his conversion as well as the anecdote of the pear tree, how he was saved not by his own merit, but by the sovereign grace of the Almighty God. In a foreword that he added later, he described the breakout of the Pelagian controversy as follows. This is quotation number one in the Pelagianism quotations handout for those who want to read along. Augustine wrote, although I published the confessions long before the Pelagian heresy had even begun to be, it is plain that in them I said to my God again and again, give what thou commandest and command what thou wilt. When these words of mine were repeated in Pelagius' presence in Rome, he could not bear them and contradicted them so excitedly that they nearly came to a quarrel. So before we continue reading, what is Augustine saying here in that famous writing, give what thou commandest and command what thou wilt? What's he getting across? So first, who is he saying should Determine what we do right he's saying that that goes to God right that God should command what he wills right. But what is he saying needs to proceed that. That's the that's the second clause in the sentence so what's what's the first clause in that sentence. Yeah, he's saying first, give what thou commandest. So that order that God should give what he commands and then command what he wills, what is that implying about man? Is man naturally able to do what God wills? No, right? He's saying that If God does not enable us by granting what he commands that we are utterly unable in our natural state to do what he wills. All Christians agree that God commands us to do good works but Augustine is saying that first God must grant us that ability to do what he commands. Now, where in Scripture do we see this? Well, I would argue in many places in Scripture. Perhaps one of the clearest is in Ephesians 2. If folks want to turn in their Bibles with me, we're going to read a passage here. I'm going to start in Ephesians 2, verse 1. And you were dead in the trespasses and sins in which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience, among whom we all once lived in the passions of our flesh, carrying out the desires of the body and the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, like the rest of mankind. But God, being rich in mercy, because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ. By grace, you have been saved and raised us up with him and sealed us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus. So that in the coming ages, he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness towards us in Christ Jesus. So what is Paul affirming about the natural state of man? Yeah, he's dead in his trespasses, right? Last I checked, dead men cannot do good works. Now, does Paul say that there were any who in their natural state were not dead in their trespasses? Because we're going to see Pelagius disagree with that. Paul says, no, we all once lived according to the passions of our own flesh, being by nature children of what? Yeah, children of wrath. And following up on the theme of us being dead, how does Paul describe the saving work of God? It's by grace, certainly. He talks about making us alive and raising us up to be seated in the heavenly places, right? He's using resurrection language to describe what was necessary to bring us out of our natural fallen state. Now one might ask where do these trespasses come from. Right. So a lot of people were going to see Pelagius and later theologians of the church say well those trespasses are our own actual sins that we've committed and certainly we have all committed actual sins that do merit God's wrath. But I'm going to argue that scripture has a little bit more expansive view of sin than perhaps even that. In 1 Corinthians 15.22, it is written, for as by a man came death, and by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. So hearkening back to Augustine's anecdote on the pear tree, The unregenerate man is in whom? Who is his head? Who is the unsaved man's head? Adam, right? It's saying, for as in Adam, all die. And by a man came death. Now, Paul also affirms that by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. And who is that man? Yeah, right, it's Christ, right? So, whom does Christ represent? Yeah, the elect, right? So, Paul is writing to the Corinthian Church and saying, in Christ shall all be made alive. Now, we always have to be a little careful about the word all. It's always a slightly tricky point in interpreting the New Testament. I believe he was writing to the church and saying, all of you, right? So these were people who were amongst God's church. And he's saying, all of you will be made alive. Does this make sense? So having unpacked this, let's, let's finish out the quote from Augustine. Let's finish out quote number one there. Now what indeed does God command, first and foremost, except that we believe in him? This faith, therefore, he himself gives, so that it is well said to him, give what thou commandest. I certainly declared there that God, by his grace, turns men's wills to the true faith, when they are not only averse to it, but actually adverse. So what is Augustine saying here on the relationship of faith and free will? Is he saying we need to make a choice for Jesus? That's right, that God has to change our hearts first, right? He's saying this is not just a matter of good works amongst churchmen, right, that are already saved. This is going to the core of how we are saved. That even with regards to faith itself, it is rightly said, give what thou commandest. That if God does not give us faith, He can command us faith as he wills it, but we are not empowered to actually have faith unless he gives us that faith which he commands. Does that make sense? He even goes further, right? He says, men are not naturally only averse or having a strong dislike of faith, right? He's saying that men are adverse to faith, right? That means they actively fight against faith. He's saying man is not inclined towards God in his natural state like we'll see Pelagius affirm. He's not ambivalent towards God like maybe a lot of agnostics would say. He's saying no. Natural man is in open revolt against God and his kingdom and his holy law. He hates God and is taking up arms against him. It is among rebels such as these that God chooses his faithful. They do not and cannot come to God apart from the predestined will of God. In describing the unregenerate man, the preacher Jonathan Edwards colorfully preached once, there are in the souls of wicked men those hellish principles reigning that would presently kindle and flame out into hellfire if it were not for God's restraints. So we see Jonathan Edwards echoing Augustine, right? In that Augustine was thanking God for the sins that he did not commit, right? Jonathan Edwards in describing the unregenerate man is saying that hellish principles reigned in our hearts and reign in the hearts of those who God has not elected. And that they would kindle and flame out into hellfire were it not for God's restraints. So we see that natural man cannot reach God of his own works. In fact any goodness in the natural man itself is solely due to the grace of God which restrains him and his wickedness. Speaking of the heart of unregenerate men, while many quote John 3.16, as well we should, many fewer continue the quote. If you read in verse 18, it is written, continuing John 3.16, it says, whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already. Because he has not believed in the name of the only son of God and this is the judgment The light has come into the world and the people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light lest his works should be exposed So we see John affirming that That the people loved the darkness, right? That we by nature wish to live in the darkness. Now one of the most common criticisms of this doctrine is that these teachings are harsh and unfair and make God unloving. Now, if people are opposed to the federal headship of Adam, wherein we all die in Adam's sins and we are all predisposed to evil, people say, look, I don't think that's right, that we should be judged based on other people's works. That's unloving and unfair and cruel. But what else gets undone if you undo that doctrine? Amen. Right. So just to repeat John's answer that if you don't want the imputed unrighteousness of Adam because you think imputed righteousness is a is unfair and unloving then you don't get the imputed righteousness of Christ either. Right? You undo the very work of Christ on the cross and the righteousness that is imputed to us and the salvation that was purchased at the price of his blood if you undo the doctrine of original sin in Adam. Does that make sense? So I think we'll conclude here. We'll continue on Pelagianism next week. Before we wrap up, does anyone have any questions or comments? All right, let us close in prayer then.