Pelagius is biblically, ideologically and spiritually farsighted, in that he cannot see clearly the radical depravity of fallen mortals (and that condition being due to an inherited state of nature transmitted from the fall of Adam our father); and he is also biblically, spiritually and theologically nearsighted, in that he cannot see clearly the utter holiness of God that demands sinless perfection for one to approach Him.
I think Dr. Ali Bonner is right, in her The Myth of Pelagianism, in concluding that Pelagius did not invent any new doctrine. The theology of Pelagius comprises what he had learned in the church of his upbringing. If Pelagius is to be condemned, therefore, then all of the early Greek Church fathers who maintained that brand of absolute Free Will theology (devoid of well-developed doctrines such as Original Sin, Radical Depravity, and Effectual Grace) are also to be condemned as rank heretics. Those opposed to the theology of Augustine of Hippo, as well as to Reformed theology / Calvinism, are, then, right to ask and to challenge: If the early fathers did not espouse any semblance of Augustinianism proper then how is Augustine's theology biblical? I will answer that question, as best to my ability, below. Suffice to say at this point, though, that Christian theology was being slowly developed through Church history. Often a doctrine was not formally and fully developed until a particular heresy arose in the culture or Church community. Issues of Grace and Free Will, Election and Predestination, as well as the effects of Depravity and the Atonement were not yet well-developed and established prior to the mid-fourth and into the early fifth centuries.

PELAGIUS

Pelagius (AD 354-420) is often mistakenly referred to as a Monk, but he is never formerly trained in any monastic order, nor ordained to any ecclesiastical office. Jerome (342-420), we think, refers to Pelagius as "a certain gossipy monk."1 He is at times also mistakenly referred to by the name Morgan.2 Pelagius is an excellent "scholar, philosopher, teacher and biblical exegete,"3 a moral reformer from Britain who seeks to correct a corrupted Church "from the dross which it had accumulated over the centuries,"4 and is sought after as a Christian mentor, since he is considered to be among "the most eminent theologians in the West"5 during his time, problematic for Pelagius because Jerome and Augustine are also sought after by the Christian aristocracy in mentoring their children in theology and spirituality for Christian vocation.

Three centuries into the history of the Church and a moral decline occurs among the professing Christians in Rome. When Pelagius arrives in the City of Seven Hills, he is taken aback by the immorality of professing believers, and calls them to repentance. He does not see himself as a heretic but as a faithful Christian and follower of Jesus. "He was at heart a moral reformer who, as he became familiar with Christian society in Rome at the [beginning] of the [fifth] century, became also more and more critical of its moral standards and responded to the general laxity and extravagance he saw around him by preaching the need for simple and virtuous living based on man's freedom to choose for himself what he would, and would not, do."6 This theology of Free Will, as is evident below, is merely the teaching of all early Church fathers.

When those of us in the Augustinian-Reformed persuasion want to defeat our theological opponent, regarding beliefs in Free Will and Grace and Faith, for examples, we cry out "Pelagian!" as if that settles all arguments--and when we do so we display our ignorance both of the history and the theology of Pelagius and the early Greek fathers. B.R. Rees is right to note: "For centuries now the adjective 'Pelagian' has been a convenient term of abuse in the Christian Church and Pelagius himself a bogyman [sic: boogeyman, a frightening, mythical monster] for upright clerics to evoke when wanting to frighten wayward members of their flock."7 Pelagius, however, is not necessarily a heretic for his beliefs concerning Free Will. As will be evident below, Pelagius is a damnable heretic for teaching that "works of righteousness" merit the believer entrance into the Kingdom of Heaven, a teaching not merely inferred by him but emphatically stated throughout his writings.

Pelagius "is 'fundamentally a Christian moralist,' and he wanted, above all else, 'to be an orthodox theologian of the Christian Church and to be known as such.'"8 Some scholars believe that Pelagius is first educated in Law but that he abandons the discipline for Christian Theology. The claim that Pelagius is first to study Law, as does his later colleague Celestius, is uncertain to others.9 When Pelagius arrives in Rome he seeks to teach Scripture, spread (his version of) the Gospel, and to call believers in Christ to lives of holiness. Augustine himself confesses Pelagius to be "a holy man, as I am told, who has made no small progress in the Christian life." Augustine addresses Pelagius in an early letter as "My lord greatly beloved and brother greatly longed for."10 True to form, for the temperament and at times deficient integrity of Augustine, he will retract those words of endearment and deny that they are initially reserved for his now-opponent Pelagius.11

What is Pelagius' theology? What does Pelagius believe and teach? Pelagius' theology is generally the same as the early Greek fathers: God is sovereign (as he understands sovereignty--God permits people to freely act as they freely choose), justly ruling over His creation (but not meticulously), bringing about His will and purposes for the ages through the creatures He creates in His own image and likeness. His creatures fall into sin of their own freedom and have been falling into sin since Adam and Eve in the Garden. So God, out of His own deep love for the creatures He creates in His image, provides an atonement for His erring image-bearers in Christ; so that anyone who will freely trust in Christ Jesus' atoning work and subsequent resurrection will be gloriously cleansed of his past sins. The person is justified in the present but will attain Heaven through works of righteousness. God has "elected" to save--and He has "elected" to save those whom He foreknew (through simple foreseeing / foreknowing future free-will choices) would freely believe in Jesus and remain in Jesus as they perform works of righteousness and thereby merit the Kingdom of Heaven. (You would be surprised just how many early fathers mention obedience as a means of obtaining salvation for the believer. They maintain a sort of "Lordship Salvation" position that betrays Scripture.)

For Pelagius, and not a few early Greek Church fathers (we must confess), we are not born corrupt--we become corrupt of our own choosing. We all become corrupt of our own choosing. We all choose to sin. We have all sinned. We will all sin to one degree or another--for any desire or motivation or any action conceivable that is not absolutely righteous and entirely holy is tainted by sin. There is only one redemption to be found and that is by the grace of God (as he understands Grace) through faith in Jesus. If we are not born corrupt (we challenge Pelagius and Celestius) then why do we all freely choose to sin? Why does not even one person remain innocent in human history besides Jesus? Is there not some inner compelling motive or energizer that influences us toward sin? If we are born innocent, born neutral (and especially if we are born righteous as an infant), then why would we choose sin or even foolishness? Perhaps we are not born neutral. Perhaps Solomon is right: "A child's heart has a tendency to do wrong" (Prov. 22:15 ISV); "Folly is bound up in the heart of a child [folly forms part of a child's nature]" (NET); "Doing wrong is firmly tied to the heart of a child" (CJB). How can this be if we are born innocent and unspoiled?

REFLECTING UPON HISTORY AND THEOLOGY

We all know from the history of Augustine of Hippo (354-430) that his early theology is rife with what is called Libertarian Free Will--that a person could have chosen a different course of action that is unnecessitated from God's alleged causal predetermination of all decisions, choices, and courses of action (with the caveat that, if a person had chosen differently, God would have foreknown this choice because all knowledge is present in God from all eternity, which is a shared belief by all early Church fathers, Pelagius, Augustine, Luther, Calvin and Arminius). An "early" Augustine, within reason, would not have refuted Pelagius and the early Greek father's theology of Free Will.

Augustine spends a decade studying Paul's letters, including Paul's own miraculous conversion to the Faith by an appearance of Jesus Christ personally to himself (Acts 9:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9), and changes his theology on grace and salvation. B.R. Rees quotes Paula Frederiksen to the effect: "Augustine's account of his conversion in the Confessions ... is a theological reinterpretation of a past event, an attempt to render his past coherent to his present self. It is, in fact, a disguised description of where he stands in the present as much as an ostensible description of what occurred in the past. And he constructs his description from his reading of Acts 9 as well as from his new theological convictions."12 I have often reflected upon my own former life in sin and my conversion to faith in Christ. I was not seeking Christ. He was seeking me. I did not want Christ. He wanted me. Any notion of "God" was an unwanted interruption into my life of depravity. When I look back to the moment of my conversion, I am awed, because one minute I cared nothing for Jesus and the next minute I was His willing servant. How is that even possible? "Humanly speaking," says Jesus, "it is impossible. But with God everything is possible" (Matt. 19:26 NLT).

Upon Augustine's decade-long study of Paul, and his reflection of his own miraculous conversion to faith in Christ, that work of conversion must solely be that of Christ, because, from the view of one so separated from life in God (Isa. 59:2), dead in his sins and counted as a child of wrath (Eph. 2:1, 2, 3), and in his unregenerated state he cannot will himself to believe (1 Cor. 2:14), the cause of one's faith in Christ, then, must be the direct intervention of God by the ministry of the Holy Spirit--and this is exactly what Paul in Scripture teaches (Titus 3:5). Augustine now argues biblically that, in order for a person to believe in Jesus Christ, a miraculous and effectual inner work must precede and give birth to faith. We must conclude, if we are to be biblical, that regeneration precedes and gives birth to faith (John 1:11, 12, 13; Acts 16:14; Eph. 2:5, 8; Titus 3:5; 2 Pet. 1:1). Since this is the case then only certain ones are monergistically regenerated. Did God arbitrarily unconditionally choose to save one person and not another as though the choice was some random selection? Harold W. Hoehner answers:
This means [this truth that God elected / chose us (who believe) in Him, Christ Jesus, before the foundation of the world, that we might be holy and blameless before Him in love, Eph. 1:4, 5] that the election of the Father [Eph. 2:14], the redemption of the Son [Eph. 1:7], and the seal of the Holy Spirit [Eph. 1:13] are themselves spiritual benefits as well as being the basis for every spiritual benefit. ... [God] did not choose [to save certain ones] in a vacuum but in the light of all known options. God chose "us" from the whole human race. ... [T]here is no indication [here] of any dislike towards those not chosen. It is not rejection with disdain. ... [The choice / election indicates] a personal interest in the one chosen. Hence God chose with great personal interest rather than a random impersonal choice.13
Rather than seeing election as a loving choice, an unspeakably gracious choice, a choice to save someone who would never otherwise be saved, opponents of the truth of this doctrine focus only on those not chosen, as though the ones not elected are neutral persons instead of enemies of God (Rom. 5:10), hostile toward God (Rom. 8:7), and children of wrath (Eph. 2:3). Opponents of the truth of this doctrine treat with contempt the grace of God (Rom. 2:4), as though God owes some grace, some "chance" to freely believe in Christ, to those who proverbially spit in His glorious and merciful face. All the chances in the world would never bring anyone to faith in Christ without the effectual grace of the Holy Spirit. Hoehner continues: The one (sinner) who was chosen (for salvation) has no legal claim on the one (God) who chooses.
In fact, it is clear in Scripture that human beings come short of His glory [Rom. 6:23] and do not even seek Him (Rom. 3:10-11). God did not choose anyone because they were holy and thus had a legal claim to be chosen. On the contrary, all people are sinners and deserve rejection. There was no obligation on God's part to choose anyone but He freely chose some and this is evidence of His great grace. The point is that, if God had not taken the initiative, no one would have His everlasting presence and life. The real problem is not why He had not chosen some but why He chose any. No wonder God is to be praised [Eph. 1:3, 6]. ... The recipients of the choice, "us," comprise a body or group of believers. Still, chosen individuals make up this group. As individuals receive the blessings in verse 3, and individually are sealed in verse 13, so individuals [and not merely the whole corporate group] are the objects of God's election.14
This would indicate, then, that Corporate-Election theory is in error. How do we know this to be so? Because we each are elected "in Him," that is, Christ. "It does not mean that God chose us through faith in Christ [or that God chose to save us because we chose to believe in Christ] ... as suggested by Chrysostom [and many other early Church fathers--Pelagius chief among them] because this would destroy God's freedom of choice. If this were the case, believers by their faith would have a legal claim whereby God must choose them,15 and no one has a claim on God. Nor is election based upon God foreseeing who would freely believe in Jesus, as the early fathers believed, because that would indicate that God can learn--that God must learn (who would and who would not believe)--and that destroys God's omniscience. If God is to know any information then He alone must be the Source of that knowledge. He cannot learn any new information other than what He exhaustively knows from all eternity past. This means that Unconditional Election doctrine is biblical and any other model on the subject is error.

Augustine's hermeneutic is the proper basis for the construction of other related biblical doctrines, including Original Sin, Total Depravity, Unconditional Election, Irresistible Grace and Necessary-Perseverance (the doctrine of Limited Atonement will be later developed out of these biblical presuppositions). If we are, each one of us, born with a fallen human nature, one that leads us to sin and perpetually leads us away from righteousness, then a total or radical depravity is the cause of our fallen constitution; in such a state, no one will ever choose to love God and trust in His Son, Jesus Christ; and so God chose from eternity past to unconditionally elect certain persons for Himself and unto Himself (Eph. 1:5) through His Son by the activity of the Holy Spirit; this activity is a particular and effectual grace of regeneration for the elect, so that they can then naturally trust in Christ, since their unregenerate state is the cause of their unbelief; their atonement and salvation is provided solely by the blood of Jesus Christ, their justification secured by His resurrection, and their justification by God and the imputation of Christ's righteousness is applied to them and to them alone; hence God will preserve His elect and secure their final salvation.

PELAGIUS, "PELAGIANISM," AND THE EARLY FATHERS

Our early Greek Church fathers, and a few western fathers, including Augustine's colleague Jerome, all insist that, whether regarding good or bad deeds, people freely choose to do what they want to do by their own self-caused Free Will and that they are always able to do either good or evil, that they are not predetermined by God or even by sin to the performance of evil only. Justin Martyr (AD 160) rebuffs the staunch advocate of theological determinism thusly: We have learned from the Old Testament prophets, and we hold it to be true, that
punishments, chastisements, and good rewards are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. Now, if this is not so, but all things happen [deterministically], then neither is anything at all in our own power. For if it is predetermined that this man will be good, and this other man will be evil, neither is the first one meritorious nor the latter man to be blamed. And again, unless the human race has the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions16 (emphases added).
If you think such a statement is reminiscent of Pelagius, or is overt "Pelagianism" (and understand at the outset that there is no such thing as "Pelagianism" because Pelagius did not invent any new doctrine of theology), then you will soon discover not only the absence of voices like Augustine, Luther and Calvin among the early fathers, but also that Pelagius is the one who is being faithful to the fathers, not "heretically" betraying early theological traditions. You will also learn that Jerome echoes Pelagius and, shockingly, never vice versa:
  • Neither do we maintain that it is by fate [or theological determinism] that men do what they do or suffer what they suffer. Rather, we maintain that each man acts rightly or sins by his free choice. --Justin Martyr (160);
  • Each of these two orders [men and angels] was made free to act as it pleased. They did not have the nature of good [sinlessness] which, again, is with God alone. However, it [his nature] is brought to perfection in men through their freedom of choice. In this manner, the bad man can be justly punished, having become depraved through his own fault. Likewise, the just man can be deservedly praised for his virtuous deeds, since in the exercise of his free choice he refrained from transgressing the will of God. --Tatian (160);
  • We were not created to die. Rather, we die by our own fault. Our free will has destroyed us. We who were free have become slaves. We have been sold through sin. Nothing evil has been created by God. We ourselves have manifested wickedness. But we, who have manifested it, are able again to reject it. --Tatian (160);
  • There is, therefore, nothing to hinder you from changing your evil manner of life because you are a free man. --Melito (170);
  • If, on the other hand, he would turn to the things of death, disobeying God, he would himself be the cause of death to himself. For God made man free and with power of himself. --Theophilus (180);
  • But man, being endowed with reason, and in this respect similar to God, having been made free in his will and with power over himself, is himself his own cause that sometimes he becomes wheat and sometimes chaff. --Irenæus (180);
  • God has always preserved freedom and the power of self-government [and self-determination] in man. Yet, at the same time, He issued His own exhortations in order that those who do not obey Him would be righteously judged because they have not obeyed Him. And those who have obeyed and believed on Him should be honored with immortality. --Irenæus (180);
  • God knows the number of those who will not believe since He foreknows all things. So He has given them over to unbelief and turned His face away from men of this character, leaving them in the darkness that they have chosen for themselves. So what is baffling if He gave Pharaoh and those who were with him over to their unbelief? For they would never have believed. --Irenæus (180);
  • This expression ... sets forth the ancient Law of human liberty. For God made man free from the beginning, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the commandments of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God. ... And in man, as well as in angels (for angels are rational beings), He has placed the power of choice, so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good--given indeed by God but preserved by themselves. --Irenæus (180);
  • Those who work it [works of righteousness] will receive glory and honor because they have done that which is good when they had it in their power not to do it. But those who do not do it will receive the just judgment of God because they did not work good when they had it in their power to do so. But if some had been made by nature bad [which is clearly a rejection of Original-Sin theory], and others good, these latter would not be deserving of praise for being good, for they were created that way. Nor would the former be reprehensible, for that is how they were made. However, all men are of the same nature. They are all able to hold fast and to do what is good. On the other hand, they have the power to cast good from them and not to do it. For that reason, some justly receive praise. --Irenæus (180);
  • If, then, it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason did the apostle have, and much more the Lord Himself, to give us counsel to do some things and to abstain from others? But because man is possessed of free will ..., and God is possessed of free will (in whose likeness man was created), advice is always given to him to hold fast to the good, which is done through obedience to God. God has preserved the will of man free and under his [own] control. This is not merely in works but also in faith. --Irenæus (180);
  • Nor, again, does God exercise compulsion upon anyone unwilling to accept the exercise of His skill. ... They have been created free agents and possessed of power over themselves. --Irenæus (180);
  • Those who believe do His will agreeably to their own choice. Likewise, agreeably to their own choice, the disobedient do not consent to His doctrine. It is clear that His [Jesus'] Father has made everyone in a like condition, each person having a choice of his own and a free understanding. --Irenæus (180);
  • We ... have believed and are saved by voluntary choice. --Clement of Alexandria (195);
  • Each one of us who sins with his own free will chooses punishment. So the blame lies with him who chooses. God is without blame. --Clement of Alexandria (195);
  • Neither praises nor censures, neither rewards nor punishments, are right if the soul does not have the power of inclination and disinclination ... In no respect is God the author of evil. But since free choice and inclination originate sins ... punishments are justly inflicted. --Clement of Alexandria (195);
  • We have heard by the Scriptures that self-determining choice and refusal have been given by the Lord to men. Therefore, we rest in the infallible criterion of faith, manifesting a willing spirit, since we have chosen life. --Clement of Alexandria (195);
  • To obey or not is in our own power--provided we do not have the excuse of ignorance. ... Sin, then, is voluntary on my part. ... This clearly shows sins and transgressions to be in our own power by prescribing modes of cure corresponding to the maladies. ... Their estrangement [that of sinners with regard to God, to faith, and to salvation] is the result of free choice. ... God's will is especially obeyed by the free will of good men. ... Believing and obeying are in our own power. ... Nor will he who is saved be saved against his will, for he is not inanimate. But above all, he will speed to salvation voluntarily and of free choice. --Clement of Alexandria (195);
  • I find, then, that man was constituted free by God. He was master of his own will and power. ... For a Law would not be imposed upon one who did not have it in his power to render that obedience which is due to Law. Nor again would the penalty of death be threatened against sin if a contempt of the Law were impossible to man in the liberty of his will. ... Man is free with a will either for obedience or resistance. --Tertullian (207--Western Father);
  • On the contrary, men are not governed like [plants and animals] ... In matters pertaining to their minds, they do whatever they choose--as those who are free, endowed with power, and in the likeness of God. --Bardesanes (222);
  • The Word promulgated [put into effect] the divine commandments by declaring them. He thereby turned man from disobedience. He summoned man to liberty through a choice involving spontaneity--not by bringing him into servitude by force of necessity. --Hippolytus (225--Western Father);
  • Christ passed through every stage in life in order that He Himself could serve as a Law for persons of every age, and that, by being present among us, He could demonstrate His own manhood as a model for all men. Furthermore, through Himself He could prove that God made nothing evil and that man possesses the capacity of self-determination. For man is able to both will and not to will. He is endowed with power to do both. --Hippolytus (225);
  • This also is clearly defined in the teaching of the Church, that every rational soul has free will and volition. ... We understand that we are not subject to necessity. We are not compelled by various means to do either good or evil, even against our will. For if we are our own masters, some influences may perhaps impel us to sin, and others may help us to salvation. However, we are not forced by any necessity to act either rightly or wrongly. --Origen (225);
  • When he had given man all things for his service, He willed that man alone should be free. And lest an unbounded freedom would lead man into peril, He laid down a command, in which man was taught that there was no evil in the fruit of the tree. Rather, he was forewarned that evil would arise if man were to exercise his free will in contempt of the Law that had been given him. ... As a result, he could receive either worthy rewards or a just punishment. For he had in his own power that which he might choose to do. --Novatian (235--Western Father);
  • The liberty of believing or of not believing is placed in free choice. --Cyprian (250--Western Father);
  • Some persons decide that man is not possessed of free will. Rather, they assert that he is governed by the unavoidable necessities of fate and her unwritten commands. Such persons are guilty of impiety towards God Himself. For they make Him out to be the cause and author of human evils. --Methodius (290);
  • To do good or evil is in our own power and it is not decided by fate. ... Man was made with a free will ... on account of his capacity of obeying or disobeying God. For this was the meaning of the gift of free will. --Methodius (290);
  • Man received power and enslaved himself--not because he was overpowered by the irresistible tendencies of his nature. ... For if he had been made as any of the elements of creation [and governed only by instinct] ... he would cease to receive a reward befitting deliberate choice. Instead, he would be like an instrument of the Maker. And it would be unreasonable for him to suffer blame for his wrong-doings. For the real author of them would be the one by whom he is used. ... Therefore, I say that God--purposing to honor man in this manner and to grant him an understanding of better things--has given man the power of being able to do what he wishes. --Methodius (290);
  • If your "wisdom" is so great that you consider the things that are offered by Christ to be ridiculous and absurd, why should He keep on inviting you? For His only duty is to make the enjoyment of His gift dependent upon your own free choice. --Arnobius (305);
  • Rational creatures have been entrusted with free will. Because of this they are capable of converting [from bad to good]." --Disputation of Archelaus and Manes (320);
  • All the creatures that God made He made very good. And He gave to every individual the sense of free will in accordance with which standard He also instituted the Law of Judgment. To sin is ours and that we sin not is God's gift [of freely choosing not to sin]. For our will is made to choose either to sin or not to sin. ... Certainly whoever wishes to may keep the commandments. And whoever will despise them and turn aside to what is contrary to them, he will yet undoubtedly have to face this Law of Judgment. ... All persons will not follow the example of [Satan's] fall and ruin. For everyone is given liberty of will. --Disputation of Archelaus and Manes (320);
  • Natural will is the free faculty of every intelligent nature as having nothing involuntary [and, hence, deterministically rendering certain his decisions or actions] pertaining to its essence. --Alexander of Alexandria (324).17
  • That is, He gave them free will, He gave them the choice of their own mind, so that each might live not according to God's [deterministic] command, but to please [and choose for] himself; that is, not out of necessity but by their will, in order that virtue might have its place, so that on the model of God we have been permitted to do as we wish. --Jerome (383--Western Father);18
  • For nothing can be called "good" except what is voluntary ... The question posed earlier is therefore resolved as follows: God could have made man good without a role for man's will ... But if He had done this, moral goodness would not have been freely willed but would have been done out of necessity [by God's predetermination, His decree, and His bringing about such within man]. But what is good by necessity is not good and by another classification is censured as evil. --Jerome (387);19
  • God's work is to call and men's work is either to believe or not to believe [John 6:27, 28, 29]. ... Neither God nor the devil is the reason why we incline either toward good or toward evil [a rejection of Original-Sin theory], because our belief comes not from the one who has called us but from us, who either give our consent to or do not give our consent to the one who calls. --Jerome (387);20
  • But you will never hear from me that human nature is [inherently] evil [another rejection of Original-Sin theory]. --Jerome (410).21
The views of the mid-to-late first through fourth centuries of the early Greek fathers is that God freely and sovereignly allows people their own freedom to render their own choices (including whether or not to believe in the Gospel and to do so unaided by any supernatural inner work of God), and to receiving the consequences either for good or bad, and that sinners are innately capable of both good as well as evil. We freely wrought evil but we can also freely choose the good. How? By our own innate goodness? By personal merit or personal righteousness? No. Pelagius argues that we choose the good by the grace granted to us by God in creation--God graciously constituted our humanity thusly by His own goodness and wisdom and the effects of sin are not powerful enough to hinder us from freely choosing good over the bad.

THE EFFECTS OF SIN

But certainly sin has a negative impact on the human condition, no? Yes. But, while the capacity to sin may influence us to sin, the capacity to sin does not determine us to sin. This is due to Pelagius' "grace of creation." God creates each one of us in our mother's womb (Gen. 1:26, 27; 2:7; 5:1, 2; 9:6; Deut. 4:32; Job 4:17; 10:8, 9, 10, 11, 12; 31:15; 33:4; 34:19; Ps. 8:3, 4, 5, 6; 89:47; 95:6; 100:3; 104:30; 119:73, 74; 138:8; 139:13-16; Eccl. 3:11; 12:7; Isa. 17:7; 42:5; 43:7; 44:24; 49:5; 64:8; Jer. 1:5; 27:5; Zech. 12:1; Mal. 2:10; Matt. 19:4; John 1:3; Acts 17:26, 27, 28; 1 Cor. 8:6; Gal. 1:15; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:16; 3:10; Heb. 3:4; James 3:9; Rev. 4:11), not ex nihilo but from substances offered by the man and the woman, and what He creates is initially good, morally neutral, innocent. This is how the Kingdom of Heaven can belong to infants and little ones innocent of personal sin because they do not yet understand sin and moral accountability (Matt. 18:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6; 19:13, 14, 15).

For example, I can say I believe that we, uniquely created by God, though born in sin (Rom. 5:18, 19) do not bear the guilt of personal sin until we sin. The fallen nature we inherit from Adam guarantees that we will sin in due time. But the infant, the young child and the cognitively-impaired, may not know and understand and intentionally sin. I think this is how Jesus can say that Heaven belongs to infants and little children (Matt. 19:14; cf. Matt. 18:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)--this includes those who are cognitively impaired / incapacitated to understand sin and guilt and shame--because they have not intentionally and personally sinned and, so, they have not personally sinned and are guiltless of personal sin because of their underdeveloped understanding / knowledge / conscience regarding right and wrong (cf. Rom. 2:14, 15, 16).

I can infer, in the case of such persons, that God graciously and mercifully holds Himself sovereignly responsible for the salvation of such ones--because, let us just embrace the reality of God, He sovereignly permitted / determined at least in some sense the state of their being and even of their own death. Recall, for instance, God's own words about an entire city, Nineveh, "Should I not [a question of ought and self-responsibility] have compassion on Nineveh, the great city in which there are more than 120,000 persons who do not know the difference between their right and left hand [people who do not know right from wrong, NCV, cf. NET, NIRV; people living in spiritual darkness, NLT], as well as many animals?" (Jonah 4:11 NASB). So when "God saw their deeds, that they [the entire city] turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them--and He did not do it" (Jonah 3:10 NASB).

Pelagius and the early Greek fathers seem to be conveying a form of Free Will that is devoid of God's intervening and assisting grace. The offspring of Adam and Eve, who introduce sin into the world (Rom. 5:12), produce Cain and Abel. Abel chooses righteousness and Cain chooses unrighteousness. God graciously instructs Cain to master sin before sin masters him (Gen. 4:7). But Cain rejects God's instruction and murders his righteous brother Abel (Gen. 4:8). If we insist that sin necessarily influences Cain, so the argument is counter-argued, then how do we account for the righteous choice of Abel (Gen. 4:4)? How, too, are we to account for God calling certain people blameless (cf. Gen. 6:9; 17:1; Deut. 18:13; 2 Sam. 22:24, 26, 33; 2 Chron. 15:17; Job 1:1, 8; 2:3; Ps. 18:23, 25; 19:13; 37:18; 37:37; 101:2, 6; 119:1, 80; Prov. 2:21; 11:5, 20; 13:6; 28:10; 29:10; Ezek. 28:15)? If we suggest that God sovereignly keeps certain people blameless (cf. Rom. 11:4, 5, 6), somehow causing / influencing them to choose rightly, then must we not also concede that God refuses to do so when someone chooses evil (Prov. 16:4)?

Of course, we in the Reformed tradition ask, What is wrong with God choosing to grace one person and not another? Are you, Pelagius and other early fathers, not suggesting, then, that God is obligated, by your own imagined measure or standard of grace and mercy and justice, to grace all people equally and in the same manner? Where is that taught in Scripture? Are we not taught the very opposite--that God is freely permitted to grace and to have mercy upon whomever He chooses (Rom. 9:14, 15, 16, 17)? You then quote, "For God has consigned all to disobedience that He may have mercy on all" (Rom. 11:32), and we answer back that God does have mercy on all. God has vowed to save all who will believe (1 Cor. 1:21). "But," you argue, "you say that no one can believe in Jesus unless first regenerated by the Holy Spirit. So your God is holding people responsible to do something that they cannot do." What of it? God promised eternal life to all who keep the Law (Lev. 18:5; Rom. 2:25; cf. Gal. 3:21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26). Yet, no one but Christ Jesus Himself perfectly and sinlessly kept the Law, and we all are held responsible just the same. No one ever receives injustice from God. God is just and each person will be considered by His perfect justice.

We are not discussing neutral individuals here. We are considering people with no love for God, just like us prior to the love and grace of God (1 John 4:19), people who have made themselves enemies of God (John 8:44; Rom. 5:10; 2 Tim. 3:1, 2, 3, 4; James 4:4) and enemies of the Cross of Christ Jesus (Phil. 3:18, 19), just like us prior to grace, and yet you all insist that God be gracious and merciful to each person in the same manner? They want to remain in their sin--just like we who now believe wanted to remain in our sin. They do not want to be saved--just like we who now believe did not want to be saved. If God had not intervened, saving some people by His effectual grace, then He would not have a people for Himself (Eph. 1:5)--a people who belong to God "according to the election of grace" (Rom. 11:5 NKJV; cf. Deut. 7:6, 7, 8). Some worry about defending the Free Will of humanity in order to rescue God from being the Author of Sin. But is God not also free?

Opponents of Augustinianism / Reformed theology / Calvinism claim that John Calvin (1509-1564) overtly names God as the Author of Sin,
God was the author of that trial of which Satan and wicked robbers were merely the instruments ... because such was the pleasure [and the sovereign decree] of God. Therefore, whatever men or Satan himself devise, God holds the helm, and makes all their efforts contribute to the execution of His judgments. ... With regard to secret movements, what Solomon says of the heart of a king, that it is turned hither and thither [Prov. 21:1], as God sees meet, certainly applies to the whole human race, and has the same force as if he had said that whatever we conceive in our minds is directed to its end by the secret inspiration of God (emphases added).22
If we sin by any necessity deriving from God (directly or instrumentally) then there can be, in the words of Jacob Arminius (1559-1609), only one true conclusion: "that God really sins."23 I have had, throughout my life, any number of repulsive and sinful thoughts, motivations, and evil conceptions of my own heart and mind and, according to my opponent's perspective of Calvin's theology, God is the secret Source behind and the very Author of them all. What a wretched claim to make of a holy, sinless, absolutely good, just, and righteous God! But that is not what Calvin is suggesting. Note the primary agent: "whatever men or Satan himself devise" ... "makes all their efforts" ... "we conceive in our minds." The devising, the efforts, the conceiving toward the doing belong to us (and / or to Satan and his demons). God merely directs those conceptions and actions to sin in a manner of judgment and of His sovereign right. This is how we interpret passages like Acts 2:23 and Acts 4:27-28: people devise wicked plans and God directs those plans toward His own ends. Not that God forced wicked plans into the minds of sinners. He does not have to: sinners want to sin and to scheme wickedness (though, we must confess about a sovereign God who intends to bring judgment upon the guilty, He reserves the right to do so: Rev. 17:17). But God also reserves the right to use wicked thoughts, evil plans, sinful intentions and evil actions toward His own sovereign end. This is how God could bring judgment upon Israel through the wicked plans and intentions of a wicked nation and then turn around and judge the wicked nation for what they freely intended (cf. Isa. 9:8-10:34).

For Pelagius, all sin derives from our own hearts. The reason we find living holy lives so difficult is due to "that long habit of doing wrong which has infected us from childhood and corrupted us little by little over many years and ever after holds us in bondage and slavery to itself." The effect of sin upon our humanity can cause us to "languish in ignorance through our sloth and idleness" because we are so "unaccustomed to doing good after having for so long learned to do only evil."24 What is dangerous for any mortal is indulging in sin and evil; for, the more one does so, the more difficult is turning from that evil. If at a young age a person refuses to indulge in gross immorality and evil the better his life will be. "Whatever you implant in yourself at the outset will remain and the rest of your life will run along on the course set by your beginning."25 For Pelagius, and the early fathers, sin has no final say over the unredeemed sinner. Scripture, I think, teaches the contrary (Rom. 3:9, 10, 11, 21,1 3, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18). If, for the regenerate believer abiding under the grace of God, sin will have no dominion over him (Rom. 6:14) then, for the unregenerate sinner, sin has complete dominion over him. Is that not merely biblically logical?

Does Pelagius think that humanity is basically good and that we are only potentially sinful but not that evil? We are initially created good by God, yes, but we do each fall from that goodness by our personal choices to sin. Some indulge in sin more so than others but we have all sinned (Rom. 3:23). Even we in the Reformed tradition insist that we are "not as bad as we could be" and this is why we argue for Total or Radical Depravity but not Utter Depravity. The culture of Noah's day seems to have fallen into a state of utter depravity, as women were copulating with Giants / the Nephilim / Demon-Human hybrids and producing wicked offspring, such that God destroyed them all (except for Noah and his family). So we cannot claim that Genesis 6:5 or Genesis 6:12 describes all of humanity for all time when the context refers to a specific time, a specific people, given specific circumstances. Even if our culture degenerates into further and further wickedness in the future, as Scripture indicates it will (2 Tim. 3:13 NIV), the era in which we live cannot yet be defined in terms of "only evil continually." A culture which manifests only evil continually would be a destitute place in which no one at all performs any good for anyone else ever.

Still, we in the Reformed persuasion insist that goodness in the earth regarding the everyday person exists due to the ultimate goodness of God working in the earth, as (I infer) the Holy Spirit retrains the evil and wickedness of any given culture (2 Thess. 2:6) according to His own sovereign purposes. When God removes His hand / power for goodness, allowing wickedness to prevail, a culture insidiously degenerates into evil and madness (2 Tim. 3:13 NIV). We see this happening in our day in various places on the earth (and even in our own country). To imagine, then, that goodness--ultimate goodness toward righteousness--can originate in the tainted and fallen heart of a sinner is a most obvious unbiblical notion. "The good man," who knows that the only good thing in Him is Jesus (Rom. 3:10, 12, 21, 22), "brings out of his good treasure what is good; and the evil man brings out of his evil treasure what is evil" (Matt. 12:35 NASB). Jesus even called us evil (Matt. 7:11; Luke 11:13). "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders" (Matt. 15:19). Jesus could not even entrust Himself to us sinners because He knew us inside and out (John 2:24, 25). Goodness cannot come from badness.

ALL HAVE SINNED | ALL NEED REDEEMING

Pelagius openly confesses: "I did not say that any man can be found who has never sinned from his infancy to his old age."26 He writes to Demetrias: "As long as we are in this body we should never believe that we have attained perfection."27 He instructs the regenerate believer "to guard against sin in the place where it usually begins, to resist temptation at once the very first time it appears, and thus to eliminate the evil before it can grow and spread."28 We all have sinned (Rom. 3:23), thus we have all spiritually died (Rom. 6:23), and we all need to be born again (John 3:3, 5). We who are in Christ must believe that, "after the light of His coming, now that we have been instructed by the grace of Christ and reborn as better men: purified and cleansed by His blood, encouraged by His example to pursue perfect righteousness, we ought surely to be better [able to live godly lives] than those who lived before the time of the Law, better even than those who lived under the Law, since the apostle says: 'For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under Law, but under grace' (Rom. 6:14)."29

Fine. But can a sinner with a twisted and corrupted heart freely believe in Jesus Christ whensoever he wills or chooses? For we know that a person believes with the heart (Rom. 10:9, 10). Pelagius and the early fathers might say Yes but with the caveat that the sinner must hear the Gospel and, thereby, be graced or helped toward faith in Christ because the Gospel is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes (Rom. 1:16, 17). I do not doubt that this is true, that the Gospel is the power of God for salvation to the believer, but I do doubt that particular interpretation of the passage; because, obviously, if everyone who hears the Gospel receives the same efficacy of power from the Gospel to believe in Christ then why do not all who hear the Gospel believe in Jesus Christ? This, I think, is the problem for Pelagius, the early fathers, the Provisionist and even Arminius and Classical / Reformed Arminians. Why is the power of the Gospel and the Spirit not powerful enough?

The answer given by Arminius and the Arminian is to some effect that the purpose of the power of the Holy Spirit, when He convicts the sinner of sin, and opens his heart to the Gospel, thereby freeing him from his bondage to sin, is not to effectually or, from their perspective, deterministically cause one to believe but to free a person to freely believe in Christ. We know that Arminius believes in Total Depravity:
In this [fallen] state, the Free Will of man towards the True Good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost: And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace ... The Mind of Man, in this state, is dark, destitute of the saving knowledge of God, and, according to the Apostle, incapable of those things which belong to the Spirit of God [2 Cor. 2:14] ... To this Darkness of the Mind succeeds the Perverseness of the Affections and of the Heart, according to which it hates and has an aversion to that which is truly good and pleasing to God; but it loves and pursues what is evil ... Exactly correspondent to this Darkness of the Mind, and Perverseness of the Heart, is the utter Weakness of all the Powers to perform that which is truly good [such as faith in Jesus] ... [so that] it follows that our will is not free from the first fall; that is, it is not free to [perform what is] good, unless it be made free by the Son through the Spirit.30
But if the person is now free to freely believe, because the Holy Spirit has made such an incapacitated person free, then why does he not believe? What is hindering the person to trust in Christ if all hindrances are removed by the Holy Spirit in the power of the Gospel? Whatever reason granted for one to remain in unbelief then we must concede that the reason, the hindrance, maintains more power in the sinner than the freeing from bondage by the Holy Spirit and the supposed power of the Gospel. Are we to conclude that the Holy Spirit frees someone from their bondage to sin--sin which hinders every sinner from trusting in Christ--and that the person must choose to freely believe in Christ? But why would he not? What possible hindrance could remain in someone who is under such divine grace as being made free by the Holy Spirit in this awesome power of the Gospel of Jesus Christ so that he can freely believe? Let me press the matter further for Arminius.

Arminius seeks to separate himself from Pelagius, in his own words, "That I may not be said, like Pelagius, to practice delusion with regard to the word 'Grace,'" and so Arminius informs us as to what he means by use of God's grace, and this explanation is supposed to be entirely different from that of Pelagius, from that of the early Greek fathers who use the same language as Pelagius, and, I infer, the Provisionist:
I mean [by Grace] that which is the Grace of Christ and which belongs to regeneration [and by regeneration he means a prevenient or enabling / helping grace and not necessarily and strictly being born again and granted new life by the sole activity of the Holy Spirit]: I affirm, therefore, that this grace is simply and absolutely necessary for the illumination of the mind, the due ordering of the affections, and the inclination of the will to that which is good: It is this grace which operates on the mind, the affections, and the will; which infuses good thoughts into the mind, inspires good desires into the affections, and bends the will to carry into execution good thoughts and good desires. This grace goes before [is prevenient], accompanies [works alongside], and follows [carries through to the end]; it excites, assists, operates that we will, and cooperates lest we will in vain. It averts temptations, assists and grants succor [help, aid, strength] in the midst of temptations, sustains man against the flesh, the world, and Satan, and in this great contest grants to man the enjoyment of the victory. It raises up again those who are conquered and have fallen, establishes and supplies them with new strength, and renders them more cautious. This grace commences salvation, promotes it, and perfects and consummates it. And I add to this: That teacher obtains my highest approbation who ascribes as much as possible to Divine Grace; provided he so pleads the cause of Grace so as not to inflict an injury on the Justice of God, and not to take away the Free Will to that which is evil [that we do evil freely and not at God's behest].31
I think here is where Arminius, and the Arminian if he is to adopt this confession for himself, gets into even further trouble: he digs for himself a greater ditch out of which he will not be able to rescue himself. This is the Grace that distinguishes himself from Pelagius--a Grace with Reformed language but with Arminian (non-Reformed) undertones. Using Arminius' specific language I ask the same general question as above. If the Holy Spirit gives essential and necessary illumination to the mind; if He duly orders the affections of the sinner; if He infuses good thoughts into his mind, inspires good desires into his affections and bends his actual will so that the sinner carries into execution the good thoughts and good desires infused by the Spirit of God in him, then how is it even remotely possible that he still not believe in Jesus? Either there is a deficiency in the power of the Gospel, and with the power of the Holy Spirit, or there is a deficiency in this theology. All this "power," all this freeing from bondage and infusing strength and bending the will, all to no avail. There is no real power in this theology. In effect, I think, we must conclude that Arminius' views on Grace are no stronger than that of Pelagius: both lack the manifest power of God.

THE ROOTS OF ORIGINAL SIN

Some view the doctrine of Original Sin as an early fifth-century invention necessitated by Augustine's new-found theology that he is forced to construct due to the supposed error he himself creates when he reinterprets his conversion as being as miraculous as that of Saint Paul (Acts 9:1-9). Augustine's new-found soteriological theology is, however, a necessary outworking of his changed perspective of the need of the Holy Spirit to specifically and particularly intervene in the life of a sinner if he is at all to believe in Christ Jesus. Some, like Pelagius, think that his reorientation on the doctrine of (effectual) grace, a necessary component of salvation due to the effects of Original Sin and Total Depravity on the state of fallen man, reflects that of his former religion: Manichæanism. We know historically that "'No one prior to Augustine really asserted anything like this need for an inner working of God within human freedom' [and this is true], and his conviction of this need sprang from his reflection on his own experience of conversion, prompting the only significant amendment of his own earlier views on grace as expressed in his treatise On Free Will, written between 388 and 395 to defend the freedom of the will against Manichean determinism."32 But the seeds of Original Sin, and the development of the doctrine of Total Depravity, were already being planted by some early Church fathers.

For example, early Eastern father Justin Martyr (AD 160) argues that all fallen mortals born into the world are born with a "corruption ... inherent in [their] nature" and that "we carried about in ourselves that natural corruption."33 Western father Tertullian (197) suggests that Satan "overthrew the virtue of man [Adam] ... So Satan has entirely changed man's nature into his own state of wicked enmity against his Maker." Now "the entire human race went over to death on account of his [Satan's] sin. For they were tainted in their descent from him. They were made a channel for transmitting his condemnation."34 He states, further (in 210), "Every soul, then, by reason of its birth, has its nature in Adam until it is born again in Christ." Commodianus (240) writes: "Adam was the first man who fell. ... And he conferred on us also what he did ... For he was the chief of all who were born from him. As a result, we die through his means." Cyprian (250) argues likewise: "In the beginning of the world and of the human race, Adam ... received God's judgment. ... We are all tied and bound with the chain of this sentence [of death--both physical and spiritual] until we depart from this life."35 They echo the words of Paul: "So then ... one trespass led to a verdict of condemnation for all people ... [T]hrough the disobedience of one man the many became sinners" (Rom. 5:18-19 EHV).

Whether or not Tertullian argues for Original Sin and Total Depravity in the same vein as the Augustinian and the Reformed is unclear. His views on Free Will oftentimes betrays the drastic effects of Original Sin and Total Depravity: "Man is free, with a will either for [seemingly inherently capable for] obedience or resistance. ... We define the soul as having sprung from the breath of God. It is immortal ... [and] free in its determinations."36 We say that, yes, the soul / spirit / nature of a sinner is free in its determinations and, apart from regeneration, will always determine resistance and never obedience to God. "For the mind that is set on the flesh [or the fallen nature--which incorporates every single human being born into the world] is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God's law; indeed, it cannot" (Rom. 8:7 ESV).

Augustine's former religion Manichæanism posits both dualism and determinism, for which "matter was evil, sin necessarily a component of human existence, and man's nature crippled from birth."37 Gnostics, who considered themselves the true Christians, held to similar views. For example, Origen (225) argues against Gnostics who promote the idea that "humans [inherently] have [are created with] a ruined [tainted / fallen] nature because of being created by the inferior Demiurge. These Gnostics taught that, as a result of these ruined natures, salvation was purely a matter of [particular and effectual] grace and [unconditional] election by the Father of Jesus."38 We can see, then, why some in the early Church would be fearful of Augustine's doctrine of effectual grace and unconditional election because those same notions are shared within a Gnostic context. The problem with that fear, however, is that it is misdirected. There is no Demiurge Creator granting the cause why we are born with a fallen nature. God, the God of Israel, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, with the creation-work of the Holy Spirit, created us in His image, in His likeness, by His own creative power (Gen. 1:26, 27; 2:7; 5:1, 2; 9:6; Deut. 4:32; Job 4:17; 10:8, 9, 10, 11, 12; 31:15; 33:4; 34:19; Ps. 8:3, 4, 5, 6; 89:47; 95:6; 100:3; 104:30; 119:73, 74; 138:8; 139:13-16; Eccl. 3:11; 12:7; Isa. 17:7; 42:5; 43:7; 44:24; 49:5; 64:8; Jer. 1:5; 27:5; Zech. 12:1; Mal. 2:10; Matt. 19:4; John 1:3; Acts 17:26, 27, 28; 1 Cor. 8:6; Gal. 1:15; Eph. 3:9; Col. 1:16; 3:10; Heb. 3:4; James 3:9; Rev. 4:11). We in Adam fall into sin because of our own doing and not because of any imagined inferiority with a Demiurge who does not even actually exist.

Pelagius believes that, because the false religion posits that view, the view must be in error. However, just because we find certain views in a false religion with which we may initially and even strongly disagree, that does not mean that all of their views must be in error and cannot maintain even a seed of truth. If Manichæanism and Gnosticism argue that God is the Creator of all that exists, seen and unseen, is that an error merely because it is stated within the context of both erroneous religions? B.R. Rees argues that Augustine's views are "so novel that centuries pass by before the Church properly understands what has happened."39 To some degree that is true. But we must remember that doctrine was being formulated through the centuries. Understanding of certain doctrines took decades and centuries to formulate and systematize into what would become creeds and catechisms and confessions--even dogmas. We should not be surprised to see the history of theological development and that formulating doctrines takes a considerable amount of time. The longer the Church has the scriptures, the more time devoted to the study of the scriptures, the better, the more clear, the finer the distinctions on doctrinal issues comes to fruition. This is why we need not fret that the early fathers differed soteriologically from the views of Augustine--or Cyprian and Ambrose for that matter--and from the Reformers Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin. Through the centuries of studying Scripture soteriology became refined.

Dr. Harold O.J. Brown is noted to state that "Augustine was once attached" to Manichæanism and "he never seems entirely to have outgrown" the attachment.40 Again, to some degree that may be true, but overall I think that is an overstatement. If Augustine's new views on effectual grace, an inherited fallen nature from Adam to all his progeny, total depravity and unconditional election maintain any semblance of Asian-Manichæan undertones then that, to me, appears more coincidental than overtly intentional. Manichæanism is unChristian. Still, Augustine is not perfect, and his advocacy of the use of the State for the Church in conquering its theological opponents41 by the reading "compel them to come in" (Luke 14:23) seems specious at best. Moreover, while we can appreciate his defense of orthodoxy in doctrine, his integrity is questioned in the manner in which he uses his influence and authority afforded to him in confronting his theological opponent, Pelagius,
It may be doubtful or unclear whether Pelagius or Celestius or both of them or neither of them, or others either with them or in their name, held or still hold such propositions [the fourteen--some say eighteen--charges of alleged beliefs deriving from Pelagius and Celestius]. It has nonetheless been made quite clear by this court that these things were condemned and that Pelagius would have been condemned at the same time if he had not himself condemned them. Now after this judgment, when we argue against opinions of this sort, we are certainly arguing against a condemned heresy. ... Regardless of the sense in which Celestius may or may not have affirmed them, regardless of the sense in which Pelagius may or may not have held them [does truth not matter?], let us rejoice and give thanks to God that these statements that are so evil, produced by such a new heresy, have been condemned by an ecclesiastical court.42
Would Augustine desire to be treated in the same manner? Among Pelagius' alleged beliefs is that the sin of Adam harmed him alone and not the whole human race. Yet Pelagius emphatically states that "our Lord, the Word of God, came down from Heaven, namely, that through His assumption of our human nature the human race, left prostrate from the time of Adam, might be raised up in Christ, and the new man rewarded for his obedience with salvation [John 3:36 NASB] as great as the perdition that once befell him through disobedience."43 Is Pelagius hinting at obedience to the Law as being a requirement in order to attain salvation? Yes! There is more on this below. But, though Pelagius admits that the whole human race has been "left prostrate from the time of Adam," he does not mean that we inherited from Adam any propensity to sin. We choose to sin by the example Adam left us. But we can innately and most freely choose not to sin, if we so desire, and we can innately and most freely choose to sin, if we so desire, and God punishes the former and rewards the latter. We are free, in Pelagius and the early fathers, in the most liberal sense of the word--utterly free. "Grace indeed freely discharges sin," insists Pelagius, "but with the consent and choice of the believer [to freely trust in Christ]."44 But can we, are we innately capable of, freely trusting in Christ?

AUGUSTINE AND ORIGINAL SIN

Augustine finds Original-Sin doctrine a necessity regarding his newfound doctrine of Unconditional Election--especially as such intersects with Infant Baptism, Infant Death, and Infant Damnation. For Augustine, if Unconditional Election is true, then infants who die in infancy without baptism are thereby forever damned in Hell and prove that they were not unconditionally elected by God. For Augustine, the "purpose of baptism ... was to counteract a specific effect of original sin,"45 a notion found nowhere in all of Scripture. Augustine is troubled in 411 that Pelagius' colleagues claim that the rite of baptism regards not remission of sins for infants but sanctification.46

Augustine, I think, creates his own philosophical-theological conundrum by the manner in which he articulates the doctrine. Without his particular construction of Original Sin there is no need for infants to be "washed" of an inherited guilt from Adam--nor would they be in any danger of hellfire by God's decree of unconditional election for only some infants / children who die in infancy / childhood, hence barring the rest from Heaven, which Christ admits belongs to them (Matt. 19:13, 14; cf. Matt. 18:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). The belief of infant / child damnation for some ("non-elect") infants / children who die in infancy / childhood is advocated by certain Calvinists today; while other Calvinists / Reformed believers, who argue that all infants and the cognitively impaired will be saved by God's grace, even if non-Reformed folks may disagree with some of the particulars as to how they argue the case. We must extend grace to Augustine and others who are working out their theological doctrines; and we must be willing to concede that God has not told us everything there is to know; where Scripture does not speak carefully and clearly we must remain humble; and we should humbly confess that, with regard to secondary and tertiary issues, we could be wrong.

Augustine, for instance, can be right about the biblical doctrines of Original Sin, Total Depravity and Unconditional Election, and still err on some particular notions related to those doctrines without those perceived errors undermining the whole of the teaching. In Adam we are all made / considered to be inherently condemned sinners (cf. Rom. 5:18, 19; and possibly Ps. 51:5). Our inherent depravity renders us incapable of perfectly obeying God's Law (Rom. 8:7, 8). The unregenerate do not want to be saved (1 Cor. 1:18, 23, 24, 30; 2:7, 12, 13, 14) but want to sin (Rom. 3:9-18). We see, then, biblical evidence of Original Sin, Total Depravity, and Unconditional Election (regarding Unconditional Election see especially Gen. 21:12, 13; Ex. 9:16; 33:19; Deut. 7:7, 8; 10:15; 32:8; Josh. 11:20; 1 Sam. 12:22; 1 Kings 12:15; 20:42; 2 Kings 19:25; 2 Chron. 6:6; Job 23:13, 14; Ps. 33:12; 65:4; 78:67, 68, 70, 71, 72; 105:17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22; 135:4; Prov. 16:4; Isa. 44:1, 2, 7; Jer. 1:4, 5; Mal. 1:2, 3; Matt. 11:25, 26; 20:16; 22:14, 22, 40; 25:34; Mark 13:20, 22; Luke 4:25, 26, 27; 8:10, 10:20; 18:7; 22:22; John 6:37, 39, 44, 45; 15:16, 19; 17:2, 6; 21:23; Acts 1:7; 2:23, 39, 47; 3:18; 4:28; 13:48; 17:26; 22:14; Rom. 1:6; 8:28, 29, 30, 33; 9:11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29; 11:5, 7, 8; 1 Cor. 1:26, 27, 28, 29; 2:7; Gal. 1:15; Eph. 1:4, 5, 9, 10, 11; 2:10; 3:11; Col. 3:12; 1 Thess. 1:4; 2:12; 2 Thess. 2:13; 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:1, 2; James 1:18; 1 Pet. 1:2, 20; 2 Pet. 1:10; Jude 1:4; Rev. 13:8; 17:8). We will not be distracted by the false notion of infant damnation. In other words, the error of infant / child damnation for the alleged non-elect will not render Original Sin, Total Depravity and Unconditional Election to be error.

The Westminster Confession of Faith infamously leads some to believe in infant damnation: "Elect [only unconditionally elected] infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit [the rest enter Hell], who worketh when, and where, and how He pleaseth. So also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word." If God has elected to save infants / children who die in infancy / childhood, then is that election not conditional, since the reason why He saves them is because they died in infancy? Not necessarily, no, because God also, at least in some sense, sovereignly decreed the death of such individuals. In this case, then, God sovereignly decreed / permitted the death of the infant / child / cognitively-impaired individual and unconditionally elected to save them by grace and for His just glory. B.R. Rees, highlighting Augustine's views on the matter, speculates: The non-elect have not been
so 'prepared' [by God's proactive inner grace], and we are left with the harsh but seemingly inescapable conclusion that they are not recipients of God's mercy and so are condemned to eternal damnation for a sin which they did not themselves commit but of which, nevertheless, they are held to be guilty, a conclusion which Augustine's remorseless logic does not permit him to mitigate even for children dying unbaptized; their fate can only be referred to the "occult [mysterious] justice" of God, whose judgments are inscrutable.47
I believe Rees is in error in this interpretation. Each person born into the world is in Adam (Rom. 5:18, 19) and, until he is in Christ (Rom. 5:20, 21), he is an enemy of God and hostile toward Him (Rom. 5:10; 8:7, 8; 11:28; 2 Cor. 5:18, 19; Eph. 2:3; Col. 1:21). None of us are neutral persons. We are in Adam because we are Adam. The tragic reality of our history and our humanity is this: Adam reflects all of us, each person to ever be born into the world, because had we been the first Adam and the first Eve then we would have made the same woeful decisions that they made. How do we know this? We know this inferentially based upon the righteous integrity and the just character of God. If God had foreknown any mortal that would have obeyed Him perfectly, had not eaten of the forbidden tree, then He would have been unjust in not permitting / decreeing that person, or that couple, to exist and then to bring forth a righteous progeny. We trust His judgments.

Augustine arrives at the doctrine of Original Sin through a mistaken reading of the Latin Vulgate at Romans 5:12: "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because, or in that, all sinned" (NASB). B.R. Rees notes that the Latin Vulgate reads in quo, in whom, omnes peccaverunt, all sinned: the Greek reads ἐφ’ ω, in that, not in whom, meaning Adam.48 So Augustine, I believe, arrives at an orthodox and biblical doctrine through an erroneous interpretation. But how can this be? How can truth spring from error? The point at Romans 5:12 seems not to be that we all sin in Adam, or because of Adam, nor even that we are held guilty for Adam's sin; but that, through Adam, the one man, sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death, not sin but death, spread to all because, or in that, or and we see evidence of this--that death spread to all through sin--because all people sin (and sin brings about death and all people die). We affirm that all people sin and are sinners (Rom. 3:23). However, Paul expounds upon his thought, "So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men" (Rom. 5:18 NASB), and, "For as through the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners" (Rom. 5:19 NASB). Here is where we actually find the weightier evidence for Original Sin: through Adam there resulted condemnation to each person born into the world; through Adam all people born into the world were made (ASV, CSB, ESV, ISV, KJV, LEB, MEV, NABRE, NASB, NIV, NKJV NRSV, OJB, RSV, WEB) or appointed (LSB) or became (NCV, EHV, NLT) or were constituted sinners (NET, YLT)--the Greek word is kathistémi and refers to standing (in this case standing within a state of being--i.e., to the state of being rendered a sinner), to appoint (appointed as a sinner), to show to be (a sinner), to constitute toward a certain reality (constituted to be a sinner).

Augustine, I admit, creates unnecessary problems for this doctrine when insisting that "baptism frees Christians from the guilt ... attached to the original sin, even [though] they continue to produce children infected with concupiscence by the act of procreation at the moment of conception."49 Concupiscence is noted as strong sexual desire, lust, or the tendency of humans to sin that results in massa damnāta, a mass of perdition, or mass of eternally-damned human beings. For Augustine, concupiscence "as sexual desire is both the original sin, the peccatum [sins] to which all are heirs, and the reciprocal penalty which it incurs, the poena peccati [sin as punishment]."50 Perhaps Augustine's sexual past has become the lens through which he interprets Scripture and the constructing of issues related to Original Sin. Again, in my opinion, we need not focus on his excesses as a means of denying that, in Adam, we are condemned and constituted sinners (Rom. 5:18, 19).

ORIGINAL SIN AND THE BIBLE

Augustine, after studying the letters of Paul for an entire decade, discovers and rightly concludes in a grand biblical theology that will eventually give birth to TULIP theology, one that notes, briefly: because we are born sinners with a tainted nature that is bent away from God (Original Sin), we cannot place faith in Christ so as to be saved without God first regenerating the individual (Total Depravity that infers the need for Irresistible or Effectual Grace). Since this is the case then, if anyone is to be saved, he must be unconditionally elected by God for and unto that salvation (Unconditional Election), effectually called and graced with regeneration by the Holy Spirit (Irresistible Grace), and necessarily preserved for salvation unto the end, such that he cannot fall away and stop trusting in Christ (Perseverance or Preservation of the Saints). The doctrine of Limited Atonement is developed later in Church history. This biblical theology is entirely sound, unbreakably cohesive yet concise, while holding profound depth of truths reaching back to eternity past in the mind, will, and purposes of God.

We who advocate the doctrine of Original Sin are quick to reference the seemingly only place in Scripture which explicitly, at least in terms of language, indicates a connection between sin and birth: "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me" (Ps. 51:5 NASB; cf. ASV, ESV, ISV, KJV, LSB, LEB, MEV, NKJV, OJB, RSV, WEB, YLT); "Indeed, I was guilty when I was born; I was sinful when my mother conceived me" (CSB); "Yes, I was born in guilt, in sin, from the moment my mother conceived me" (CEB, NABRE); "True, I was born guilty, was a sinner from the moment my mother conceived me" (CJB, NET, NRSV); "I was brought into this world in sin. In sin my mother gave birth to me" (NCV); "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me" (NIV); "For I was born a sinner--yes, from the moment my mother conceived me" (NLT). We know from the history of Judaism that, from the Hebrew fathers to the members of Second Temple Judaism, they did not seem to believe in Original Sin. Many of the early Greek Church fathers did not seem to believe in Original Sin. The Orthodox Church to this very day does not believe in Original Sin. The doctrine does not seem to appear on the theological radar until perhaps early in the third century. But I will challenge that notion below. Dr. Scot McKnight surprisingly comments:
The Adam of Judaism, I concluded, was not the historical Adam construct of Christian [notably Reformed] theology. There is precious little reflection on how Adam passed on his sin [if he, in fact, did so]. Though on some level he precipitated sin. They have no statements about sin nature being passed on by procreation. They don't have what we would call a federal representation of all humans in Adam and Eve--at least that I'm aware of. ... First, the Adam of Paul in Romans 5 is the literary Adam of Genesis, probably also the genealogical Adam and, seemingly, the image-of-God Adam. But, most important, he was the man who was summoned to obedience and he didn't [obey]. Paul ignores Eve in the book of Romans. Second, the Adam of Paul has echoes of the Jewish traditions' interpretation. Third ... the Adam of Paul is the moral Adam who was disobedient. The Adam of Paul was the man who chose to sin. Adam, for Paul, is everyone. Fourth ... Paul lays blame on humans, not because they were born sinners or because of their [so-imagined] sin nature, but because, like Adam, they [freely] choose to sin. This is what Romans 5:12 said: "because all sinned" [εφ ω, in that all sinned]. How Adam and Eve is connected to the obvious sin behavior of all humans is simply not stated by the apostle Paul. Original Sin is a good theory [some think otherwise] but Paul doesn't seem to believe in it. Or, better yet, it is not clear to me that he teaches it (26:29-28:41).
I am puzzled by his conclusion. Just because Paul does not mention sin-transmission at Romans 5:12 does not mean that he does not believe in the doctrine of inherited sin, inherited guilt, especially as he himself insists that each one of us is a sinner (Rom. 3:5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 23; cf. Ps. 14:2, 3; Eccl. 7:29 NLT), and Paul knows that Jesus calls us evil (Matt. 7:11), and he knows that the Psalmist declares that we, as being wicked, are "estranged from the womb; they go astray from birth, speaking lies" (Ps. 58:3 ESV; cf. Eccl. 9:3). Paul writes that we were all "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 [Jew and Gentile] 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" (Eph. 2:1-3).

Paul also confesses that Adam brought to each one of us, because we are "in Adam" (1 Cor. 15:22), condemnation [katákrima, punishment following condemnation, the exact sentence of condemnation handed down after due process--establishing guilt] for sin and that we are all thereby constituted sinners by virtue of our birth (Rom. 5:18, 19). Certainly Paul had read the words of Solomon, who notes that folly is "bound up in the heart of a child" (Prov. 22:15 ESV), so that even children possess from birth a nature that is perpetually contrary to the righteousness of God in Christ. Paul states that all sinners are "darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart" (Eph. 4:18 ESV). This belongs to us by virtue of our birth into the world. This is not something that happens to us later in life. Paul confesses that he sees in his "members" (the function of human personality) another Law waging war against the Law of his mind and making him captive to the Law of sin that dwells in his members (Rom. 7:23 ESV). This is innate in his being and not a state brought upon him from the influence of exterior sources. "For at one time you were darkness," writes Paul, "but now you are light in the Lord" (Eph. 5:8). Paul emphatically teaches: "For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh [old nature / fallen nature / sinful nature]" (Rom. 7:18). Are we to imagine that our nature is derived from our own individual selves? Flesh, says Jesus, gives birth to flesh (John 3:6). Jesus says that the Holy Spirit gives new life because the flesh (old nature) profits nothing (John 6:63).

Adam, I argue, passes on his fallen human nature in which he exists, with and through Eve, and he gives birth through Eve to his own fallen-human likeness (Gen. 5:3). I am not convinced that Paul did not believe in Original Sin and the transmission of Adam's fallen human nature and even the guilt for sin (Rom. 5:18, 19) because we are all first "in Adam" (1 Cor. 15:22). Tertullian (210) argues: "Every soul, then, by reason of its birth, has its nature in Adam until it is born again in Christ."51 That this nature needs to be "born again in Christ" indicates that the nature is "dead" to the things of God (Eph. 2:1, 2, 3), is the fallen nature inherited from Adam, whose human nature fell from its original state as created by and in the image of God. Flesh gives birth to flesh. The Spirit gives birth to spirit. The flesh profits nothing (John 6:63).

King David claims to have been "brought forth," or given birth, within a context of iniquity. But whose iniquity? That of his mother or of himself? He claims, "in sin my mother conceived me," but is he referring to his mother's sin? How could he be referring to his own sin when he is still in his mother's womb and has committed no sin? Unless, that is, he is referencing the inheritance of Adam's guilt (Rom. 5:18, 19). Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers notes: "The later rabbis, combining this verse with the mystery hanging over the origin and name of David's mother, represent him as born in adultery." So David, some imagine, is merely confessing his heinous sin and doing so in poetic form using hyperbole. At best, they say, we might suggest that David, remorseful over his own adultery, desires to be cleansed from his sins (Ps. 51:1, 2), acknowledging his guilt (Ps. 51:3), noting that God is the One who is most offended by his sinful behavior. In essence, then, David is claiming that his sin is so heinous, his guilt so profound, that he traces his sinful context poetically back to his own birth. But Ellicott's Commentary adds: "But the verse is only a statement of the truth of experience so constantly affirmed in Scripture of hereditary corruption and the innate proneness to sin in every child of man." There can be no doubt that this is a Psalm, that the words are set to music, and that this is pure poetry. But truth is also here: truth about his sin, truth about his guilt, and truth that our sin is an offense toward God. Whether this is a confession about the transmission of sin from Adam to all his progeny, including the transmission of guilt, is questioned by some.

John MacArthur, in his The MacArthur Study Bible at this passage, proffers that the source of David's sin is "a fallen, sinful disposition, his since conception." Charles Ryrie, in his Ryrie Study Bible at this passage, highlights the phrase "brought forth," noting, "from the moment of conception a person possesses a sinful nature [cf. Eph. 2:3--we are each born as children of wrath]." R.C. Sproul, in his The Reformation Study Bible at this passage, also highlights the phrase "brought forth in iniquity," stating, "The Bible clearly teaches that children are sinners. They are not born innocent and only later become sinners. Children, too, need God's salvation." We all know from experience that a child does not have to be taught how to sin. A child seems to already naturally and quite intuitively know how to sin, to rebel, and to be defiant in and of himself. Tell him not to do something and he does it anyway. Each one of us, "being [perpetually remaining in a state of being spiritually] dead in trespasses and sins" (Eph. 2:1), are each one "sold under sin" (Rom. 7:14) and, with sin as our master (Rom. 6:14), we are each "held captive to the Law of sin" (Rom. 7:23). Jewish people typically suggest that we are sinners because we sin. Augustinians / Calvinists / Reformed believers insist, biblically, that we sin because we are by nature sinners--each and every single one of us (Rom. 3:23). Jesus Himself says: "If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children" (Luke 11:13 NASB). Jesus called us evil. Dr. Sproul comments:
Perhaps radical corruption is a better term to describe our fallen condition than "total depravity" [total merely indicates that the total of our being--body, soul (mind and heart), and spirit--is affected by sin]. I am using the word radical not so much to mean "extreme," but to lean more heavily on its original meaning. Radical comes from the Latin word for "root" or "core." Our problem with sin is that it is rooted in the core of our being. It permeates our hearts [Prov. 4:23; Jer. 17:9; Matt. 12:34; Mark 7:21, 22, 23]. It is because sin is at our core and not merely at the exterior of our lives that the Bible says: "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless [unprofitable, NKJV]; no one does good, not even one" (Rom. 3:10-12 ESV).52
The late Dr. Sproul asks those who disagree with the doctrine of Original Sin, with the doctrine of inherited guilt, this devastating question: "Yet if people are basically good, why is sin so universal? If people are born good or innocent, we would expect at least a percentage of them to remain good and sinless. We should be able to find societies [or at least one person in the history of humanity besides Jesus Christ] that are not corrupt, where the environment has been conditioned by sinlessness rather than sinfulness. Yet the most dedicated-to-righteousness communes we can find still have provisions for dealing with the guilt of sin."53 Why? How? How can at least one person not remain within the context of the innocence in which he or she was allegedly conceived and born? Not even one? That fact of reality is telling. "None is righteous, no, not one" (Rom. 3:10 ESV). Perhaps the notion regarding the inheritance of sin, guilt, and condemnation (Rom. 5:18, 19) at the very conception is right after all: "Indeed, I was guilty when I was born; I was sinful when my mother conceived me" (Ps. 51:5 CSB).

The problem with appealing to the early Church fathers, and even to the early Greek Church fathers, with regard to Original Sin and the inheritance of a fallen / sinful nature and guilt for sin, is that, even if they do not reference Original Sin by name, they seem to infer the concept with regard to the need to baptize infants. If infants are born innocent, and did not inherit Adam's fallen nature that is in need of redemption, then infants are in no need of the water of baptism, since the early fathers believed in baptismal regeneration, a washing away of sins. If infants are born innocent then there are no sins to wash away. In effect, then, they see a glimmer of the truth of Original Sin even though they do not yet understand their need for the truth of the doctrine. They have a context that does not yet have the quality of a categorical name. Cyprian (250 CE) argues: "Nobody is hindered from baptism and from grace. How much more should we shrink from hindering an infant. For he, being lately born, has not sinned--other than, in being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth. For this reason, he more easily approaches the reception of the forgiveness of sins. For to him are remitted--not his own sins--but the sins of another."54 The sinful / fallen nature of Adam, as well as the guilt of the sin of Adam, is transmitted to the individual. Otherwise the infant would have no need for baptism in order to cleanse "the sins of another" (Rom. 5:18, 19).

In Presbyterian, Lutheran, Methodist et al. traditions, Baptism is the New Testament Sign of the Covenant that is given, like the Old Testament practice, to the children of believers. Baptism, then, is merely the sign of God's promise of Salvation to the children of believers who themselves are already part of God's New Covenant, a promise to save the child who (later) trusts in Jesus Christ. But this is not the argument of Pelagius, and this is not the argument of the early fathers, and this is not even the argument of Augustine. As a matter of fact, the issue of Infant Baptism, and not of Free Will or Grace, is what initially causes problems between Pelagius and Augustine. If Pelagius had adhered to Baptism as a Sign of the New Covenant given to the children of believers, instead of pondering what to do with the practice since "the washing away of Original Sin" was not his own theological framework, then he could have maintained a better argument toward Augustine. Their focus on Conversion Baptism (Acts 2:38)--the Baptism of adult converts trusting in Jesus Christ--became the basis for their belief in Baptismal Regeneration for infants and, for Augustine, the need to wash away the inherited sin and guilt of Adam.

CONDEMNING PELAGIUS

In order for Augustine to silence Pelagius, and to institute what he deems as orthodoxy proper in the Church, he must first demonstrate Pelagius to be a threat to orthodoxy, present the tenets of his theology that are to be condemned, and then convince an ecclesiastical court to condemn and to then excommunicate and exile him, thus forever eradicating both the heretical person and the heretical theology.55 In AD 418 Pelagius is condemned by two councils at Milevis and Carthage. Pope Innocent I. allows Pelagius to defend himself either in person or in writing. So he pens his Defense in Justification and Confession of Faith. But the Pope dies before receiving the treatises. His successor, Pope Zosimus, receives the letters and acquits Pelagius of all charges. Furious, and rightly so, Augustine garners the weight of the African Bishops, as well as Emperor Honorius, to pressure the Pope to condemn the errant theology of Pelagius (even if some of the theological accusations were not specifically from his pen or from his lips).56 This the Pope does, reluctantly in 418, and Pelagius exits the stage of Church history. Augustine's views on grace and salvation are received into the Church as orthodoxy proper and all dissenting views are deemed error and / or heretical. Rees adds: "At that time" are Augustine's views adopted, "yes, but not forever, not everywhere, not in everyone's judgment."57

The Greek Orthodox tradition of the East refuses to adopt Augustine's views as orthodoxy and continues (to this day) in the tradition of the early Greek fathers to whom Pelagius is faithful. To condemn Pelagius on Free Will, all of the early Greek fathers are also condemned, since the theology of Pelagius is merely the theology of the early Greek fathers (there is no such thing as "Pelagianism"); and the Western tradition in Christianity is largely conformed, and owes its theological inheritance, to that of Augustine of Hippo. Augustine changes the very face of Christianity in the West; and, from Augustine (and those upon whom he relied theologically, such as Ambrose, Cyprian, Tertullian, and Ambrosiaster), we are granted a biblical theology that lasts into the Reformation in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. But the issue of Free Will is only one problem presented by Pelagius' theology: the problem is that the Will and Human Nature are unaffected by sin.

Even Rees himself, no friend to Augustine, trusts in the objective opinion of N.P. Williams, who argues, "If Christianity had accepted Pelagius' account of human nature [unruined by the Fall and by being "in Adam," 1 Cor. 15:22] as its presupposition, it would have ceased to be a 'religion' in any intelligible sense of the term."58 That is a frightening statement. Equally as frightening is a comment from Rees himself:
Some see [Pelagius] as primarily a humanist, striving to fight his way out of the dim shadows of revealed religion into the purer air of rationalistic humanism [an absurdity revealing that the individual has never read Pelagius]. But he was no humanist or rationalist, and, as for those whose [supposed] enlightened twentieth-century liberalism leads them to envisage him as a bluff, rather jolly, Dickensian figure vainly pitting his puny strength in defense of human freedom against obscurantist theories of divine omnipotence--why, they would run miles to get out of his sight if confronted with the real Pelagius in person! Here was a man [a rigid fundamentalist] who would have turned the whole Christian Church into a reform school if he had had his way and, this accomplished to his own satisfaction, would have had not the slightest compunction in consigning to Hell all who remained outside [of the Faith] of their own [free] choice. ... He was a moral perfectionist for whom even the most venial sin brought with it the danger of everlasting punishment.59
Evidence to support these statements from the writings of Pelagius himself are presented below. Having read his works for over three years, having been horrified by his understanding of meriting salvation by keeping the Law, I have become not only sympathetic to the cause of Augustine but relieved that God raised up a theologian who took ten years to study the words and the inspired theology of Paul so that he could be armed against the threats Pelagius, Celestius, and their followers were lodging at the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Soli deo gloria!

Augustine, I think, did not have to resort to any sort of political trickery to confront the theology of Pelagius. He could have just quoted his works, argued biblically against Pelagius' writings, and allowed the ecclesial court to decide the matter. For example, Pelagius writes, "No Christian is permitted to sin, and it befits all without exception who have been purified by the sanctification of the spiritual water [baptism] to pass a spotless life and thus be allowed entry into the very heart of the Church."60 This emphasis upon living a spotless / blameless / sinless life is repeated ad nauseam throughout his writings. Believers are supposed to obey the Lord (1 John 2:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 29; 3:4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 24; 5:1, 2, 3, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21). In fact we think redeemed / regenerated believers in Jesus will obey their Lord (John 14:15, 21, 23), not because if they fail then they will be discarded by Christ, but out of love for and devotion to Him. Pelagius writes to a virgin who longs to devote herself to the work of Christ: "You are called a bride of Christ: see that you do nothing unworthy in the eyes of Him to whom you are seen to be betrothed. He will quickly write your deed of divorce if He sees even one act of [spiritual] adultery on your part."61 That is outlandishly unbiblical. If Christ "quickly" wrote deeds of divorce for even one act of wickedness on our part then no one could be saved. But, again, this is another example of the perfected life that derives out of the ascetic movement that is grossly unbiblical and heretical.

Pelagius argues: "God does not love the wicked, He does not love sinners [contra John 3:16], He does not love the unrighteous, the greedy, the cruel, the impious; but the good, the righteous, the pious, the humble, the guiltless, the gentle He does love."62 No, God does not love wickedness, and He hates violence and all manner of evil--including the people who behave wickedly. But to suggest that God does not love sinners, but only loves the good and pious and righteous, is to suggest that a person must first become good and pious and righteous and then receive the mercy and grace and love of God. Blasphemy! "None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one. Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin, and misery, and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes" (Rom. 3:10-18 ESV).

Pelagius repeats the unbiblical and heretical notion yet again: "God does not love the evil, He does not love sinners; whoever does evil is God's enemy; whoever is not without guile can have no part with Christ."63 If he is speaking about the person who calls himself a Christian but behaves like an unregenerate heathen then I could sympathize with him. For instance, he continues, "For nothing more is asked of a Christian, nothing is more greatly desired of him, and nothing is more to be striven for with all his strength than that he should shut out ill will from his heart, than that he should not admit evil into the conscience that is in his breast, than that he should hold on to goodness, maintain righteousness, and guard the purity of his mind."64 However, he tragically adds, "Be blameless if you wish to live with God."65

Friends, you cannot in any sense conceivable attain to absolute blamelessness / sinlessness in an effort to merit the grace of God for salvation (Rom. 3:10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18). Moreover, you only love God because He first loved you (1 John 4:19), while you were still a sinner in your sin (Rom. 5:6, 10). Paul writes: "So if you claim that God's promise [of salvation] is for those who obey God's Law and think they are 'good enough' in God's sight, then you are saying that faith is useless. And in that case, the promise [of salvation] is also meaningless. But the Law brings punishment on those who try to obey it" (Rom. 4:14, 15 NLT). You must embrace the work of Jesus on the Cross of Calvary, placing faith in His blood to atone for all your sins (Eph. 1:7), trust that His resurrection secures your justification by God (Rom. 4:25; 5:9; Phil. 3:9) and then you can rest in the imputation of Christ's righteousness to your very soul (Rom. 3:21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26). This is the only Gospel of your salvation (Eph. 1:13). Any other message contrary to this is another gospel, which Paul insists is no gospel at all (Gal. 1:6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12; 2 Cor. 11:4), for a false gospel cannot bring you what Christ offers you by His own merit, His own righteousness, His own sinless offering.

But Pelagius will go from bad to worse: "I do not know whose servant he is who is seen to be doing neither evil nor good, or how he can hope for everlasting life from God, if he has not earned it by good deeds."66 Here is damnable heresy! This is not a one-off statement, either,
But scripture testifies that eternal life cannot be merited save by complete observance of the divine commandments [and he then quotes Jesus at Matthew 19:17 out of context and misunderstands Jesus' point]. Therefore no one has that life unless he has kept all the commandments of the Law, and the man who does not have that life cannot be a possessor of the heavenly Kingdom, in which it is the living, not the dead, who shall reign. ... For just as observance of the commandments bestows life, so, on the other hand, transgression of them produces death. ... Righteousness, then, is, quite simply, not to sin, and not to sin is to keep the commandments of the Law.67
This, yet again, is overt damnable heresy! These are the statements Augustine should have produced and sought to have condemned as damnably heretical. Any ecclesiastical court would have condemned these statements without question. This should outrage any lover of grace, any born-again believer who has ever even once read the book of Romans, any person who is convinced that we are saved by grace through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. These statements alone should cause any true believer to forever forsake the theology of Pelagius. (These writings here, in fact, barely differ from many of the early Greek fathers.) You cannot believe such false teaching and be saved. This is the anti-Gospel. If a person believes that he can merit everlasting life from God by performing good deeds he will split Hell wide open upon his entrance (John 3:16, 36; Rom. 3:21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28; 5:1, 2; 6:23, 24; 10:9, 10; 11:6; Gal. 2:16; Eph. 2:8, 9; 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 3:5).

Why does Jesus point the Rich Young Ruler to the Law? The young man approaches Jesus, saying, "Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may obtain [of my own self] eternal life?" (Matt. 19:16 NASB). The young man's theology presupposes that inheriting eternal life is a matter of doing some good work / deed. So Jesus points him to the keeping of the Commandments mentioned in the Law (Matt. 19:17) because the Law promises eternal life to the one who can keep it entirely sinlessly (Lev. 18:5; Deut. 27:26; cf. James 2:10). The young man then gets specific: "Which ones?" he asks (Matt. 17:18). As Jesus begins listing the commands (Matt. 17:18, 19), the young man says, "All these things I have kept" (Matt. 19:20). Luke's account reads: "All these I have kept from my youth" (Luke 18:21 ESV). His response should have been: "But I can't keep the Law perfectly. No one can! What, then, can I do to inherit eternal life?" Instead he imagines himself to have perfectly kept the Law (James 2:10). That would almost be comical were it not so utterly tragic and frighteningly self-deceptive (Gal. 3:3, 10, 11, 18, 21, 22; cf. Rom. 3:20).

So then Jesus presses him, not to the letter of the Law, but to the spirit of the Law (2 Cor. 3:4, 5, 6). "Jesus said to him, 'If you wish to be complete [perfect], go and sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in Heaven; and come, follow Me.' But when the young man heard this statement, he went away grieving, for he was one who owned much property / was extremely rich" (Matt. 17:21-22 / Luke 18:23). Jesus got to the root of his problem: he had, in fact, not kept the Law perfectly for, if he had, then, by loving his neighbor as he loves himself (Matt. 17:19), he would have given abundantly to the poor out of his vast wealth. The Law will kill whoever tries to keep it sinlessly (Rom. 4:15 NLT). The person is found guilty of sin and in need of redemption--redemption that he himself cannot possibly earn.

Why, then, did the God of Israel say to His people: "For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will ascend to heaven for us, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, 'Who will go over the sea for us, and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?' But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth, and in your heart, so that you can do it" (Deut. 30:11-14 ESV)? The commands God gave His Jewish people were related to the Covenant He made with His people: "If you obey the commandments of the LORD your God that I command you today, by loving the LORD your God, by walking in His ways, and by keeping His commandments and His statutes and His rules, then you shall live, and multiply, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land that you are entering to take possession of it" (Deut. 30:16 ESV). God was promising His people blessing for obeying Him and cursing for disobeying Him. We learn in Scripture that they often disobey Him and receive the consequences. "You shall follow My rules and keep My statutes and walk in them. I am the LORD your God. You shall therefore keep My statutes and My rules; if a person does them, he shall live [gain eternal life?] by them: I am the LORD " (Lev. 18:4-5 ESV; cf. Rom. 2:25). Again, however, no one but Jesus has perfectly obeyed God's Laws, Commands, Statutes, no, not one (Rom. 3:10 ESV). How, then, can anyone be saved from their sins? "For whoever keeps the whole Law but fails in one point has become guilty of all of it" (James 2:10 ESV).

This is why Paul can say that the Law is merely a Tutor / Guardian to bring us to Christ (Gal. 3:23-24 ESV). "But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian [the Law], for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith" (Gal. 3:25-26 ESV). "Is the Law, then, contrary to the promises of God? Certainly not! For if a Law had been given that could give [eternal] life then righteousness would indeed be [attained] by [keeping] the Law" (Gal. 3:21 ESV). The only reason to point someone to the Law is to show them that keeping it perfectly is utterly impossible. But Christ came to perfectly fulfill and keep the Law on our behalf (Matt. 5:17). By the grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ, God imputes the righteousness of Christ to us (Rom. 3:21-26 ESV), and we are regarded as though we perfectly kept the Law. But Pelagius takes Jesus' words at face value and misunderstands His use of the Law. Pelagius, then, attempts to merit Heaven by keeping the Law. He explicitly confesses that "observance of the commandments bestows life."68 That is rank heresy. Do not believe this lie from Hell.

Dr. Robert F. Evans highlights Pelagius' devastating (my word) biblical-theological problem regarding the Law, Grace, Faith and Merit:
The key to understanding [Pelagius'] language is to notice that the formula "faith alone" applies to the unique situation of the individual at his conversion and baptism. "Righteousness" ... as a term applying to the Christian after baptism, and pre-eminently at the judgment, is unthinkable without the performance of "works of righteousness." i.e., without obedience to the moral precepts of Christ and of the Apostles [you cannot be justified until you earn it]. When the Apostle [Paul], referring to justification in this wider sense, writes that "man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law" (Rom. 3:28), [Pelagius thinks Paul] means to say that man is justified apart from ceremonial works of the Law such as circumcision and the observance of new moons and Sabbaths, [but] not apart from works of righteousness. The whole of the Christian life as it is stretched out between baptism and the judgment is one in which Christians avail themselves of the grace of teaching and example [for Pelagius there are five forms of grace and none of them is an inner work of the Holy Spirit or the Gospel]; always exercising that freedom of choice which has been made effectual by grace, they obey the precepts of the Gospel and so merit the rewards of the final Kingdom of Heaven. Pelagius sums up his whole teaching on faith in its relation to righteousness in the following words: "Faith in the first instance is reckoned as righteousness for this reason, that [a person] is absolved as to the past, justified as to the present [because he could fall away and lose his salvation], and prepared for the future works of faith."69
A few statements of Pelagius need more commentary. Pelagius' five forms of Grace include: 1) the God-given capacity to rationally will whatever one desires, by which a person has the capacity to be without sin, if he so chooses (and we are right to ask why no one in the history of humanity except Jesus was able to live without sin); 2) the Law (the Law, by definition, is not Grace, but is actually the antithesis of Grace, cf. Rom. 6:14); 3) the forgiveness of sins by the merit of Jesus Christ (a seemingly orthodox statement that is, however, undermined by the next form of Grace); 4) the example of Christ (you can attempt to imitate Christ, and you will unquestionably fail, but no one will be saved by attempting to imitate Christ); and 5) the teaching of Christ (which, again, will not justify and save any person because we are not saved merely by obeying the teachings of Christ). This is what Pelagius knows of Grace: an alleged God-given capacity to live and to freely choose rightly. Evans writes: "Pelagius has no doctrine of Grace other than this. It would be unfaithful to the man himself to attempt to save his 'orthodoxy' by reading in some doctrine of infused grace which is not there."70 In effect, then, Pelagius' Doctrine of Grace is not biblical Grace in any sense imaginable. His Doctrine of Grace originates in how God constructed us but is ultimately fulfilled by and in our own strength. This is not biblical Grace. Biblical Grace originates in the activity of God, in Christ, by the ministry of the Holy Spirit and not in us.

Moreover, Pelagius believes that Christ has forgiven past sins, so that a person is absolved as to his past sinful life. The forgiven one, then, starts again with a clean slate. But what about his present condition? What about his future? The present and the future depends upon the believer obeying the Laws and Teachings of Christ; and, if he fails, then he will not see the Kingdom of Heaven. My question to him would have been: "Have you never read Romans, or Galatians, or Ephesians? Because there is no possible way for a rational creature to read those books and conclude with the theology of Pelagius (and, let me add, the theology of Clement of Alexandria et al.)." The epithet "man-centered theology" belongs quite naturally to Pelagius and all who follow his unbiblical theology. If this theology had been adopted in the Church, instead of what Augustine brought to us, then, as N.P. Williams rightly states, Christianity would have devolved from being a religion proper. While we can be critical regarding how Augustine challenges Pelagius, and seeks to have him and his views condemned, we should all at least be glad that Augustine did so! We should rejoice in Christ every single day that Pelagius' theology is scarcely known in a universal sense. Granted, there are people who rarely open their Bibles but believe in some of Pelagius' ideas, but their ideas are their own. They are not attempting to justify their errors by the use of Scripture, as does Pelagius, as does Clement of Alexandria and some other Greek fathers.

I liken Pelagius' theology to the analogy of Noah and the Ark. Imagine if Noah had constructed poles on the outside of the Ark and told people that, if they could hang on to the boat in their own strength and outlast the storm and the flood, then they can be saved. That horrible ideology right there is Pelagius and it is not Good News--not the Gospel. The Gospel is about what Christ has perfectly, righteously, completely accomplished for us--not in any sense imaginable what we must attempt to accomplish in order to be saved. We trust in Jesus. Pelagius says Christ died to atone for our past sins but we will only see Heaven by obeying God's Law until our dying breath. Paul, on the other hand, is inspired of God to pen that God has justified us--judiciously declared us to be as righteous as is Christ Jesus--by grace through faith in Christ (Rom. 5:1, 2), meaning, God took all of our sins (sins past, sins present, and sins future) and laid them all upon Christ Jesus on the Cross of Calvary; and He took all of Christ's righteousness and laid it all on / imputed it all to us who are trusting, not in our own righteousness, but in His righteousness alone (Rom. 3:21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26; Phil. 3:1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11). Salvation is all of God's own doing (1 Cor. 1:18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31; 2:2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16; 2 Cor. 1:21, 22; Eph. 1:4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13; 2:8, 9, 10; 2 Peter 1:1).

CONCLUSION

J. Philip Newell writes that, after Pelagius' banishment and excommunication, "it seems that Pelagius went back to Wales [in the land of Celtic Britain], possibly to the protection of a Welsh monastery (tradition associates him with Bangor). Whether or not Pelagius did return there, the important point to grasp is that many of the spiritual characteristics apparent in the Celtic Church in Britain at this time and during the next few hundred years are consistent with those of Pelagius' spirituality."71 Of course, any opponent will rightly view any deficiencies in the British church throughout its history as being the primary cause and slippery slope of Pelagius' theology, even if some of his theology is merely the product of the early Greek Church fathers. So if Pelagius' theology is to be blamed for any errors in the Church then the real blame belongs to the originators of those doctrines--the Greek fathers--and to some degree I still believe this to be true.

Where does a condemned heretic flee? He is not permitted to be part of any community of the Christian faith because of his own theological errors. Rees comments: "My thoughts have often strayed to [Pelagius'] last days in Egypt--or wherever he may have been forced to spend them--and I have dared to hope that at the end there was someone who was not afraid to grant him that communion of which his Church had deprived him and the loss of which must have been for him 'the most unkindest cut of all.'" My hope for him is quite different! I hope that some orthodox and true believer shared the true and saving Gospel with him and that he, by the effectual grace of God, trusted solely in Christ's righteousness. I hope that he was saved from his wretched and damnable theology. Cutting a man off from communion from the Body of Christ on the issue of Free Will may seem petty, I agree, but not on the issues of salvation--not when the Law and the Gospel are confused, nearly conflated, and misrepresented in the Church of Christ Jesus. Rees adds that Pelagius "wanted above all else to be a good Christian, working for the reform of the Christian Church from within, [and] he sincerely believed that his teaching was orthodox and consistent with that Church's tradition, and it was in order to prove this to his critics that he allowed himself to become involved in an arduous and prolonged controversy for which he was by ethos and training," due to his quiet and humble nature, "quite unsuited."72

My suspicion is that Pelagius does find a community in which he can quietly flourish in his Celtic homeland. If Pelagius does not return to Britain, to Wales, then he may find a home in Ireland, given that the Imperial Ban of Excommunication would not be upheld in Ireland, since Ireland was never part of the Roman Empire. Newell adds that, with regard to the notion of Pelagius living in Ireland after his exile, the discovery of fifth-century Irish manuscripts of Scripture exposition "that references ... 'Pl states' and 'Pl says' proliferate. In Celtic writings of the next number of centuries, and most markedly in those from Ireland, even until as late as the ninth century, references to Pelagius and his scriptural Expositiones are plentiful."73 Augustine wins a victory but he fails to eradicate Pelagius' theology that spreads into England and Ireland. Newell closes: "One of the most delightful ironies surrounding his excommunication, when he was forced to write pseudonymously, is that he signed much of his work 'Augustine' or 'Jerome'; under these names his writings circulated throughout Europe for centuries."74 I am uncertain that anyone should really rejoice over a Christian forging names in order to garner a welcome reading community.

I would not condemn Pelagius or any Greek Church father for their belief in Free Will. I understand the scriptural proof-texts to which they appeal, I understand their hermeneutic, and I understand the underlying reasons for adhering to that presuppositional framework. I could say the same for them rejecting views such as Unconditional Election, Limited Atonement, Irresistible Grace and Perseverance of the Saints. I even understand why some conservative believers, who believe in biblical inerrancy as passionately as do we, reject the way we in the Reformed tradition contextualize Total Depravity and Original Sin. For all this I would not condemn Pelagius or the Greek fathers. But when Pelagius insists that a person will not enter / merit Heaven because he has not kept the Law, I too would seek for the condemnation of such teaching, and call for that theologian / teacher / pastor to be excommunicated. That we are saved by grace through faith in Jesus, and not by works, is explicitly taught in Scripture (Eph. 2:8, 9 et al.). This is why Pelagius is wrong and this is why he deserves the treatment he received. My prayer is that no one would ever consider adopting his theology--and especially on the matter of meriting Heaven through the Law.

__________

1 B.R. Rees, Pelagius: Life and Letters (Woodbridge: The Boydell Press, 1998), 2.2.

2 "As for speculations that his name was a Hellenized form of Muirchu (Irish), or Morgan (Welsh), they deserve only to be buried along with many other 'pure fantasies about his background.'" Ibid., 1.xiii.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid., 2.9.

5 Ibid., 2.30.

6 Ibid., 1.3.

7 Ibid., 1.ix.

8 Ibid., 1.xi.

9 Plinval and Evans hold the position that Pelagius studied Law; but Ferguson "has reservations, pointing out that 'though his skill in controversy [and debate] may indicate some legal training, he is not referred to as a lawyer like his associate Celestius.'" Ibid., 1.xiv.

10 Ibid., 1.11. "The absence of Pelagius' name from Jerome's polemical writings against him is probably to be explained by Jerome's reluctance to name an opponent who possessed the undoubted reputation for personal sanctity which we know attached to the person of Pelagius." Robert F. Evans, Pelagius: Inquiries and Reappraisals (Eugene: Wipf & Stock Publishers, 2010), 37.

11 Ibid.

12 Ibid., 1.30, fn 40.

13 Harold W. Hoehner, Ephesians: An Exegetical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 175-76.

14 Ibid., 176.

15 Ibid.

16 A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs: A Reference Guide to More Than 700 Topics Discussed by the Early Church Fathers, ed. David W. Bercot (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2003), 285.

17 Ibid., 285-93.

18 Quoted in Ali Bonner, The Myth of Pelagianism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018), 115.

19 Ibid., 116.

20 Ibid., 117.

21 Ibid., 153.

22 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. Henry Beveridge (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1993), 1.18.1, 2, pp. 199-200. Augustine agrees: "For 'God, without doubt, has most absolute power to incline men's hearts in whatever direction He pleases.'" Quoted in Rees, 1.34.

23 Jacob Arminius, "A Declaration of the Sentiments of Arminius," in The Works of Arminius, Three Volumes, ed. and trans. William and James Nichols (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), 3.630.

24 Pelagius, "To Demetrias," in Rees, 2.44.

25 Ibid., 2.50.

26 Rees, 1.93.

27 Pelagius, "To Demetrias," in Rees, 2.67.

28 Ibid., 2.66.

29 Ibid., 2.44-45.

30 Arminius, 2.192-94.

31 Ibid. 2.700.

32 Rees, 1.39.

33 A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, 271.

34 Ibid., 272.

35 Ibid., 273.

36 Ibid., 288.

37 Rees, 2.23, fn 71.

38 Dictionary, 289.

39 Rees, 2.23.

40 Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies: Heresy and Orthodoxy in the History of the Church (Peabody: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 2003), 201.

41 Ibid., 199.

42 Bonner, Myth, 23. I spell the name Celestius thusly and Bonner spells the name Caelestius.

43 Pelagius, "On the Divine Law," in Rees, 2.90.

44 Ibid., 2.92.

45 Rees, 1.13.

46 Ibid.

47 Ibid., 1.41.

48 Ibid., 1.59, including fn 26.

49 Ibid., 1.61.

50 Ibid., 1.62.

51 Dictionary, 54.

52 R.C. Sproul, "Human Depravity," in The Reformation Study Bible, ESV (Sanford: Ligonier Ministries, 2015), 889.

53 Ibid., "Original Sin," 17.

54 Dictionary, 59-60.

55 Bonner, 218-87.

56 Rees, 1.141. "It was he," Augustine, "who revived the subject of Pelagius' orthodoxy as soon as the records of Diospolis were made available for examination; it was he who masterminded the all-out campaign of the African Church to enlist the support of the Emperor and the Pope of Rome and to overcome the latter's reluctance to endorse an unambiguous condemnation of Pelagius and Celestius; it was he who, indefatigable as ever, picked off Pelagius' main supporters one by one and reduced them to silence; and it was he who continued the witch-hunt into the far corners of the Empire by ensuring that there would be no area of the Church in which Pelagius and his friends might be able to find asylum" (1.130). We thank God for the tenacity of Augustine!

57 Ibid., 2.25.

58 Rees, 1.45.

59 Ibid., 1.84.

60 Pelagius, "On Virginity," in Rees, 2.82.

61 Ibid.

62 Ibid., "On the Christian Life," 2.111.

63 Ibid., 2.117.

64 Ibid., 2.117-18.

65 Ibid., 2.118.

66 Ibid.

67 Ibid., "On Virginity," 2.74-75.

68 Ibid., 2.74.

69 Evans, Pelagius: Inquiries and Reappraisals, 119.

70 Ibid., 111.

71 J. Philip Newell, Listening for the Heartbeat of God: A Celtic Spirituality (Mahwah: Paulist Press, 1997), 20.

72 Rees, 1.131.

73 Newell, 21.

74 Ibid.