In 1783 a man named Asahel Nettleton was born in Connecticut. He was deeply convicted of his sin and “diligently applied himself to the means of grace, often praying for hours. After ten months of spiritual agony, God miraculously changed his heart.” Thus was the work of God in the soul of a man greatly used by God from when he began his ministry as an itinerant evangelist in 1812 until he died in 1844. He was Reformed in theology and in his practice of evangelism which he learned from Scripture and the writings of Jonathan Edwards and the Puritans. As such, he opposed with all of his might the new measures brought in by Charles Finney. It has been commented that Nettleton “spoke almost prophetically about the consequences of churches adopting these measures.” Interestingly enough, many of those measures are practiced today and are at the root of turning from the sober pursuit of God to many of the ways that people use to fill buildings in the name of Christ. He believed and practiced the accepted practice of evangelism by Reformed people in his day. The following quote is from his sermon on Regeneration from John 1:12-13:
“Pelagius in the 4th century first invented and advocated a scheme of regeneration which, with a few modifications, sometimes in the phraseology, and sometimes by partial additions or diminutions, has been the scheme of the great body of all sectaries, who have dissented from orthodox evangelical sentiments.-Authors have appeared in different periods and in various countries, who have brought forward this specious scheme of the new birth, as principally illustrated, or defined by themselves; and many whose reading is superficial have been deceived into this supposition. The fact is, that almost the whole system of vague and inadequate notions on this great subject is only the heresy of Pelagius, so universally condemned by the ancient Church, which has now been newly dressed up, after the modern fashion, to secure a better reception.”
We must carefully note the claims that Nettleton is making (interestingly enough) in his sermon. He sets out that the scheme of regeneration set out by Pelagius was in fact practically the same scheme set out by all those over the centuries, though they may have differed with some additions and diminutions, who differed from the Reformed or orthodox view. It is necessary to remember the background of Nettleton on this. He opposed the theology and evangelistic measures of Charles Finney who was his contemporary. In effect, then, he is saying that Finney was a Pelagian in one way or another. This charge would then come to our day and show us that Nettleton would teach that anyone who evangelized like Finney should also be seen as guilty of the heresy of Pelagius. In Nettleton’s time, men took their theology and evangelism seriously. The things that we shrug off as differences today were thought of as heresy by him and others in his day. He thought that the heresy of Pelagius was simply given a new dress after the modern fashion to secure a better reception. His words should warn us today about the same thing. Could it be that many in our day have swallowed down the poison of Pelagius simply because it is in a different dress that makes it look modern and more palatable? Could it be that we no longer think of Pelagianism as really all that bad and so we don’t see it dressed up as Arminianism and even in some Reformed circles?
If we give this but a few moments thought, and that without naming names, we can see where some of these things are in the modern day. We see people believing that infants and adults are saved in some way as a result of baptism or that baptism is applied because a child being the child of a believer must also be a believer. What has happened to the demand of Christ that a person must be born from above in this case? The sovereign work of the Holy Spirit has been set aside for a ritual or a rite that cannot change the hearts of sinners. What is the theology that can tell a sinner to come forward at the end of a service and pray to receive Christ? They believe that salvation is contingent upon what they do rather than the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit in applying what Christ has earned for His people. What is the theology that drives one to tell people that if they make a commitment to Christ and make a moral reformation of some sort that they are saved? What is the consistent theology of the practice of getting people to raise their hands or sign a card? What is the theology that drives a person to entertain people enough to get them to a building they call a church? What is the theology that drives people to set aside sound theology and just get people to meet together? All of those things have something in common at the root and it is Pelagianism in one form or another. We must be very careful in this as well, as Pelagianism can also be dressed in a Reformed cloak, which makes it doubly dangerous. Just because one accepts a creed intellectually does not mean that it is the creed of that person’s heart. We must all check our own hearts in this.
God Loves... Himself 
Leave a comment