In A.A. Hodge’s Outline of Theology he gives us three positions of doctrine in reference to human inability that seem to cover about any position that one can come up with. They are also the three positions taken by theologians in history. The first position is Pelagianism and is given as stated by Hodge below:
1st. Pelagian.-(a.) Moral character can be predicated only of volitions. (b.) Ability is always the measure of responsibility. (c). Hence every man has always the plenary power to do all that it is his duty to do. (d). Hence the human will alone, to the exclusion of the interference of an internal influence from God, must decide human character and destiny. The only divine influence needed by man or consistent with his character as a self-determined agent is an external, providential, and educational one.
This is simply a statement of the classical Pelagianism position. It has been condemned throughout the history of the Church as heresy. It sounds a lot like the “rugged American” position. Moral character can only be seen by what a person actually does (volitions = choices). The desires, intents, and loves of a person are not what is important, but it is only what the person does. We are told today that a person’s “emotions” (a very ambiguous and imprecise term) cannot be controlled but that the person can control the actions. We are told that the feelings are like the end of a train and if we control the behavior (the engine) the feelings will eventually follow (like the cars and caboose). All of this can be simply a restatement of the classical Pelagian position. The person is in control of the actions and the inward part of the person does not count as long as it is not expressed. But this is not in line with Scripture which teaches us that our thoughts can be evil (Mark 7:21), that our desires are evil (coveting, 10th Commandment), that we cannot love more than one master at a time (Matthew 6:24), and that all sin comes from the heart (Mark 7:21-23). We are also told in Scripture that anger in the heart is sin (Mat 5:22) and in that context it is considered as murder. We are also told that lusting in the heart is adultery (Mat 5:27). Moral character is very much of the heart and not of the volitions alone.
The second part of the Pelagian system (b) is that the ability is the measure of responsibility. The deduction from that is that man has the power to do all that he is supposed to do (c). We hear this said very loudly and clearly throughout the justice system as well as various theological systems. On the surface this makes a lot of sense. We don’t tell those who are three years of age to do those things that only those much older can do. But notice what is going on underneath and behind this point. The whole issue comes down to man’s ability to obey God and do what He commands. God commands men to be perfect, to be holy as He is holy, and to love Him with all of their heart, mind, soul, and strength. Does man have the ability to do those commands? We will water something down at this point if we think man can. We will either water down the spiritual extent of the commands or the extent of the Fall or both. If God commands a person to do something, we know that the obligation of the person is to do what is commanded. But does that mean that a person has the ability to do what is commanded? What happens at this point is very crucial. We will either accept what the Pelagian system says or we will receive what Scripture says on the issue. However, the semi-Pelagian (Arminian) system tries to find a third way (see below).
In former BLOGS this issue has been dealt with in a different way. But let us look at this carefully. The Augustinian view (Calvinism) teaches that man is dead spiritually and is unable to do anything good. It says that man has no ability in this regard. Notice the tension between the Pelagian system and the Augustinian position. The Pelagian position says that ability is the measure of responsibility and so man has no obligation to do that which he has no ability to do. The Augustinian position is that man is unable to do anything spiritually good and yet is still morally obligated to do what he cannot do. The two positions could not be more opposite. Scripture teaches that man is dead in sins and trespasses (Eph 2:1-3), that man cannot come to Christ unless the Father draws him (John 6:44) and that the mind set on the flesh cannot subject itself to the law of God and cannot please God (Rom 8:7-8). What is going on here?
On the surface it appears that the Pelagian system is correct. How could God demand of man what man cannot do? The doctrine that is under the surface here is the teaching of Scripture about the Fall of humanity into sin. How badly did the Fall drop man into sin? How fallen is mankind? How deeply into sin has humanity fallen? The texts of Scripture as given above mean something. Pelagianism in effect does not take the Fall into account very much at all. It does not see the Fall as having a radical influence on every human being that will ever be born. It does not really see that Adam was a true representative as a federal head of humanity. It is a denial of original sin in that it denies that all the children of Adam partake of his fall into sin. The Augustinian position takes the Fall very seriously and says that all fell in Adam and all are born dead in sins and trespasses and by nature are children of wrath (Eph 2:1-3). Augustinianism teaches that God commands man as to what his obligations were when man had not fallen into sin. The obligations of man have not changed because of the Fall, though after the Fall man lost all of his moral ability in the spiritual realm. However, God commands man to do what man can only do in Christ. We thus see the New Covenant in which Christ is the life of His people and by the Spirit He keeps the commandments of God in and through the believer.
The semi-Pelagian or Arminian position tries to find a third way. It says that the Fall indeed has an influence on humanity, but man is not truly dead in sin as man has responsibility before God. In order to maintain a position that is not Augustinian it wants to leave some ability in man and calls it free-will. However, it falls under the indictment of Luther on Erasmus at this point. If the will cannot do what is commanded apart from grace, is it really free at all? Doesn’t that simply deny what free-will is supposed to be? Despite the language and efforts of trying for a spot that is between Pelagianism and Augustinianism, the semi-Pelagian is really Pelagian in practice. The soul of man is not truly dead and there is enough of something in man (the will) that can act apart from grace. This is denied in one sense as the claim is that the will must have grace to assist it. However, if the will can act with assistance some of it is acting without assistance. Assistance is applied to one that only needs some help. The position of the semi-Pelagian at this point is really no better than that of the Pelagian despite its claims to the contrary.
God Loves... Himself 
Leave a comment