The title of this article might seem like a bit of a clickbait tactic, but the argument is true regarding the subject of this essay. I have started to notice that there is an increase in favor for Pelagianism these days in light of the Calvinist vs Provisionist debates on the internet these days, especially after the James White and Leighton Flowers debate from 2015. Not because I believe Provisionism is Pelagianism, but because channels like Idol Killer and Provisionist Perspective (two YouTube Channels promoting Provisionism) would suggest that the whole controversy was founded upon a lie and thus making the councils (especially the Council of Ephesus) wrong for condemning Pelagius as a heretic. They will then resort to saying that it was all started by Augustine making rumors and lies, which led to the eventual condemnation via the church councils and the bishops. So much to the point that several scholars have started coming up in support of this thesis.
I will support the point here that if somebody wants to argue this way, then they are essentially going to be causing doubt not just to the one instance of a church consensus agreed heresy that was thoroughly examined via the ecumenical council as well as other councils in the past, but that it will cause doubt to the rest of the councils as well as to the reliability of the canon. The argument will stem from showing how some similar accusations of "lying" and "straw manning" will be found among the Arian controversy as well as to point out that the official declaration of the New Testament canon decided via the councils of Laodicea, Hippo and Carthage would be therefore unreliable if we can't trust the ecumenical council that decided Pelagius' status in the church.
Before we get into the subject of the matter, let's at least show where an ecumenical council has condemned Pelagius via the 4th Canon of Ephesus: "If any of the clergy should fall away, and publicly or privately presume to maintain the doctrines of Nestorius or Celestius, it is declared just by the holy Synod that these also should be deposed." Celestius is one who is said to have been a disciple of Pelagius and was one who helped initiate the controversy into the public. So it isn't too far to assert that Pelagius was holding to the same theology as his disciple. Furthermore, during his later years, Pelagius resided with Nestorius for refuge after the charge of heresy from other Church Fathers towards him. This is why several note that the 4th Canon of Ephesus is what condemned Pelagius where he was condemned for associating with the heretic Nestorious and his theology was condemned due to it's association with Celestius' theology being condemned by not just the Council of Carthage, but also the Council of Ephesus as the canons were in agreed consensus by 200 bishops of the church.
Now what makes this condemnation a big thing? It was because it was the result of an ecumenical council, which is defined as the following by Phillip Schaff in pages xi and xii of "The Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers: Volume XIV":
"a synod the decrees of which have found acceptance by the Church in the whole world... The Ecumenical Councils claimed for themselves an immunity from error in their doctrinal and moral teaching, resting such claim upon the promise of the presence and guidance of the Holy Ghost. The Council looked upon itself, not as revealing any new truth, but as setting forth the faith once for all delivered to the Saints, its decisions therefore were in themselves ecumenical, as being an expression of the mind of the whole body of the faithful both clerical and lay, the sensus communis of the church. And by the then teaching of the church that ecumenical consensus was considered free from the suspicion of error, guarded, (as was believed,) by the Lord’s promise that the gates of hell should not prevail against his Church. This then is what Catholics mean when they affirm the infallibility of Ecumenical Councils."
Therefore, we can at least understand why it is that the church holds this decision in such high regard to the point that not only the Western Churches condemn Pelagius, but also that the Eastern Orthodox Church (whom reject Original Sin) also consider Pelagius to be a heretic and therefore Pelagianism is also declared a heresy under the Eastern Church. We must then ask the question regarding the Christian Church as it relates to the state of this controversy: If Pelagius was not a heretic and this was a lie promoted by Augustine, then how can we trust the other church councils and history of the faith? This is a question I certainly wish to propose to our friends who choose to reject Augustine and favor Pelagius as a supposed saint.
The Christian Church has maintained an affirmation of the Bible as the ultimate authority in terms of doctrinal matters of belief, but one question some do not ask is the matter of how do they know what books belong in the canon of scripture? How do they know the epistles of James or 1 John belong in the Bible? How do they address the topic of the apocrypha/deuterocanonical books discussion among several of the various branches of Christianity? My argument, that I plan to write further on, is via the Triperspectival Approach to the canon which borrows based off the work by both John M. Frame as well as Michael J. Kruger. However, this protestant approach to the canon, as well as others, will all have to rely on the usage of the history of the biblical canon in the church history. We see that these councils that discussed the canon were the Council of Rome (382), Council of Hippo (393), and Council of Carthage (397). While there is debate therefore on the Apocrypha being utilized in the canon, we then have to ask about the New Testament.
If Pelagius was wrongly condemned at the Ecumenical Council, how can we trust the judgement of lesser councils such as the Hippo and Carthage when it comes to the New Testament books being discussed? If one is willing to dismiss them and argue for the New Testament books being inspired because they certainly feel like they would, then this engages in faulty reasoning and borders on being viciously circular in one's reasoning as opposed to virtuous circular reasoning. Furthermore, a person claiming the Book of Enoch or Sirach is scripture can make a similar argument and thus makes the debate against these books being canonical become really challenging by forsaking the usage or reference to the early church councils on these topics. Another tactic could be that there was nothing wrong with the choices at this council, which then shows inconsistency in understanding the councils since these weren't ecumenical councils and were much lesser in the scope of their power and reception.
Christians will then have to consider being consistent with their skepticism and consider Marcion of Sinope as the subject of the canon relates. What if Marcion was correct and we have simply been listening to the lies of the church from Fathers like Tertullian or Ephiphanius? Some will suggest that Tertullian exposed the false teachings of Marcion in his multiple writings against him, but this begs the question for the radically skeptic individual as to knowing if they are reliable. If Augustine was able to "distort" the teachings and words of Pelagius, then how do we know that Tertullian (who eventually fell into heresy) didn't just do something similar? If one then appeals to the councils mentioned above, then this would have to put their trust in the council of Ephesus too in order to be consistent with accepting church councils, especially ecumenical ones, or to simply show inconsistency in their picking and choosing of the ecumenical councils while favoring the non ecumenical ones.
Some have tried to appeal to the fact that Pelagius has stated that he was having his teachings distorted by Augustine and others due to "fake news" about him. If we go by this testimony, why not then appeal to the testimony of Arius regarding his condemnation at the Council of Nicea? In his letter to Eusebius of Nicodemia, we read the following: "The bishop is severely ravaging and persecuting us and moving against us with every evil. Thus he drives us out of every city like godless men, since we will not agree with his public statements: that there was “always a God, always a Son;” “as soon as the Father, so soon the Son;” “with the Father co-exists the Son unbegotten, ever-begotten, begotten without begetting;” “God neither precedes the Son in aspect or in a moment of time;” “always a God, always a Son, the Son being from God himself.” Since Eusebius, your brother in Caesarea, and Theodotus, and Paulinus, and Athanasius, and Gregory, and Aetius and all those in the East say that God pre-exists the Son without a beginning, they have been condemned, except for Philogonius and Hellenicus and Macarius, unlearned heretics some of whom say that the Son was “spewed out”, others that he was an “emanation”, still others that he was “jointly unbegotten.”... But what do we say and think and what have we previously taught and do we presently teach? — that the Son is not unbegotten, nor a part of an unbegotten entity in any way, nor from anything in existence, but that he is subsisting in will and intention before time and before the ages, full of grace and truth, God, the only-begotten, unchangeable."
If we go by this, he claims that he doesn't say that Christ was not unbegotten, but begotten. This is the orthodox view since Jesus is the begotten Son of God. Elsewhere, we read in the Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen the following creedal statement from Book II, Chapter 27: "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, and in His Son the Lord Jesus Christ, who was begotten from Him before all ages, God the Word, by whom all things were made, whether things in heaven or things on earth; He came and took upon Him flesh, suffered and rose again, and ascended into heaven, whence He will again come to judge the quick and the dead." According to the Semi-Pelagian theologian, Phillip van Limborch, we read the following from page 24 of Volume I of his "The History of the Inquisition": "His affirming therefore that the Son had a beginning was only saying, that he was in the whole of His existence from the Father, as the Origin and Fountain of his Being and Deity, and not any denial of his being from before all Times and Ages... or his being completely God himself, or his being produced after a more excellent manner than the creatures..."
It is with these statements that have led some to speculate that the conclusions of Arius as a heretic are unfounded and are therefore the results of rumors and lies spread about his name. We have seen this similarly stated by those today who continue to defend Pelagius on similar grounds. Some might say that we have the writings of Arius where he reveals and slips up elsewhere on his teachings, but then the same is said as well regarding Pelagius' writings with the letter to Demetrius being the one key letter that reveals the heretical problems with Pelagius' theology. Yet while the case can be made from the writings of Pelagius, to dismiss the charge of heresy against him is to also put in a doubt on the Spirit of God within the church. In other words, it is to suggest that at some point, the church as a whole became anathema or unreliable without the guidance of the Holy Spirit involved.
One's theology must not just involve that with God, but also as it relates to the church since it is through the church that one receives the Gospel, the Bible, and Communion. The Holy Spirit operates through the believers and as a result, operates through the church. To suggest that an ecumenical council was in error is to suggest that the Spirit has left and abandoned the church, especially since the church's decision was the result of agreed consensus by 200 bishops of the church worldwide. Hopefully, these people will study more and repent of any errors that lead them to defend the doctrine of Pelagius, a heretic considered anathema by the church, guided by the Spirit.
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment