What Does Arminianism Have In Common With Pelagianism?

How many times have you come upon Calvinist blogs or have been reading Calvinist books and the author will make the claim that Arminianism and Pelagianism are similar in many ways?  This week along I was visiting a certain reformed Calvinist blog and the author made the claim that Pelagianism lead to Arminianism.  This author tried to show that since Charles Finney was Arminian, this led to modern evangelicals acceptance of semi-Pelagianism.  The problem with this view is that Finney was not an Arminian.  The views of Charles Finney do not line up with the views of Arminius, Wesley, Wakefield, Mills, Watson, or a host of other Arminian theologians.  While I did leave a comment expressing how far the author was off, this didn’t stop the same blog from repeating this same statement in another post just a couple days later.

I would say that the problem is either people don’t understand Pelagianism or they don’t understand Arminianism.  My guess is that they don’t understand both.  I am aware that some Calvinists believe that Calvinism is the gospel and thus any other system that questions Calvinism is wrong and outside of orthodox Christianity but I believe that quite a few Calvinists and even some Arminians need to study what it was that Pelagius taught and how his theology is far from the doctrines espoused by Arminius.

In brief let me first state what Pelagianism teaches:

Pelagianism views humanity as basically good and morally unaffected by the Fall. It denies the imputation of Adam’s sin, original sin, total depravity, and substitutionary atonement. It simultaneously views man as fundamentally good and in possession of libertarian free will. With regards to salvation, it teaches that man has the ability in and of himself (apart from divine aid) to obey God and earn eternal salvation. Pelagianism is overwhelmingly incompatible with the Bible and was historically opposed by Augustine (354-430), Bishop of Hippo, leading to its condemnation as a heresy at Council of Carthage in 418 A.D. These condemnations were summarily ratified at the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431).

In my estimation Augustine went too far in his reaction to the British monk Pelagius but we’ll leave that for another time.  For now, the views of Augustine regarding all the above of Pelagianism became the adopted view for most of the Christian Church.  However just a brief reading of the above about Pelagianism show just how radically different it is to Arminianism.

For instance, the Fall of Man.  Pelagius taught that humanity was basically good and morally unaffected by the Fall.  Arminius, on the other hand, believed with Augustine and with Calvin that the Fall of Man brought not just physical death but spiritual death and total depravity (though Arminians would rather use the phrase “radical corruption” since Calvinists view of total depravity borders on making all men evil from birth).  Arminius taught that because of the Fall, humanity is without hope of salvation apart from the sovereignty of God.  Arminius taught that humanity was imputed with Adam’s sin in the sense that we are all born with a corrupt image and apart from God’s grace, we can not be saved.  For Arminius, radical corruption meant not just that we are capable of sinning but that we can not earn salvation through human effort apart from sovereign grace.

Concerning salvation Pelagius taught that humanity has the ability in and of themselves apart from divine aid to obey God and earn eternal salvation.  How far this is from Arminius’ teachings.  In no way did Arminius teach any of Pelagius’ views on humanity regarding salvation.  Arminius, like the Calvinists, teaches that salvation cannot be earned by good works or human effort or by our own free will.  Arminius taught that salvation comes by the power of God through the gospel (Romans 1:16-17) and that the act of faith is a gift from God given by God to His elect through His foreknowledge (Romans 8:29-30; 1 Peter 1:2).  Arminius taught that the Holy Spirit draws sinners to Christ the Savior through the preaching of the gospel (John 6:44; 2 Thessalonians 2:13-14) and that salvation is accomplished through God’s grace through faith (John 6:29; Acts 10:43; 13:38-39; Romans 5:1-11; Ephesians 2:8-9; Titus 3:5-7).  Arminius rejected any notion that good works either obtain salvation (Ephesians 2:8-9) or that good works keep us saved (1 Peter 1:5).

Are there any agreements then between Pelagius and Arminius?  The only exception would be the notion of free will.  Both Pelagius and Arminius taught that humanity was created in the image of God and that our free will remained intact despite the Fall.  The difference would be that Pelagius taught that through the free will of humans, we can earn our own salvation.  Arminius rejected such a notion viewing this as heretical and in his words, Popish (meaning Roman Catholic).  Arminius believed that while our free will did remain intact after the Fall, because of Adam’s sin we are not capable apart from the grace of God and His Spirit from obtaining salvation through the finished work of Jesus Christ.  Unless the Spirit draws a sinner to Christ, they cannot be saved even using their own free will.  Where Arminius differed with Calvin was over whether this salvation was conditional or unconditional.  The Calvinist teaches that God’s grace is irresistible but the Arminian teaches that God’s grace can be resisted (Acts 7:51; 2 Corinthians 6:2). 

Even in this short post its quite easy to see that Pelagianism and Arminianism are not even close on any issues with the exception of free will and even there we disagree.  To make the claim, as some Calvinists sites do, that we are similar to Pelagianism or even Semi-Pelagianism is ignoring the teachings of Arminius altogether.  In my next post I will publish Arminius’ writings on Pelagianism because even in his own day many accused Arminius of being Pelagian despite him being otherwise.

 Subscribe in a reader