Calvinism supported Pelagianism charge

Status
Not open for further replies.

earl40

Puritan Board Professor
This is with respect on how Adam did not need grace to do what God commanded Him not to do, by eating the fruit of the tree. How would you respond?

"It almost always is after the fact, but I had failed to recognize that Calvinism supported Pelagianism with respect to pre-fallen Adam."
 
This is with respect on how Adam did not need grace to do what God commanded Him not to do, by eating the fruit of the tree. How would you respond?

"It almost always is after the fact, but I had failed to recognize that Calvinism supported Pelagianism with respect to pre-fallen Adam."

Adam had every ability to obey. The error of Pelagianism is that it is assumed that people today have the same capability (posse peccare, posse non peccare - able to sin, able not to sin) as Adam did prior to the Fall. The statement itself is fairly coarse and put in a provocative manner. Recognizing the ability of Adam not to sin is NOT Pelagianism, but a Biblical recognition of Adam's pre-fallen state....so to claim that Calvinism "supported Pelagianism with respect to pre-fallen Adam" is something of a non sequitur
 
Romanists have a certain view of human nature going back to its original state that equates creaturliness with a propensity to sin, if absent superadded grace. I don't know if the original question presupposes a view of human nature that does not undergo a existential change, pre- vs. post-fall.

It should be clear that there has been a great change in human nature due to the fall--according to the true view. Man was created upright, with the ability to remain so (but able also to fall). In the post-fall condition, man's every inclination is sinful (truly and properly sin) by nature, but for saving grace. Not that man cannot do any descriptively "good" service to another, but it is too corrupted by its source to have any intrinsic, objective merit.

But Rome locates such change as we see not in the human nature per se, but in the presence/absence of a particular grace. This makes the Roman position different from the Pelagian concerning the propensities of the original nature. Pelagians deny the necessity of sin in Adam by nature (and they assert that people haven't really changed since, and still don't HAVE to sin); whereas the Romanist understands people haven't changed, they just always needed grace to "be good," or "prevent bad," or else man HAD to sin by nature, eventually. Rome affirms that people have both good/bad inclinations.

But both Rome and Pelagians agree that human nature on its own is still essentially the same, pre- or post-fall, only disagreeing on the kind of nature humans have.
 
This is with respect on how Adam did not need grace to do what God commanded Him not to do, by eating the fruit of the tree. How would you respond?

"It almost always is after the fact, but I had failed to recognize that Calvinism supported Pelagianism with respect to pre-fallen Adam."

I'm not exactly sure what the context of this is. The problem with terms is that they need definition. Was the challenge offered by a Roman Catholic?

The reason I ask is that it really does depend on one's view of man's created nature. The idea "Adam did not need grace to do what God commanded him to do" is true depending upon how one is defining grace.

Note the following from Berkhoff:
D. The Original Condition of Man as the Image of God

There is a very close connection between the image of God and the original state of man, and therefore the two are generally considered together. Once again we shall have to distinguish between different historical views as to the original condition of man.

1. THE PROTESTANT VIEW. Protestants teach that man was created in a state of relative perfection, a state of righteousness and holiness. This does not mean that he had already reached the highest state of excellence of which he was susceptible. It is generally assumed that he was destined to reach a higher degree of perfection in the way of obedience. He was, something like a child, perfect in parts, but not yet in degree. His condition was a preliminary and temporary one, which would either lead on to greater perfection and glory or terminate in a fall. He was by nature endowed with that original righteousness which is the crowning glory of the image of God, and consequently lived in a state of positive holiness. The loss of that righteousness meant the loss of something that belonged to the very nature of man in its ideal state. Man could lose it and still remain man, but he could not lose it and remain man in the ideal sense of the word. In other words, its loss would really mean a deterioration and impairment of human nature. Moreover, man was created immortal. This applies not only to the soul, but to the whole person of man; and therefore does not merely mean that the soul was destined to have a continued existence. Neither does it mean that man was raised above the possibility of becoming a prey to death; this can only be affirmed of the angels and the saints in heaven. It does mean, however, that man, as he was created by God, did not bear within him the seeds of death and would not have died necessarily in virtue of the original constitution of his nature. Though the possibility of his becoming a victim of death was not excluded, he was not liable to death as long as he did not sin. It should be borne in mind that man’s original immortality was not something purely negative and physical, but was something positive and spiritual as well. It meant life in communion with God and the enjoyment of the favor of the Most High. This is the fundamental conception of life in Scripture, just as death is primarily separation from God and subjection to His wrath. The loss of this spiritual life would spell death, and would also result in physical death.

2. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC VIEW. Roman Catholics naturally have a somewhat different view of the original condition of man. According to them original righteousness did not belong to the nature of man in its integrity, but was something supernaturally added. In virtue of his creation man was simply endowed with all the natural powers and faculties of human nature as such, and by the justitia naturalis these powers were nicely adjusted to each other. He was without sin and lived in a state of perfect innocency. In the very nature of things, however, there was a natural tendency of the lower appetites and passions to rebel against the higher powers of reason and conscience. This tendency, called concupiscence, was not itself sin, but could easily become the occasion and fuel for sin. (But cf. Rom. 7:8; Col. 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:5, Auth. Ver.). Man, then, as he was originally constituted, was by nature without positive holiness, but also without sin, though burdened with a tendency which might easily result in sin. But now God added to the natural constitution of man the supernatural gift of original righteousness, by which he was enabled to keep the lower propensities and desires in due subjection. When man fell, he lost that original righteousness, but the original constitution of human nature remained intact. The natural man is now exactly where Adam was before he was endowed with original righteousness, though with a somewhat stronger bias towards evil.

3. RATIONALIZING VIEWS. Pelagians, Socinians, Arminians, Rationalists, and Evolutionists, all discount the idea of a primitive state of holiness altogether. The first four are agreed that man was created in a state of innocence, of moral and religious neutrality, but was endowed with a free will, so that he could turn in either direction. Evolutionists assert that man began his career in a state of barbarism, in which he was but slightly removed from the brute. Rationalists of all kinds believe that a concreated righteousness and holiness is a contradiction in terms. Man determines his character by his own free choice; and holiness can only result from a victorious struggle against evil. From the nature of the case, therefore, Adam could not have been created in a state of holiness. Moreover, Pelagians, Socinians, and Rationalists hold that man was created mortal. Death did not result from the entrance of sin into the world, but was simply the natural termination of human nature as it was constituted. Adam would have died in virtue of the original constitution of his nature.


Berkhof, L. (1938). Systematic theology (208–210). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co.

The reason I ask if you were challenged by a Roman Catholic is that they believe that there was a defect in man's original constitution and that, even in his innocence, man had to be "held up" by grace.
 
This is with respect on how Adam did not need grace to do what God commanded Him not to do, by eating the fruit of the tree. How would you respond?

"It almost always is after the fact, but I had failed to recognize that Calvinism supported Pelagianism with respect to pre-fallen Adam."

I'm not exactly sure what the context of this is. The problem with terms is that they need definition. Was the challenge offered by a Roman Catholic?

The reason I ask is that it really does depend on one's view of man's created nature. The idea "Adam did not need grace to do what God commanded him to do" is true depending upon how one is defining grace.

Note the following from Berkhoff:
D. The Original Condition of Man as the Image of God

There is a very close connection between the image of God and the original state of man, and therefore the two are generally considered together. Once again we shall have to distinguish between different historical views as to the original condition of man.

1. THE PROTESTANT VIEW. Protestants teach that man was created in a state of relative perfection, a state of righteousness and holiness. This does not mean that he had already reached the highest state of excellence of which he was susceptible. It is generally assumed that he was destined to reach a higher degree of perfection in the way of obedience. He was, something like a child, perfect in parts, but not yet in degree. His condition was a preliminary and temporary one, which would either lead on to greater perfection and glory or terminate in a fall. He was by nature endowed with that original righteousness which is the crowning glory of the image of God, and consequently lived in a state of positive holiness. The loss of that righteousness meant the loss of something that belonged to the very nature of man in its ideal state. Man could lose it and still remain man, but he could not lose it and remain man in the ideal sense of the word. In other words, its loss would really mean a deterioration and impairment of human nature. Moreover, man was created immortal. This applies not only to the soul, but to the whole person of man; and therefore does not merely mean that the soul was destined to have a continued existence. Neither does it mean that man was raised above the possibility of becoming a prey to death; this can only be affirmed of the angels and the saints in heaven. It does mean, however, that man, as he was created by God, did not bear within him the seeds of death and would not have died necessarily in virtue of the original constitution of his nature. Though the possibility of his becoming a victim of death was not excluded, he was not liable to death as long as he did not sin. It should be borne in mind that man’s original immortality was not something purely negative and physical, but was something positive and spiritual as well. It meant life in communion with God and the enjoyment of the favor of the Most High. This is the fundamental conception of life in Scripture, just as death is primarily separation from God and subjection to His wrath. The loss of this spiritual life would spell death, and would also result in physical death.

2. THE ROMAN CATHOLIC VIEW. Roman Catholics naturally have a somewhat different view of the original condition of man. According to them original righteousness did not belong to the nature of man in its integrity, but was something supernaturally added. In virtue of his creation man was simply endowed with all the natural powers and faculties of human nature as such, and by the justitia naturalis these powers were nicely adjusted to each other. He was without sin and lived in a state of perfect innocency. In the very nature of things, however, there was a natural tendency of the lower appetites and passions to rebel against the higher powers of reason and conscience. This tendency, called concupiscence, was not itself sin, but could easily become the occasion and fuel for sin. (But cf. Rom. 7:8; Col. 3:5; 1 Thess. 4:5, Auth. Ver.). Man, then, as he was originally constituted, was by nature without positive holiness, but also without sin, though burdened with a tendency which might easily result in sin. But now God added to the natural constitution of man the supernatural gift of original righteousness, by which he was enabled to keep the lower propensities and desires in due subjection. When man fell, he lost that original righteousness, but the original constitution of human nature remained intact. The natural man is now exactly where Adam was before he was endowed with original righteousness, though with a somewhat stronger bias towards evil.

3. RATIONALIZING VIEWS. Pelagians, Socinians, Arminians, Rationalists, and Evolutionists, all discount the idea of a primitive state of holiness altogether. The first four are agreed that man was created in a state of innocence, of moral and religious neutrality, but was endowed with a free will, so that he could turn in either direction. Evolutionists assert that man began his career in a state of barbarism, in which he was but slightly removed from the brute. Rationalists of all kinds believe that a concreated righteousness and holiness is a contradiction in terms. Man determines his character by his own free choice; and holiness can only result from a victorious struggle against evil. From the nature of the case, therefore, Adam could not have been created in a state of holiness. Moreover, Pelagians, Socinians, and Rationalists hold that man was created mortal. Death did not result from the entrance of sin into the world, but was simply the natural termination of human nature as it was constituted. Adam would have died in virtue of the original constitution of his nature.


Berkhof, L. (1938). Systematic theology (208–210). Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans publishing co.

The reason I ask if you were challenged by a Roman Catholic is that they believe that there was a defect in man's original constitution and that, even in his innocence, man had to be "held up" by grace.

Yes it is a RC. The charge is that pre fall man was able to good without God's grace. Personally I cannot imagine me living without His grace sustaining and enabling me to do any good. Now I know Adam was created good and upright with the ability to sin and not sin. Though in my mind to think God's grace is not present with Adam while he was in the garden just seems strange in that this seems that we as protestants appear to be saying that there was absolutely NO grace with Adam before the fall. This is a very deep subject that I see the charge of Pelagianism is not correct in that there is a qualitative difference between pre and post fall man.
 
It depends on how you define "grace". "Grace" before the Fall is very different to grace after the Fall.

If we prefer to reserve the word "grace" for after the Fall, to preserve the salvific use of the word grace as grace to sinners, we can talk of God's superabundant goodness to sinless Adam before the Fall beyond God's righteousness towards Adam.

That includes coming to Adam with the "gracious" terms of the CoW, which was over and beyond what God gave to Adam in strict righteousness, Adam being an innocent man and God dealing with all His creatures righteously.

Some Calvinists have overturned the distinction between the CoW and CoG because of their emphasis on grace in the CoW.

But Adam had to fulfil the condition not anyone else for him. It was an easy condition to fulfil and did not involve any condign or congruent merit on Adam's part. But the Lord agreed by pactum merit to reward Adam over and beyond what he deserved for merely avoiding doing something.

See this thread:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/condign-congruent-pactum-merit-66235/
 
Earl,

Grace is not a substance. The problem with the Roman Catholic conception of the constitution of man is they call that which God calls good and upright defective. They see grace as a substance that is constantly infused into man or he falls under the weight of his defective nature.

Grace, biblically, is not a substance but the holding forth of a Person and His work and the application of its benefits who look upon Him with faith. It is forensic and ethical and not ontic. In pre-Fall Adam, the whole point of the Covenant was that God had commanded Adam to keep the law perfectly and he would earn eternal life upon obedience to that command. Though ordained from the foundation of the world, the sacrifice and obedience of Christ were not imputed to Adam when He had no sin. While Adam remained sinless and obedient there was no transgression. What sense would grace make to a faultless Adam? What transgression of the law would he be repenting of and turning to Christ for? By Gen 3:15 we see this in play but not prior. In other words, don't let your friend define grace on un-Biblical terms as the RCC has done.

It is folly to say that Protestants are fundamentally Pelagian because we see in Adam no need for grace in pre-fall Adam. We agree he needed no grace for different reasons. First, we don't believe in the philosophical invention of Rome's ideas of grace where grace is a substance that is infused to raise the fundamental nature of man and that our very constitution (even in Adam) would fall without this superadded grace. Secondly, Pelagius would have fallen in the rationalist camp above or some variation. What one concludes about man's original constitution may appear similar based on external criteria but it is a facile analysis to ignore the obvious differences. The reason Roman Catholics are semi-Pelagian points to the idea that they have more fundamental areas of agreement on the nature of post-Fall Adam than Protestants of the Reformed variety.
 
So if you had to prooftext (or exegete, if you prefer) your way into showing that pre-fall Adam could either do good or bad, how would you do so?
 
So if you had to prooftext (or exegete, if you prefer) your way into showing that pre-fall Adam could either do good or bad, how would you do so?

Ecc 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.
 
Interesting, but I'm not sure that this verse would get completely where it needs to go. The first half is good, "God hath made man upright" shows that God created Adam with a "good" nature. But the second half "they have sought out many inventions", the use of plural seems to indicate to me that it refers to people after the fall.
 
Earl,

Grace is not a substance. The problem with the Roman Catholic conception of the constitution of man is they call that which God calls good and upright defective. They see grace as a substance that is constantly infused into man or he falls under the weight of his defective nature.

Grace, biblically, is not a substance but the holding forth of a Person and His work and the application of its benefits who look upon Him with faith. It is forensic and ethical and not ontic. In pre-Fall Adam, the whole point of the Covenant was that God had commanded Adam to keep the law perfectly and he would earn eternal life upon obedience to that command. Though ordained from the foundation of the world, the sacrifice and obedience of Christ were not imputed to Adam when He had no sin. While Adam remained sinless and obedient there was no transgression. What sense would grace make to a faultless Adam? What transgression of the law would he be repenting of and turning to Christ for? By Gen 3:15 we see this in play but not prior. In other words, don't let your friend define grace on un-Biblical terms as the RCC has done.

It is folly to say that Protestants are fundamentally Pelagian because we see in Adam no need for grace in pre-fall Adam. We agree he needed no grace for different reasons. First, we don't believe in the philosophical invention of Rome's ideas of grace where grace is a substance that is infused to raise the fundamental nature of man and that our very constitution (even in Adam) would fall without this superadded grace. Secondly, Pelagius would have fallen in the rationalist camp above or some variation. What one concludes about man's original constitution may appear similar based on external criteria but it is a facile analysis to ignore the obvious differences. The reason Roman Catholics are semi-Pelagian points to the idea that they have more fundamental areas of agreement on the nature of post-Fall Adam than Protestants of the Reformed variety.

Rich may I quote your post? It is awesome.
 
Grace, biblically, is not a substance but the holding forth of a Person and His work and the application of its benefits who look upon Him with faith. It is forensic and ethical and not ontic.

Curious, in that if we take the classic definition of grace as "the unmerited favor of God" then what is a word we could use instead of grace? For no doubt Adam was in God's unmerited favor before the fall. Would "good providence" be what I am looking for?
 
Earl,

Grace is not a substance. The problem with the Roman Catholic conception of the constitution of man is they call that which God calls good and upright defective. They see grace as a substance that is constantly infused into man or he falls under the weight of his defective nature.

Grace, biblically, is not a substance but the holding forth of a Person and His work and the application of its benefits who look upon Him with faith. It is forensic and ethical and not ontic. In pre-Fall Adam, the whole point of the Covenant was that God had commanded Adam to keep the law perfectly and he would earn eternal life upon obedience to that command. Though ordained from the foundation of the world, the sacrifice and obedience of Christ were not imputed to Adam when He had no sin. While Adam remained sinless and obedient there was no transgression. What sense would grace make to a faultless Adam? What transgression of the law would he be repenting of and turning to Christ for? By Gen 3:15 we see this in play but not prior. In other words, don't let your friend define grace on un-Biblical terms as the RCC has done.

It is folly to say that Protestants are fundamentally Pelagian because we see in Adam no need for grace in pre-fall Adam. We agree he needed no grace for different reasons. First, we don't believe in the philosophical invention of Rome's ideas of grace where grace is a substance that is infused to raise the fundamental nature of man and that our very constitution (even in Adam) would fall without this superadded grace. Secondly, Pelagius would have fallen in the rationalist camp above or some variation. What one concludes about man's original constitution may appear similar based on external criteria but it is a facile analysis to ignore the obvious differences. The reason Roman Catholics are semi-Pelagian points to the idea that they have more fundamental areas of agreement on the nature of post-Fall Adam than Protestants of the Reformed variety.

Rich may I quote your post? It is awesome.
Sure.
Grace, biblically, is not a substance but the holding forth of a Person and His work and the application of its benefits who look upon Him with faith. It is forensic and ethical and not ontic.

Curious, in that if we take the classic definition of grace as "the unmerited favor of God" then what is a word we could use instead of grace? For no doubt Adam was in God's unmerited favor before the fall. Would "good providence" be what I am looking for?

It's a definition but I don't know if it's the classic one. A better way of describing grace is de-merited favor. That is, we deserve death and hell for our rebellion but God... (Eph 2:1-8).
 
Westminster Confession of Faith

Chapter IV
Of Creation

....

II. After God had made all other creatures, He created man, male and female,[4] with reasonable and immortal souls,[5] endued with knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness, after His own image;[6] having the law of God written in their hearts,[7] and power to fulfil it;[8] and yet under a possibility of transgressing, being left to the liberty of their own will, which was subject unto change.[9] Beside this law written in their hearts, they received a command, not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil;[10] which while they kept, they were happy in their communion with God, and had dominion over the creatures.[11]
.
....

6 GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. COL 3:10 And have put on the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after the image of him that created him. EPH 4:24 And that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.

7 ROM 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.

8 ECC 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

9 GEN 3:6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat. ECC 7:29 Lo, this only have I found, that God hath made man upright; but they have sought out many inventions.

10 GEN 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. 3:8 And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and Adam and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God amongst the trees of the garden. 9 And the Lord God called unto Adam, and said unto him, Where art thou? 10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. 11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? 23 Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.

11 GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
 
Interesting, but I'm not sure that this verse would get completely where it needs to go. The first half is good, "God hath made man upright" shows that God created Adam with a "good" nature. But the second half "they have sought out many inventions", the use of plural seems to indicate to me that it refers to people after the fall.

The fact that Adam did indeed fall proves that pre-fall Adam could sin as well as be 'upright'.

Another verse, of course, is Gen 1:31 "And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day." If Adam was created without the ability to perform the function for which he was created, how could God refer to His creation as 'very good'?
 
So if you had to prooftext (or exegete, if you prefer) your way into showing that pre-fall Adam could either do good or bad, how would you do so?

Did Adam sin prior to the Fall?

I think there was that one time he ate the last slice of cheesecake without telling anyone ¬_¬

I assume you understand that the answer to the question makes plain that Adam was capable of not sinning prior to the Fall.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top