I recall my excitement to open up The Parables of Peanuts and delve into the spiritual significance of Charles Schulz’s beloved comics. Yet, the author’s theological disposition became evident early on. Why were the Peanuts characters in need of a Savior? They were sinful from an early age. According to author Robert Short, Adam’s consumption of the forbidden fruit confirmed that his sinfulness existed even before the Fall. As Short described it, Adam was inclined towards “spiritual laziness.” Referring to the Peanuts comics, Short explained how the other kids’ disobedience and cruelty towards Charlie Brown functioned as a microcosm for our own dilemma, in which we too were wretched people, predestined to sin. Short’s argument fell along the lines of “why would we need a Savior if it were not for our sinful nature?” While I knew Jesus came to save sinners, something in Short’s premise was awry.
I first heard of Pelagius through an introductory theology course at Biola University. James Anderson, the author of the textbook, What’s Your Worldview?, explained that it was not enough to believe Jesus was the Son of God who rose from the dead. Reiterating the reformed argument, Anderson emphasized how our original sin rendered us “unable to live good moral lives apart from [God’s] divine grace.” Anderson described Pelagius as a 5th-century monk who rejected Jesus’ gift of divine grace for the belief that humans, in their own power, should strive for a sinless life. They only had to rely on God’s grace when absolutely necessary. This reliance on the self in lieu of God’s grace, in Anderson’s opinion, made Pelagius’ teachings heresy.
Before critiquing Anderson’s simplistic explanation of Pelagianism, it is important to note that righteousness can only be found through believing in Jesus as the sacrificial lamb. As Romans 8 teaches, nobody can be truly righteous through the law “because it was weakened by the flesh.” No matter how hard we try to be free of sin, we will fail. The Bible does not discourage humans from using their abilities to avoid sin.
Yet, Anderson frames Pelagius’ logic in an unfair light. He makes a black and white distinction between the “pious” who are obsessed with good works versus the lowly who are shrouded in sin. He argues that the latter are righteous because they realize only God’s forgiveness and grace can save them. But who is to say we cannot simultaneously use our abilities to try not to sin while realizing we are only truly righteous because of God’s saving grace?
Anderson’s comparison does not clarify Pelagius’ position, as he did not intend for “good works” to be a free pass into heaven. According to the scholar B.R. Rees, Pelagius was not motivated by arrogance or a “holier-than-thou” attitude. He was a “moral reformer,” disheartened by people who eluded personal responsibility and blamed sin on their fallen nature. Pelagius was speaking out against the idea advocated by Short’s Parables of Peanuts book— that humans could only continue sinning because it was their essence.
The condition of the heart mattered to Pelagius. His “heretical” assertion that man can indeed control his desires illuminates how he understood the seriousness of sinning against an almighty God. Yet Christian scholars continue to villainize Pelagius. According to R.F. Evans, Pelagius “is one of the most maligned figures in the history of Christianity.” Evans points out how Pelagius wanted to be seen as a sound theologian, and Rees emphasizes the diverse beliefs within Pelagianism and how Pelagius was certainly not the progenitor of all such evolving beliefs. Do his questioning of Augustine’s teachings (which the evangelical world interestingly accepts with little hesitation) and damnation by a council of fallible humans, warrant the label of a wayward heretic? Perhaps Pelagius would receive less slack if his writings were not lost. While Augustine’s Confessions obviously survived to the modern-day, Pelagius’ work, On Free Will, did not.
The Bible illustrates how man can use his own will to make good decisions. Jesus told His disciples that character can be gauged by the fruits of one’s life (Matt. 7:16). People who live in an upright manner are not necessarily “holier-than-thou.” One’s heart shines through one’s actions. Abraham — through his willingness to sacrifice Isaac, was credited as righteous (Rom. 4:3). In James, the author bluntly states “faith without works is dead” (2:26). While works done for their own sake are meaningless as well, one’s Christian character should be confirmed through the sincerity of how they live life. It is better to be a man after God’s own heart than to wallow in sinfulness and expect God to do all the work. We have allowed and welcomed the Holy Spirit to dwell in us — we can make meaningful decisions.
This also has implications for determining the best mode of government. If Augustine is correct that man is helplessly sinful and can do no other, it is logical that a government must rule with an iron fist to keep man in check. Yet, if the optimism carried in Pelagius’ argument rings true—that God has endowed man with the ability to make good decisions—then the case for a strict government is shattered. Perhaps man can live in peace with his neighbor at the local level without government oversight. After all, Thomas Jefferson noted that “the sheep are happier of themselves than under the care of wolves.”
Luckily, we sheep have no need to be ruled by wolves or any other creature. We already have a sovereign Shepherd. The Shepherd watches over His flock and knows that the sheep will stray. Yet He does not keep them on a leash — He lets them make their own decisions, as nonsensical as they are. While we may be sheep, we still possess the mind of Christ because we are made in the imago Dei. Pelagius understood this eternal truth, and we should as well.
