Hodge responding to and refuting Pelagianism (pt 2)

Yesterday I shared some extended quotes from Charles Hodge's systematic theology describing Pelagianism. You can access yesterday's post by clicking here.

Today I'm sharing Hodge's responses to where Pelagius went wrong: 

Charles Hodges - 2nd Principal of Princeton Theological Seminary

Arguments against the Pelagian Doctrine

The objections to the Pelagian views of the nature of sin will of necessity come under consideration, when the Scriptural and Protestant doctrine comes to be presented. It is sufficient for the present to state,—

1. That the fundamental principle on which the whole system is founded contradicts the common consciousness of men. It is not true, as our own conscience teaches us, that our obligation is limited by our ability. Every man knows that he is bound to be better than he is, and better than he can make himself by any exertion of his will. We are bound to love God perfectly, but we know that such perfect love is beyond our power. We recognize the obligation to be free from all sin, and absolutely conformed to the perfect law of God. Yet no man is so infatuated or so blinded to his real character as really to believe that he either is thus perfect, or has the power to make himself so. It is the daily and hourly prayer or aspiration of every saint and of every sinner to be delivered from the bondage of evil. The proud and malignant would gladly be humble and benevolent; the covetous would rejoice to be liberal; the infidel longs for faith, and the hardened sinner for repentance. Sin is in its own nature a burden and a torment, and although loved and cherished, as the cups of the drunkard are cherished, yet, if emancipation could be effected by an act of the will, sin would cease to reign in any rational creature. There is no truth, therefore, of which men are more intimately convinced than that they are the slaves of sin; that they cannot do the good they would; and that they cannot alter their character at will. There is no principle, therefore, more at variance with the common consciousness of men than the fundamental principle of Pelagianism that our ability limits our obligation, that we are not bound to be better than we can make ourselves by a volition.

2. It is no less revolting to the moral nature of man to assert, as Pelagianism teaches, that nothing is sinful but the deliberate transgression of known law; that there is no moral character in feelings and emotions; that love and hatred, malice and benevolence, considered as affections of the mind, are alike indifferent; that the command to love God is an absurdity, because love is not under the control of the will. All our moral judgments must be perverted before we can assent to a system involving such consequences.

3. In the third place, the Pelagian doctrine, which confounds freedom with ability, or which makes the liberty of a free agent to consist in the power to determine his character by a volition, is contrary to every man’s consciousness. We feel, and cannot but acknowledge, that we are free when we are self-determined; while at the same time we are conscious that the controlling states of the mind are not under the power of the will, or, in other words, are not under our own power. A theory which is founded on identifying things which are essentially different, as liberty and ability, must be false.

4. The Pelagian system leaves the universal sinfulness of men, a fact which cannot be denied, altogether unaccounted for. To refer it to the mere free agency of man is to say that a thing always is, simply because it may be.

5. This system fails to satisfy the deepest and most universal necessities of our nature. In making man independent of God by assuming that God cannot control free agents without destroying their liberty, it makes all prayer for the controlling grace of God over ourselves and others a mockery, and throws man back completely on his own resources to grapple with sin and the powers of darkness without hope of deliverance.

6. It makes redemption (in the sense of a deliverance from sin) unnecessary or impossible. It is unnecessary that there should be a redeemer for a race which has not fallen, and which has full ability to avoid all sin or to recover itself from its power. And it is impossible, if free agents are independent of the control of God.

7. It need hardly be said that a system which asserts, that Adam’s sin injured only himself; that men are born into the world in the state in which Adam was created; that men may, and often do, live without sin; that we have no need of divine assistance in order to be holy; and that Christianity has no essential superiority over heathenism or natural religion, is altogether at variance with the word of God. The opposition indeed between Pelagianism and the gospel is so open and so radical that the former has never been regarded as a form of Christianity at all. It has, in other words, never been the faith of any organized Christian church. It is little more than a form of Rationalism.

Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, vol. 2 (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 155–157.

It is altogether rampant today, even among publically professing Christians, to believe and confess that they are saved by grace through Jesus, while also publically stating that humanity is not born in sin, that humanity is in its spiritual state "innocent" when born, and that our coming to faith is entirely, or at least mostly our own choice. The irony of course (so succinctly stated by Hodge in paragraph 7 sentence 1 underlined) is that if we could choose to be holy apart from God's work of regeneration and indwelling giftedness, then we would have no need of said regeneration or indwelling. As paragraph 6 states, redemption, the work Christ accomplished on the cross, would be unneeded whatsoever if mankind could somehow achieve pleasing relations with God in themselves. 

When it comes to discussing sin, stating our dire circumstances as a fallen human race as anything less than our whole-selves being under the domain of death is an understatement and contrary to the scriptures. This is precisely the good news of the gospel! That while we were yet sinners Christ died for us (Romans 5:6-8)! 

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned (Romans 5:12)

Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come (Romans 5:14)

As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, (Ephesians 2:1)

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive (1 Corinthians 15:22) 

The good news of the gospel is found, not in denying sin's heritage and legacy being passed down from Adam (as Pelagius did). The good news of the gospel is found in the glorious, wonderous, lavish gift of God through Jesus Christ to wretched sinners (like me!) who, apart from any merit, movement, or righteous living in ourselves, received mercy and abundant grace.