Why I Am An ArminianPart III: History

Many Calvinists claim that they represent historical orthodoxy. However, I believe that the opposite is true. In this post I intend to traverse Christian history and tease out, on a very basic and incomplete level, the development of those issues that form the backbone of the Arminian/Calvinist debate, and see where the two systems lay. For the sake of clarity I will lay out here my thesis for this post:

Calvinism has never been THE central understanding of salvation within the church.

Antecedents

I am really sorry that I am including paganism within my exploration of the history of this debate, but there has been a consistent claim that paganism is the source of Arminianism, and, since it is an antecedent to the debate, we must have an understanding of what themes it has that could have any baring on the discussion at hand.

First of all, paganism never was a systematic philosophical position. Classic paganism, in all its forms except for maybe the Greek philosophers, was a hodgepodge of local myths and legends that represent the historic political interactions of a region as much as it represents the worldview of that region. This must be understood.

Second, when we are talking about paganism in terms of it possibly having an influence on Christian thought, we are talking about Greek paganism, especially its culmination with Aristotle and Plato.

Third, within the topics involved with the Calvinist/Arminian debate, before the Greek philosophers, Greek paganism would be considered to be inconsistently deterministic. Indeed, the early Greek pagans believed in beings known as the fates, who determined the life and death of all beings through the weaving and cutting of thread. The Greeks strongly believed in the notion of fate and destiny, and that we do not control what happens to us. Even the gods were at the mercy of fate. However, the fates could be tempted and persuaded with, which is why I would call the pagans inconsistent. A good example of Greek determinism is the story of Oedipus (Aeschylus, Laius and Oedipus).

The Greek philosophers, on the other hand, were consistent determinists. They held that there was a singular deity who moved and shaped all things, and within which all things had there source. Such a deity was perfectly logical, and was motivated primarily, if not entirely, by such concepts as the greatest good, maintaining absolute control, and the dispensation of justice. This deity would be purely impassive, for emotion denotes change, change denotes a move toward or away from perfection, and this must be impossible since this deity must initially and constantly be perfect. It is very important to note that the notion of libertarian free will came late to Greek philosophy, and Plato and Aristotle and most schools held to something more like compatabilism. However, libertarianism did develop before the maturation of Christian theology, but this was rather concurrent with early Christianity itself.

It is also important to note that modern Jews, and as far as I know ancient Jews, do hold to the notion of free will. Jews during Greek times were actually divided. According to Josephus (Jos. Antiq. XVIII. i. 3; cf. Antiq. XIII. v. 9; War II. viii. 14), the Pharisees and Sadducees held to a view of free will, while the Essenes were more deterministic. Therefore an appeal to extra-biblical Judaism leans things in an Arminian perspective.

Before Augustine

Before Augustine and Pelagius you will not find a systematic presentation, or even a careful development, of free will/determinism themes. However, out of all of the early church fathers, you will find many polemical works (which are works that speak out against a position) against paganism and gnosticism that cite determinism as a problem with these positions. What you won't find is any apologetic works (which are works that defend a position) for determinism, or anything at all which speaks of a deterministic worldview.

Here is a short list of quotes:

• Justin Martyr (ca. 160) writes: "Lest some suppose, from what has been said by us, that we say that whatever occurs happens by a fatal necessity, because it is foretold as known beforehand, this too we explain. . . . And again, unless the human race has the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions" (285).
• Tatian (ca. 160) writes: "We were not created to die. Rather, we die by our own fault. Our free will has destroyed us. We who were free have become slaves. We have been sold through sin. Nothing evil has been created by God. We ourselves have manifested wickedness. But we, who have manifested it, are able again to reject it" (86).
• Irenaeus (ca. 180) writes: "But man, being endowed with reason, and in this respect similar to God, having been made free in his will, and with power over himself, is himself his own cause that sometimes he becomes wheat, and sometimes chaff" (286).
• Clement of Alexandria (ca. 195) writes: "God ministers eternal salvation to those who cooperate for the attainment of knowledge and good conduct. Since what the commandments direct are in our own power, along with the performance of them, the promise is accomplished" (294-5).

Pelagius, Augustine, and the Council of Orange

In the early 5th century, a British monk by the name of Pelagius became insistent about demanding the need for Christians to recognize their responsibility to the biblical law. At around the same time, a African bishop of the city of Hippo by the name of Augustine had established a name for himself theologically. Augustine felt a need to emphasize the greatness of God's work within the realm of redemption, and the human's absolute need for divine action.

These two persons eventually came to a head, and developed two very different theological systems. Pelagius claimed that the concept of human responsibility necessitates the idea that salvation is the result of a human's piety (a rather pagan idea), and that the human's free will is the source for his piety (not a very pagan idea). Augustine on the other hand put forward the doctrine of original sin, and stated that human beings are incapable of doing any real good from birth as a result of Adam's first sin completely infecting his progeny. As a result, all those saved are only saved because God initiates and completes a saving work within them. Those who are saved are individually chosen by God to be saved before the inception of the world.

It is very important to note three things about these two positions. First, neither position was previously espoused within the church, which means that one cannot conflate all positions on these issues to these two positions (as many often try to do).

Second, Arminians are not Pelagians (not even close) and Calvinists are not Augustinians (though certainly based off of him). Though Arminians believe in a free will, we hold that God initiates the process of salvation, and we agree with Augustine on the notion of original sin (loosely) and total depravity. Meanwhile, Augustine himself did not outright reject free will, and was not a pure determinist. Though he introduced the concept of unconditional election to the church, he did not hold to perseverance of the saints, and held that one persevered in the faith by one's devotion to the Church's sacraments. In other words he believed that one was unconditionally elected to the Church, but it was through the Church that one found the grace to enable them to persist in the faith. This was most certainly not Calvinism.

The third thing to note is that the Church did not agree completely with either side. Pelagius was declared a heretic at the Council of Ephesus, but though Augustine's beliefs were not condemned, they also were not accepted unqualified. Indeed, debate continued after his death as two new systems developed: Semipelagianism and Semiaugustinianism.

Semipelagianism held that though one was saved by piety, one could not obtain the necessary level of piety without divine intervention. But the human must initiate this intervention through prayer. Semiaugustinianism held that though the human is born into a state of total depravity because of original sin, God seeks the redemption of all, and so works within all to bend them towards faith. However, all humans must respond within and to this grace by free will in order for faith to reach its full fruition. In 529 there was a council held at Orange that examined these two belief systems. It condemned Semipelagianism, and fully excepted Semiaugustinianism as official orthodoxy.

Arminianism, though distinct from either of these views, has as much in common with Semiaugustinianism as Calvinism does with Augustinianism. It is interesting that many Calvinists call Arminianism 'Semipelagian', but those that do so often do not know that there is a belief system by that name, and that it is completely dissimilar from Arminianism (they also don't know of the system of Semiaugustianism. Indeed by Semipelagianism is seems to me that they usually mean anything which falls short of the deterministic Calvinism).

Reformation

The Council of Ephesus and the Council of Orange solidified things within this area for quite some time. However, after the fall of Rome, the Western Church fell into the dark ages. Within this time, theology became divided between those in the monasteries (which often debated high philosophical ideas) and common folk religion (which really didn't represent official dogma at all). Indeed, even most priests had little to no theological understanding, and were really only trained in administering sacraments.

By the time of Martin Luther, most of the church believed in a kind of Semipelagianism, though it was officially heresy. This was mostly due to lack of teaching, but also because many of the leaders of the church were more politicians than ministers and abused the people's ignorance to push their own agendas (Like, maybe, selling indulgences to build a cathedral. As if that ever happened).

Luther, being an Augustinian monk, developed much of his theology from Augustine himself. Indeed, it was a kind of Augustinianism that typified much of the early soteriology of the Reformed Church. It is little wonder that Calvin, who systematized this, also worked within this same mindset.

However, Calvinism itself never defined the Reformed movement. Indeed, Luther, though he believed in and taught a sort of predestination, never emphasized these issues, and many within the second generation of Reformers were already moving in a Semiaugustinian direction. The defining stances of the Reformation was always the five solas: "Scripture alone", "faith alone", "grace alone", "in Christ alone", and "to the glory of God alone". These were not, and are not, strictly Calvinist ideas, but were equally held among the semiaugustinian reformers, including Jacob Arminius.

It is only at Geneva, the city and university founded by Calvin, that we find people really emphasizing Calvinist dogma. Indeed, within Geneva there seemed to be an almost veneration of Calvin, and much of his works became unquestionable (which brings up the question of their allegiance to Sola Scriptura, but I digress). It was within this environment that we have Arminius and Beza enter. It may be worth mentioning here that what we call Calvinism today is based more off of Beza's articulation of Calvin than Calvin himself. Indeed, Arminius saw himself as an interpreter of Calvin.

One must also recognize that Geneva was as much a political institution as it was a theological one. The strength of Geneva and Beza gave strength to the government. It is difficult for us to fully appreciate the relationship between the theologians and politicians of those days, but if we remember the political power of the Catholic Church we would realize that the Reformation never would have gotten off the ground if it did not have some political power behind it. Thus, a challenge to the theological stances of Beza and Geneva was a political threat, and was often cast as being "Romist" in source.

Synod of Dort

Jacob Arminius was a brilliant theologian and rhetorician that rose up a generation after Calvin. He did not create Arminianism, but simply became the figurehead for it due to his eloquence. Like I said above, there were many Reformed theologians moving towards a Semiaugustinian stance; Arminius simply became the spokesman.

Throughout Arminius' career, he often called for a council to help settle the matter: some place where the two opinions could be fairly presented and compared. He never got one though. He died before any council was convened. His followers eventually wrote a document called "The Articles of Remonstrance" to state precisely what their stances were. This document was a plea to the larger church for a council to protect them from the political powers within the Netherlands. This group was later called the Remonstrants after this document.

After Arminius passed away, a council (more accurately a synod since it was purely local) was convened at Dort. This synod was not convened to decide the issue though, but to condemn Arminianism due to its political danger. There were a few ministers called in from outside of the Netherlands (some of which became convinced of Arminianism), but for the most part the synod was comprised of Dutch ministers there to protect the political prestige of Geneva. Dort was a kangaroo court, as Ben Henshaw would say (hence his pen name over at Arminian Perspectives).

It is also important to note that this synod's political influence was fairly short-lived. A generation later the Remonstrants were welcomed back into the Netherlands.

What Happened Next

Since Dort, the matter has been rather up in the air. There are lots of theological movements associated with the two stances that could be discussed: particular vs. general Baptists, the Puritans, the Wesleys and Methodism, Edwards, The Great Awakenings, Finney (who wasn't in either camp but influenced the debate dramatically), Pentecostalism, and, of course, the recent Calvinist Resurgence.

However, with the steady decentralization of theological authority since the Reformation, to claim that either side could be the central theological position of Protestantism or Evangelicalism is impossible. Certain movements were more Calvinist (like the First Great Awakening) while others were more Arminian (like the Second Great Awakening). In general, the waters have been pretty muddy.

Summary

Returning to my original thesis: Calvinism has never been THE central understanding of salvation within the church. We have seen:

• That pagan and Greek antecedents were deterministic, rather than believing in free will
• That the Jewish antecedents were libertarian
• That the earliest Church fathers opposed determinism
• That in the Augustine/Pelagius debate, both Arminianism's and Calvinism's antecedents (Semiaugustinianism and Augustinianism) were accepted to be within orthodoxy
• That while the early Reformation was undoubtedly Augustinian, it never flat out rejected Semiaugustinianism, nor did it emphasize the issue
• That Arminian like beliefs began to rise within the first generation of Protestants of which Arminius was merely the most articulate in the Reformed camp
• That Dort was a purely local synod which was motivated as much by politics as it was by theology and it therefore cannot be considered to represent official Protestant orthodoxy
• That since the Remonstrant/Dort episode, there have been many movements and persons of note on both sides of the question.

So where does history stand on the issue? I would argue that history supports Arminianism over Calvinism. Semiaugustinianism was generally preferred over Augustinianism, and Arminian thoughts rose up quickly within Protestant circles. Calvinism's one claim on history was that the early Reformation leaned that way, as well as Geneva's prestige within the early Reformed Church, but that was relatively short lived, and since those times history has been rather flippant.

For my next post, I'm going to turn to the actual theological issues.

For series index, see here.

WHY SHOULD ONE BELIEVE IN GOD? Part 1: Revelation

Recently I started a discussion with an anonymous commenter on the post "Is 4-Point Calvinism Logical?" He is a skeptic about God's existance, but does not identify with an particular label which is fine. However, I felt I wasn't doing justice to my arguements due to the confined space of the comment page, so I am writing a series of post to engage with his (or her) arguements. I will refer to him in the masciline until corrected, and I'll be calling him Higgs, after the Higgs Boson particle (both because he brought it up and because I found it fitting for the discussion).

Higgs's main question is whether or not Christianity can be said to be logical, and is most curious about logical/mathematical proofs for the existance of God. I believe they do exist, and I will discuss four arguements for God's existance in this series. However, I want to make a different point first, and I will start with a thought experiment.

Let's say I endur some kind of accident which makes me forget my past. I have no idea who I am, and who my family is. However, due to the principals of logic and mathematics, and can prove that I do have parents. After all, I exist. This is sufficient evidence for me to conclude that there exists, or did exist, a man and a woman from who I came into being. This is true of all human beings, and since I am human it must also be true of me. This is mathematical; logical.

However, no amount of logic will tell me who my parents are: their names, occupations, passions, beliefs, class, or the extent of the rest of my family. I can sit in a room for hours, and think and think, and I will never figure that information out. It is impossible. In order to learn that, I must either research my/their history, or meet them. There is not other way.

The same is true for God. I believe that their does exist sufficient evidence and clear logic which demonstrate that God exists. But Christianity... that's another matter. Whether that God is Allah, Yahweh, Zeus, a lamp, or a flying speghetti monster, no arguement will ever prove God's identity. Nor will it be able to determine God's plan for existance, God's values, or God's relationship with humanity (though certain conclusions may be ruled out). In order to do that, you need revelation.

What is revelation? It is simply God being seen or heard; whether it be personal revelation (you meeting and interacting with Him) or recorded revelation (researching the history of God interacting with humanity). To demand Christianity to offer strictly logical proof for its particular view of God isn't really reasonable. The ultimate mistake that many atheists and the like make (and I am not including you with this statement Higgs) is the misunderstanding that Christians believe in God in order to explain natural phenonoma, like the beginning of the cosmos, etc... While we offer God as the agent for such things, we do not believe in Him in order to explain them. Neither do we accept God is a sufficient explanation, for the questions of who and how are incredibly different from each other. In fact it is our belief in the who that spurs us on to investigate the how. This was why the advent of modern science happened within the frame work of Christianity, not appart from it.

It is important that before we ask questions about God, we put such questions into the appropiate epistemological categories. Knowing the answer to who doesn't answer how, nor does answering how somehow demonstrate there isn't a who. Additionally, proving there is a God does not show who that God is, and that is not a question which reason and science can determine alone (though certain answers can be elimitated by reason). These are important things to understand as we approach the topic of proofs and arguments for God's existance.

Reponse to Jesse Morrel's video: Beyond Augustine

Jesse Morrel has recently released a video where he argues that Calvinism is rooted in ancient gnostic theology. While many of you know that I am against Calvinism, I don't completely agree with Morrel's assessment of the history and I want to go through it and explain why. First of all, here is the video:



So, as an Arminian, what do I think of this presentation?

Where Morrel Gets It Right

First of all I have to laud Morrel with his appeal to the Early Church. He is also absolutely correct that the Ante-Nicene fathers, or even the early Nicene fathers had no trace of determinism within their theology. Morrel takes great pains to make this point, and I completely agree with him up through mark 15:45.

The appeal to the early church fathers is more than a simple appeal to tradition. Many of these men personally knew the apostles, or personally knew men who personally new the apostles. Therefore, they are more likely to know what the apostles thoughts on certain matters were, and what the apostles meant when they wrote the NT, then later theologians. It is this proximity to the Biblical authors that give them such authority, and this authority is warranted.

He is also completely right that this is quite embarrassing for Calvinists. The only places where the early church really addresses the topic of free will and determinism, before Augustine, was in their anti-gnostic writings. It is also very clear that they held to LFW. Now, they did not fully build up a free will theology, discussing the extent or nature of corruption, since their writings were mostly polemical, but they clearly took a side. This is an embarrassment to Calvinists, as well it should be.

Secondly, I have to also laud his appeal to Scripture (mark 27:42). His point that the Bible clearly expects people to be able to choose between walking the right path and straying from the path is perfect. I think more Biblical points could be made in rejection of Calvinism (and in my case the proof of Arminianism), however not if you want to focus on free will in particular, which Arminianism doesn't really do. His introduction to Scripture though shows that he is not merely considered with defending the existance of free will, but rejecting the notion that human being lost their capacity to do good on their own. It is actually questionable whether Augustine completely abandonned the notion of free will, and while the Scriptures that Morrel appeals to in order to demonstrate that we are free moral agents are spot on, his introduction to them ignores the nuances of both Augustine's thought, as well as others who belief in an inherited sin nature.

Being Chummy With Pelagius

So, I'm watching the video and just enjoying quote after quote of the early church fathers supporting free will, and then we get to mark 15:45, where he suddenly quote Pelagius between Ireneaus and Origen. I almost choked on my popcorn. I said to myself, "Did he just quote Pelagius as if he were recognized as an representative of the early church?", to which myself responded, "Yup!" I was aghast.

Then he took a step back. At 19:02, after a quote from the unfortunately named Dr. Wiggers, he explains that believing in free will is not the same thing as being a Pelagian (which he seems to say in rejection of Dr. Wiggers's comment). To this I say, "Hoorah!", but it seems to be somewhat half-hearted.

Throughout the rest of the video, it is quite clear that Morrel's intention is to exonerate Pelagius, which he mostly does by discrediting Augustine. Indeed, the little story he tells in the beginning, or a condemned man later exonerated, seems to demonstrate this. He even continues to quote Pelagius and Julian of Eclanum (a follower of Pelagius) as reputable sources. So why distance himself on one hand, yet embrace him with the other?

I would suspect that it is because Morrel identifies himself as Semipelagian. I would argue that this is confirmed by his dissing of Arminianism at the end of the video. Though he may not like the title (maybe calling himself a biblicist or some other meaningless term), it is clear that he sees Pelagius at least as someone "on the right track". However, is he right? Is hist historical analysis complete?

I would say that there are two major historical facts which are conspicuously missing from Morrel's presentation: The Council of Orange and Augustine's Platonism.

The Synod of Orange

So, from mark 34:12 to mark 35:15, Morrel argues that the doctrines of Augustine were accepted by those with ecclesiastical power, and anyone who believed in free will was persecuted, like in the times of the Spanish Inquisition. Thus, Augustinianism spread throughout the church. Indeed, a most unexpected argument, but was this really the case?

Answer, no. In 431 AD (that's right! AD, not CE!), an ecumenical council was held at Ephesus. The council did proclaim Pelagius a heretic, and anathematized his teachings. However, it also distanced itself from Augustine itself. One of the problems with the appeal to the Augustine/Pelagius debate that generally happens is that it oftens results in a false dichotomy, that the church had to accept either Augustine or Pelagius. However, the truth is that it did neither. Certainly Augustine was favored, but the council renounced the extremes that it felt Augustine could lead to, such as double predestination, or antinominalism. It also did not declare Augustine to be correct. It just didn't condemn him like it did Pelagius. This is an incredibly important distinction which is often ignored.

According to The Story of Christianity by Justo L. Gonzalez,

Augustine's views, however, did not gain wide acceptance. He was accused of being an innovator... Through a process that took almost a century, Augustine was reinterpreted, so that theologians came to call themselves "Augustinian" while rejecting his views on irresistible grace and predestination. In 529, the Synod of Orange upheld Augustine's doctrine of the primacy of grace in the process of salvation, but left aside the more radical consequences of that doctrine.[Vol 1, (Peabody, MA: Prince Press, 2004)pp. 215]

These new "Augustinians" are sometimes referred to as Semiaugustinians. Likewise, in the midst of this 100 year process, there was also a group which arose defending a modified view of Pelagius, who came to be called Semipelagians (who were also condemned at the Synod of Orange).

So this claim that Augustinianism became this overpowering force is simply not true. It is possible that there was some Spanish Inquisitioning going on after Ephesus, however I suspect that this manifested as pockets of suppression, rather than something widespread throughout the church. If everyone who believed in free will was defrocked, then how come Semiaugustinianism, a free will position, eventually won out?

And what of Semiaugustinianism? What became of that teaching? Well, after the reformation it began to be propagated by Philip Melchathon in Lutheran circles, and James Arminius in Reformed circles. So it is the Arminians who really can claim the victory when referring back to the Augustinian/Pelagian debate, not Calvinists.

Pelaguis: Heretic

Now what exactly did Pelagius teach? It is important to remember that Pelagius was not condemned because he believed in free will. It is also important to note that he did not theorize free will for theodical reasons (like Arminians and Semiaugustinians). Instead, his reasons were ethical.

Pelagius believed in what is often referred to today as legalism: the belief that one must live righteously in order to receive eternal life. He rejected the idea that a person who lived a mostly sinful life could graciously be forgiven of all those crimes. This was considered unjust, and the acceptance of this would lead to licentiousness. Indeed, he lived an extremely ascetic and recluse lifestyle, and insisted that others should do likewise. Instead of teaching freedom, he taught subjugation.

Alistar McGrath summarizes:

[According to Pelagius] God has made humanity, and knows precisely what it is capable of doing. Hence all the commands given to us are capable of being obeyed, and are meant to be obeyed. It is no excuse to argue that human frailty prevents these commands from being fulfilled. God has made human nature, and only demands of it what it can endure. Pelagius thus makes the uncompromising assertion that since perfection is possible for humanity, it is obligatory. [Historical Theology, (Oxford, UK: Blackwell publishing, 1998)pp 81]

It was this harshness that Augustine was most earnest in defeating, and rightfully so. Salvation is of faith, and this is a gift! Pelagius missed this, and was so busy beating the air that he neglected the joy that the Lord promised. Whether Pelagius believed in full blown Pelagianism or actually Semipelagianism (it is hard to tell due to the fragmented nature of what we have of his writings) is irrelevant. Both deny the necessity of inital grace (Pelagianism denied the need for grace at all). Both demand the living of a pure life. Both insist on a bleak and unctuous existence. Both were rightly considered as heresy.

Plato

The other major problem with the video is the supposed obviousness of Manicheanism being the origin of Augustine's views. He says this most explicitly starting at mark 32, but it is his principle argument throughout the video. However, is it true?

Well, maybe. It being obvious certainly isn't. This is actually a highly disputed point. It is widely recognized that these doctrines started with Augustine. To the historically knowledgeable, this is indisputable. However, there are two possible origins: his history with the Manicheans or his continued Platonism (or maybe the Bible, but I personally strongly doubt this one). I therefore don't really have a problem with the fact that he argues for one of these two opinions, but he does so without recognition that not everyone agrees with him, and then treats it as if it is obvious. Well, of course it's obvious if you only mention the evidence that supports your opinion.

Now, I happen to be of the opposite opinion. I believe that Augustine's thoughts come more from Plato. It is important to note that there is no peculiar doctrine of the Manicheans that Augustine teaches. Determinism and even criticism of the human condition were common in the ancient world, and were something that gnostics had in common with Plato. In fact the list of Manichean doctrines that Augustine continues to reject is significant: dual deterministic deities, the inherent evil of the cosmos, events determined by causal outflow of spiritual events (as opposed to the Augustine's view of God's intentional planning), the incorporeal resurrection of Jesus, and the list goes on and on. Morrel even admits to this (mark 35:16), but despite the fact that the differences outweight the similarities, he chooses to emphasize the latter. Calling Augustine "Semi-Gnostic" is like calling a lime a "semi-cucumber" because they are both green and have seeds. However his use of the prefix 'semi-' is consistent to how Calvinists use it, so I'll give him that. It wasn't a simple matter, as Morrel puts it, that he agreed with Mani in principle, but disagreed with the explanation. There was a fundamental difference in his cosmological and epistemological understanding which made Augustine at his core a Christian.

Personally, I think it is more likely that Augustine was merely applying certain Platonic philosophies (only some of which were deterministic). This can easily account for Augustine's determinism and his view of man. It is also much more forgivable; Christian teachers had been openly appealing to Plato since Origen. It is even doubtful that his deterministic views were as extreme as Luther or Calvin. In many instances he still seems to hold on to some kind of notion of free will.

Now, there are enough scholars who disagree with me that I am not going to insist on my interpretation, especially since I am no expert on Augustine. Indeed, I was recently pointed to this dissertation which argues that Manicheanism influenced Augustine apologetically, which I think is a more tenable argument than Morrel's argument. However, there are enough who do agree with me that I am not embarrassed by such an opinion, and I do consider the degree in which he insists on his view inappropriate.

Conclusion

While Morrel makes some good points, his overall argument is overstated, and his defense of Pelagius misguided. Like many others, he treats the Pelagius/Augustine debate as a false dichotomy, where one must side with one or the other. However, history didn't do that, and theology doesn't demand it. One does not have to defend Pelagius and his defective views on man's nature and salvation in order to believe that God has ordained freedom to the human will. While directorially the video is very well done, the content needs considerable work.