Pelagius Art
The age-old question concerning how individuals are actually reconciled with God haunted Martin Luther during his formative years as a Christian until he finally and stubbornly submitted to grace. Grace, he finally realized, was the only answer for his deeply theological question.
Justification by faith in this grace was the sole bridge uniting an unrighteous and estranged humanity to an all righteous and holy God, at least for Martin Luther, who was merely the catalyst of some small movement presently referred to as the Protestant reformation. His was a theology founded upon faith; in other words, a supernatural intervention by God would be required if an individual would be justified – or ’saved’ – from eternal punishment. This intervention was made tangible for the whole world in the Gospel (i.e., the life, death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ). The salvific aspect of Luther’s soteriology was accomplished in Christ; the life of discipleship still exists in the present/future life of the Christian, and subsequently requires work. This is Luther’s understanding of Soteriology. His position was a new one, at least for the time. Not all were in agreement with him. In fact, there were four soteriological camps to which a good Christian could align, and all claimed to be representative of the correct Augustinian interpretation of the doctrine. These four groups can be referred to as Augustinian, Pelagian, Lutheran, and the “Orthodox” (i.e., Catholic Church’s official position).
First of all, the Pelagians were more than willing to embrace their role as the theological/soteriological antithesis of the Augustinians, and, consequently, to Luther as well.
The Pelagian understanding of soteriology contrasted that of Augustine as far as human agency was concerned. The Augustinian believed the individual was plagued by original sin and looked toward the grace laden intervention of God as the only hope for rescue from eternal damnation. This hope was fulfilled through Jesus Christ’s salvific act on the cross. God now can extend his offer of salvation to whomever he so chooses. Those to whom the offer is extended need not work for their salvation, but freely accept it through grace. The transaction is already complete. The Pelagian, however, believed not in original sin or the total uselessness of human nature. Salvation, for the Pelagian, could be attained through an equal combination of grace and human agency, or “works.” This salvation was also available to any who desired it, whereas the Augustinian schematic seems to rely on predestination. Pelagians claimed a much more relaxed soteriological system. Individuals were basically good, and played a very important role in their salvific journeys. Pelagians, as a result, would have disagreed with Luther and his familiar sounding (Augustine) soteriology. Luther embraced the theological idea of original sin, corrupt human nature, and the individual’s need to accept the grace of God made possible by Christ and his cross. Humanity could not, according to Luther, participate in the salvific process, save accepting it freely as a gift.
Luther mimicked the Pelagians’ comfort concerning their relationship with Augustinians in his own antithetical relationship with the Orthodox Catholic Church, which suddenly began to advertise a soteriology all its own.
Luther’s famous 95 theses could arguably be a by-product of his base theological understanding concerning salvation and the conflict of such with the not only the concept of indulgences, but also the established and Orthodox Church responsible for their sale. Theses 1-10, for example, are entirely focused upon soteriological constructs. The list of 95 is – almost in its entirety – singularly dedicated to soteriological argument. A few of the theses wander from this theme, such as section which begins with “Christian are to be taught” (theses #42), which seems to be focused upon practice more than theology (Luther, Ninety-Five Theses or Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences 83). Obviously, the list, and its soteriological catalyst, was considered hostile by the Catholic Church. Imagine the scandalized expression on the faces of the church leaders as they read Theses #52: “It is vain to trust in salvation by indulgence letters, even though the indulgence commissary, or even the pope, were to offer his soul as security” (Luther, Ninety-Five Theses or Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences 83).
Luther also expresses a seemingly slight modification of certain aspects of Augustinian soteriology (i.e., predestination/election) in small book attached to a letter for Pope Leo X, in Rome.
Luther, in this small book, seems to relinquish the firm Augustinian penchant for double and/or negative predestination, albeit slightly. Luther writes:
“…Rather ought Christ to be preached to the end that faith in him may be established that he may not only be Christ, but be Christ for you and me, and that what is said of him and is denoted in his name may be effectual in us. Such faith is produced and preserved in us by preaching why Christ came, what he brought and bestowed, what benefit it is to us to accept him” (Luther, The Freedom of a Christian 104).
This statement arguably could go either way (i.e., double or single predestination). It however is at least reflective of contemporary Lutheran theology and the debate concerning Luther’s single or double predestination. The existence of a debate is at least a hint of some sort of departure or adjustment of Augustinian predestination by Luther. Luther does seem softer on the issues, at least when compared to dedicated Augustinians. Thomas Bradwardine, a late medieval theologian, Augustinian, and fighter of all things Pelagian, for example, expresses the Augustinian position regarding predestination and election, as he writes polemically – and with a tone characterized by negative-predestination – against the semi-Pelagian Abbot Joachim of Flora:
“How can it be possible for man’s own capacity to be the cause of predestination or reprobation when sometimes, between two of equal capacity, one is chosen and one is abandoned or, at other times, the one of lesser capacity is chosen while the one of greater is abandoned? How can despair and misery be the cause of divine predestination when, as I suspect many men who in this world live in despair, misery, and poverty are ultimately rejected, while others who have always enjoyed high station, prosperity, and wealth are predestined unto life?” (Bradwardine 40).
There arguably is a division or separation occurring between Augustinians and Luther as regards double and single predestination and the incorporation of such into the large theological scope that is soteriology.
There are clear divergences and differences between the four soteriological groups (i.e., Augustinian, Pelagian, Lutheran, and the “Orthodox”). After all, this was the late medieval period of the Church and a revolutionary reformation was building momentum. Times were changing and so were institutions, especially the Church. It was for this reason that theology became so drastically important. Luther’s Soteriology was radical because it was different from the established soteriology of the Augustinians, the Pelagians, and the Catholic hierarchy – especially the Catholic hierarchy. Luther’s annunciation of his theological understanding carried more political and cultural weight then it normally would because of the period and its social upheavals and subsequent tensions. Luther, for example, was not the only one who would have been angry over the selling of indulgences, he just happened to be the one to open the proverbial levee. A call to reform accompanied by new or adjusted theology (even if the adjusted meant going back to a historic original) in this period would have been a dangerous game to play.
In conclusion, I have to admit that this material raises questions concerning the overall social, political, and religious climate of the late medieval period. The Catholic Church, by this time in history, played such a major – an almost all consuming – role in everyday life that its decisions and actions would have been followed by widespread consequence – for good or for ill. Again, Luther couldn’t have been the only disgruntled person living in the period. I am interested in the larger undercurrents of the time, and how these factored into the reformation. I am guessing that a much larger catalyst – larger than Luther – was the big spark of the reformation. This information would not only prove beneficial for a more holistic understanding of one of the most important events in history, but it also would be very helpful for us to use to gauge our own contemporary religious position(s) and development(s). After all, those who don’t recollect history are destined to repeat it, right?
Works Cited:
Bradwardine, Thomas. The Cause of God against the Pelagians. A Reformation Reader : Primary Texts with Introductions. Ed. Denis Janz. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1344.
Luther, Martin. The Freedom of a Christian. A Reformation Reader : Primary Texts with Introductions. Ed. Denis Janz. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1520.
—. Ninety-Five Theses or Disputation on the Power and Efficacy of Indulgences. A Reformation Reader : Primary Texts with Introductions. Ed. Denis Janz. Minneapolis, MN:
Fortress Press, 1517.
Related posts:
