Religion Survey, Part 2...

We will continue with the article concerning the religion survey done by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.

Once again here is the link:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/02/25/religion.survey.ap/index.html

Now, dear friends, we will begin this post with paragraphs 4-7.

Paragraph 4-7:

"The American religious economy is like a marketplace -- very dynamic, very competitive," said Luis Lugo, director of the Pew Forum. "Everyone is losing, everyone is gaining. There are net winners and losers, but no one can stand still. Those groups that are losing significant numbers have to recoup them to stay vibrant."

The U.S. Religious Landscape Survey estimates the United States is 78 percent Christian and about to lose its status as a majority Protestant nation, at 51 percent and slipping.

More than one-quarter of American adults have left the faith of their childhood for another religion or no religion at all, the survey found. Factoring in moves from one stream or denomination of Protestantism to another, the number rises to 44 percent.

One in four adults ages 18 to 29 claim no affiliation with a religious institution.

Here we go again. Not only is religion (more specifically Christianity) described as a marketplace (again), now it is spoken of as an economy and is described as “very dynamic” (not just dynamic) with the additional description of “very competitive” as well! (Don’t even get me started on the use of the word vibrant, my head may actually explode!) I must admit, I’m losing respect for the Pew Forum with every passing paragraph. To say there are “winners” and “losers” in the “American religious economy” is shocking. Church membership is not a competition (even if some denominations knowingly or unknowingly look at it that way). It isn’t some basketball game where each church is pitted against the other, all the while keeping score with their opponents (in this case the church down the street) by counting the number of new members, comparing perceived results and then interpreting those results all in the name of God (while overlooking clear scriptural passages to the contrary).

I am proud to say that I am included in the 19% of American adults that have left my childhood denomination for another. No, I am not some sick individual that has a vendetta against my parents or my family. I am proud because I genuinely love the doctrine of my church. I, like many others, am the exception to the rule. Whereas, many move from a confessional church (Lutheran, PCA, Roman) to a non-confessional church (non-denom, etc.), I moved from a non-confessional church to a confessional church. I thank my parents whenever the opportunity arises for them raising me in the Church, and teaching me the best they knew how, but that doesn’t mean I don’t disagree with much of what I was taught as a child. I do. I don’t blame my parents. I don’t blame the church I attended. I truly believe what I learned as a child and adolescent is indispensable to me (considering where God has lead me today). There is no shame in being proud of one’s church body. In fact, I have more respect for individuals who are proud of their church than for the indifferent and purposely uneducated. While doctrinal ignorance is very real, it is no excuse. Far too often we put ourselves in our own little “Christian Bubble” and we do not get out. What do I mean by “Christian Bubble”? I mean we put ourselves in a figurative bubble, a comfortable surrounding, where we believe what we believe with no real understanding as to why, and in doing so we form fit God and His Word into what we want it to be. Consequently, we blatantly ignore clear teachings of scripture that “interfere” with our beliefs, and in turn follow the path of least resistance (which more often than not is ignorance). Instead of having our beliefs challenged, we just stay distant and detached from the entire scope of doctrinal theology. It is hard to be challenged if we do not become learned enough to be challenged. We use the old line “I believe and follow what the Bible says,” with no real explanation as to what teaching that pertains and to what that actually means.

Paragraphs 8-12

"In the past, certain religions had a real holding power, where people from one generation to the next would stay," said Penn State University sociologist Roger Finke, who consulted in the survey planning. "Right now, there is a dropping confidence in organized religion, especially in the traditional religious forms."

Lugo said the 44 percent figure is "a very conservative estimate," and more research is planned to determine the causes.

"It does seem in keeping with the high tolerance among Americans for change," Lugo said. "People move a lot, people change jobs a lot. It's a very fluid society."

The religious demographic benefiting the most from this religious churn is those who claim no religious affiliation. People moving into that category outnumber those moving out of it by a three-to-one margin.

The majority of the unaffiliated -- 12 percent of the overall population -- describe their religion as "nothing in particular," and about half of those say faith is at least somewhat important to them. Atheists or agnostics account for 4 percent of the total population.

Let me start with a question. Why do you suppose at this point in time, in our history “there is a dropping confidence in organized religion, especially in the traditional religious forms?” Why is that? I’m sure there are various social, cultural, and political reasons behind this shift but I want to focus on one aspect in this post. It’s very familiar to us. We live in it and we are born in it. It’s a little thing called sin. Why is “there a dropping confidence in organized religion, especially in the traditional religious forms?” That’s easy…SIN! We don’t need to do more research to figure that out. Look no further than Scripture to find perfect examples of individuals, societies, and nations turning from God. Take Adam and Eve. They were given one simple rule to follow:

“And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may surely eat of every tree of the garden, but of the tree of knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” (Genesis 2:16, 17)

I don’t know about you but that sounds pretty simple to me. But what happened? Well, a few things happened. We see the following in Genesis 3:

“Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’” But the serpent said to the woman, “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.” (Genesis 3:1-7)

Some very interesting and important notes can be made about Genesis 3:1-7. First we see the temptation from the serpent, “Did God actually say…” That one phrase and variations like it can get a Christian into more trouble than any other. “Does the Bible really say…” could be called the serpent’s line of temptation for the 21st century. Does the Bible really say woman should not be pastors? Does the Bible really say we are saved by grace through faith without any works/decision on our part? Does the Bible really say ‘Take eat, This is my Body’ and ‘Take drink, This is my Blood?’ Does the Bible really say Baptism will wash away our sins and that it is for us and our children? We can go on and on about all the things Satan loves for us to doubt with the phrase, “Does the Bible really say…” Volumes of books could be written on the subject but we must continue because a very important verse in the argument to the above question “Does the Bible really say woman should not be pastors?” is stated directly after the serpent’s temptation. What does the woman say in response the serpent’s temptation? Again we see Genesis 3:2,

And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’”

This verse is very important in the understanding of women not being pastors. What was Adam to Eve? Obviously, he was her husband, she was his wife. What else was Adam to Eve? If we boil it right down, he was her pastor. Why is that you may ask? Here is why. When was the command forbidding the eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil? When did that take place? That’s right; it took place before Eve was formed. Eve was not present for this command given to Adam by God. Why is this important? Because Adam acted as pastor to Eve by being God’s mouthpiece in relaying to her God’s command concerning that tree. Here is where it gets interesting though. First, we see in Genesis 3:1-7, Eve speaking out of turn. (There is an obvious order of creation issue here.) So, We see the following: Adam (a) was the pastor, (b) was the one present when God gave the command concerning the tree. Eve in speaking to the serpent usurped the authority that rightfully belonged to Adam. Adam was present when God gave the command so therefore he should speak to the serpent, but alas he did not, Eve did. Second, not only did Eve speak concerning the command for which she was not present, but she added to the command. So, when she usurped Adam’s authority and took the pastoral role (as God’s mouthpiece) on herself, she failed in doing so because she quoted the command incorrectly! As you can see in Genesis 2, God never gave the command “…neither shall you touch it…” when speaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. It’s not there. At this point we could go on and on about whether Adam was the one that gave the command incorrectly when giving it to Eve or if Eve took it upon herself to add to the command. Just know this, since Eve is wrong in speaking to begin with, she is incorrect by adding to God’s Word as well. Lastly, it must be mentioned that in the end, Adam is the one credited with the fall. He is the one who should have spoken up but didn’t. He is the one that should have been a faithful pastor and taken the lead in speaking the truth to the serpent but he didn’t. He remained silent and sinned. Eve spoke up and sinned. If anyone wishes to delve into women and their role in the Church, you can look to a number of Pauline Epistles that speak on or about that subject (Paul specifically talks of Adam and Eve in 1 Timothy 2).

Now let’s look at the Israelites. Let’s look at Exodus. The Israelites were in bondage in Egypt. I’m sure there are few, if any Christians that do not know the story of Moses and the Exodus, whether it is from Scripture or from Cecil B. DeMille and Charlton Heston. Everyone knows about the Exodus. Well, what is one of the first things the Israelites do (after they are freed from bondage) at the first sign of perceived trouble? When Moses took (what in their minds) was too long on Mt. Sinai, what did they do? That’s right, they sinned. They made “an idol cast in the shape of a calf…” (Exodus 32:4). They turned from God. As God says in Exodus 32:7,8:

And the Lord said to Moses, “Go down, for your people whom you brought up out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves. They have turned aside quickly out of the way that I commanded them. They have made for themselves a golden calf and have worshiped it and sacrificed to it and said, ‘These are your gods, O Israel, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt!’”

What the hades were they thinking? We look at these events and others throughout Scripture and wonder what in the hades were these people thinking? But here is the rub. We are Adam. We are Eve. We are the Israelites. We are no different from any of them. In the same situation, under the same circumstances, we would have done the same exact thing. That is the point. We are all sinful, every last one of us. So, it is no wonder there is a shift from confessional churches to non-confessional churches. As sinners, we are categorically opposed to the doctrinal truths of God, so a shift to a church denomination that has lax doctrines/confessions (or none at all) fits our sinful nature perfectly. It makes perfect sense. heck, we are all in our “Christian Bubble” (at one point or another) anyway so a lax, heterodox setting makes it that much easier to stay there, unbothered and uneducated. There are individuals I know that have told me they read the Bible, they go to church and they are Christians, but doctrine is just not their thing. It’s just not their cup of tea. Well you know what? Any person that says such a statement is completely and totally uninformed and uneducated, which is a nice way of saying ignorant. You can use the description you prefer but in the end it is just sad. It truly saddens me to hear such a statement. What is doctrine? More importantly, what is sound doctrine? What is meant by this phrase “sound doctrine” or "apostle's teaching" as it is used in Acts 2:42; 1Timothy 1:10, 6:3; Titus 1:9; Titus 2:1? Sound doctrine and the apostle's teachings are nothing more than correct teachings of Christ, so for someone to say that doctrine is not their thing, they are in essence saying correct teachings of Christ are not their thing. No wonder American Evangelicalism is in the state it is today. It is okay (because it is done unknowingly) to rebel against Christ because every time they say they are opposed to sound doctrine, that is exactly what they are doing!

You know…it’s funny, I have actually met individuals who have said they do not sin. They have actually said that phrase to my face. What’s really funny is by someone saying they do not sin, they are at that moment sinning! We are all sinful and we all sin. In our sin, we would love nothing better than to become Adam and Eve by wondering “Did God really say…”, or by hiding and running from the means in which God comes to us (Word and Sacraments). Likewise, in our sin, we are the Israelites turning to any and every false god we can find (as is later seen in the Israelites worship of Baal as well), whether it is money, power, fame, sexual immorality or any number of vices that grip our lives. But there is hope. Praise be to God, He keeps us in the true faith until life everlasting. He draws, sustains, and keeps us steadfast in the faith. We don’t. We can’t. Our faith is God’s doing. Through Word and Sacrament, we are strengthened in the one true faith. In Baptism, our Triune God claims us as His own. In the Lord’s Supper, Christ gives us His Body and His Blood for the strengthening of our faith. In the preached Word, God uses the pastor as the vessel for His life-giving Word. Through these means, we are saved by grace through faith and it is God’s doing, not ours. To use an oft used quote from Luther:

“This is most certainly true!”

fjohan

On Dynamic

Princeton (Puritan) theologian Jonathan Edwards - "widely acknowledged to be America's most important and original philosophical theologian" - purportedly read his sermons word for word in a high-pitched, monotone voice. That probably wouldn't pack the Ford Center today...just a guess.

Similarly, I was reminded of the way in which Jesus himself used to speak to the crowds in parables (to fulfill prophesy). Mark Balthrop's series on the parables in Matthew brought this to my attention...consider an evangelistic opportunity so large the crowds filled a hillside, forcing the speaker into a boat. Mt. 13:2,3:

Such large crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat in it, while all the people stood on the shore. Then he told them many things in parables...

Dynamic and easy to understand? Seems to me Jesus sat down and delivered confusion to his audience...Reading on, it becomes obvious that even the disciples were confused - maybe even a bit annoyed!

The disciples came to him and asked, "Why do you speak to the people in parables?"

Fascinating chapter with so many implications.

Finally, I find it interesting the emphasis Americans place on extemporaneous speaking - evidenced not only in sermons but also in prayer. It is implied in many circles, that prayers which are read are not heard by God...hmmmm....there is a lot here which could be said!

Religion Survey, Part 1

Before I get to the post let me start by squelching any rumors as it pertains to me. Contrary to popular belief, I am not a genius. Nor am I an English major, great orator, world renowned theologian, etc. I am by all accounts a simpleton. So please bear with me and please be patient. This will be my first blog post...ever. Now, without any further ado, on the post!

The subject matter of this post is a recent AP article I read on cnn.com. The link is as follows:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/wayoflife/02/25/religion.survey.ap/index.html

While the content does not surprise me, it most definitely saddens and enrages me all at once. As I type, I sit back and wonder how I should approach this article. What angle should I take? Basically, how should I tackle this article and its content? For this first post I decided to break down my response by paragraph.

Paragraph 1 (emphasis added):

(AP) -- The U.S. religious marketplace is extremely volatile, with nearly half of American adults leaving the faith tradition of their upbringing to either switch allegiances or abandon religious affiliation altogether, a new survey finds.

From the opening line we already see the first real problem concerning this article. The AP is treating religion as a marketplace (which is volatile no less). The very foundation of the article is erroneous by the sheer fact that the AP is treating religion as a business. Religion (more specifically Christianity) is not a business. The catholic Church on earth is not a business! Unfortunately, there are church denominations that make church a business, and in the end any church that does so is entirely incorrect in its actions. The catholic Church is not some Fortune 500 company with Jesus (or the pope for that matter) as the CEO. It just doesn't work that way, in fact, if any CEO was to run their business with Jesus as the exact model, they would shut there doors soon after opening. Jesus is not a businessman. Jesus is not a door to door salesman either. He is the Second Person of the Trinity. He is my Savior and yours. He is the "...Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world" (John 1:29). Praise Be to God! So from the get go, we can see the erroneous stance the AP is taking by turning religion (more specifically Christianity) into a business. Not to mention the way in which the AP talks of adults leaving the faith as a "switch (in) allegiances." What is this Survivor? Has Christianity been whittled down to where it is nothing more than a reality television show? If that is the case then God help our country.

Paragraphs 2 & 3 (emphasis added):

The study released Monday by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life is unusual for its sheer scope, relying on interviews with more than 35,000 adults to document a diverse and dynamic U.S. religious population.

While much of the study confirms earlier findings -- mainline Protestant churches are in decline, non-denominational churches are gaining and the ranks of the unaffiliated are growing -- it also provides a deeper look behind those trends, and of smaller religious groups.

I must confess, I have no clue what the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life is (probably a non-prof.) and what they do, although I will venture to guess that they do studies on religion (and maybe public life as well) but there are two words that jump out at me in the second paragraph. Any guess on what those might be? The two words are "diverse" and "dynamic." While the words themselves are of no particular interest to me, when they are used to describe anything possibly involving Christianity my ears naturally perk. In what way the article sees the "U.S. religious population" as "diverse" and "dynamic," I'm not quite sure but I do know this: all too often the words "diverse" and "dynamic" are used to further a false perception of Christianity by American Evangelicalism.

Is the makeup of any Christian congregation “diverse”? Most definitely. You have some who are tall while others are short. You have some who are male while others are female. You have some who are old while others are young. You have a varying number of ethnic backgrounds as well. While the makeup of the congregation can be “diverse,” what happens when they step foot inside the church door? What happens? We don’t lose the genetic makeup that makes us who we are nor do we all magically become bodily twins but we absolutely become one. We become one body of sinners in need of God’s grace poured out for us in Word and Sacrament. As Romans 3 says so directly,

“For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith.”

In faith, we are one in God’s eyes. As Galatians 3 states,

“For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise.”

In our baptism, we are made one with Christ. Through the holy gifts received by faith in baptism we are received as children of God and are made one in Christ Jesus. So, while the church body may be “diverse” in their genetic, social and cultural makeup, in Christ Jesus we are one. We are identical as baptized children of God, having put on Christ so that when God looks upon us on the last day, He will not see our rotting, sinful flesh. He will only see His Son, our Savior and in that there can be no greater hope and comfort. Praise Be to God!

How is the word “dynamic” used in Christianity today? I am certain there are ways in which the word “dynamic” is used in a good, right and salutary way in describing an aspect of Christianity (which I hope to show an example of later). Personally, all too often I have seen the use of the word “dynamic” completely juxtaposed as it pertains to God and man. In my experience, the word “dynamic” has been used to describe some attribute inside of man. One must not travel far to find any number of local or national “pastors” or “preachers” who are described as “dynamic.” Joel Osteen, Rob Bell, and most famously Billy Graham have more than likely been described as “dynamic” at some point in their life. But what is most important when describing a pastor? Is it more important for the pastor to be a dynamic public speaker with a wonderful charisma or is it more important for the pastor to be faithful to the sound teachings of God’s Word? In the following example, which is the more “successful” pastor?

Pastor A: Pastor A is a truly charismatic presence. He is a top notch orator with unrivaled skills in speech and language. He is described by his congregation as “dynamic.” He is the pastor to a huge congregation where on any given Sunday he could preach to 30,000 people. He has a message of hope and love of how God wants to give you all the earthly blessings you could stand right here, right now. He purposely and deliberately preaches around such subjects as Sin, the distinction between Law & Gospel, Justification, Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, the Trinity and Christ and Him crucified (and the like) but in the end he makes his congregation feel so uplifted and good about themselves (and isn’t that what truly matters).

Pastor B: Pastor B is your average confessional pastor. The day charisma was taught in school, he missed. He isn’t the most eloquent of speakers. At times a slight stammer is evident. When he first accepted his call to become the under shepherd of his current church, the church rolls showed 200 members. After 3 years, the church rolls show a total of 125 members. He teaches that “no one is righteous, no, not one” (Romans 3:10) but “that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures…” (1 Corinthians 15:2-5). He purposely and deliberately preaches on such subjects as Sin, the distinction between Law & Gospel, Justification, Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, the Trinity and Christ and Him crucified while always maintaining the scriptural and doctrinal teachings of his church’s confessions. He simply preaches the Word in its truth and purity and he faithfully administers the Sacraments.

The million dollar question: Which pastor is more successful? Pastor A or Pastor B? Getting to the bottom of this question requires us to break the question down into two questions. Which pastor is more successful in the eyes of the world? Which pastor is more successful in the eyes of God? In our sin, we look at the two pastors and say Pastor A is more successful. In our sin, we define success by how dynamic a pastor’s sermons are or how charismatic a pastor may be. In our sin, we look to the man for “dynamics” and not to God. Lutheran Theologian, Rev. Klemet I. Preus in his book “The Fire and the Staff” writes:

"Think back to the sixth grade when you were learning about adjectives, words that modify nouns. Take the sentence 'The Word is in the hands of the people.' Now add the adjective 'dynamic' to the sentence. The difference between Evangelical American Protestantism and the Church Growth Movement, on the one hand, and the teaching of Scripture and the Lutheran church, on the other, is this: Which noun does the adjective modify? Do we say that the church thrives because dynamic people speak the Word? Or do we say that the church thrives because people speak the dynamic Word? Evangelicalism and the Church Growth Movement say the former. The Scriptures and the Lutheran church say the latter." (282)

God’s Word is “dynamic.” We needn’t find a “dynamic” person to be a pastor. We needn’t look any further than God’s Word to find all the dynamism we need. If the “dynamics” of the pastor is on the list of God’s priorities then He must have slipped up with Moses. Moses was not a great speaker. In fact, he had a speech impediment yet God used Moses for the feeding of His flock (much like but not the same as how Christ feeds us). (Exodus 4:9-12) If somehow the “dynamics” of the pastor leads to an increased number of followers and is how God desires that increase, then His own Son cannot be deemed anything less than a failure. Look no further than John 6 for an example. According to American Evangelicalism, Jesus had his mass of disciples’ right where he wanted them. He had performed miracles in front of them; in fact he performed one sometime earlier with the feeding of the 5,000 (John 6:1:15). It cannot be more dynamic than that. As American Evangelicalism defines it, Jesus’ act of feeding the 5,000 was the perfect example of dynamic. He had them and they were right where they wanted to be when a dreadful thing happened. Wouldn’t you know it; Jesus let the truth get in the way of “success.” Jesus spoke the truth and in their sin many of his disciples left him that day (John 6:60). They literally couldn’t “handle the truth.” How dare He! How dare anyone (let alone the Son of God) get in the way of numerical success! Inconceivable!

Now, do not get me wrong, that’s not to say that all churches that grow are evil and incorrect. If they are growing due to a watered down Gospel or some other false teaching, then yes they are evil and incorrect but do not think I am blanketing all growing churches into one category. I am simply stating in Scripture you see a remnant theme as it pertains to the Church, and God never promises tremendous growth when the Gospel is preached (as John 6 exemplifies) nor is growth the goal...speaking the truth is the goal. We do not need "dynamic" pastors to speak the Word. We need faithful pastors to speak the dynamic Word. Who would think the placement of one word could create such vastly different avenues of thinking as it pertains to the dynamics of the Church, but it has. It has today and it will tomorrow.

To be continued till Religion Survey, Part 2...

fjohan

Perfection More Difficult

The list of official sins grows ever larger...perfection it would seem is even further off than yesterday. *sigh*

ROME, Italy (AP) -- A Vatican official has listed drugs, pollution and genetic manipulations as well as social and economic injustices as new areas of sinful behavior... When asked to list the new areas of sinful behavior, Girotti denounced "certain violations of the fundamental rights of human nature through experiments, genetic manipulations." He also mentioned drugs, which weaken the mind and obscure intelligence; pollution; as well as the widening social and economic differences between the rich and the poor that "cause an unbearable social injustice."

My favorite quote is the last sentence in the article:

"There is some sound going around that perhaps he is going to speak about ecology and environment, and if he does, this is kind of preparation for that," he [Apparcel] said.

Would seem that even the Vatican is getting into the environmental act!

Southern Baptist Scientists

Southern Baptist leaders shift position on climate change

(CNN) -- Several prominent leaders in the Southern Baptist Convention said Monday that Baptists have a moral responsibility to combat climate change -- a major shift within a denomination that just last year cast doubt on human responsibility for global warming

The nature of the controversy is best evidenced by comparing SBC's stance from last year to their recent announcement; total flip-flop. As amateur scientists, the Southern Baptist leaders look silly at best. As theologians, I'm not sure I see the connection or relevance with their recent press release. I agree that we as citizens should display some level of environmental consciousness...however, I don't think this is a debate in which I want or expect my church to be united as a "force for good in the world". I would argue that it's not the role of the church anymore than we are required by God to elect the next President a conservative.

The article ended with a quote from a letter signed by Dobson, Bauer, and a handful of other "religious right" leaders:

The issue (global warming) should be addressed scientifically and not theologically."

Amen.

More on Finney

Charles Finney has become something of a fascination of mine recently - especially given all the attention that contemporary Reformed authors have conferred upon his influence when describing modern evangelism. In his discussion of the Pelagian captivity of the Church [¹] (which I just finished reading), R.C. Sproul describes the early Church in a rare show of solidarity against Pelagius' teachings:

In the fifth century the Church condemned Pelagius as a heretic. Pelagianism was condemned at the Council of Orange, and it was condemned again at the Council of Florence, the Council of Carthage, and also, ironically, at the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century in the first three anathemas of the Canons of the Sixth Session. So, consistently throughout Church history, the Church has roundly and soundly condemned Pelagianism-because Pelagianism denies the fallenness of our nature; it denies the doctrine of original sin.

I find it fascinating whenever the Church (or any group of people, for that matter) shows such unanimity on a topic. I find it even more fascinating that one man was so successful in not only reviving the Pelagic heresy, but also responsible for it's viral spread and broad acceptance:

In the nineteenth century, there was a preacher who became very popular in America, who wrote a book on theology, coming out of his own training in law, in which he made no bones about his Pelagianism. He rejected not only Augustinianism, but he also rejected semi-Pelagianism and stood clearly on the subject of unvarnished Pelagianism, saying in no uncertain terms, without any ambiguity, that there was no Fall and that there is no such thing as original sin. This man went on to attack viciously the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and in addition to that, to repudiate as clearly and as loudly as he could the doctrine of justification by faith alone by the imputation of the righteousness of Christ. This man's basic thesis was, we don't need the imputation of the righteousness of Christ because we have the capacity in and of ourselves to become righteous. His name: Charles Finney, one of America's most revered evangelists. Now, if Luther was correct in saying that sola fide is the article upon which the Church stands or falls, if what the reformers were saying is that justification by faith alone is an essential truth of Christianity, who also argued that the substitutionary atonement is an essential truth of Christianity; if they're correct in their assessment that those doctrines are essential truths of Christianity, the only conclusion we can come to is that Charles Finney was not a Christian. I read his writings-and I say, "I don't see how any Christian person could write this." And yet, he is in the Hall of Fame of Evangelical Christianity in America. He is the patron saint of twentieth-century Evangelicalism. And he is not semi-Pelagian; he is unvarnished in his Pelagianism.