Pelagius and Augustine

[ITS]

Summarize the key issues of the debate between Pelagius and Augustine. In your opinion, how have Pelagius' teachings continued to affect the church today? Give examples.

[cajohnson]

The major points of conflict between Augustine and Pelagius included their understanding of the human condition of sin and of the nature of God's grace. Augustine essentially held that the human condition is utterly depraved and that grace, the unmerited love of God, is necessary for any good works humans might demonstrate. Further, he understood Adam's sin as infecting human nature through the reproductive process. On the other hand, Pelagius claimed that human nature is not automatically infected by Adam's sin nor does it have a natural tendency toward evil. Rather as humans are faced with choices, they exercise their free will and make choices for evil and/or good. Grace, for Pelagius, is God’s aid to help humans make choices for good. It seems to me that this same controversy is embodied in modern humanist theory. Humankind is essentially good/has the propensity to good and merely needs the proper environment to develop to its potential. This commonly held, bordering on pluralistic, I’m-OK-You’re-OK mindset is a dangerous one, as it dismisses the need for God’s grace.

[SJ Hatch]

Mr. cajohnson has well outlined the differences between Augustine and Pelagius and I agree with him that the humanist mindset is one key area today in which we see the persistence of Pelagian ideas. The challenge for us is to be alert to how those ideas linger in today's church. If one were to offer up a Sunday School program based on a humanist program, for example, that would be easy for the church elders to recognize and reject. It would be harder, however, for evangelical Christians to take a critical view of an evangelism program that softpedals the harsh edges of the Gospel--e.g. God's righteousness, His judgment, and damnation for unbelievers--while appealing to the individual's sovereignty in "making a decision for Christ." Arguably, such a program has Pelagian undertones. Another example could be the attitude among some Christians that God can't do any work in one's life without one's permission, since that would violate our free will, but that God is obligated to honor our choices. I'm sure that even better examples could be provided, since contemporary American society, with its "rugged individualist" mindset, is ripe for and rife with Pelagian tendencies.

[Brad]

Mr. cajohnson has succinctly and accurately summarized the differences between Augustine and Pelagius and need not be repeated in this post. Pelagius? theology could have been a healthy corrective to the low moral climate that he witnessed among Christians in Rome. In asserting the free will and responsibility of man he unfortunately went to far, even to render the cross of Christ superfluous. He saw in Rome what we sometimes see in Christians today - Christians excusing their sins as human weakness and trusting in church membership and/or faithful partaking of the sacraments as one?s assurance of salvation without regard to walking in the Spirit, resulting in obedience. The grace of God gives ought to enable us to live a life of holiness higher than those without it. On the other hand, it is those who try to walk in holiness without a healthy grasp of the grace of God that fall prey to the curse of Pelagius. How many Christians carry disabling guilt over a few missed devotionals, or over not engaged every minute in the Lord?s work? How many Christians believe that real assurance of salvation is impossible? The devil often uses Pelagius? favorite maxim, ?If I ought, I can,? to accuse us and keep us wondering if we have done enough to be saved. How wonderful it is to rest in that amazing grace.

[flodoman]

The key issues of the debate between Pelagius and Augustine were as follows:
Augustine:
had a bleak anthropology – unflattering view of the human condition – after the Fall, humans not only inherited the tendency to sin, but the inability to chose God – we still had free choice, but we are free only to chose sin – humans cannot avoid sinning – we cannot of our own decide to do good - thus salvation is impossible without God’s grace – it is entirely God’s work and God’s initiative – it is granted rather than earned – it is the grace of God that restores in us the freedom not to sin - we need the inward grace to enable us to obey God – Augustine focused on the impossibility of sinlessness on earth and the indispensability of baptismal forgiveness for infants

Pelagius:
his main concern was in living a good and decent life – he thought Augustine’s negative view of human sinfulness removed from us the desire to even attempt to live good lives and encouraged moral laxity – he viewed Augustine’s emphasis on the extreme corruption of human nature and on human inability to live a virtuous life as demoralizing to any genuine effort to try to do so - was of the opinion that Augustine's teaching amounted to nothing short of introducing Manicheanism into Christianity - he accused Augustine of teaching moral pessimism and pagan fatalism as if it were a Christian doctrine - taught that people had the ability to fulfill the commands of God by exercising the freedom of human will apart from the grace of God - original sin did not taint human nature (which, being created from God was divine), and that the human will is still capable of choosing good or evil without divine aid - viewed the role of Jesus as "setting a good example" for us (thus counteracting Adam’s bad example) - in short, humanity has full control, and thus full responsibility for its own salvation – thus making the Cross of Christ unnecessary - rejected the idea that man’s will has any intrinsic bias in favor of wrong-doing as a result of the Fall – God forgives humans of their own sins and cannot blame them for someone else’s – his ideas were reflected in his baptismal teaching: for adults the sacrament was medicinal and regenerative, but its effects on infants was purely benedictory

persistence of Pelagianism
modern humanism – represents a repudiation of the Augustinianism of the Reformers and place high confidence of human nature – religious humanism fosters an anthropocentric religion (man-centered) - “man is the measure of all things” (Protagoras) – puts a great emphasis on human reason, education, optimism and belief in progress – secular humanism denies the supernatural realm – consider that empirical science is the ultimate arbiter of truth – it treats the church in a thoroughly secular way or think of it as simply having a civic function to fulfill – I think the attitude is well summarized in Feuerbach’s theory: religion is nothing more than the projection of the noblest aspirations of humans – thus the proper study of the theologian is not what transcends man, but man himself – we see this attitude reflected in many church programs today

[tdecker]

Summarize the key issues of the debate between Pelagius and Augustine. In your opinion, how have Pelagius' teachings continued to affect the church today? Give examples.


Original posting
Although Pelagius and Augustine disagreed on the status of unbaptized infants and sexuality within marriage, the central issues were that of original sin and the matter of human free will. To use the terms of today's theological debates, Pelagius seems to have held a non-compatibilist view that denied God's meticulous sovereignty and held that man's nature is neither good nor bad. Augustine, on the other hand, tried to balance God's meticulous sovereignty with human free will, similar to a compatibilist view, and held that man's nature is totally depraved.
How is this manifested today? To some extent, we see it in the debate between Calvinism and Arminianism. We also see this come into play with the issue of Open Theology.

Reply Posting
I agree with most of what was posted under this question. However, I question how Pelagius “could have been a healthy corrective to the low moral climate that he witnessed among Christians in Rome.” This statement seems a bit strong, although the supporting argument is good. Pelagius was too dogmatic in his one-sided view.
The benefit that we reap from Pelagius is that we have Augustine's refutation of his heresy. Through that refutation, theology developed and the Church still benefits today.

[srmaas]

In comparing Augustine and Pelagius we are at ends of the spectrum on doctrines of grace and freewill, baptism, intrinsic good and evil in persons and at birth and other issues and doctrine. Still Augustine towers over Pelagius in his orthodox teaching and prevailing writings. That Pelaguis and his followers were such irritants literally and theologically, probably forced Augustine to define and develop his arguments and doctrines. If the extreme ends of the spectrum regarding grace and freewill is really evaluated, we find the least adherents to either doctrine in a dogmatic way. There is a tension in grace that we cannot do what only God can do and yet we should not trample the gift that is given us through Jesus Christ by abusing grace. Paul dealt with that tension in dealing with Antinomianism and the abuse of liberty even as Christians began living in grace in New Testament times. There is also a tension element in our freewill as Joshua asks the Israelites to choose and Christ asks us to step into the yoke and take up the cross. Sure there is no way that we can live morally in order to bring salvation or is it even possible to add to the benefical side of the scales of righteousness so to speak. We cannot produce faith or righteousness but can we not take a step toward God drawing us towards grace by our choice or choose to offer our lives that are only sanctified and transformed by Christ's grace?

[srmaas]

Mr. cajohnson has succinctly and accurately summarized the differences between Augustine and Pelagius and need not be repeated in this post. Pelagius? theology could have been a healthy corrective to the low moral climate that he witnessed among Christians in Rome. In asserting the free will and responsibility of man he unfortunately went to far, even to render the cross of Christ superfluous. He saw in Rome what we sometimes see in Christians today - Christians excusing their sins as human weakness and trusting in church membership and/or faithful partaking of the sacraments as one?s assurance of salvation without regard to walking in the Spirit, resulting in obedience. The grace of God gives ought to enable us to live a life of holiness higher than those without it. On the other hand, it is those who try to walk in holiness without a healthy grasp of the grace of God that fall prey to the curse of Pelagius. How many Christians carry disabling guilt over a few missed devotionals, or over not engaged every minute in the Lord?s work? How many Christians believe that real assurance of salvation is impossible? The devil often uses Pelagius? favorite maxim, ?If I ought, I can,? to accuse us and keep us wondering if we have done enough to be saved. How wonderful it is to rest in that amazing grace.

I find myself in agreement with many of Brad's statements. Pelagius did attempt to address the lack of moral living in Rome which probably was a good thing. Morality is better than immorality for all cultures. There is a sense of morality in all created human beings as evidenced by Paul's writings in Romans. Still morality is not the same as salvation and all attempts by any human being to be truly moral will always fall short. I like Brad's statement that, "the grace of God (that He) gives ought to enable us to live a life of holiness higher than those without it" and find truth in it. I agree with Brad as he warns us to be careful of falling prey to the curse of Pelagius which I think the Apostle Paul also addresses when he talks of being sober minded and humble. When we are, we know we are hopeless and lost without amazing grace.

[jphillips]

The main difference between Augustine and Pelagius is how each man dealt with sin after the fall of Adam and the redeeming grace offered by God to restore the broken relationship. Augustine believed that following the fall of Adam, all mankind was completely deprived of God's fellowship. Only through the free gift of grace can man find redemption for his sins, thus becoming restored in order to have a right relationship with the Redeemer. On the other hand, Pelagius assumed that man kind was not that fallen from God. His theology concluded that humans have the free will to make choices whether good or bad. However, in order to make the right choices we need God's help. Much of Pelagius' teachings are echoed throughout religious pluralism. More particulatly, I would argue that Modernity has adoped many of the aspects found in his theology. For example, the idea tha human knowledge and ingenuity is all we need for survival. The problem is that it has been taken to the extreme and influenced the philosophies of atheists, which ultimately renders morality relative and subjective.

[jphillips]

I applaud srmaas' ability to recognize the importance of polemics. In this case it was between two early church theologians, Augustine of Hippo and Pelagius. Pelagius' teachings on sin and the nature of man forced Augustine to respond theologically. As most of us know, sound theological doctrine is usually shaped by heresies - especially in the early church. I also appreciate srmaas' plea to Christians and the church today that we need to remember our dependence on God's grace, and that in order to grow closer to the Lord we need the power of Christ to combat the war between the nature of sin and the nature of the Spirit.

[mja]

Summarize the key issues of the debate between Pelagius and Augustine. In your opinion, how have Pelagius' teachings continued to affect the church today? Give examples.

Pelagius believed that man was capable of living without sin; that he was born pure but it is man's emulation of the sinful that lead one to sin. Man has it within himself, by his own self-will, to live a sinless life. He does not need God to achieve this. Pelagius maintained that God who had given man the law likewise gave him the power to obey it. Christ provided the example of a sinless life. Augustine in contrast authored the Doctrine of Original Sin providing that sin is not simply found in evil acts but in the nature of man inherited from Adam. This nature however can be removed by the grace of God consistent with His plan of redemption and restoration.
Pelagius’ patterns of thought have by no means been defeated with the passage of time. They continue to survive. Such thoughts have certainly saturated our Western culture in the form of “humanism.” Man throughout history has continued to lift himself up in pride as a god. In so doing he necessarily excludes himself from the grace of God and the gift of salvation.

[mja]

JPhillips post of 10.30.07 in speaking of Pelagius reports “His theology concluded that humans have the free will to make choices whether good or bad. However, in order to make the right choices we need God's help.” I believe him to be accurate. It is when we remove or separate ourselves from God and rely on the self-will of man we observe further deterioration of the moral code or God’s law if you will. Society has no higher authority to look to for guidance; all authority is found in man himself and accordingly through his science and ability to reason there is truth. Some would argue that we have gone so far as to have completely repealed the moral code. In consequence, morality is defined by our governmental institutions and is ever changing with each new judicial appointment or election. God’s law is thereby replaced by self-will and morality is now defined by whatever the individual says it is. Relativism pervades and there are no wrong choices. The Bible tells us this form of idolatry is not tolerated and is adversely judged.