Pelagius

[angela 2]

You should rather "thank" the Reformers who misappropriated Augustine's teachings to justify their own distortions...

Hi dp,

Good to see you. "Reformers who misappropriated Augustine's teachings ...?"

As long as we are not talking about ecclesiolgy, I don't think that you should state flatfootedly that there has been misappropriation. Augustine's work is uneven, and I can make just as good a case that the Reformers were faithful to Augustine.

You been hanging with those OBOB dudes again? You don't want mama to ground you, do you?

 

[depthdeception]

Hi dp,

Good to see you.

Hey! Long time no see!!!

"Reformers who misappropriated Augustine's teachings ...?"
As long as we are not talking about ecclesiolgy, I don't think that you should state flatfootedly that there has been misappropriation.

Yes, I suppose I could temper my language, but I'm feeling frisky today...

Augustine's work is uneven, and I can make just as good a case that the Reformers were faithful to Augustine.

If by making a "case that the Reformers were faithful to Augustine" you are referring to the aforementioned "unevenness" of said work, I am in complete agreement! (Sorry, more of the friskiness!)

You been hanging with those OBOB dudes again? You don't want mama to ground you, do you?

Of course not! Forgive me...

 

[angela 2]

Yes, I suppose I could temper my language, but I'm feeling frisky today...

A frisky dp... I'll have to contemplate that concept for a while.

 

[depthdeception]

A frisky dp... I'll have to contemplate that concept for a while.

It's good to have you back around!

 

[relspace]

Pelagius and Augustine were at extreme ends of a spectrum that can be found easily in Christianity today. Frankly if Pelagius was a heretic so was Augustine, many of whose beliefs were just as extreme and even outrageous. Augustine once said that salvation was just God choosing a few humans to replace some angels which He had lost.

It had just become the habit of that time to solve differences of theological opinion by declaring your opponent a heretic and ex-communicating him and more often than not putting him to death. It was part of the failure of Christianity at that time to embrace much diversity at all. And the end result was arrogant men assuming far more authority and knowledge than they really had. Thank God the Protestant reformation finally came along and put an end to this.

It is unlikely that all of the beliefs of Pelagius are embraced within Christianity today. He was an extremist that is clear. But certainly many of his beliefs are embraced within Christianity today. I will name only a couple of the more clear beliefs of Pelagius because many of the accounts are made by his opponents and and I have doubts about whether they are accurate representations of his beliefs, anyway.

Certainly infant baptism is rejected by many Protestant denomination beginning with the Baptists. I am not completely clear about how much of Christianity rejects the idea of Original sin. I do think that most belief that all of mankind suffers consequences from the sin of Adam. But certainly many Christians believe that children are spared from judgement. I dare say that most of the theistic evolutionists are likely to agree that physical death is a result of nature not sin. And finally only the Cavinists agree with Augustine on the issue of human free will.

I think it would have been more fruitful if the two could have sat down and talked out some of their differences but I guess that would have been too much to expect.

 

[Philip]

Frankly if Pelagius was a heretic so was Augustine, many of whose beliefs were just as extreme and even outrageous.

While some of Blessed Augustine's teachings are wrong, especially those based on Mani, but to call him a heretic goes too far. Pelagius (or at least his disciple Caelestius) rejected the need for a Savior. While Augustine erred in understanding why we need a Savior and how salvation is accomplished, he did not depart from the Church.

It had just become the habit of that time to solve differences of theological opinion by declaring your opponent a heretic and ex-communicating him and more often than not putting him to death...Thank God the Protestant reformation finally came along and put an end to this.

Which history books have you been reading? The Reformers were quite good at excommunicating and even executing each other as well as Catholics.

 

[relspace]

Pelagius (or at least his disciple Caelestius) rejected the need for a Savior.

So Augustine would have us believe. But since Augustine thought of salvation as just God replacing a few of His angels then I think Augustine rejected the need for a Savior too. Gnostic is a label which fits Augustine very well.

Which history books have you been reading? The Reformers were quite good at excommunicating and even executing each other as well as Catholics.

True. But habits die hard. Once people had the freedom to choose, these bad habits were doomed in the long run.

 

[Rick Otto]

Protestants have a body count, and held onto plenty of Roman ecclesiology, but the quantity & quality of suffering they imposed does not compare.
Still, I need to consider myself X-Protestant as well as X-Catholic.

 

[angela 2]

Frankly if Pelagius was a heretic so was Augustine, many of whose beliefs were just as extreme and even outrageous. Augustine once said that salvation was just God choosing a few humans to replace some angels which He had lost.

Is that what Augustine literally said or is it your intepretation? Would you like to supply a citation for that?

Pelagius thought that humans had the same ability to choose between good and evil as Adam did. IOW our ability to choose was not damaged by the Fall. IOW there's no human propensity for sin.

That's a different religion from Christianity. It's different from what both Jesus and Paul taught, nevermind Augustine. And that's why Pelagianism is still considered a heresy. Or if you like, you may call these beliefs heterodox.

 

[Rick Otto]

"Pelagius thought that humans had the same ability to choose between good and evil as Adam did. IOW our ability to choose was not damaged by the Fall. IOW there's no human propensity for sin.

That's a different religion from Christianity. It's different from what both Jesus and Paul taught, nevermind Augustine."

 

[Rev. Smith]

give this a read, it lays out both views pretty well:

http://www.hereticalideas.com/2003_02_02_ideasarchive.htm

 

[relspace]

give this a read, it lays out both views pretty well:

http://www.hereticalideas.com/2003_02_02_ideasarchive.htm

This is a very nice and detailed paper. However, I find the conclusion incongruous. After comparing the two quite fairly and pointing out the problems of the positions of both Augustine and Pelagius on a number of issues it then concludes completely in favor of Pelagius. My conclusion that both of these guys were extremists and that most of Christianity has now settled on a more moderate position between these two (despite the politically motivated declaration of Pelagius as a heretic), fits far better with the body of this paper.

 

[angela 2]

Haven't you heard? Christian beliefs are extremist.

It's always possible to take the radicality out of Christianity. There's not great effort required for that. It's been done since ancient times, and it's easy because it is part of our fallen nature to try to domesticate God.

 

[Rev. Smith]

Haven't you heard? Christian beliefs are extremist.

It's always possible to take the radicality out of Christianity. There's not great effort required for that. It's been done since ancient times, and it's easy because it is part of our fallen nature to try to domesticate God.

Some Christian views are indeed extremist, and properly so.

It would also help if they were correct.

 

[angela 2]

Some Christian views are indeed extremist, and properly so.

It would also help if they were correct.

I'm not seeing the relationship between the first and second sentences. Thus I don't know what you mean.

 

[Rev. Smith]

Some Christian views are indeed extremist, and properly so.

It would also help if they were correct.

I'm not seeing the relationship between the first and second sentences. Thus I don't know what you mean.

The key word is "some", the poster had asserted to me that some Christian views were extreme. I agreed with him. Some of those views, like the radical love that demands that we use our personal wealth and effort to feed the poor are properly extreme (extreme in the sense that they run counter to the ethos of personal greed practiced by so many Americans).

Other views, held by many Christians, are extreme (like the death penalty in spite of the proof that innocents have been killed, wars of choice and adventure and using the dogma of our creed to opress non-believers) - and are incorrect.

There is nothing wrong with being extreme in living the faith, but there is a moral obligation to be correct. Goes with the theme of this thread, if we believe that man is utterly corrupt then we can not hold him accountable for his evil deeds - he truly could not help his nature. Only if we believe in free will, may we hold men accountable - and more important, hold ourselves accountable.

 

[Rick Otto]

I'm workin' my way thru it, but after an good preface, it turned into a minefield. I didn't know Augustine was a (former)NeoPlatonist,... nothin' I'd hold against him, but the whole thing is filled with nits to pick (fer me).
Example:
Pelagius believed that the Fall was a good thing. He writes in a letter to Demetrias, a Christian convert:

"But if God had simply instructed Adam and Eve to eat from the tree, and they had obeyed, they would have been acting like children. So he forbade them from eating the fruit; this meant that they themselves had to make a decision, whether to eat or not to eat. Just as a young person needs to defy his parents in order to grow to maturity, so Adam and Eve needed to defy God in order to share his knowledge of good and evil. By defying God, Adam and Eve grew to maturity in his image." (Pelagius, 1995,12).


Is it true a young person needs to defy his parents in order to grow to maturity? I mean sure, some petty stuff, but God would've been a bit different as a "parent" in this analogy.
Maybe it is inevitable, but to pronounce it necessary is... uh,... unnecessary.

It's well written, though. I feel compelled to listen to what this guy has to say.
​

 

[PaulAckermann]

In a nutshell, from what I understand of Pelagius, Pelagius believed man could get to heaven by himself without the grace of God.

All Christians would declare this as a heresy.

 

[Windlord]

In a nutshell, from what I understand of Pelagius, Pelagius believed man could get to heaven by himself without the grace of God.

All Christians would declare this as a heresy.

From what i can tell, Pelagius himself didn't teach this, but rather his Pupil Caelestis did.

Peace,

Windlord.

 

[Rev. Smith]

In a nutshell, from what I understand of Pelagius, Pelagius believed man could get to heaven by himself without the grace of God.

All Christians would declare this as a heresy.

What Pelagious taught was that man's nature can not, as the Manacheans taught be utterly corrupt and have a sinful nature, incapable of good. (and Augustine who was once Manahean, and seems to have clung to some of their ideas).

Pelegious postulated that since one of the principal attributes of God is that God is just, that God would not condemn man for acting according to his nature. Thus, he reasoned, man must be capable of choosing virtue, otherwise how could he be held cupable for failing to be virtious?

Lets turn it around - for those who hold that man is totally depraved, how is it just that God sondemns man for sining if it is, in fact, man's nature to sin and he is incapable of choosing holiness?