Pelagians on the Equity of God
This is the second in an ongoing series on the early church fathers and their relevance in today's world.
On the Equity of God.
After Pelagius left the scene Julian of Eclanum contiuned to engage Augustine in a long debate that ended only after the latter died in 419. On the nature of God Julian took a distinctly Jewish approach. Like Pelagius he believed in the doctrine of free will, that our law was like God; rational, sensible and divine in origin. To the Pelagian an unjust God was simply just not possible.
Augustine, in direct contrast, thought man was simply not capable of knowing what justice God administers. His belief that Adam's fall was transmuted to all humans at birth, that some people are predestined by God to be saved and others condemned to eternal torment in the afterlife, that only by the Grace of God are humans saved, all flew in the face of the Pelagians belief in the basic goodness of God.
Of what relevance is all this today?
The doctrine of free will undergirds the foundation of the United States. Our first 3 presidents were Deists, men who were the products of the Age of Reason. 90% of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were Freemasons, an international fraternal and charitable organization dedicated to preserving ancient wisdom. Men of reason and faith many of our nations founders fully embraced the doctrine of free will most assuredly.
Later day Pelagians can be seen in many present day progressive Christian churches. For example, Universalist commonly believe God is too good to condemn humans and Unitarians believe man is too good to be condenmed. New Thought Christian churches such as Unity and Religious Science believe that man has the ability to heal, as Jesus once did, thus the doctrine of free will lives and thrives in their minds and hearts. While the numbers of these believers may be small in contrast to so called mainstream Christianity, their impact has been well out of proportion to their numbers. For example, several American presidents have been Unitarians.
Moreover the doctrine of free will and the belief in the basic goodness of God and of man, underlies the whole definition of the progressive movement, motivates people like ourselves to seek social equality and justice.
The on going debate between the Pelagian and Augustine theologies continues to rage unabated today. I clearly stand with the Pelagians. Where do you stand?
Rich
- anElder's blog
- Login or register to post comments
a link or two
Hey there. I've posted a brief response on my blog. Suffice it to say that I think that the debate is more about free will and original sin than whether or not God is kind and just. I believe in free will and original sin. We are born mixed...both wheat and chaff...free will is something we were created with and inherent in the ability to choose is the ability to choose against the will of God. This is how I understand Genesis at least. And I am a progressive because we are all fallen and in need of one another. It's not because we are all good that progressiveism works for me, but because we all need help.
Good stuff, gang.
Questions about Pelagius and Augustine
Rich, I was wondering about Pelagius, Augustine, and their concept of free will. You wrote that Pelagius and Julian of Eclanum derived their belief in free will and that is a distinctly Jewish way of thinking. You also wrote that of Augustine: "Augustine, in direct contrast, thought man was simply not capable of knowing what justice God administers. His belief that Adam's fall was transmuted to all humans at birth, that some people are predestined by God to be saved and others condemned to eternal torment in the afterlife, that only by the Grace of God are humans saved, all flew in the face of the Pelagians belief in the basic goodness of God."
I don't know much about Pelagius, but I know a little about Augustine. I read his Confessions while in college, though I'll have to reread it sometime to refresh my memories. From what I remember, Augustine was not questioning the goodness of God, but he was questioning the goodness of human beings. If I remember correctly, Augustine's ideas of original sin and the saving of humanity only through God's grace were derived from Paul's letter to the Romans. Paul was stating in Romans that people could have knowledge of what is good (through the Jewish Law in the case of Jews or through their conscience in the case of nonJews)and will still fall short of doing what is good.
Correct me if I'm wrong on this. Pelagius and Julian of Eclanum believed that humans can save themselves through their own free will. Augustine and St. Paul believed that humans could not save themselves except through God's grace. Was the debate between Augustine and Pelagius on the goodness of God, or on the ability of humanity to achieve salvation on its own? How does the debate on free will comment on God's goodness?
This sounds kind of like the debate that Erasmus had with Martin Luther. Personally I'm not sure where I fall on this debate between Origen and Augustine. I think because of the Holocaust, Rwanda, and other examples of man's inhumanity against man, I'm a bit wary of this idea of the basic goodness of human beings. I read this young adult book called The Wave about an incident in Palo Alto, California where an experiment was taken place to put kids in a Nazi type setting, and the kids wound up acting like the German people during the 1930s. I've watched recent war documentaries where soldiers talk about doing horrible things to other human beings because of war. Group dynamics, adverse conditions can bring out the worst in people.
On the other hand, I can think of examples of where people have done good things under adverse conditions. People who've braved disapproval of their peers to help out the marginalized, like the rescuers of Jews during the Holocaust, or Quakers helping runaway slaves escape to Canada. During natural disasters, ordinary citizens often risk their lives to help those in need.
I think human beings are complex. Nice and good people can do extremely evil things. Bad people can show surprising compassion and kindness. Even heroes have feet of clay. Oscar Schindler was a womanizer, an adulterer, a war profiteer, yet he risked his life to save over 2,000 Jews. David of the Old Testament killed a man to get the man's wife, was a lousy father to his children, yet is considered a man of God in the Bible. Attila the Hun raped, pillaged and burnt half a continent, but I heard that he was a kind son to his mom. I know there are examples of purely evil humans, like Hitler or Stalin, and really good people, like St. Francis or maybe Gandhi, but I think most people are this weird combination of good and bad. I can think of enough examples of man's inhumanity against man to be skeptical of Pelagius, but I can also think of examples of heroic deeds to not fully agree with Augustine either. To your question of where I stand, I don't think I fully agree with either Augustine or Pelagius.
Basic human nature
Angelo,
To answer your question, I believe the discussion is about the goodness of humans, basically. As I do not accept the concept of original sin, I believe we are all born innocent. A newborn is simply a very vulnerable human, full of love. Initially we are motivated by the need to have our basic needs met. A mother's love is a powerful force, not only in humans but in nature in general.
We need to be taught to hate. You place children of different races, ethic backgrounds and the like in a room and they will play well together, only occasionally vying for a toy or attention, and when taught to cooperate, will do so quite easily. It's only when an adult tells a child not to play with another child because they are different that a child will learn to see others differently.
Yes, there are many examples of man's inhumanity to man. I believe this is simply a matter of either fear based ignorance (they are different looking or speak a language we can not understand so we ask can we trust them?) or more probably, a matter of forgetting. Most major religions teach the golden rule, in one form or another. For the non-religious it is presented as the Ethic of Reciprocity. Stated either way we have been taught as a human specie to treat each other fairly, honestly and with compassion.
It is when humans exercise their birthright free will but fail to accept full responsiblity for the consequences of their actions, to place their needs above or before that of others that humans fail to live up to the divine standards master teachers like Jesus gave us. Our Divine Creator has sent us many teachers, over the millenium. Here we concentrate on the teachings of Jesus. He is our Wayshower.
To me the many examples of inhumane actions are the result of a failure to remember that we are mutually dependent on one another, that for every act of free will taken w/o regard to the needs of others that there is an equal and oftimes opposite reaction. Quantum physics tells us we live in an intimately, interconnected, interactive, interdependent universe. The basic need of all living things is to feel safe, in the immediate short term and secure in the future long term. We best accomplish these two basic goals by mutual cooperation. It is when one human, failing to understand or remember our crucial need for cooperation seeks to gain an advantage of others that we fall.
Here we need the Grace of Our Creator to remind us of our individual vulnerability and to restore us to our initial state of innocence. As Julian said, adult baptism remits our sins, (sin-to miss the mark or make an error in judgment). Baptism gives us a fresh start, frees us to perfect ourselves. If we remember the golden rule we will best remember "to go and sin no more".
Rich
Pelagius or Augustine?
Rich, in my opinion, neither Pelagius nor Augustine adequately convey the Biblical ideology or choice on these matters. Therefore, I can't align myself with either man or the theological precepts they argued about.
First, there is an undeniable, continuous theme running through the Old and New Testament...Adam sinned and creation fell with he and Eve. Humanity has stood in need of redemption ever since. Whether the Biblical account is metaphorical or literal really matters not. The historical and contemporary evidence points to a struggle between good and evil within every human heart. Reading ancient literature like the Bible reveals that the basic character flaws of the ancients are still just as evident in humanity today. History clearly reveals something other than the "basic goodness of man"...
Ritualistic sacrifices were instituted, but failed to deliver humanity. Christ offered Himself as the only and final sacrifice for all sin that blocked the flow of God's Kingdom into the Earth. Scripture declares, "He became sin so that we might be called the righteousness of God."
For Pelagius or anyone else to remove the need of the atonement of Christ would be the equivalent of removing Rhett, Scarlet and the Civil War from the story line of Gone With the Wind. Likewise, the essential nature of grace in the equation with faith is as much a part the story as an extra terrestrial is in ET.