Posted on 08/04/2004 12:32:44 PM PDT by xzins
Ping
A look at Pelagius from an article positive toward him. Despite your position, it is an interesting history lesson.
Pelagius, a Welsh monk, began this teaching that bears his name. He denied that we inherit original sin from Adam’s sin in the Garden and claimed that we become sinful only through the bad example of the sinful community into which we are born. Conversely, he denied that we inherit righteousness as a result of Christ’s death on the cross and said that we become personally righteous by instruction and imitation in the Christian community, following the example of Christ. Pelagius stated that man is born morally neutral and can achieve heaven under his own powers. According to him, God’s grace is not truly necessary, but merely makes easier an otherwise difficult task.
My understanding is that you have posted the Augustinian viewpoint of Pelagius....Augustine took Coelestius' positions and applied them to Pelagius.
Pelagius' views that are in this article are not the same as you posted.
Ping to above article/review of controversial, historic Christian figure, Pelagius.
"It is difficult to glean from history the teachings of Morgan for little remains of his writings. We must rely on the polemics of his Augustinian opponents who have displayed less than honorable intentions when dealing with Morgan and who have often confused his teachings with that of the condemned Celestianism.
If all we can glean from history was from the writings of Augustine, then how can we conclude such a favorable report? And this report shows nothing of what Morgan (Pelagius) taught according to other sources. It doesn't discuss how Morgan's beliefs were held in such ill repute that the theology evolved into Semi-Peligian which later Arminian (and eventually Wesley) used to develop his theology. In my mind it is a dangerous practice to have an "evolving" theology rather than a "systematic" theology.
Some of Pelagius' thoughts included:
1. Adam was created liable to death, and would have died, whether he had sinned or not.
2. The sin of Adam hurt himself only and not the human race.
3. Infants at their birth are in the same state as Adam before the fall.
4. Neither by the death nor fall of Adam does the whole race of man die, nor by the resurrection of Christ rise again.
5. The Law introduces men into the kingdom of heaven, just in the same way as the Gospel does.
6. Even before the coming of Christ there were some men sinless.
This from an anti-Calvinist website: Pelagius
Too bad the author neglected to mention the core beliefs and history of this man.
The Pelagian Drinking Song
Pelagius lived at Kardanoel
And taught a doctrine there
How, whether you went to heaven or to hell
It was your own affair.
It had nothing to do with the Church, my boy,
But was your own affair.
No, he didn't believe
In Adam and Eve
He put no faith therein!
His doubts began
With the Fall of Man
And he laughed at Original Sin.
With my row-ti-tow
Ti-oodly-ow
He laughed at original sin.
Then came the bishop of old Auxerre
Germanus was his name
He tore great handfuls out of his hair
And he called Pelagius shame.
And with his stout Episcopal staff
So thoroughly whacked and banged
The heretics all, both short and tall --
They rather had been hanged.
Oh he whacked them hard, and he banged them long
Upon each and all occasions
Till they bellowed in chorus, loud and strong
Their orthodox persuasions.
With my row-ti-tow
Ti-oodly-ow
Their orthodox persuasions.
Now the faith is old and the Devil bold
Exceedingly bold indeed.
And the masses of doubt that are floating about
Would smother a mortal creed.
But we that sit in a sturdy youth
And still can drink strong ale
Let us put it away to infallible truth
That always shall prevail.
And thank the Lord
For the temporal sword
And howling heretics too.
And all good things
Our Christendom brings
But especially barley brew!
With my row-ti-tow
Ti-oodly-ow
Especially barley brew!
-- Hillaire Belloc
The take-home message here is that Pelagius was a good, sharp guy -- though one who was completely wrong, in my opinion. Those of us on the Reformed side of the equation cannot turn Pelagius (or Arminius) into the epitome of evil. Pelagius was probably a good guy.
This state of things is not without other parallels. Any orthodox Christian would consider Albert Schweitzer's "Historical Jesus" downright heretical. But his medical work in Africa earned him a well-deserved Nobel Peace Prize.
Thanks for the ping!
As St. Augustine pointed out, this form of "grace", while true, is defective. Certainly, God does enlighten us- the Scriptures and Fathers are in certain testimony of that. However, if all He did was enlighten us to the truth, we would hardly be in a better spot. What Plato said is wrong: to know the good is not necessarily to do it. I think we can all attest to that from personal experience. It is one of the inanities of human behaviour: we will sometimes deliberately do wrong knowing it is bad and will probably end in no good to ourselves even. Mere ignorance is not our only problem.
And if this were our only problem- that of not being sufficiently enlighened- then we would not need a Saviour the way we have been given one. Jesus is useful as the perfect exemplar of piety, but that is all, if grace only consists in seeing the good.
But God's grace, as proclaimed by the catholic faith, is far more than just a divine enlightenment. God not only shows us the good, He enables us to do it! We have a much deeper problem than ignorance: we have corruption within ourselves, wound about our nature as St. Maximus put it. Humanity fell into sin and death, not just ignorance, and we were in desperate need of Someone to deliver us out of it. That someone is Jesus Christ, perfect God and perfect Man in one Person, Who not only showed us the perfect life, but through His Incarnation, Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Ascension, freed us from corruption, pardoned our sin, delivered us from bondage, transfered us to His own divine glory, and enabled us to live in communion with God. That is grace. That is what the Church Catholic has always taught and believed: that Jesus is not simply a good man, or even a perfect man, but that He is God made man, and that His redemption of us is not simply the setting of a good example, but a radical remaking and transforming of man through grace that He pours out on undeserving, unmeriting creatures, freely forgiving them and inviting them into His Life.
As a slight digression, I must also note that the Council of Orange, in which Pelagianism was rebuked soundly, while not an Ecumenical Council, has always been accepted by the Eastern Church.
One does have to wonder, however, why such theology wasn't roundly condemned at the councils at which he defended himself. Why does there appear to be one portrayal of it when Morgan was present....at was declared innocent? Why, when he was not present, was it condemned?
It is a historic curiosity to me, and it has been for some time.
So far as actual writings of Morgan...we either have them or we don't.
Couple this with the interesting fact that when Augustine, on his mission to England, appealed for the Celtic Church to recognize Rome, that Columba rejected that appeal. Augustine's mission was a failure in that regard, and Morgan came out of that Celtic Church.
There was an inter-church rivalry ongoing at that moment. The Celtics were more orthodox and aligned with the east. That rift wasn't overcome until William the Conquerer imposed the Roman primacy after his subjugation of the Island.
Should we read any charges from Augustine's pen with a critical eye regarding the events of the day?
I'm particularly concerned with Augustine's failed mission on behalf of Rome to incorporate the Celtic Church.
The period of peace that followed the British defeat of the Saxons at Mons Badonicus (c.500) once again allowed for growth of the Celtic Church (especially through the work of St. Columba), although isolation from the Continent continued until the mission of St. Augustine. Having converted King Æthelbert of Kent to Christianity, St. Augustine attempted to convince the leaders of the Celtic Church to change those practices (such as the dating of Easter and the forms of baptism and tonsure) that were at variance with the Roman Church and to accept the imposition of a diocesan organization on the essentially monastic structure of their church. He failed, and it was not until the Synod of Whitby (664, see Whitby, Synod of) that such agreement was largely reached, although independent Celtic churches continued on in Wales and Ireland. See J. T. McNeil, The Celtic Churches (1974); F. E. Warren, The Liturgy and Ritual of the Celtic Church (1987).
I fear that Augustine (who was human, I think....and sinful) might over over-stated his case for personal reasons.
That's the whole point of The Confessions. The conversion of a man caught up in the cults of the day who prayed, "Give me purity and continence, but not yet" so that he would become a Saint and Doctor of the Church.
Could Augustine have overstated his case? Perhaps. He did it before with the Donatist controversy when he took "compel them to come to the feast" and used that to justify closing the Donatist churches by military intervention.
It's significant that Morgan is associated with both the Celtic Church and the Eastern Church, both out of the orthodox eastern rather than the Roman tradition.
It's significant that Morgan's case, when presented by Morgan, was affirmed. When presented by his opponents in his absence, he was castigated.
It is significant that Rome's overtures, with Augustine heading the delegation, were rebuffed by the Celtic Church.
You have added more: Augustine had a history of being heavy-handed militarily with the Donatists.
I always read Augustine with a critical eye because his writing is subject to errors (which Augustine admits). But Augustine succinctly laid out the church's theological position from the time of Christ to 400AD at the Council of Orange and well as some of his other writings. Morgan introduced a NEW position based upon his interpretation of James. There was no traditional bases for his theological position and this fact should not be ignored. (sheeze-I'm starting to sound like a Catholic.) It was only Morgan's interpretation based on nothing more than his opinions.
When Morgan's viewpoints became less and less popular they changed them (called semi-Pelagian), not based upon the scripture but based upon how Morgan interpreted the scriptures. The reason for this change was to make this viewpoint more appealing. Arminian took these ideas and further refined them. (Go to any Pelagian or Arminian website and they proudly proclaim this.) Augustine's position never changed from the established beliefs of the church which is what Calvin based his theology on.
You're right, there was a effort to appease both sides in the early church after Morgan was branded a heretic. IMHO, I believe this appeasement was the start of the errors of the RCC which eventually culminated in the rejection of Augustine's view, the Reformation (those who were loyal to Augustine) and the acceptance of Morgan's view at the Council of Trent. (Yeah, I know that many RCCers will say I'm wrong but IMO, the RCC has rejected the Augustine's position of salvation through total grace as documented at the Council of Orange.) Had the church had a Paul there at the time of Morgan he would have set the Pope straight just as he did with Peter.
Whatever faults or biases Augustine may have had against Morgan, the indisputable fact is the doctrine of the church as laid out at the Council of Orange. Salvation is through a gift of God period-not through what we may "freely" do. This is the traditional belief of the church.
My point is an argument from circumstantial evidence.
That argument is "caution about Morgan's views, because they are presented by his adversaries and not by his own writings which we no longer have."
See my post to Jude at #14 summarizing.
In short, when Morgan was present to explain himself no one had a problem with his views. When they were explained by Augustine, then they had problems with them.
Ha! The Author, after giving us a biased historical prologue, gives us his unsubstantiated thesis,
"Unlike Augustinianism with its grounding in neo-Platonic philosophy and Manichean religion, Morgan's theology is grounded in the Holy Scriptures and the Early Church Fathers.",
then goes on to give the same old tired "arguements". Why do you bother to post articles by these Finney hacks?
Perhaps he's coming out of the closet, so to speak. ;)
Jean
Why did I bother posting this article?
For the same reason I posted the article by Landmark Temple from a Calvinist perspective regarding evangelism and the elect.
Discussion.
I don't accept the doctrine commonly called "pelagianism." (I do wonder at the historical accuracy of ascribing that doctrine to Morgan of Wales.)
Nor do I accept all of calvinism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.