Post Series
1. Introduction
2. Pagitt and Pelagius On Human Nature
3. Pagitt and Pelagius On Sin
4. Pagitt and Pelagius On Salvation
5. Pagitt and Pelagius On Discipleship and Judgment
6. Conclusion
7. (Final Thoughts)
CONCLUSION
According to Pagitt’s own published work, it is clear he reflects much, if not most, of Pelagius’ theology. Pagitt is a Pelagian. From human nature to sin, human will to grace, and salvation to judgment, much of Pagitt’s theology mirrors Pelagius’. While Pagitt may want to believe differently, he simply believes otherly. Historically, this “other theology” was previously addressed by another theologian: Augustine. Though the theological controversy between the two was rancorous and dramatic, Augustine and others already dealt with the “other theology” of Pelagius (and Pagitt) through numerous writings and councils in the 5th century. Back then, what was the response of Augustine to Pelagius and how might Augustine respond to Pagitt if he were alive today? This series will conclude with some final personal comments, this post is meant to present Augustine’s response to Pelagius’ theology of human nature, sin, grace, and salvation as means by which we may also critique Pagitt.
First, regarding human nature, Augustine acknowledges that at first it was uncorrupt and without sin; at Creation, Adam was faultless. He argues, “But that nature of man in which every one is born from Adam, now wants the Physician, because it is not sound.” ((Augustine. “On Nature and Grace” from A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Volume 5. Edited by Phillip Schaff. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1991), 122.)) While Pelagius says all people are born sound, Augustine responds by saying that now, post-Fall, the nature of all people is corrupted. “Let us not suppose, then, that human nature cannot be corrupted by sin, but rather, believing, from the inspired Scriptures, that it is corrupted by sin.” ((Augustine, “On Nature and Grace,” 128)) Foundational to Pelagius’ theology was the notion that we are good and untainted, and out of that untainted nature we on our own are capable of not sinning. Pelagius “maintained that our human nature actually posseses an inseparable capacity of not at all sinning.” ((Augustine, “On Nature and Grace,” 141))
In arguing against this inner capacity, Augustine offers a line from the Lord’s Prayer: “Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil.” ((Matt. 6:13)) Augustine wonders, “If they already have capacity, why do they pray? Or, what is the evil which they pray to be delivered from?” ((Augustine, “On Nature and Grace,” 142)) In other words, why should a person pray to be delivered from evil if he, through his own capacity, can deliver himself and not sin? He goes on to say, “Behold what damage the disobedience of the will has inflicted on man’s nature! Let him be permitted to pray that he may be healed! [The nature] is wounded, hurt, damaged, destroyed. It is a true confession of its weakness, not a false defense of its capacity, that it stands in need of. It requires the grace of God.” ((Augustine, “On Nature and Grace,” 142)) In response to Pelagius’ belief that human nature is not corrupt and is capable on its own not to sin, Augustine replies that human nature must be delivered from evil because it must be healed. That healing comes not from self-will, but from the grace of God.
What disturbed Augustine and others most was Pelagius’ view of grace. They objected most that Pelagius did not maintain that it is purely by the grace of God that a man is able to be without sin. ((Augustine, “On Nature and Grace,” 139.)) Pelagius and his followers argued that the grace of God is the nature in which we were created, which enables us to act righteously. ((Augustine. “On Grace and Free Will,” from A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Volume 5. Edited by Phillip Schaff. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1991), 454.)) According to them, the grace of God is not dispensed through Christ, but through Creation; we are able to sin not because of Christ, but because of our human nature, which is in fact the grace of God. Augustine counters, “This, however, is not the grace which the apostle commends to us through the faith of Jesus Christ. For it is certain that we possess this nature in common with ungodly men and unbelievers; whereas the grace which comes through the faith of Jesus Christ belongs only to them to whom the faith itself appertains.” ((Augustine. “On Grace and Free Will,” 454.)) While Pelagius equated grace with the God’s creation of a good inner nature, Augustine said the grace of God to which the Scriptures attest comes through faith in Christ. Grace is not from Creation, but from Christ alone.
Augustine was also concerned that Pelagius maintained no other opinion than that the grace of God is given according to our merit. In response, Augustine declares, “God’s grace is not given according to our merit…it is given not only where there are no good, but even where there are many evil merits preceding.” ((Augustine. “On Grace and Free Will,” 449.)) While Pelagius maintains that humans can choose to do good deeds out of an inner, naturally good capacity—and thus are rewarded by God because of those good deeds—Augustine insists that no man ought to attribute those good deeds to himself, but to God.((Augustine. “On Grace and Free Will,” 449.)) Furthermore, while Pelagius believes that a man is justified from and forgiven of sins by Christ only at the event of baptism, Augustine believes that the grace of God is with him even into the future to cover sins not yet committed. “It is necessary for a man that he should be not only justified when unrighteous by the grace of God…but that, even after he has become justified by faith, grace should accompany him on his way, and he should lean upon it, lest he fall.” ((Augustine. “On Grace and Free Will,” 449.)) Augustine’s view sharply contrasts with Pelagius who insists that the example of Christ is what “empowers” people to choose the righteous life after baptism. Instead of the grace of God empowering people to choose to live in Christ, people’s good inner nature allows them to choose integration with God. Augustine counters, “Man, even when most fully justified, is unable to lead a holy life, if he be not divinely assisted by the eternal light of righteousness.” ((Augustine, “On Nature and Grace,” 129.))
Finally, Augustine addressed the ultimate results of Pelagius’ theology: salvation. Augustine responded by saying Pelagius’ view of human nature “causes the grace of Christ to be ‘made of none effect,’ since it is pretended that human nature is sufficient for its own holiness and justification.” ((Augustine, “On Nature and Grace, 141.)) In reality, neither the cross of Christ nor the grace of God is necessary if humans, through their own inner nature, can pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Augustine counters Pelagius’ faith in human nature by saying, “if the righteousness came from nature, then Christ is dead in vain.”((Augustine. “On Grace and Free Will,” 454.)) If the grace of God came through nature and out of our own inner capacity we can attain to right living, rather than through faith in Christ, then Christ’s death was in vain. Augustine maintained that the same faith which restored the saints of old now restores us: “that is to say, faith ‘in the one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus,’—faith in His blood, faith in His cross, faith in His death and resurrection.” ((Augustine, “On Nature and Grace,” 139.)) While Pelagius believes a person is justified, saved, and forgiven when a person comes in faith to Christ through baptism, he does not believe that faith alone is sufficient for salvation. Instead, faith and deeds ultimately bring and secure eternal life into the future. Augustine wishes Pelagius would meditate on Acts 4:12, which says, “There is no other name under heaven given by which we must be saved,” “and that [Pelagius] would not so uphold the possibility of human nature, as to believe that man can be saved by free will without the Name!” ((Augustine, “On Nature and Grace,” 137.))
In many ways, the same conclusions arrived at by Augustine of Pelagius could be applied to Pagitt. Because Pagitt clearly mirrors a substantial amount of Pelagius’ theology on humanity, sin, and salvation, one could imagine similar criticism from Augustine of Pagitt. Augustine might tell Pagitt that we do not have the light of God within us still, but rather are broken and tainted because of sin. In response to Pagitt’s newborn analogy, Augustine would maintain that we are born sinners and are in need of healing from birth. Furthermore, Augustine might insist that the systems, hurts, and patterns of this world are not to blame for living lives of disintegration, rather we sin because we are naturally sinful; examples, habits, and ignorance do not lead us into sin, our nature does. Salvifically, Augustine would probably declare that the event of the cross, with all of its suffering, bloodshed, and death, is of the utmost importance because of the real, tangible expression and dispensation of grace it bore for the world. We need Christ, not simply for His example and pattern, but for the grace and salvation He brings us through the event of the cross. Christ is not simply our map, guide, and new example, He is our Savior and Redeemer. Augustine would maintain that we can live integrated lives with God by obeying Him only because of the grace He gives us through faith in Jesus Christ alone, not because Jesus’ example is better than the rest.
As quoted from Olson in the beginning, the story of Christian theology is about the historical reflection on the nature of salvation. Likewise, an examination of Pagitt, Pelagius, and Augustine is not simply an exercise in parsing theological positions on the nature of humanity and original sin, it’s about the gospel of Jesus Christ. According to this examination, Pagitt’s Christianity is not a different, more hopeful faith, it is an other form of faith that both the Communion of Saints and Spirit of God have deemed foreign to the Holy Scriptures, Rule of Faith, and gospel of Jesus Christ.
One question remains, however: How will the contemporary Grand Rapids Communion deem this other faith?
I've appreciated this series. I understand the dangerous of being anachronistic about such things. I do think it is valuable to compare and contrast trends today with things that have gone on in the past. This was an excellent conclusion with its historical sensitivity.
It is good to remember our history. The decisions our forefathers in the faith made in the past concerning the gospel should weigh in our thoughts today.
Yes, and HOW and WHY they made these decisions should be weighed as well. If you read the rationale behind Augustine's idea of original sin – basically that he couldn't explain his own sexual lust – it SHOULD make us rethink this doctrine. Also knowing that this doctrine gave the empire church the power and control it needed should make us rethink it. To NOT include that history in this conversation was extremely short-sighted, in my opinion. But it was never really a conversation about The Fall anyway – it was about "excommunicating" Doug Pagitt.
Jeff,
Do you have a blog that I could read?
Sorry, I don't!
One of the major concerns for the Council of Carthage was infant baptism
Canon 2 “If any man says that new-born children need not be baptized, or that they should indeed be baptized for the remission of sins, but that they have in them no original sin inherited from Adam which must be washed away in the bath of regeneration, so that in their ease the formula of baptism ‘for the remission of sins’ must not be taken literally, but figuratively, let him be anathema; because, according to Romans 5:12, the sin of Adam has passed upon all.”
ugh… I think a lot of people would be considered anathema according to Carthage 418.
point – I don't think the results of the councils can be examined properly without also examining the pragmatic concerns/goals of the councils.
"one could imagine similar criticism from Augustine of Pagitt"
Jeremy, you are not Augustine, and I am not Pelagius.
You might be an Augustinian (God have mercy on you if this is so ;0), but I am not a Pelagian.
So, this entire blog series can come to an end with Jeremy accusing me of something I deny.
The good news is that in our world, we don't let the Augustinians excommunicate, belittle and threaten those who disagree with them. So, while some want to bring back the 5th century debates, I am glad the consequences have changed.
Again, if anyone is looking for a Christianity Worth Believing and you didn't find it in this Augustinian summary, my book is at most book stores and at http://www.dougpagitt.com/books
I'm curious why Doug Pagitt's last comment here, which shows up as the 4th to this post under the "Recent Comment" section in the right column, is not showing up here.
Two historical books which a much broader understanding than THIS biased post:
"Original Sin: Origins, Developments, Contemporary Meaning", by Tatha Wiley
"Adam, Eve, and the Serpent: Sex and Politics in Early Christianity" by Elaine Pagels
Your conclusion suggests orthodoxy (right belief) becomes our means of salvation. Correct thoughts about God become our means by which we are saved. Yet, this goes directly against James — where there is a direct correlation between orthodoxy and orthopraxis, and orthopraxis is actually elevated above, or at least equal to, orthodoxy.
The faiure of orthodoxy in the evangelical church is its lack of kindness, goodness, and generosity. When we exclude brothers and sisters based on our belief of how we interpret the biblical text, we allow no space for those who disagree. Our generosity, kindness, goodness, and vitually all fruits of the Spirit cease.
Ultimately, the issue becomes about the missio dei (mission of God). When followers of Jesus can't speak with grace into the lives of broken people because of our theological positions, we fail to include ourselves in the missio dei.
To suggest that the life of Doug Pagitt is 'other' than being a follower of Jesus, takes nothing into account of his life. This kind of position allows followers of Jesus with 'correct theology' off the hook entirely for the way they conduct their lives. Such a position takes neither the letter of James nor Matthew 25, among so many other directives, seriously.
As protestant Christians, our intense fear of connecting the works of our lives with our ultimate salvation leaves us feeling fulfilled with rightly held theological positions while a broken and hurting world passionately searches for the reality of the kingdom.
"Your conclusion suggests orthodoxy (right belief) becomes our means of salvation." Really? I thought my conclusions have shown that Doug mirrors the theology of Pelagius, since that is what this series has been about this whole time.
Would you say, Randy, that we do not have to believe correctly in order to find salvation? If so, why not? If not, then what do we need to believe in order to "be saved?" Furthermore, where have I ever said that one does not have to behave correctly? One must behave AND believe rightly in order to be a Christian, a follower of Jesus Christ. It's both. That's what I'm saying.
And to your point about Doug's life: where have I said that "the life of Doug Pagitt is 'other' than being a follower of Jesus"? Have you even read these 8 posts? I have said from the beginning that I was taking the THEOLOGY of Doug to task. Not his life. I am not in any way letting "followers of Jesus with 'correct theology' off the hook entirely for the way they conduct their lives." Where on earth did you get that?
I am curious, Randy, about 2 things: 1) Have you read Doug's book? 2) How is what Doug says in his book consistent with the Rule of Faith and Holy Scriptures? That's what this series has been about. So let's say on topic, shall we?
Geez Jeremy – this is what you said above: "Pagitt’s Christianity is not a different, more hopeful faith, it is an other form of faith that both the Communion of Saints and Spirit of God have deemed foreign to the Holy Scriptures, Rule of Faith, and gospel of Jesus Christ."
You didn't say his "THEOLOGY" , you said his "CHRISTIANITY" and his "FAITH" is foreign, which to MOST of us includes orthopraxy as well. Why don't YOU stay on topic?
Reading through Hebrews this morning, it was the actions of faithfully following Yahweh that credited righteousness. A friend recently said, "I'm convinced that God doesn't care if we're right. He wants us to be faithful."
~To be fair to your questions~
From the biblical text, followers of God have believed somewhat different things while still being faithful. Abraham had no concept of Yahweh, and yet he simply followed. Looking at Hebrews, it is apparent that each person of great faith responded to God with a particular way of being faithful. From their position within the biblical story, each had a different and limited perspective of redemptive history.
If we are the people of God living in the presence of God, then relationships should be held as sacred. When we forsake our relationships with others for the sake of being 'right,' a hurting and broken world no longer sees our witness to the resurrection.
For those who are not yet living in the kingdom of God, we effectually call into question the resurrection by the way we treat one another. Be it at the pub, the church lobby, or the blogosphere, if we want to live lives worthy of imitating, we need to live in such a way that being ‘right’ isn’t of highest regard, but secondary to inviting people into the kingdom. Allowing ‘the chips to fall as they may’ isn’t an option as it presents something ‘other’ than the way we are called to live as followers of Jesus Christ.
For some reason a comment from Doug did not come through…Here it is, and sorry for that!
"one could imagine similar criticism from Augustine of Pagitt"
Jeremy, you are not Augustine, and I am not Pelagius.
You might be an Augustinian (God have mercy on you if this is so ;0), but I am not a Pelagian.
So, this entire blog series can come to an end with Jeremy accusing me of something I deny.
The good news is that in our world, we don't let the Augustinians excommunicate, belittle and threaten those who disagree with them. So, while some want to bring back the 5th century debates, I am glad the consequences have changed.
Again, if anyone is looking for a Christianity Worth Believing and you didn't find it in this Augustinian summary, my book is at most book stores and at ” target=”_blank”>http://www.dougpagitt.com/books
Doug,
As I have said before, I never set out to prove you were a Pelagian. As someone who is in the academy, I wanted to bring an academic lens using an academic method to your writings. That's all. Come to find out you do in fact mirror much of Pelagius' own theology. You maintain otherwise, yet have not proven differently. While you may certainly object to my methodology, (both placing your writings next to Pelagius' and using Augustine to critique you…) and conclusions, you have not shown why either are faulty or wrong.
I'm still waiting…
-jeremy
THIS is what comes out "academia"? Is it possible, Jeremy, that your classes at conservative Baptist seminaries MIGHT have slanted the history a bit to fit with the theological doctrines that they subscribe to?
For example (from GRTS web site):
We believe that God created men and women in His image and likeness for fellowship with Himself and to carry out the creation mandates; that Adam sinned and that by his disobedience the entire race was alienated from God, depraved and totally lost.
You seem to be doing the SAME thing Augustine did when he started with the ANSWER (the CHURCH is necessary for salvation, infants must be baptized) and worked backwards to make the Bible fit it.