Post Series
1. Introduction
2. Pagitt and Pelagius On Human Nature
3. Pagitt and Pelagius On Sin
4. Interlude on Sin
5. Pagitt and Pelagius On Salvation
6. Pagitt and Pelagius On Discipleship and Judgment
7. Conclusion
8. (Final Thoughts)

ON SALVATION

Now that we’ve established Doug Pagitt’s and Pelagius’ understanding of human nature and sin, it is time to see how both affect their view on salvation. Pagitt, like much of the Emerging Church, rejects penal substitutionary atonement as a framing narrative for understanding humanity’s reconciliation with God. (Note: as I have written else where, I do not believe PSA is the only way of framing atonement, though I don’t know how one can be a Christian and not believe Jesus Christ died in their place.) Instead, he supplies what might be considered a moral example theory of atonement, though he rejects any atonement theory and would cringe at such a comparison. Because human nature is fundamentally godly and merely impinged upon by broken, sinful systems, humanity can be saved merely by following a better example. Since humans have the inner, natural capacity to do good or evil, their salvation comes not through a sacrifice but through a new model and set of teachings by which they can know how to act and form new habits. Consequently, the life, Way, pattern, and teachings of Jesus are the center of Emerging Church theology and form the core of Pagitt’s views on salvation, too.

Broadly speaking, Pagitt believes Jesus came to call people to join in with God, rather than the systems of disintegration. Pagitt writes concerning the early Christians: “The Messiah was their map, their guide to what true partnership with God looked like” through His example and teachings; Jesus “restored them to the lives for which they were created.” ((Pagitt, Christianity, 181.)) Salvation comes, then, when people “follow Jesus as Joshua into the promised land of freedom and release,” because he is the new pattern of harmony for humanity by showing us what full integration with God looks like and fulfilling what people are meant to do and be. ((Pagitt, Christianity, 182, 183.))

According to Pagitt, the problem is not that humanity is depraved, that human nature is marked and tainted by sin which causes people to sin. Instead, human nature is marked and defined by a sound Imago Dei that carries with it the capacity to choose integration with God or disintegration from God. Sinful choices from the outside, through sinful systems and patterns, influence that sound Image into forming ongoing habits, which lead to ongoing sin. What humanity requires, then, is someone to model for us integration with God, to show us a better more original way of being human. Jesus is that person. “He tells his followers, shows his followers, what it looks like to live in harmony with God. Because Jesus is the Son of God, he is the very model of complete integration with the Creator. And because Jesus is the Son of humanity, he is the very model of living out that integration in the midst of war, pain, joy, conflict, love, loss, and fear.” ((Pagitt, Christianity, 209 (emphasis mine).)) According to Pagitt, then, humanity has corrupt, sin-tainted patterns that model sin and influence sin-formed habits.

Salvation, then, comes not through a sacrifice that does something with the objective, ethical realities of rebellion and evil or ontological consequence we call “death.” As we have seen so far, humanity does not possess a sin-tained nature; “our DNA hasn’t changed,” we are not ethically morally rebellious. Instead examples, patternes, and systems press against our will, influencing out choices and forming sin habits. Thus for Pagitt (and as we’ll see, Pelagius), salvation comes through an example, a new pattern that models for us integration with God.

For Pagitt, the cross was not about the suffering, bloodshed, and death of Jesus, for that was the old “Greek blood god” version of atonement. ((Pagitt, Christianity, 194.)) Instead, “Jesus is the core of Christianity because it is through Jesus that we see the fullness of God’s hopes for the world. Jesus is the redemption of the creation plan. He shows us what is means to live in partnership with our creator. He leads us into what it means to be integrated with God.” ((Pagitt, Christianity, 195 (emphasis min).)) Salvation is found in the example and model that Jesus shows humanity; we find redemption through the leadership of Jesus into better patterns and better habits that are integrated with God. Because human nature is untainted and still intact—nothing about us has changed because of the rebellion of Adam—we merely need a better model than the one that failed us before. Thus, Jesus is a new, better Adam for creation; he is a new, better example and model.

For Pagitt, “Just as Adam was the pattern of disobedience, so Jesus is the new pattern of harmony.” ((Pagitt, Christianity, 208.)) Interestingly, Pelagius in his commentary on Romans translates “pattern” as “type” and offers this commentary: “Adam is the source of sin, so too is Christ the source of righteousness.” Elsewhere in his commentary on 5:12, Pelagius says that sin came into the world “by example or by pattern.” And in 5:19 he says, “Just as by the example of Adam’s disobedience many sinned, so also many are justified by Christ’s obedience.” In appears that Pagitt mirrors Pelagius’ contrast between the example/pattern of Adam’s disobedience vs. the example/pattern of obedience, or “harmony” to use Pagitt’s language. Because of the disobedient example of Adam, “generations of disintegration” followed his pattern and developed habits of disintegration. Jesus came to provide a new, better model after which new generations of humans could pattern their lives, developing habits of “integration with the Creator.” Salvation is found in the example, model, and pattern of Jesus Christ, not His suffering, bloodshed, and substitutionary death on a cross.

Pelagius both reflects and contrasts Pagitt’s theology of salvation, however. Like Pagitt, Pelagius looks to Christ as a new example and model. In On the Christian Life, Pelagius says, “let no man judge himself to be a Christian, unless he is one who both follows the teachings of Christ and imitates His example.” ((Pelagius, “On the Christian Life,” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers. Ed. B. R. Rees, 123.)) Elsewhere he says, “Men are not Christians unless they follow the pattern and teaching of Christ. A Christian is one who lives by Christ’s example.” ((Pelagius, “To an Old Friend,” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers. Ed. B. R. Rees, 151.)) In his commentary on Romans Pelagius says Christ “offered, by way of grace to overcome sin, teaching and example.” ((Pelagius, Romans, 98. (emphasis mine))) While a Christian is certainly called to follow the example of Jesus and live out His teachings—no person can be called a Christian unless they both believe in Jesus Christ and live in Him through obedience—this emphasis on the teachings and example of Christ makes more sense when Pelagius’ view of salvation comes into focus.

For Pelagius, the teachings and example of Christ are of utmost importance to ensure salvation in the end. A person is forgiven of sins and becomes a Christian initially at baptism. Baptism is the event at which a person becomes a son or daughter of God and is reborn. ((Pelagius, “To Demetrius,” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers. Ed. B. R. Rees, 56.)) A person believes with his heart and is justified and he confesses with his lips and is saved, all of which is fulfilled at baptism when sins are washed away. ((Pelagius, “On the Christian Life,” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers. Ed. B. R. Rees, 122.)) Forgiveness and justification, then, happens during baptism, but for past sins.

This is clear from Pelagius’ letter, On Bad Teachers: “Faith is an aid in ridding us of sin…that is to say, it releases us from sins already committed but does not grant pardon and immunity for those which we commit in the future.” ((Pelagius, “On the Christian Life,” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers. Ed. B. R. Rees, 217.)) People come to Christ by faith and find forgiveness for sins committed thus far through baptism, but not for sins committed afterwards. “If there is to be sinning thereafter, what does it profit us to have washed it away?” ((Pelagius, “On the Christian Life,” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers. Ed. B. R. Rees, 122.)) Here Pelagius warns Christians not to sin after they have received the forgiveness of sins and justification through baptism. In fact, he goes so far to say “If you sin [in the future], you will not be under grace.” ((Pelagius, Romans, 99.)) According to Pelagius, in order not to sin into the future, post-baptism we need the example of Christ.

Unlike Pagitt—who’s soteriology does not incorporate suffering and bloodshed, believing “Jesus was not sent as the selected one to appease the anger of the Greek blood god” ((Pagitt, Christianity, 194))—Pelagius actually believes Christ carried our sins and suffered for us to provide justification, forgiveness, and freedom from future sin. This suffering and death on the cross provides forgiveness from past sins and releases us from being “drunk with the habit of sin” ((Pelagius, Romans, 102. In reference to Rom. 7:15, Pelagius says that we on our own accord after subjecting ourselves to sin and the habit of sin act as if “drunk with the habit of sin,” so that we do not know what we do.)) so that we can follow the example of Christ and choose not to sin. In his analysis of Romans 5:10 Pelagius says, “If we have been saved by Christ’s death, how much more shall we glory in his life, if we imitate it!” ((Pelagius, Romans, 92.)) Furthermore, in 5:11 he writes, “[Paul] means to show that Christ suffered so that we who had forsaken God by following Adam might be reconciled to God through Christ.” ((Pelagius, Romans, 92.)) Finally, in 5:12 Pelagius says,

“Therefore just as through one person sin came into the world, and through sin death. By example, or by pattern. Just as through Adam sin came at a time when it did not yet exist, so in the same way through Christ righteousness was recovered at a time when it survived in almost no one. And just as through the former’s sin death came in, so also through the later’s righteousness life was regained.” ((Pelagius, Romans, 92.))

All three verses stress examples and patterns. Since humanity fell into sin through the example of Adam and formed habits of sin based on his pattern, we need a new example and a new pattern after baptism in order not to sin in the future. Christ, then, is compared to the example of Adam. While sin came through the example of Adam, righteousness was recovered through His example; whereas through the example of Adam’s sin death arrived, through the example of Christ’s righteousness life was regained. Even though the event of the cross—an event that somewhat mirrors Reformed expressions of penal substitutionary atonement—was the catalyst for forgiveness, it seems to be the example of Christ that actually provides for life, eternal life.

Although Pelagius doesn’t explicitly articulate it, it seems that he believes salvation occurs by following the example of Christ. Unfortunately, the depth of understanding of Pelagius’ soteriology pales in comparison to our understanding of his views on human nature and sin Considering how important the example of Adam and subsequent generations of humans are to influencing human nature to sin, however, it seems plausible that the example of Christ would provide the needed antidote to humanity’s sin-drunk habit. While “Christ has redeemed us with His blood from death” and actually Himself conquered death in the process, if we stop sinning only then will our redemption be profitable. ((Pelagius, Romans, 82.)) We are redeemed and forgiven through his death from past sins, but attain the profit of that redemption in the future (eternal life) by stopping our habit of sinning. Pelagius makes this clear in his letter On the Christian Life when he says, “How can [a person] hope for everlasting life from God, if he has not earned it by good deeds…whoever has not been good has not life; whoever has not performed works of righteousness and mercy cannot reign with Christ.” ((Pelagius, “On the Christian Life,” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers. Ed. B. R. Rees, 117.))This makes more sense when one realizes that Pelagius believes both faith and deeds are important.

While Pagitt mirrors Pelagius’ theology of the example of Christ for attaining (eternal) life, Pelagius contrasts with Pagitt by insisting that faith is also required. Throughout his book, Pagitt never says that faith is required for the forgiveness of sins and salvation. Instead, “the way to God is to walk the path Jesus walked, the path of obedience, of integration, of partnership.” ((Pagitt, Christianity, 211.)) Unlike Pagitt, Pelagius believes that faith is important, but not faith alone. In his commentary on Romans 3:28 Pelagius indicates that a person in coming to Christ is saved when he first believes by faith. ((Pelagius, Romans, 83)) Elsewhere Pelagius said we are saved by Christ’s death and are forgiven of our sins by Christ. As he says in his letter On the Christian Life, “the faith of all holds that sins are washed away by baptism,” which occurs when someone believes in his heart and confesses with his lips. ((Pelagius, “On the Christian Life,” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers. Ed. B. R. Rees, 122.)) Presumably, Pelagius holds that a person believes in Jesus’ redemption for sins and defeat of death through the cross when he comes by faith to be cleansed of his sins through baptism. At the moment of baptism, belief, confession and faith leads to justification, salvation, and forgiveness. ((See Pelagius, “On the Christian Life,” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers. Ed. B. R. Rees, 117 and Pelagius, Romans, 82.))

Unlike Pagitt, Pelagius believes a person first finds new life through faith. Pelagius does not believe, however, that a person can have hope in faith alone. “So, if a man sins after gaining faith and receiving the holy lather (baptism), let him no longer hope for pardon through faith alone, as he did before baptism, but let him rather entreat it with weeping and wailing, with abstinence and fasting, even with sackcloth and ashes, and all manner of lamentation.” ((Pelagius, “On Bad Teachers,” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers. Ed. B. R. Rees, 217.)) After a person receives baptism and sins, she can no longer hope that the faith that brought her to baptism and belief in Christ to begin with will pardon her for those future sins; faith alone does not pardon for sins committed after the initial event of faith (read: baptism). In On the Christian Life, Pelagius argues, “For if faith alone is required, it is superfluous to order the commandments be kept.” Since God has commanded people to keep his commandments, Pelagius surmises that eternal life is gained by both faith and deeds. Unless a person follows the example of Christ post-baptism, unless he chooses to keep the commands of Christ he has not life and will not share life with Christ. ((Pelagius, “On the Christian Life,” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers. Ed. B. R. Rees, 123.))

A few parting thoughts and questions:

1) Upon a fourth read of Doug’s book, I’ve discovered that he NEVER rarely uses Jesus’ Messianic designation, Christ. I cannot believe that this is an accidental oversight, though I am willing to be corrected. This seems deliberate. It is inline with others like Samir Selmanovic (It’s Really All About God) and Brian McLaren (A New Kind of Christian) who refuse to acknowledge Jesus Christ as both exclusive Lord and Messiah. This leads to the second point…

(an important clarification in light of Greg Gorhman’s observations…Doug does refer to Jesus as Messiah and takes issue with the Greek version, Christ. In pages 176-182 he talks at length about Jesus coming as the Jewish Messiah to “carry out the agenda of God” (180). I take great issue, however, with his assertion that the early disciples used the Greek version of the word to “help the Jesus story make sense if Jesus was seen as someone who was chosen to appease the wrath of God—hence the “anointed one” who could do what no one else could do.” (181) This is nonsense and actually plays into the rest of my points, though sorry Doug and everyone else for that massive oversight. Jeez!)

2) Jesus cannot be THE Messiah, because He is simply a better example of what it means to “live in integration with God.” While Pagitt explicitly reduces the cross and Jesus’ death to that of an example on par with the typical modern liberal theologian (I’m not name-calling here, I’m making stating what is true: liberal theologians reduce Jesus and the Cross to an example of live), Pelagius implicitly reduces Him to the same.

Because humanity is still as it was intended when God created it—the original Image of God is unbroken, untainted—we are able to choose, on our own, to be good or be bad. We are bad not because we have a sin nature and are ethically morally rebellious as original sin (and Paul for that matter) explain. We are bad because of bad examples, the chief which was Adam. It makes sense, then, that all we need is another, better example to which we can pattern our life after. Salvation, then, comes in the example of another person, in this case Jesus. This leads to the first question:

3) Why is Jesus even necessary to begin with? Furthermore, why was it necessary for Christ to die on the Cross? As Doug’s intentionally withholding of Jesus’ Messianic title Christ asserts, he isn’t Because Doug rarely uses Jesus’ exclusive Messianic designation, Christ, throughout the book, it is unclear if Jesus Christ is even the only Anointed One who has been sent by God to mediate a new covenant between Him and Humanity. Since that isn’t true, then we could follow any NUMBER of examples in order to find redemption: Muhammad, the Dali Lama, the Buddah, Angelina Jolie. Because the problem isn’t ME, but outside of me, all I really need is a better, different example, system, pattern to follow and lead me into more “integrated forms of living in sync with God.” And because that is true, Jesus is entirely unnecessary. I find it incredibly odd that Doug doesn’t “want to follow any faith that [doesn’t] have a prime place for Jesus.” (175) Why wouldn’t you embrace faith ONLY in Jesus, as exclusive Lord and Messiah/Christ, Doug?

In fact, Jesus’ death is even more absurd. For Pagitt, a substitute is not necessary; a sacrifice is pointless because there is nothing for which a sacrifice is even needed. We owe God nothing because we are still “like God.” Apparently Isaiah 53 got it wrong. Apparently it was completely unnecessary for Messiah Yeshua to suffer or be pierced or be crushed or experience punishment. Apparently no one was necessary to stand in our place by bearing the price for our own rebellion, because we are not in fact naturally rebellious.

The problem is, we are. The narrative of Genesis 3 that something about the Human shifted, ruptured after the Event of Rebellion experienced by Adam and Eve. Paul makes clear in Romans 5 that Adam is our representative as Christ is our representative; all humanity lives “in Adam,” just like all those who have turned to Jesus Christ in faith are “in Christ.” Evil, Sin, and Death came into the world because the one man Adam, making us sinners, resulting in condemnation for all, and causing the ontological consequences of Death.

The joy is the all of “that” has been dealt with once and for all by the once and for all sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the blood soaked boards of execution. I especially marvel and chuckle at the arguments of Pagitt and Pelagius because the solution is actually the climax of a deep tradition that God instituted with the Children of Israel through the Levitical sacrificial system, which leads to my next question.

4) Question for Doug: What do you do with the entire Book of Hebrews—let alone the animal sacrificial system of Leviticus—which explicitly argues that Jesus Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice on our behalf, by His own blood, in order to offer for all time one sacrifice for sins?

Maybe you should listen to my message on Jesus as our Great High Priest 🙂

5) In the end, Pelagius and Pagitt completely loose the meaning of Christ’s redemptive act and the power of Pentecost is lost. ((Sergius Bulgakov, The Bride of the Lamb (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2002, 307))). Likewise, both take us back to a pre-Christian stoicism in that the power of human will and asceticism is considered self-sufficient. The only significance of the Cross is of an example; it does nothing for us.