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)

Three weeks and 8 posts later, we’ve reached the end of the “Pagitt and Pelagius” series, an indepth look at Pagitt’s A Christianity Worth Believingand the writings of Pelagius. As I said in my preface: “I’ve heard it said around the ’sphere that my goal is to unfairly ‘attach a thorough Pelagianism to Pagitt and others.’ I have done nothing of the sort. I walked into this examination wondering if Pagitt’s and Pelagius‘ writings mirrored each other. For years people have labeled him a Pelagian, so I wanted to see if it was true. This series will report and analyze what I found.”

I still stand by that.

My goal was to put the theological teachings of Doug Pagitt and Pelagius of Britania side-by-side in order to see if this modern theologian mirrors the ancient one. People have accused Doug of being a Pelagian and I wanted to see if that was true. So I wanted to bring an academic lens using an academic method to Pagitt’s writings in order to shed light on these accusations. Using my methdology we’ve looked at their views on human nature, sin, salvation, discipleship, and judgment. We’ve seen how they are similar and different.

The area in which they differ the most is the severity of sin and judgment. Pelagius had a very strong view of sinning after baptism, which was the point of forgiveness, salvation, and regeneration. This strong view led to a very strong view of judgment, in that those who fail in this Christian endeavor receive the punishment of hell. For him, every human is in control of their will to such an absolute extent that when they sin after salvation/baptism, having their sins washed away, it is really bad. So bad that “the punishment of hell is promised to all of us who do not live in righteousness.” Pagitt doesn’t follow Pelagius in this regard, however, because he has a low view of sin and a non-existent view of judgment.

The areas in which they are the most similar are in their views on human nature and sin, the areas that caused the most heartburn in the 5th century. Like Pelagius, Pagitt believes that we exist in the state as we were intended at the beginning of creation. Both believe that our wills are still intact and that we are capable, through our own gumption and ingenuity, to be in sync with God, to live as we were intended to live. Ethically we are not morally rebellious. We do not have a sin nature passed to us from by our natural head, Adam. Instead, we are “inherently godly” and “filled with the spark of God.” For both, we are inherently good.

Then why do we sin? We sin because of bad examples, systems, patterns, and habits. Because we are inherently godly, on our own we are capable of living in sync with God. The problem comes when the bad systems and patterns of this world impinge upon our will, causing us to “create disharmony with God and one another.” We are not the problem. Everything and everyone around us is. Our salvation, then, comes not from a sacrifice who does something with the evil, sin, and rebellion around us and in us, but instead from a better example. Both Pelagius and Pagitt need Jesus only as a moral example, because their view of human nature and sin require simply this. We do not need a new nature, because our original one is still intact. We do not need to be re-created, because we are still as we were intended at creation. All that is needed is the best example possible, the best “map and guide to what true partnership with God looks like.” 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.

In short, Pagitt mirrors Pelagius’ theology in regards to human nature, sin, and salvation.

Pagitt believes otherwise, however. In several comments, he has insisted: “I am not a Pelagian.” While he also insists that he has “spent no time with the teachings and thinking of Pelagius,” (and I don’t disregard these words) he has in no way explained why this is not the case, why he is not Pelagian. Put a different way, Doug has not articulated how his theology is different from Pelagius and why he does not mirror his views on human nature, sin, and salvation.

In fact, he has not tried to answer the questions I’ve posed in response to his views. While some have suggested I have used “a bunch of ‘gotcha’ Bible verse at the end that show why all the labels (of Pelagianism, Universalism, and Liberalism) are evil,” I have merely tried to bring this discussion back to the Text. I have disagreements with Doug’s theology on theological grounds, but more so on Scriptural grounds, which is why I’ve asked Him to explain why the Holy Scripture seems to conflict with his theology. These are legitimate questions that Doug has yet to answer:

Regarding Human Nature
•What do you do with Romans 5:12-19, especially verse 12?
•What do you do with 2 Corinthians 5:20? “So if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature: the old creature has passed away; see a new one has been created.”

Regarding Sin
•If something outside of us causes us to sin, why then are we in need of a new heart, according to Ezekiel 36:24-27?
•If Jesus Christ thought that what defiled a person comes “out of the heart” why don’t you? (See Matthew 15:1-20 for a refresher course.)

Regarding Salvation
•Why is Jesus even necessary to begin with? Furthermore, why was it necessary for Christ to die on the Cross?
•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?

Regarding Judgment
•It is obvious you are a universalist and do not believe in a literal judgment, a separation of good and bad. What do you do with Jesus Christ’s teachings on the subject, 25% of which make-up his teachings, especially his parables?
•In light of your rejection of a real, literal judgment, what do you do with Jesus’ parables of the Nets in Matthew 13 and Wedding Banquet in Matthew 22? Both have an EXPLICIT eschatological orientation and teach about a time of judgment, where the righteous and wicked will be 1) separated and 2) punishment.

These are not “gottcha” questions, but serious questions that deserve serious answers. While Doug did say, “Jeremy, I would be glad to show how 2 Corinthians and all of Romans makes the points I am making” he has yet to do so. I don’t understand why he cannot provide more context to his own theology by dialoguing through these questions, questions which have sat at the heart of historic Christian orthodoxy for centuries.

At this point, I don’t see how Doug’s theology is different or distinguishable from Pelagius. Although, Doug, if you would still like to explain why you are not a Pelagian and how you differ from his views on human nature, sin, and salvation or how I’ve mischaracterized you if this is the case, I am all ears.

Popularity: 1% [?]

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.”¹ 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.”² 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.”³

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.”⁴ Augustine wonders, “If they already have capacity, why do they pray? Or, what is the evil which they pray to be delivered from?”⁵ 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.”⁶ 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.⁷ Pelagius and his followers argued that the grace of God is the nature in which we were created, which enables us to act righteously.⁸ 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.”⁹ 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.”¹⁰ 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.”¹¹ 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.”¹²

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.”¹³ 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.”¹⁴ 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!”¹⁵

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?

Popularity: 1% [?]

1. 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. [↩]
2. Augustine, “On Nature and Grace,” 128 [↩]
3. Augustine, “On Nature and Grace,” 141 [↩]
4. Matt. 6:13 [↩]
5. Augustine, “On Nature and Grace,” 142 [↩]
6. Augustine, “On Nature and Grace,” 142 [↩]
7. Augustine, “On Nature and Grace,” 139. [↩]
8. 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. [↩]
9. Augustine. “On Grace and Free Will,” 454. [↩]
10. Augustine. “On Grace and Free Will,” 449. [↩]
11. Augustine. “On Grace and Free Will,” 449. [↩]
12. Augustine, “On Nature and Grace,” 129. [↩]
13. Augustine, “On Nature and Grace, 141. [↩]
14. Augustine, “On Nature and Grace,” 139. [↩]
15. Augustine, “On Nature and Grace,” 137. [↩]

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.”¹ 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.²

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.”³ 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.⁴ 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.”⁵ 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.”⁶ 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.”⁷ 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.”⁸ In his commentary on Romans Pelagius says Christ “offered, by way of grace to overcome sin, teaching and example.”⁹) 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.¹⁰ 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.¹¹ 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.”¹² 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?”¹³ 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.”¹⁴ 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”¹⁵—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”¹⁶ 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!”¹⁷ 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.” ¹⁸ 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.” ¹⁹

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. ²⁰ 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.”²¹This 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.”²² 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.²³ 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. ²⁴ 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.²⁵

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.”²⁶ 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. ²⁷

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.²⁸). 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.

Popularity: 1% [?]

1. Pagitt, Christianity, 181. [↩]
2. Pagitt, Christianity, 182, 183. [↩]
3. Pagitt, Christianity, 209 (emphasis mine). [↩]
4. Pagitt, Christianity, 194. [↩]
5. Pagitt, Christianity, 195 (emphasis min). [↩]
6. Pagitt, Christianity, 208. [↩]
7. Pelagius, “On the Christian Life,” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers. Ed. B. R. Rees, 123. [↩]
8. Pelagius, “To an Old Friend,” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers. Ed. B. R. Rees, 151. [↩]
9. Pelagius, Romans, 98. (emphasis mine [↩]
10. Pelagius, “To Demetrius,” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers. Ed. B. R. Rees, 56. [↩]
11. Pelagius, “On the Christian Life,” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers. Ed. B. R. Rees, 122. [↩]
12. Pelagius, “On the Christian Life,” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers. Ed. B. R. Rees, 217. [↩]
13. Pelagius, “On the Christian Life,” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers. Ed. B. R. Rees, 122. [↩]
14. Pelagius, Romans, 99. [↩]
15. Pagitt, Christianity, 194 [↩]
16. 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. [↩]
17. Pelagius, Romans, 92. [↩]
18. Pelagius, Romans, 92. [↩]
19. Pelagius, Romans, 92. [↩]
20. Pelagius, Romans, 82. [↩]
21. Pelagius, “On the Christian Life,” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers. Ed. B. R. Rees, 117. [↩]
22. Pagitt, Christianity, 211. [↩]
23. Pelagius, Romans, 83 [↩]
24. Pelagius, “On the Christian Life,” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers. Ed. B. R. Rees, 122. [↩]
25. See Pelagius, “On the Christian Life,” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers. Ed. B. R. Rees, 117 and Pelagius, Romans, 82. [↩]
26. Pelagius, “On Bad Teachers,” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers. Ed. B. R. Rees, 217. [↩]
27. Pelagius, “On the Christian Life,” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers. Ed. B. R. Rees, 123. [↩]
28. Sergius Bulgakov, The Bride of the Lamb (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2002, 307 [↩]

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)

PAGITT AND PELAGIUS ON SIN

For both Pagitt and Pelagius, human nature is still good. It still exists in the originally created Imago Dei form, “filled with the spark of God,” “inherently godly.” But as Pagitt asks, if we are not born sinners, why do we sin? If we are still born as we were intended to be at Creation, why don’t we live “in harmony with God?”

Instead of starting out rotten, “the systems, hurts, and patterns of this world create disharmony with God and one another. It is life that creates illness and sin.”¹ While we are born good and godly, examples, habits, and ignorance from our life taint our in-born goodness. Pagitt offers an example of a newborn baby to argue his case. In the case of a newborn, we should not view him or her as full of evil, but instead should understand that this newborn begins life entirely good. That good child is affected, trained, and drawn into sin because of the examples other sin-trained models provide. Children sin because they practice what is modeled for them by adults or older siblings, continue in those practices and form habits, and simply do not know better.² Sin manifests itself and affects people from the outside in, rather than the inside out; our nature is not broken, but our examples, habits, and knowledge are.

But as Pagitt suggests, “when sin is active, we must deal with it; the good news is we can.”³ Because we were created good—and still are—we are invited and capable of living free from sin and destruction, to seek to live in harmony with God. Pagitt goes further by suggesting, “We can live lives in a collective way, so the systems that cause disharmony with God can be changed. We can change the patterns wired into us from our families and create new ways of relating and being. In other words, we can be born-again, new creations.”⁴

While the implications of this quotation for salvation and the Gospel will be addressed later, what is clear is that Pagitt believes that humans on their own can change, in their own power; by themselves they can become new creations. What isn’t clear is, how? How exactly do we accomplish this? During this discourse on changing and being “born-again,” Pagitt mentions neither the power of Christ nor the presence of the Holy Spirit. Neither does the grace of God itself change us. Instead, when sin comes to tempt us, we are the ones who flee from, plot against, and eradicate it.⁵ In other words, people can by nature, through their own inner capacity, choose to be “in sync” or “out of sync” with God. They themselves challenge and change the systems and patterns which impinge upon their still-intact Imago Dei.

These ideas on human nature and sin are not merely different than current versions of Christianity, they simply mirror an other.That other is Pelagius.

How would Pelagius answer Pagitt’s question, “Why do we sin?” We sin for three reasons: examples, habits, and ignorance. Both Pagitt and Pelagius view human nature as fundamentally flawless, still good even after Humanity gave the collective middle-finger to their Creator in Adam by rebelling; no one has a corrupted nature. Like Pagitt, Pelagius defended the goodness of nature and ability to choose either goodness or wickedness. In his letter To Demetrias, Pelagius declares that our nature is capable of doing good and evil and that he wants to “protect it from an unjust charge, so that we may not seem to be forced to do evil through a fault in our nature.”⁶ Pelagius insists we do things by choice through the exercise of our will, and he wants to make sure that we are not forced to do evil but have the freedom to choose. He doesn’t want anything to stand in the way of our will’s ability to choose good or evil. Sinning is the product of our will, not of necessity of nature.⁷ If this is true, if our nature is good, why then do we sin? For Pelagius, the answer begins with Adam.

Pelagius makes clear that “through Adam sin came at a time when it did not yet exist…through the former’s sin (Adam’s) death came in; Adam is the source of sin.”⁸ Adam is the archetype not only for sin, but also for sinning. He was the first example of disobedience that later influenced generations into sinning.⁹ In fact, “all are condemned for following his example.”¹⁰ From Adam’s pattern and example of disobedience, his descendants modeled for others what Adam modeled for them. Since then, generations of humans have perpetuated that original pattern for disobedience, which has petrified into habits of sin; patterns lead to habits.

In his letters and commentary on Romans, it is clear Pelagius believes generations of humans have been “instructed” and “educated in evil.” We possess a “long habit of doing wrong which has infected us from childhood and corrupted us little by little over many years and ever after holds us in bondage and slavery to itself, so that it seems somehow to have acquired the force of nature.”¹¹ While nature is not corrupt, the example set by Adam and subsequent generations has formed corrupting habits. Now, humans are “drunk with the habit of sins” so that we do not know what we do.¹²

Remember that for Pelagius our nature is untainted; we are still as the Imago Dei created by God at the beginning. According to Pelagius, habits form a character which then impinge upon our nature and imprison it. In commenting on Romans 7:17 and the “Sin that lives in me,” Pelagius says, “[Sin] lives as a guest and as one thing in another, not as one single thing; in other words, as an accidental quality, not a natural one.”¹³ Our sin is not natural, it is accidental because of the “guest of habit” that has formed within all of us. As Pagitt suggests, we are influenced by systems that model for us disintegration and patterns that are wired into us by others. In the end, Pelagius exclaims, “I who am held prisoner in this way—who will set me free from this fatal, corporeal habit?”¹⁴

Not only has the example of Adam and others influenced us and our habits, ignorance has, too. “The thick fog of folly and ignorance has so blinded our mind that it is incapable of feeling or saying anything divinely inspired.”¹⁵ Over time, human reason and nature has been “buried beneath an excess of vices” because of a “long habituation of sinning,” and is “tainted with the rust of ignorance.”¹⁶ We no longer know what we are doing, because we are ignorant about what we should be doing. Though Pelagius does not go into detail about how we become ignorant or from where this ignorance comes, it makes sense it would arise from the confusion which disobedient examples and patterns cause and the habits that are formed from following those disobedient patterns. Ignorance, then, comes from the foreign example of Adam and others and both arises from and influences our habits. Through our freedom of choice, we respond to the example of Adam and others, leading to the formation of habits and ignorance of correct living. Now out of ignorance and habit we host the “guest of sin” and live as if drunk on those perpetual carnal habits. While Pelagius still believes we are responsible to choose righteously, examples, ignorance, and poor habits impinge upon our natural ability to choose.

In summation, neither Pagitt nor Pelagius believe anyone is born corrupt or stained by corruption. They both appeal to the original Imago Dei and the Creator as a defense for this belief. They believe God made us as good Image Bearers and our sin doesn’t change this good nature. Both insist that our inner nature (and according to Pagitt, our DNA) did not change after the Fall; we still posses God’s spark of godliness within us. Instead of the necessity of nature forcing us to sin, Pelagius and Pagitt insist that we sin when we follow the example of Adam and others into living lives of disintegration from God. Following those patterns, habits formed out of doing wrong from childhood have corrupted us to the point that sin inhabits our lives as a guest to the point we are drunk on those habits of sin. Sin is not natural, but accidental. Through bad examples and habits, we have been educated in ignorance, so that we now do not know what we do nor what we should do.

In the end, both Pelagius and Pagitt believe we are not born rebels and nothing internal causes us to sin. Instead, systems, patterns, and habits outside of us lead us into living lives of disharmony with God and one another. The good news, according to both, is that we can change these patterns and live out of our natural good capacity. Pelagius’ and Pagitt’s theology of humanity and sin have great bearing on another, greater theology: the theology of salvation. This is the topic for Friday, where all of this has ultimate bearing.

A few parting thoughts and questions:

1) While Pelagius’ synergism (affirmation of human freedom to freely move toward God) is a positive contribution, he does not take into account the power of original sin in man and the necessity of the grace of God for man to even freely move. Both the Orthodox Church and Protestant Arminians hold to this belief, yet Pagitt follows Pelagius in insisting on our own “we can change the patterns wired into us from our families and create new ways of relating and being” without any mention of the grace of God required for such a change.

2) It is clear that Pagitt shares Pelagius’ answer for why we sin: examples, patterns, systems, and habits. In short, “life creates illness and sin.” Nothing about us is sinful; we are not individually rebellious. Instead we are victims of bad/broken examples and patterns. Our nature does not cause us to sin, but our will as shaped by examples that lead to habits. Pagitt’s example of a baby and child exactly mirrors Pelagius’ own understanding of how bad habits shape our character into sinning. Both Pagitt and Pelagius believe that baby will eventually become “drunk with the habit of sins,” though not a rebel.

3) Question to Doug: If something outside of us causes us to sin, why then are we in need of a new heart, according to Ezekiel 36:24-27?

In Ezekiel’s prophecy against the people of Israel, he made it clear that God needed to cleans them from what they did because of who they were, not what was done to them. In fact, they needed an entire “renovation of the heart.” In the Hebrew “heart” signified the person’s “internal locus of emotion, will, and thought. Ezekiel recognized the problem of rebellion and sin against YHWH to be more deeply ingrained than mere external acts.”¹⁷) He makes this realization concrete in describing their heart as a “heart of stone,” signifying coldness, insensitivity, and even lifelessness (1 Sam. 25:37). What the people needed was not simply a circumcision of the heart described in Deut. 30:6-8; they needed an entire transplant!

The very core of their being out of which they committed their lawless acts, wickedness, rebellion and sin needed to be replaced with a new warm, sensitive, and responsive heart of flesh. This would be unnecessary if the human heart was as it was originally intended to be at creation. Ancient Hebrew theology makes it clear that it isn’t. We need a new heart, because our old one is corrupt; we need a new nature, because our old one is corrupt.

4) Question to Doug: If Jesus Christ thought that what defiled a person comes “out of the heart” why don’t you? (See Matthew 15:1-20 for a refresher course.)

Interestingly, in this passage the Pharisees and teachers of the law are the ones who insist a person is corrupted on the outside by the things they do because they broke tradition: they didn’t wash their hands before that ate! This was a question of ritual purity. In order to participate in the life and worship of God as a good Jew, strict cleansing laws needed to be followed in order to avoid “defilement.” For them, disintegration came from outside a person, not inside.

Jesus subverts these requirements when He insists what comes out of a person defiles them from the inside. On the one hand, keeping strict purity codes and food laws does not truly make someone unclean; on the other, who you are does. Purity and impurity, righteousness and sinfulness are matters of the heart, the internal nature of a person. The un-love a person commits is because of their internal nature, not external circumstances or things.

Theft, adultery, murder, sexual immorality, lying all come out of a heart that is impure, corrupt, and sinful. “These are what defile you; but eating with unwashed hands does not defile you.” A person rebels because they are a rebel, not the other way around. Therefore, what is necessary is a new heart, which only Jesus Christ can provide.

5) If Pagitt is correct in his assertion that our problem is not internal, why then could he find zero Scriptural support? He rails against the “classical view,” which holds that “people start out rotten and get better if the right formula is applied.” According to him this is not correct. Why is this Scripturally incorrect and his position Scripturally correct?

6) In light of reality and in light of the Holy Scripture one thing is clear: Pagitt and Pelagius make no sense. Existentially, it is clear from the beginning that we are a rebellious people. It is not difficult for anyone to commit acts of un-love; people do not need to be trained in the art of sinning. Scripturally, it is clear that something about us, internally, rebels against God and un-loves all over the place.

More importantly, their view on sin does not require a Rescuer, only a better Example. If this is the case why did Jesus have to die? Why was Jesus necessary at all if there is nothing wrong with us? Pagitt’s and Pelagius’ view on sin is damaging to reflections on the nature of salvation because they reduce Jesus to simply an example of love, rather than a substitute sacrifice, of which both the Hebrew Scriptures and New Testament clearly demonstrate a vital need.

This discussion is important because who we are is the problem. We are not as God intended us to be; we act in ways that God never intended when He breathed the Human into existence. Deep down we are rebels, in need of rescue and re-creation. In the words of Jesus Christ, “we must be born again.” Through Jesus’ death and resurrection that re-birth is possible. Those who place their faith in Him are united to Him in His death; the old creature is gone. Those who place their faith in Him are united to Him in His resurrection; the new creature is created. This is not theology, this is Scripture, of which both Pelagius and Pagitt deny is the case.

Popularity: 1% [?]

1. Pagitt, Christianity, 165. [↩]
2. See Pagitt, Christianity, 165 for the authorʼs complete illustration. [↩]
3. Pagitt, Christianity, 163. [↩]
4. Pagitt, Christianity, 167. (Emphasis mine). [↩]
5. Pagitt, Christianity, 164. [↩]
6. Pelagius, “To Demetrias,” 43. [↩]
7. Pelagius, “On the Possibility of Not Sinning,” 167-168. [↩]
8. Pelagius, Romans, 92, 93. [↩]
9. Pelagius, Romans, 95. [↩]
10. Pelagius. “On the Christian Life,” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers. Ed. B. R. Rees (Suffolk, England: The Boydell Press, 1991), 121. [↩]
11. Pelagius, “To Demetrias,” 44. [↩]
12. Pelagius, Romans, 104. [↩]
13. Pelagius, Romans, 104. [↩]
14. Pelagius, Romans, 105. [↩]
15. Pelagius, “To Demetrias,” 45. [↩]
16. Pelagius, “To Demetrias,” 44. [↩]
17. Daniel Block, Ezekiel 25-48 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1998, 355 [↩]

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)

PAGITT AND PELAGIUS ON HUMAN NATURE

It is apparent from the outset, that Pagitt has severely reacted to Augustinian theology, especially in regards to human nature. For Pagitt, Augustine’s doctrine of depravity was based on cultural readings and understandings of certain biblical passages; the doctrine of original sin isn’t biblical, it is cultural.¹ In fact, after citing sections from the Westminster Confession of Faith, Augsburg Confession, and Book of Common Prayer on Original Sin, Pagitt asserts that these “versions” are “extreme theology” that do not fit the Christian story.² The starting point for these confessions and explanations of human nature flow from a source (Augustinian theology) that started with a view of humanity born out of a Greco-Roman world that centered on dualism and separation from God.

According to Pagitt, this theology could not reconcile its assumptions of human frailty and limitations with the story from the Scriptures that said humans were created in the image of God. “So the theology of depravity made sense to people who held a view of humans as being something less than God had intended.”³ For Pagitt, original sin was a cultural response to a wrongly held assumption that the current condition of humanity was less than the condition at which they were originally created. This false assumption about the starting place of human nature led to a “false doctrine” on how human nature is now, later resulting in distortions of the doctrine of salvation and judgment. Pagitt believes “the rationale for this view of humanity has expired, and so ought the theology that grew out of it.”⁴ Because Augustinian theology begins with the false assumption that humans are now, post-Fall, different than they were intended at Creation, the Church should abandon it.

Pagitt insists we need to tell a better story, a story (read: theology) that explains we are still created in the unbroken Image of God as partners and collaborators with Him who are still His people; this story never loses “sight of what it means to be created in the Image of God.”⁵ The Imago Dei plays a central role in Pagitt’s theology of human nature. He insists that the Story of God says the Imago Dei is the same as it ever was. While we were created to partner with God as Images of God, we are still that unbroken Image; the Image of God has not changed. Most Christians who hold to the historic belief of the doctrine of the Imago Dei believe that image is cracked, broken, and tainted at some level. Pagitt, however, believes nothing has inherently changed about that Image—about human nature—from the very beginning of Creation.

Referencing the Genesis 3 narrative of Adam and Eve, Pagitt says, “Their state of being did not change, their DNA didn’t change…This story never suggests that the sin of Adam and Eve sends them into a state of depravity.”⁶ In fact, “we are still capable of living as children of God” because we can still regard human nature as being “inherently godly.”⁷ This strong belief in the original Imago Dei plays strongly into Pagitt’s belief in the fundamental goodness of humanity and capacity to choose good over evil.

Taking his cues from Celtic Christians, Pagitt believes that all humans “posses the light of God within them. That light might brighten or dim as a person lives well with God or moves away from God, but the light is never extinguished.”⁸ The chief end of humanity isn’t to simply glorify God, as the Westminster Confession suggests, but to “live like God,”⁹) a capacity Pagitt believes is inherent within our nature. It is clear that for Pagitt, we are still good and can still choose to live godly. Nothing changed within human nature because of Adam, we are still the way we intended, though “we are invited to live free from sin and destruction, to seek lives lived in harmony with God.”¹⁰

Like Pagitt, Pelagius begins with anthropology. His view of human nature can be summarized by a section from his letter On Chastity:

Reflect carefully then, I beg you, on the good which is yours if you always remain such as God created man from the beginning and as he sent him forth thereafter, when he had brought him into the world. Observe what a blessing it is to be always in the state in which you were created and to preserve the features of your first birth. For no one is born corrupt nor is anyone stained by corruption before the lapse of an appointed period of time. Every man is seen to posses among his initial attributes what was there at the beginning, so that he has no excuse thereafter if he loses through his own negligence what he possessed by nature.¹¹

For Pelagius, the original Imago Dei has not changed; God created humans good and uncorrupt, and they still exist in this good, uncorrupted state. We are to remain and live out of the originally created good nature by pursuing the virtues of God. Like Pagitt, Pelagius places great emphasis on the original Image of God after which humans were (and still are) fashioned together. We are still to measure the good of human nature by reference to its Creator, supposing He has made people exceedingly good.¹² Pelagius (like Pagitt) reacted to any notion that humanity was corrupt and incapable of choosing to follow the commands of God.

Pelagius believed that God bestowed on His rational human creatures the gift of “doing good out of (the creature’s) own free will and capacity to exercise free choice.”¹³ God the Creator gave humans the inner capacity to do good or evil. Even now we can choose to do either out of our natural capacity and ability. Embedded within us is a “natural sanctity in our minds which administers justice equally on the evil and the good and…distinguishes the one side from the other by a kind of inner law.”¹⁴ Using this inner capacity, natural sanctity, and inner law, humans are naturally capable of living, in the words of Pagitt, “in sync with God” or “out of sync with God,” to choose honorable and upright actions or wrong deeds. The reason people can live in or out of sync with God is because nature does not determine their ability to do so. Instead, this “living” is a product of choice. Pelagius explains, “When will a man guilty of any crime or sin accept with a tranquil mind that his wickedness is a product of his own will, not of necessity, and allow what he now strives to attribute to nature to be ascribed to his own free choice?”¹⁵

In fact, it is God himself who presupposes our unfettered inner ability to choose good or evil. According to Pelagius’ logic, if God has commanded us to love God and love people—if God has commanded us not to sin—then we must by nature have the capacity to choose good. “No one knows better the true measure of our strength than He who has given it to us nor does anyone understand better how much we are able to do than He who has given us this very capacity of ours to be able; nor has He who is just wished to command anything impossible or He who is good intended to condemn a man for doing what he could not avoid.”¹⁶ In typical Pelagian form, he insists that if humans are naturally incapable of being without sin, then there would be no command to be holy. Consequently, if God commanded us to be good, then we must be able to choose good; if we are able to choose good, then we must able to do good. Because God created us good we are good and are capable of doing good.

In summation, neither Pagitt nor Pelagius believe anyone is born corrupt or stained by corruption; human nature is not sinful. They both appeal to the original Imago Dei and the Creator as a defense for this belief. They believe God made us as good Image Bearers and our sin doesn’t change this good nature. Both insist that our inner nature (and according to Pagitt, our DNA) did not change after the Fall; we still posses God’s spark of godliness within us. Instead of the necessity of nature forcing us to sin, Pelagius and Pagitt insist that we sin when we follow the example of Adam and others into living lives of disintegration from God. The next post, we will further develop Pelagius’ and Pagitt’s understanding of sin.

A few parting thoughts and questions:

1) Every part of Christianity believes in original sin and the event of rebellion (aka The Fall). While the West has a strong view, thanks to Augustine, the East also believes in original sin, though a milder form.¹⁷ Both traditions, East and West, presuppose an event, which occurred in space and time. Contrary to what Pelagius and Pagitt believe, human nature is fallen and by-nature rebellious because of Adam.

2) Both Pagitt and Pelagius do not believe humanity is not as God intended them to be. Pagitt asserts the idea that we are “less than God intended” is a view of humanity that has “expired.” (p. 128). For Doug, just like Pelagius, human nature is still as God intended it at the beginning of Creation. Can anyone tell me why this is devastating for salvation? For the need for salvation?

3) Question for Doug: What do you do with Romans 5:12-19, especially verse 12?

Here Paul describes the conditions of the justified and reconciled by comparing it with the status of humanity before Christ: sinful, condemned, dead. Paul explicitly says that Adam absolutely affected and determined the history of the Human Race. Something happened, shifted, ruptured. This is clear in verse 12: “Just as sin entered the world through one man, and through sin death, and so death spread to all human beings, with the result that all sinned.”¹⁸ Watch the progression in Paul’s argument: The world ruptured because of Adam. Death entered the world through Adam. All die because of Adam. All sin because of Adam.

In short: Since Adam is the head of Humanity, all die “in him ” and all have sinned “in him.”

Verses 17 and 19 also make clear, in dramatic terms, the absolute enslavement of humanity to death and sin because of the “trespass” of the one man, Adam.¹⁹ Adam is humanity’s first parent in the same way that Christ is New Humanity’s parent. Just as Paul universalizes the life of Christ to those who are rescued in Him, he universalizes sin and death of Adam to all humanity.

According to Paul, original sin is not a cultural construct, but an existential reality. Human nature is not untainted, the Image of God of which Adam is the head is not in its original form. Human nature is sinful, because Adam sinned.

Because 5:12 was the Scriptural fulcrum upon which the Church rejected Pelagius view of untainted human nature, an unbroken Image of God. Pagitt needs to explain how his view of human nature gels with Paul’s explanation in Romans 5. So far he has not.

4) Question for Doug: what do you do with 2 Corinthians 5:20? “So if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature: the old creature has passed away; see a new one has been created.”

Flowing from Paul’s discussion in Romans 5, he asserts that those who are “in Christ” undergo an experience comparable to the initial creation itself: a new creature has been created. “There is a new creation” presupposes an old creation, an old nature. The Event of Christ alters the very nature of a person to such an extent that they are made new; that the old creation/nature is removed, is identified with the very death of Christ (Rom. 6). Likewise, the new nature/creature is united in his resurrection, brought to life “in Christ.” (Rom. 6)

Paul presents a picture of an old creation/nature and a new creation/nature, a characterization that is consistent with Romans 5 in which there are two epochs: the Adamic epoch in which sin and death reign in the world and individuals; and the Christ epoch in which righteousness and life reign. Pagitt needs to explain how “a new creature has been created” if the old one was not damaged in the first place.

5) Believing in the fallenness of human nature matters to God’s Story of Rescue because it acknowledges the need for a Rescuer, someone to do something for us that we cannot do ourselves. That was Pelagius’ problem: he thought we existed in the untainted, unbroken original Imago Dei and could, by our own gumption and ingenuity, get back to God, apart from His grace. The same is true of Pagitt.

The problem is we can’t, because we are not the way we were supposed to be; we have changed. God’s Story insists that there is something wrong with us, that we need to be put back together again because of who we are, not what we do. This will become much more clear when we let Pagitt and Pelagius answer the question “why do you sin?” and also look at their views of salvation.

Inevitably, a proper view of human nature dictates our understanding of the nature of salvation, the nature of rescue. Unfortunately for Doug, rescue/salvation is pointless because we can live like God…all on our own.

Popularity: 1% [?]

1. Pagitt, Christianity, 127. [↩]
2. Pagitt, Christianity, 123-124. [↩]
3. Pagitt, Christianity, 128. [↩]
4. Pagitt, Christianity, 128. [↩]
5. Pagitt, Christianity, 129-130. [↩]
6. Pagitt, Christianity, 135, 136. Incidentally, this mirrors exactly the point Jones made on his blog, cited earlier. [↩]
7. Pagitt, Christianity, 136, 137. [↩]
8. Pagitt, Christianity, 141, 142. [↩]
9. Pagitt, Christianity, 143. (Emphasis mine. [↩]
10. Pagitt, Christianity, 160. [↩]
11. Pelagius. “On Chastity” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers, ed. by B. R. Rees. (Suffolk, England: The Boydell Press, 1991), 259. (Emphasis mine). [↩]
12. Pelagius. “To Demetrias,” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers. Ed. by B. R. Rees (Suffolk, England: The Boydell Press, 1991), 37. [↩]
13. Pelagius, “To Demetrias,” 38. [↩]
14. Pelagius, “To Demetrias,” 40. [↩]
15. Pelagius. “On The Possibility of Not Sinning,” from The Letters of Pelagius and His Followers, ed. by B. R. Rees. (Suffolk, England: The Boydell Press, 1991), 167-168. [↩]
16. Pelagius, “To Demetrias,” 53-54. [↩]
17. See Sergius Bulgakov, The Bride of the Lamb (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 2002, 167), the twentieth century’s leading Orthodox theologian. [↩]
18. Translation Joseph Fitzmyer, Romans (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 405. [↩]
19. Fitzmyer, Romans, 407. [↩]

Posted by Jeremy on Monday, February 15, 2010 at 9:30 am 
Filed under Emerging Church, Theology · Tagged with a christianity worth believing, augustine, doug pagitt, Emerging Church, pelagius, Theology

Next Page »