Terminology Tuesday: Pelagianism
Pelagianism is the view that the the Fall did not corrupt human nature. Hence, “it is therefore possible for humans to achieve moral sanctity by human effort. This view is sometimes associated with the view that original sin is transmitted through environmental or cultural means and therefore can be lessened through social improvements. Pelagian views of sin are attributed to Pelagius (c. 345-c. 425), a British monk who was strongly opposed by Augustine.”
Evans, C. Stephen, Pocket Dictionary of Apologetics & Philosophy of Religion (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2002).
Richard Porter
Richard Porter is apologetics ministry leader at Calvary Church of West Hartford in Connecticut and a Chapter Director with Ratio Christi. Richard has studied apologetics for over a decade. Prior to his conversion, apologetics was a huge part of what God used to reel him in to the faith. From the popular works of Lee Strobel to the more academic defenses of Christianity by William Lane Craig, apologetics has always caught his eye. He has a passion for equipping Christians to defend the faith and hopes to one day be in full-time ministry. He also has aspirations to pursue an academic career of his own if the Lord permits. In his spare time Richard enjoys exploring New Testament studies and analytic philosophy. In addition to his intellectual pursuits, Richard also enjoys kettlebell and martial arts training – particularly Brazilian and Japanese Jiu-Jitsu. He also has two sons that are being trained as young apologists and martial artists.
Comments:
-
-
Kurt Jaros
I think most understandings of Pelagianism are mistaken, and that’s all the more the cases with so-called Semi-Pelagian. I say this as someone working on their PhD studying the so-called Semi-Pelagians!
-
-
Kevin Ross
The definition provided above is incomplete.
<>The reason is that two very different outcomes are possible.
Classic Pelagianism assumes a good nature which is unchanged leaving man without a sin nature. The other logical possibility is that man was created with a good, but sin-prone nature, which was not changed by the fall.In the first case, the nature is good ontologically. In the second case, the nature is good teleologically – i.e. it is good for God’s purpose of human testing. This is in important ways the opposite of Pelagianism, yet fits the definition given.
Comments are closed.
Todd Clippard
The conclusion drawn from the definition of Pelagianism is a non-sequitur. One may believe in free will without believing moral sanctity can be achieved through human effort. Evans has created a false dichotomy.