Here is the second installment on original sin. Much of what Augustin had to posit regarding original sin was a direct response to the maledictions coming from Pelagius on the same subject. The lion share of Pelagian writings or assertions originating with Pelagius are preserved in the writings of Augustin. You will see a stark contrast in Pelagius's formulation of an anthropological perspective and that of his superior, Augustin. Their conceptions of original sin serve as a veritable ideological matrix for their doctrines of soteriology (doctrines of salvation). Much of what Pelagius asserts is inherently anthropocentric and espouses a patent autonomy; both of which are practically incorporated into the so called semi-pelagian system, though not explicitly defined theologically.
Pelagius’s position on original sin does not even begin to resemble the prevailing orthodoxy of his era. Even the infamous Pope Innocent writes of his desire for Pelagius to turn from error back to the true ways of the Catholic faith. Innocent’s letter is found amidst the Epistles of Augustin. Much of what Pelagius propagated is found in the omnibus writings of Augustin repudiating Pelagius’s inventions. Parenthetically, Coelestius was Pelagianism’s most vociferous advocate while Pelagius, although its original architect, recoiled in a Synod at Palestine when held to account for his doctrines.
According to the Pelagian construct, “Everything good, and everything evil, on account of which we are either laudable or blameworthy, is not born with us but done by us: for we are born not fully developed, but with a capacity for either conduct; and we are procreated as without vice; and previous to the action of our own proper will, that alone is in man which God has formed.”
The idea of original sin is ineffectual and alien to his anthropology. Adam along with his actions were and continue to be isolated from the rest of humanity. His sin belonged to him alone. Their were no consequences or effects carried over into the following generations for, “Adam’s sin was injurious to him alone, and not to the human race.” With this fundamental premise Adam’s progeny are not beleaguered by any corruption or taint vis a vis the transmission of original sin. By implication all of humanity is conceived of and born in the same condition and state that Adam was created in. During Coelestius’s trial at Carthage he was accused of inculcating, through the recitation of his own words, “That infants at their birth are in the same state Adam was before the transgression.” By extension the system promotes that mankind has within its collective self the innate ability to live aright because, “evil is not born with us, and we are procreated without fault, and the only thing in man previous the action of his own will is what God has formed.”
Moreover, according to the Pelagian system humanity enters upon the plane of history with a virtual tabula rasa for, “we are procreated, as without virtue, so without vice.” Bright eyed and optimistic then is the initial condition of man as its burgeoning consciousness awakens to discover, “the absolutely equal ability at every moment to do good or evil.” This essential freedom is never relinquished nor lost within the ideological construct of Pelagianism.
According to Pelagius though Adam does indeed exert a malevolent influence upon his progeny through his isolated act of sin. This position enabled him to provide a subterfuge when being examined for his doctrines during a synod at Palestine when asked about whether Adam’s sin was injurious to the whole human race. He replied that it was without an exhaustive explanation. He could honestly say this because for him, “that primal sin was injurious not only to the first man, but to the whole human race, not by transmission, but by example.” The obvious prevalence of sin, according to Pelagius, is attributed to the increasing habit of sin which is augmented and amplified the more it is participated in. This reasoning leads to the contentions that, “men’s manners became corrupt” and that, “the habit of sinning too much prevailed among men.”
Pelagius attributes an intrinsic quality to humankind that betrays the sacrosanct of scripture. Because of this his views of salvation and sanctification are irrecoverably skewed and warped. In his construct mankind still conceivably remains the master of their individual fate. Even now, despite the effects of humankind's continual participation in the increasing habit of sin generally, man, individually retains a vestigial of unmarred innocence from birth that could possibly remain in tact throughout life. Consider the implications of this line of reasoning along with the devastation it would do to holy writ and the Gospel. As stated above the semi-pelagian system preserves and promotes this element of man's innate ability to save themselves by choosing prior to regeneration.
Semipelagianism in its original form was developed as a compromise between Pelagianism and the teaching of Church Fathers such as Augustine of Hippo, who taught that man cannot come to God without the grace of God. In Semipelagian thought, therefore, a distinction is made between the beginning of faith and the increase of faith. Semipelagian thought teaches that the latter half - growing in faith - is the work of God, while the beginning of faith is an act of free will, with grace supervening only later. It too was labeled heresy by the Western Church in the Second Council of Orange in 529.
In contrast to semi-pelagianism, Arminianism teaches that the first steps of grace are taken by God. This teaching derives from the Remonstrance of 1610, a codification of the teachings of Jacob Arminius (1559-1609). Here are the 3rd and 4th articles of five to show how close it actually approaches traditional Calvinism, but still leaves man with a small island of righteousness, as it affirms that unregenerate man can think spiritual thoughts, perceive the beauty and excellency of Christ, create affections for Him and thus turn in faith to Him, apart from the quickening of the Holy Spirit. They affirm that God's grace is always resistable, therefore, when one believes, it is not grace which makes one to differ from another, but naturally produced faith.
This line of reasoning assails true doctrine's of grace while reducing saving faith and thus God's effectual and irresistible grace to a humanly resistible act; salvifically speaking. This much is codified in an article of the Remonstrance:
IV.That this grace of God is the beginning, the progress and the end of all good; so that even the regenerate man can neither think, will nor effect any good, nor withstand any temptation to evil, without grace precedent (or prevenient), awakening, following and co-operating. So that all good deeds and all movements towards good that can be conceived in through must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. But with respect to the mode of operation, grace is not irresistible; for it is written of many that they resisted the Holy Spirit [Acts 7 and elsewhere passim].
The general article sounds orthodox and legitimate with the exception of the clause in bold. Interesting how a little heresy can be peppered into a statement to alter the meaning entirely. Even in Arminian doctrine man possesses the power to save himself.
Credo ut Intelligam
