A DEFENSE OF THE PELAGIAN HERESY
[Why let all my philosophy papers go to waste? This is a long paper I wrote defending one of the early Christian heresies. I've always been rather proud of it. And it's a nice break from all the politics, don't you think?]

Notes

All of the Biblical citations in this essay are from the New American translation of the Bible, which is the mainstream Catholic translation of the Bible generally used by Catholic churches and scholars in English speaking countries.

Since several primary sources by St. Augustine cited in this paper, the following abbreviations were used in the internal citations in the text.

WPP - A Work on the Proceedings of Pelagius
OTM - On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants
AGC - “A Good Creation’s Capacity for Evil.”
PDS - A Treatise On the Predestination of the Saints

I'd also like to extend my gratitude to Professor Jim Wetzel of Colgate University for his insights on why the Church rejected the Pelagian heresy and accepted Augustine.

Introduction

“There are those who think that
They've been dealt a losing hand
The cards were stacked against them
They weren't born in Lotus-Land
All pre-ordained
A prisoner in chains
A victim of venomous fate
Kicked in the face
You can pray for a place
In heaven's unearthly estate
You can choose a ready guide in some celestial voice
If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice
You can choose from phantom fears
And kindness that can kill
I will choose a path that's clear
I will choose free will”
– Rush, “Free Will”

The centerpiece of Christian life, thought, and theology is the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Cross is the universal symbol for Christianity, and many churches feature a depiction of the Crucifixion itself. For millions of Christians around the world, Christ's death represents the ultimate sacrifice, and the redemption of the sins of the world. To those same believers, His subsequent resurrection fulfills the promise that His followers will enjoy eternal life in Heaven. But what, exactly, does that Redemption entail? From what are we redeemed? Who, exactly, gets to enjoy Eternal Life in Heaven? These thorny questions have plagued Christian theology for centuries. However, there is a general consensus between the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches regarding how these questions should be answered. The foundation for this consensus--Original Sin and Salvation through Grace--were laid by St. Augustine of Hippo, primarily through his denunciation of the teachings of Pelagius, a British monk. Augustine's theology of Salvation is also a complex metaphysical theology explaining the nature of the world and the role of evil in it. However, a great deal of his theology is drawn from his experience with Neoplatonic thought and his own personal experience.. In actuality, the Pelagian "heresy" is more consistent with early Christian thought, the words of Christ as recorded in the Gospel, and its consequences provide a more reasonable Christian worldview then does Augustinian theology. In order to support this idea, this paper will examine the Pelagian and Augustinian interpretations of Original Sin, examine their Salvation theologies, examine their metaphysics of God and evil, and will finally examine the reasons why the orthodox Church accepted the ideas of St. Augustine.

Part I - Man, the Fall, and Original Sin
"The trouble with some of us is that we have been inoculated with small doses of Christianity which keep us from catching the real thing."
- Leslie Dixon Weatherhead

One of the central stories in the Bible is that of the Fall of Man. According to Genesis, when God created the Garden of Eden, He created a tree whose fruit was the Knowledge of Good and Evil. When He created Adam, he commanded him not to eat of that tree, or else he would die. Later on, a serpent in the garden "tricked" Eve into eating the fruit and giving it to Adam. As a result of this sin, Adam and Eve were endowed with moral knowledge and condemned to live outside of Eden as punishment for disobeying God. In Judeo-Christian theology, this event is known as the Original Sin.

Augustinian Theology of the Fall

To Augustine, this story was the literal truth, and his entire philosophy of salvation, grace, and evil stem from it. Moreover, Augustine's ideas became the orthodox ideas of the Christian Church. Kolakowski supports this idea by writing: "Augustine not only codified the orthodox (since then) doctrine of original sin and divine grace, but to a large extent created it" (1995, 31). One of the central tenets of Augustine's theology of Original Sin was that man was created to be immortal. Had the Fall not occurred, says Augustine, "[Adam] would not have been divested of his body, but would have been clothed upon with immortality and incorruption, that 'mortality might have been swallowed up of life;' that is, that he might have passed from the natural body into the spiritual body" (OTM). Another postulate of his theology was that it was Original Sin that caused the corruption and evil in God's creation. This postulate was developed because, to Augustine, a creature created to depart from the will of God would not be wicked--only a creature intended to abide by God's will which then subsequently departed from it would create a wickedness. Thus, to Augustine, the evil we see around us is a result of creatures acting contrary to their nature by sinning (AGC, 191). The final, and perhaps most important aspect of Augustine's theology of Original Sin is its transmission According to Augustine, the Original Sin of Adam was transmitted through sexual intercourse to his descendents. Likewise, all of the descendents of Adam have Original Sin, with the exception of Christ , who was not conceived through sexual intercourse (OTM). The ultimate consequence of this idea, and one that Augustine did not shirk from, was that unbaptized infants are damned. This damnation occurs because even thought infants may have committed no actual sin, their Original Sin was not cleansed with Grace, and so they are doomed to Hell (OTM).

In Augustine's view, because of the Fall of Man, the world was made corrupt and imperfect. God, on the other hand, is unchanging, all-good, and perfect. Interestingly enough, Augustine did not think that this corruption made Creation evil. Instead, claims Augustine, God used his foreknowledge of his creation's wickedness to create good out of the evil caused by creatures (Griffin, 1992, 197). This view of the world as imperfect compared to an unchanging, good God is similar to the ideas of the Neoplatonists. Neoplatonism was a religious and philosophic movement of the third and fourth centuries that taught that all "reality emanated from the One, its unknowable divine source" (Clifton, 1992, 102). As a teacher of philosophy and rhetoric in North Africa, Augustine was strongly influenced by Neoplatonic philosophy before his conversion to Christianity. Even after converting to Christianity, he adapted many Neoplatonic ideas to suit his new faith (Trape, 1986, 97).

Pelagian Theology of the Fall

Pelagius' theory of the Fall was distinctly separate from that of Augustine's, and this difference helped to shape his moral philosophy. According to Pelagius, human beings were created mortal, and Adam would have died even if he had not Fallen. Thus, it was not Adam's sin that caused death; rather, death is a natural part of the world that God created (Fillippo, 1997). Also, Pelagius taught that the Original Sin was simply Adam's sin, and not the sin of all of humanity. Instead, Adam set an example of sinning that others followed. In Pelagius' theology, infants are born without the need for baptism (Pohle, 1913). Another important difference between the theology of Augustine and Pelagius was that while Augustine blames the Fall for the existence of evil in the world, Pelagius believed that the Fall was a good thing. He writes in a letter to Demetrias, a Christian convert:

"But if God had simply instructed Adam and Eve to eat from the tree, and they had obeyed, they would have been acting like children. So he forbade them from eating the fruit; this meant that they themselves had to make a decision, whether to eat or not to eat. Just as a young person needs to defy his parents in order to grow to maturity, so Adam and Eve needed to defy God in order to share his knowledge of good and evil. By defying God, Adam and Eve grew to maturity in his image." (Pelagius, 1995,12).

In Pelagius' view, Adam and Eve, by eating the fruit, gained maturity, and therefore freedom. This freedom meant that Adam and Eve (and by corollary, their descendents) became responsible to God for their actions (Pelagius, 1995, 11). The world before the Fall was not yet totally good, because it lacked "one essential attribute, namely freedom" (Pelagius, 1995, 6). So in Pelagius' view, Adam and Eve, through disobedience, became good. Since according to Pelagius, the Fall was a good thing, God's creation was not corrupted by Man's disobedience, as it was in Augustine's view. Indeed, to Pelagius, "The presence of God's spirit in all living things is what makes them beautiful" (Pelagius, 1995, 71).

Scriptural Support for the Augustinian View of the Fall

Augustine's interpretation of the Fall is based on a very literal reading of Genesis. While Pelagius chooses a more allegorical interpretation, Augustine views the account in Genesis as historical truth. This being the case, part of Augustine's view of Original Sin can be derived from the curse that God puts upon Adam and Eve once they are thrown out of the Garden of Eden (Genesis 3:16-24). Another measure of support for the notion of Original Sin comes from Paul in the First Letter to the Corinthians. In this letter, Paul writes, "For just as in Adam all die, so too in Christ shall all be brought to life" (15:22). This passage implies that the reason that Christ is necessary is because of Adam's original sin .

Scriptural Support for the Pelagian View of the Fall

Upon examining Pelagius' interpretation of Original Sin, it is apparent that this account is consistent with the words of Christ as recorded in the Gospels. For instance, in Matthew 19:14, Jesus states, "Let the children come to me, and do not prevent them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these." Since Heaven is, presumably, for those who have been purified by God and are worthy of entrance, then children, too, must have this quality of innocence. By this statement, Christ could be said to believe in the innocence (i.e. sinlessness) of children. Although Christ never explicitly says what he means by this statement, it is certainly a valid interpretation given Pelagius' premises. Also, the idea that Original Sin is hereditary is contrary to other parts of the Bible. For instance, in Deuteronomy 24:16, it is written, "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children for their fathers; only for his own guilt shall a man be put to death." This being the case, why would God allow the "transmission" of Original Sin, and therefore, death, from Adam to his descendants? Augustine argued that Original Sin caused the loss of Grace for Adam, and thus that Grace was not present in his descendants. However, this argument is still weak. If God is the ultimate Good, then any severance of humanity's connection with God would be a punishment, since humans would no longer be exposed to the ultimate source of Good; thus, Adam's descendants are punished because of Adam's sin.

Problems with the Augustinian Interpretation of the Fall

There are also problems with the idea that only the actions of creatures are responsible for Evil. If God is omnipotent, and he pronounced the world to be Good, then how can the act of one person undo that goodness? As David Ray Griffin points out, if, as Augustine claims, nothing happens other than what God wills to happen, then God must be the cause of Evil (1992, 207). Augustine attempts to work around this problem by stating that although creatures go against the Divine Will in one sense (i.e. violating the Commandments), they do not go against the eternal Divine Will, because God creates Good in the long run. Indeed, Augustine argues that the world is better off with Evil in it because of the Good it creates (Griffin, 1992, 209). However, this argument does not make sense. Either God wills for his creatures to follow His commandments or He doesn't. How can God, who is perfect, will a contradiction? If violating a Commandment leads to a greater good than a world in which a creature followed them without free will, then why is it a sin to violate the Commandments? Augustine does not answer this question, and so his doctrine of humans causing evil is untenable.

Problems with the Pelagian Interpretation of the Fall

One problem with Pelagius' interpretation of the Fall, at least for Christians, is the fact that scripture does not support his positive view of the Fall. In the Christian tradition, the Fall is almost always seen as bad, since it separated humanity from continual communion with God However, most modern Christian denominations see Genesis as being allegorical rather than literal, and Pelagius' view, while unconventional, is a valid interpretation given his other theological premises. Another problem with his interpretation is that if infants are innocent and sinless, then any infant could be sacrificed in order to redeem the sins of the world, since both infants and Christ are sinless. If this is the case, then Christ's death has far less meaning, since His perfection is no longer an issue. However, what this argument does not address is that to Christians, Jesus is the Incarnation of God, and thus is superior to human beings, no matter how sinless. Moreover, Christ was not only sinless, but also perfectly virtuous, because he committed good works and defied temptation, which infants do not have the chance to do. So the idea that infants deserve eternal life does not negate Christ's sacrifice.

Part II - Grace, Salvation, and Redemption
"People seem not to see that their opinion of the world is also a confession of character."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson

As a consequence of their differing views of Original Sin, Augustine and Pelagius also had widely differing views on the nature of Salvation. This difference became the essence of the heresy that would bear Pelagius' name. Although some scholars, such as David Christie-Murray and Joan O'Grady, dismiss the Pelagian heresy as a battle between men with two different types of experience and attitude rather than a serious theological battle (O'Grady, 1985, 112 and Christie-Murray, 1976, 93), the implications of the Pelagian heresy are much further reaching. In fact, had the Church accepted this heresy, it probably would have necessitated a completely new way of thinking about the Nature of God (as will be discussed in Part III).

Augustinian Salvation Theology

To Augustine, any notion of Salvation was rooted first and foremost in the idea of the absolute sovereignty of God (Kolakowski, 1995, 34). By the phrase "absolute sovereignty, Augustine meant that God is "not being bound by an external law" (Kolakowski, 1995, 34). In other words, we cannot compel God to save us from damnation--we are saved solely by His will. This sovereignty underlies Augustine's whole theory of Salvation.

Another aspect of Augustine's Salvation theology is derived from his ideas of Original Sin. Because of Original Sin, claims Augustine, humans are "so hopelessly corrupted that we are absolutely incapable of doing anything good by our own forces; free choice, if it means a choice between good and evil, has been utterly wasted by sin; our will, insofar as it is ours, and not God's, can merely do evil and desire evil" (Kolakowski, 1995, 32). Free will, in this case, becomes nonexistent, because humans become incapable of committing any acts but evil ones.

Augustine argued that since humans are incapable of doing good by their own choice, all virtue must be accomplished solely through the grace of God. The most monstrous of people may perform acts of heroism, but only because of God's intervention. Likewise, the saintliest persons become depraved when the Grace of God temporarily leaves them, such as Peter's denial of Christ. (Kolakowski, 1995, 33) Thus, it is through the workings of grace that people are Saved. There is no other mechanism, because anything else would disrupt the absolute sovereignty of God. If God had to save someone because of a rule, then he would neither be sovereign nor omnipotent. (Kolakowski, 1995, 34).

How, then, can a person receive the grace of God in order to be Saved? According to Augustine, there is only one answer: God bestows it upon a person arbitrarily and acting with divine mercy. It is unrelated to the faith of a person, because God bestows faith. (PDS). Because humans are only capable of doing evil, the only just course for God to take would be to damn all of his creatures. However, because God has mercy, he chooses to save a certain number of people, called the Elect (PDS). Most important to Augustine's argument is that the Elect have done nothing at all to deserve their salvation. He wrote, "Certainly such an election is of grace, not at all of merits" (PDS). Keeping with this argument, Augustine also argued that Christ did not die for all of Mankind. Rather, he died solely for the Salvation of the Elect. This idea was held by Augustine because it was "unthinkable that He [Jesus] should deliberately have shed his blood in vain or sacrificed himself for hell-dwellers-to-be" (Kolakowski, 1995,32).

Although, to Augustine, the Salvation of the Elect was foreknown by God before the creation of the universe, the Church also plays a vital role in Salvation. First and foremost is the need for Baptism, especially of infants. Since all children are born with Original Sin, it is necessary for them to be baptized so that they can receive the Grace of God. (OTM) Moreover, the Sacraments are also necessary for the Elect, since the Church ordained the Sacraments, and Christ himself founded the Church. (OTM) Particularly, Augustine claims that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is essential for Salvation. As he wrote in Against the Two Letters of the Pelagians, "for unless they shall eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink His blood, they shall not have life in themselves." So to Augustine, the Church is necessary for the Salvation of the Elect.

Pelagian Salvation Theology

For Pelagius, all notions of Salvation were grounded, not in God's sovereignty, but the complete freedom of the will. Like Augustine, his notions of Salvation are closely related to his notion of Original Sin. However, according to Pelagius, Adam's sin was only an example of sin. He did not pass on responsibility for that sin to his descendents (Pohle, 1913). Rather than humans being hopelessly corrupted by the Fall, Pelagius sees the Fall as humans becoming mature and responsible for their actions. Rather than having no choice but to do evil acts, Pelagius writes "every person at every moment is capable of choosing good or choosing evil" (1995, 13). In fact, Pelagius goes even further and states that God has "so designed and ordered things that there is a natural tendency towards good and away from evil" (1995, 17).

Augustine argued that all humans, because of Original Sin, commit nothing but evil actions that violate God's Commandments. Pelagius, on the other hand, stated that humans are perfectly capable of fulfilling God's law. In his view, since God knows our capabilities as humans, He would not command things that humans could not do. (O'Grady, 1985, 114). Grace, in Pelagius's view, was not the defining characteristic of the Saved, but rather was an aid provided by God to those who chose to follow His Commandments (Pelagius, 1995, 43). So unlike Augustine, who believed that God granted Faith and Grace arbitrarily, Pelagius stated that God grants Grace to those who already have faith.

Pelagius did not believe that Salvation was something that happened to an "Elect" group of people, but rather that anybody could achieve Salvation. Salvation is achieved not through the arbitrary action of God, but through the repentance of sins. However, simply asking for forgiveness is not repentance. For Pelagius, repentance entails not only asking for forgiveness, but also choosing not to sin again. While Pelagius recognizes that people might, through habit or choice, sin again, he maintains that those sins need to be confessed, and an effort be made to avoid sin and act righteously (Pelagius, 1995, 39). Keeping with this argument, Pelagius maintains that Christ did die for the sake of all Humanity. For Pelagius, Christ's death provided a counter-example of virtue to Adam's example of wickedness (Pohle, 1913). Also, Christ's resurrection was proof that from sacrifice comes the joy of virtue (Pelagius, 1995, 41).

One consequence of Pelagius' theology of Salvation is that the Church is unnecessary for Salvation. One reason for this idea is that since there is no Original Sin, there is no need for infant baptism to wash it away. Pelagius also wrote that "[i]f only Christians were good, then God would not be good, because he would have denied the rest of humanity the freedom to choose goodness" (1995, 8). He goes on to write that every person has the freedom to choose good or evil, thus every person has the potential to be Saved. Moreover, he believed that humans could figure out what was good and what was evil through the exercise of reason (Pelagius, 1995, 5). Although he believed that the inner law of Christ and the path of Christianity made it far easier to do good, both reason and other moral systems, such as the Mosaic Law, could be aids to Salvation (Pohle, 1913).

Scriptural Foundations of Augustinian Theology

The Predestination theology of Augustine, bizarre as it may seem, does have a rather strong foundation within the writings of Paul. For example, in Ephesians, Paul writes, "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not from you; it is the gift of God; it is not from works, so no one may boast" (2:8-9). This statement strongly supports the Augustinian notion of Salvation. In fact, Augustine himself quotes this passage in "The Predestination of the Saints." Further support from Paul comes in the First Letter to the Corinthians, where Paul writes, "For just as in Adam all die, so too in Christ shall all be brought to life, but each one in proper order: Christ the firstfruits; then, at his coming, those who belong to Christ" (15:22-23). The phrase "those who belong to Christ" certainly implies a doctrine of the Elect. Also, parts of Luke can be interpreted to support Augustine. For example, Jesus said, "A good person out of the store of goodness in his heart produces good, but an evil person out of a store of evil produces evil" (Luke 6:45). This passage can be interpreted to mean that a person is good or evil by God's grace, and one can tell who is good and who is not by their works, but the works don't make them good.

Scriptural Support for Pelagian Theology

While there is a certain amount of scriptural support for Augustine's position on Salvation, there is an even stronger support for that of Pelagius. We can find the first major support for his position in Matthew 25:31-46, where Christ describes the Final Judgment. It is important to note that the Judgment Christ describes has nothing whatsoever to do with esoteric matters as grace and faith. Rather, the people at the Last Judgement are judged by how they treated others, and rewarded or punished accordingly. Other support for this idea can be found in Matthew in the famous Sermon on the Mount. This sermon is an explanation to his followers on how to act justly in order to gain their Salvation. (5:1-7:27). Nowhere in the sermon does Jesus place responsibility for people's virtuous acts on anyone but the people themselves. Pelagius' point is further supported in the Gospel According to John, where Christ commands the forgiven adulterer to "Go, and from now on do not sin anymore" (8:11). Why would Christ tell the adulterer to do something she was incapable of doing? Pelagius interpretation is that He would not.

Pelagius' teachings are also consistent with other parts of the Bible. For instance, in the Old Testament, there are two definitive cases of people being Saved. One such case is Enoch, whom God took into Heaven. (Genesis 5:24). Another case is Elijah, whom God also took bodily into Heaven. (2 Kings 2:11). These cases certainly support, from a Biblical perspective, that people can be saved without the apparatus of an organized Church, and that Baptism is obviously unnecessary to wash away Original Sin.

Problems With Augustinian Views of Salvation

Aside from scripture, there are other problems with Augustine's theology that ought to be addressed. One such issue is God's omnibenevolence. If God is wholly good, then why would He create creatures that he already knows are going to be damned? Why would He create creatures who will inevitably suffer for eternity? However, if God is omnibenevolent, there is simply no way to reconcile Augustine's view of the Universe with that attribute. By no standard of morality could a God justify creating a creature simply for the purpose of suffering. Augustine's response to this is simply that God's actions are always good, because he is perfect. However, since humans are imperfect, we are incapable of judging the works of God. This is an intellectual cop-out. God's goodness should be apparent, if not intuitively, then at least through reason. Augustine, however, does not even bother to attempt to prove God's goodness. He simply asserts it. Given the nature of Augustine's worldview there is nothing to support the idea of an omnibenevolent God.

Another problem with Augustine's view of Salvation is that it is, by his own admission, unjust. According to Augustine, all men deserve damnation. However, to show mercy, God arbitrarily chooses some human beings to be saved from damnation. This Salvation is not based on any sort of merit whatsoever. There is a major problem with this argument. Again, it strikes at the idea that God is omnibenevolent. For if God is omnibenevolent, then he must be just. Granting Salvation to some and denying it to others regardless of merit is unjust. Why does He not, in His mercy, grant Salvation to all of His creatures? Augustine states that by saving some, God shows mercy, but God must condemn others in order to prove that He is just. However, Augustine provides no support for the argument that saving some and damning others is good. He simply asserts that since God is perfectly good, then what He is doing must be good. However, this argument falls flat. Even a child can see the unfairness in the arbitrariness of God's selection. Without any real rational or intuitive support, Augustine's argument is simply unjustifiable.

Problems with Pelagian Views of Salvation

By the same token, there are non-Biblical problems with Pelagius' thought that ought to be addressed. One of the major arguments against the idea that a person can be saved through the action of his own will is that people seem to be inclined to act in evil ways. Pelagius answers this argument by saying that humans are simply creatures of habit. While humans can choose between good and evil at any time, force of habit inclines us one way or the other. Evil habits incline us to be evil, and good habits incline us to be good. It is important to note that Pelagius believes that these habits can be overcome. (Pelagius, 1995,13).

Another common argument against both Pelagius and the idea of free will in general is that the will isn't that strong. A common view in Christian thought is that the pulls of the body and of the world often overpower the will. "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak" is the common refrain of those with this view. Too often, claim those who make this argument, we are pushed against our will to pursue the desires of our body, or to do something in order to conform with society world around us. Pelagius argued against this point by claiming that the will can be trained through habit and prayer (Christie-Murray, 1976, 90). In fact, he blamed this attitude for moral laxity. Since many Christians at the time shared this view, they claimed that they couldn't help sinning, because they were too weak. So the doctrine of Original Sin actually became an excuse for immorality. Pelagius responded to this attitude by firmly stating that it is possible to choose not to be influenced by the world around us. Particularly for Christians, it is necessary for them to decide what is more important--fitting into society, or following Christ?

Another problem that some have with Pelagius' theology is that it denies the importance of Christ in Christianity. Writes David Christie-Murray, "The cross no longer spoke of redemption, and atonement became unnecessary, while Christ turned from a saviour into a teacher…and the whole of Christianity was reduced to a caricature of itself" (1976, 90). This simply is not true. Pelagius still believed that Christ was God, and that Christ was resurrected. Moreover, Christ was both a teacher, and an example of how to live one's life. Writes Pelagius, "In the person of Jesus Christ the inner spiritual law is made fully manifest for us. His words explain the spiritual law, and his life and death exemplify it" (1995, 14). Christ still has an important role to play for Pelagius, and in no way does his theology make Christianity a "caricature." What probably is galling for those who make this argument is Pelagius' insistence that while Christ's example and teachings are important guides to Salvation, they are not essential. But those who make this argument would have to deny the existence of Good Samaritans, and deny any potential of non-Christians to be virtuous and saved. Experience clearly proves them wrong. From the Buddha to Gandhi, history is full of those people who lived virtuous, yet un-Christian lives.

Another argument that could be levied against the Pelagian theology is that it would allow one to "bully one's way into heaven" by doing enough good works to be saved, even though there may not be a faith or love behind those works--just a cynical calculation. Pelagius answers this argument by saying,

"Do not be deceived by those who seem to seek perfection, yet do not keep the basic commandments of God. There are people who eat little, who live simply and who are celibate; yet they show no love and compassion towards their neighbors. Before seeking perfection a person must first learn to love others and be generous towards them." (1995, 19)

Clearly, one cannot be kind and loving and generous simply for the sake of cynical calculation. The works performed must be genuine, not just in act, but in mind and heart as well.

Part III - The Nature of God and the Problem of Evil
"Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream up a god superior to themselves. Most gods have the manners and morals of a spoiled child."
- Robert Heinlein

The debate between the Augustinian and Pelagian theologies of Salvation was more than just a debate of free will vs. predestination. It is, at heart, a debate over the natures of God and the Universe. By necessity, each theology must have a different conception of God, and a different conception of the nature of evil.

Augustine's Notion of God

To Augustine, God is the Platonic ideal of perfection. God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient. He also exists outside of time, and thus the events of the past, present, and future are equally real to Him. (Griffin, 1992, 202). All of Augustine's notions of Salvation can be drawn from these attributes. Since God is omnibenevolent, then evil in the world must be the responsibility of human beings--hence the notion of Original Sin. Since God is omniscient and timeless, then God must have foreknowledge of who will be Saved, and who will be Damned. Thus, predestination is the logical conclusion of timeless omniscience. Finally, because God is omnipotent and has absolute sovereignty over His Creation, He "owes us nothing." That is, humans can make no claim upon Him, Salvation must be completely the work of His will.

Pelagian Ideas of God

Pelagius was not a doctrinal theologian. His primary concern was Christian ethics. As such, he never detailed a philosophy of the nature of God. That being the case, the nature of Pelagius' God has to be derived from his theology of Salvation. Since Pelagius considers freedom of will to be essential for goodness, it stands to reason that God must also possess free will. If this is the case, we must assume that God is not omnibenevolent by necessity, but by choice. So God can "owe us" something, because He chooses to be just, and chooses to abide by His own morality, rather than being forced into it by necessity. Thus, there is no contradiction between omnipotence and omnibenevolence, nor is there a conflict between omnipotence and free will. However, there is a potential conflict between omniscience and free will. Is Pelagius' God omniscient? If we were to ask Pelagius, he would almost certainly say yes. So how can the two concepts be reconciled? Well, we can simply assume that rather than being timeless, God moves with us through linear time. This necessitates that the future has no de facto existence. Since it is impossible to know of the non-existent, God can be omniscient, but still not have prescience. Thus, God does not always know what choice that a particular person will make. Like Augustine's God, Pelagius' God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient. However, because God exercises freedom of will, and is not timeless, there is no contradiction between this idea of God and Pelagius' theology.

Augustinian Theodicy

Another essential aspect of Augustine's theology is his explanation of why evil exists in the world. First of all, evil exists because of Original Sin. All human evil is caused by that one circumstance. Augustine also denies the concept of natural evil . Instead, he claims that natural evil makes the world better because it provides beauty achieved by "the opposition of contraries" (AGC, 192). Natural evil is also justified because it punishes the wicked, and since Original Sin prevents human virtue, all of humanity is wicked, thus all of humanity suffers.

There are several problems with this explanation of evil. First of all, there is a contradiction between the idea of predestination and the idea that God is not responsible for evil. If God has prescience, and Augustine believed that He does, then God would know that Adam would commit Original Sin. Knowing this, God still created the universe. So God is, at the very least, indirectly responsible for the creation of evil in the world. This responsibility contradicts the idea of omnibenevolence. If God is truly all-good, then why would he create a world that was filled with both evil and the punishment for evil? What is the attraction of perpetual suffering? Augustine does not provide answers for these questions, preferring to let them remain a mystery. However, if the ineffable nature of God is taken out of the equation, Augustine's theodicy is simply unsupportable.

Pelagian Theodicy

Pelagius himself did not attempt to explain the reason for the existence of evil. So again, it is necessary to derive a theodicy for him. First of all, the explanation for human evil is easy--humans have freedom of will, and thus can commit evil acts. Secondly, there must be a good explanation for the existence of natural evils. Fortunately, one already exists. An extremely compatible theodicy with Pelagian thought is John Hick's concept of the world as a "vale of soul-making." In Hick's view, human beings are not a complete creation. Instead, they are made in God's image, and it is necessary for them to gain his likeness, which Hick describes as a finite reflection of the divine life. (Hick, 1992, 223). It is the purpose of humans, then, to become as much like God as possible. Also, Hick argues, this state can only be achieved if humans struggle against temptations and natural evils and choose goodness. This is certainly compatible with Pelagius' ideas. He once wrote, "we are each capable of achieving the same degree of moral goodness. Once people perceive this truth, they are filled with hope, knowing that in the fullness of time they can share the moral virtue of Christ himself" (1995, 3). In Hick's view the natural evils and temptations of the world exist in order for human beings to grow spiritually. Obviously, if the world was created without such obstacles, then virtue becomes meaningless. In his novel The Worthing Saga, Orson Scott Card provides a poetic support for this argument. He wrote,

"But if there were no pain, if there were no fear, then what does it matter that we live together, that our lives touch? If our actions have no consequences, if nothing can be bad, then we might as well die, all of us, because we are just machines, contented machines, well oiled and running smoothly with no need to think, nothing to value, because there are not problems to solve and nothing to lose." (1990, 210).

There are, however, arguments against this idea of theodicy. Roland Puccetti, for example, argues against it by providing four cases of what he feels are unnecessary suffering. These four cases, a trapped rabbit, a drowned toddler, a cancer patient with a long and painful hospital stay before her death, and a pianist who gets Huntington's Disease. In Puccetti's view, none of these cases provide any potential for moral or spiritual development. The rabbit, although it may have to die, is suffering excruciating pain, and it doesn't have the capability to understand or learn from what is happening to it. The toddler, who drowns because his parents were careless, does not have the chance to grow up and develop as a human being. The pianist who is born with Huntington's Disease is affected when he was at the prime of his life, and so there is no sense in him having this disease. The cancer patient is terminally ill, and also does not, in Pucetti's view, deserve to suffer. Thus, in his view, these examples of suffering serve no purpose, and Hick's theodicy does not prove its point. (Puccetti, 1992, 234).

This challenge can be answered by the concepts developed by Marilyn Adams regarding the nature of redemptive suffering. In Adams' view, suffering can have a redemptive value in and of itself (Adams, 1992, 187). For example, an earthquake might devastate a city, but its aftereffects might include members of the community coming together for the common purpose of helping the distressed, causing them to ignore racial, ethnic, and class differences. For the four cases mentioned above, Adams' redemptive suffering paradigm can be applied. A trapped rabbit, for example, reminds us that we were recently wholly caught up in the cycle of nature and a kill or be killed nature. Thus, we can reflect upon how much we have grown as a species, and how much those same "Laws of the Jungle" remain with us. The pain of a cancer sufferer can lead one to remember the times shared with that person, or cause us to rethink our political stance on euthanasia, medical marijuana, etc. A child who dies because of carelessness by a parent can cause a family to come together, or persuade the parents to change their ways so that other children are treated more responsibly. Also, the consequence of free will is the fact that we have to accept the consequences of our actions, and in some cases, the actions of others. But if humans had the freedom to make mistakes, but suffered no consequences, then humans would never learn from those mistakes.

It is important to note that in Hick's and Adam's view, God is not the cause of these "natural" evils, but Adams' point is that despite the evil of suffering, something good is gained from it that may not have occurred before. For instance, while the death of Christ is, to Christians, the most evil act in history, without it the Resurrection was impossible. Also, to Hick, by learning to deal and cope with natural evils, we are better able to develop our nature as human beings. Would history remember Helen Keller if she had been born with sight and hearing? Probably not. But her heroic triumph over her handicaps has endeared her to the ages and made her an example to others.

Part IV - The Orthodox Acceptance of Augustine
"Many people genuinely do not want to be saints, and it is probable that some who achieve or aspire to sainthood have never felt much temptation to be human beings."
-- George Orwell

In the controversy over the ideas of Pelagius, it was Augustine's theology that eventually won out. Although the Catholic doctrine moved more in a semi-Pelagian direction in the 16th Century, many Protestant denominations, particularly those derived from Calvinism, retained many Augustinian notions of Original Sin and Grace (Kolakowski, 1995, 5). There are several reasons for why the Church accepted Augustine's ideas. These reasons are a complex mixture of political reasons, theological reasons, and for reasons involving the politics of the Church itself.

Political Reasons for the Acceptance of Augustine
One of the main reasons why the Church accepted the Augustinian position was the prestige and authority of Augustine himself. At the time of the Pelagian controversy, Augustine was already pretty much successful in arguing against the Donatist and Manichean heresies (Trape, 1986, 197). Augustine was a well-known, respected, and established Bishop. Pelagius, on the other hand, was just a layperson. Although his contemporaries called him a monk, he was not a part of any religious order (O'Grady, 1985, 113).

Another political aspect of the development of Pelagius was that as his doctrine continued to be attacked, his followers appealed for the protection of the Bishop Nestorius. This protection was granted. However, Nestorius himself was condemned as a heretic shortly thereafter . After Nestorius was condemned, Pelagius and his followers were again condemned as heretics (Christie-Murray, 1976, 92).

Another political factor that may have turned Church opinion against Pelagius was the destruction of St. Jerome's church. Jerome, a noted clergyman of the time, wrote a tract against Pelagianism. Shortly after the publication of this treatise, followers of Pelagius marched on Jerome's church and destroyed it (WPP). This incident undoubtedly removed a lot of sympathy for Pelagius and his followers, which may have affected the outcome of the controversy .

Theological Reasons for the Acceptance of Augustine

There are several reasons that Augustine's theology was accepted from a theological perspective. One reason is that Augustine's interpretation of Original Sin is much more consistent with a literal interpretation of Genesis. Of particular importance to Augustine and others at the time was the institution of infant baptism. Most bishops and theologians of the time accepted the need for infant baptism (O'Grady, 1985, 121). In their eyes, Pelagius' rejection of the need for infant baptism might damn Christians. Another reason for the rejection of Pelagius in favor of Augustine is that many felt that Pelagius' view exaggerated the importance of Man in his own Salvation, denying God any credit. To many Christians of the time, this took away from the glory of God and led down a path of excessive pride (Christie-Murray, 1976, 93). Augustine's theology is far more theocentric than Pelagius', and this may have also been a large influence on the views of the Church.

Other Reasons For the Acceptance of Augustine

Many of the other reasons for the acceptance of Augustine's ideas involve the preservation of the Church. Many people felt that Pelagius' views, in making the Chruch unnecessary for Salvation, might weaken the Church itself (O'Grady, 1985, 119). This idea is bolstered by the fact that Pelagius held heterodox notions about the relationship of laypeople to the clergy. Pelagius felt that laypersons had a duty to teach each other about the Faith, while most of the clergy thought that it was the responsibility of the Church hierarchy to do so (O'Grady, 1985, 114). Also, Kolakowski points out that the idea of Predestination energizes a core of believers to the Church. Since these people feel that they are the chosen of God, then they tend to lead exemplary Christian lives. However, they feel that their "virtuous conduct is not the cause of their salvation but rather its symptom" (1995, 34-35). To these militants, Pelagius' view would judge the Church by the virtue of its congregation, and would reduce the Church to a "spiritual aristocracy" (Kolakowski, 1995, 36) since not many would be able to achieve great virtue. For a similar reason, the Donatist heresy was rejected. For many Christians, the innocence of the Church as an institution was irrelevant to the sins and virtues of the clergy. This idea was developed in response to the Donatists, who felt that priests who had committed deadly sins would not be able to perform Mass. Although Pelagius was not a Donatist, Augustine and others felt that his ideas of salvation might lead the church in a Donatist direction because clergy would be judged by their ability to be free of sin. This would negate the idea that the Church, as an institution, is sinless. Without this sinlessness, many felt that the Church would have no power of Redemption (Kolakowski, 1995, 36).

Conclusion

Both Augustine's theology of Salvation and his theodicy are difficult to support, both scripturally and logically. There are simply too many questions regarding the nature of God and predestination that Augustine leaves unanswered. Although Augustine's theology was eventually accepted by the Church for various political and theological reasons, Pelagius' theology provides a worldview that is consistent with the words of Christ, and also works well with Hick's ideas of a vale of soul-making and Adams' paradigm of redemptive suffering. In other words, it was Pelagius, not Augustine, who was keeping with the true spirit of Christ.

Works Cited

Adams, Marilyn M. "Redemptive Suffering: A Christian Solution to the Problem of
Evil." Michael Peterson, ed., The Problem of Evil. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1992

St. Augustine. “A Good Creation’s Capacity for Evil.” Michael Peterson, ed., The
Problem of Evil. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1992.

St. Augustine. On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants
[On-Line]. Available at: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1501.htm.

St. Augustine. A Work on the Proceedings of Pelagius. [On-Line]. Available at:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1505.htm

St. Augustine. A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians. [On-Line]. Available
at: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1509.htm

St. Augustine. A Treatise On the Predestination of the Saints. [On-Line]. Available at:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/15121.htm

Card, Orson Scott. The Worthing Saga. New York: Tor Books. 1990.

Christie-Murray, David. A History of Heresy. New York: Oxford University Press.
1976.

Clifton, Chas S. Encyclopedia of Heresies and Heretics. New York: Barnes and Noble
Books. 1992.

Filippo, Stephen N. “St. Augustine and Pelagianism.” [On-Line]. Available at:
http://www.catholic.net/RCC/Periodicals/Dossier/nov97/augustine.html. November, 1997.

Griffin, David Ray. "Augustine and the Denial of Genuine Evil." Michael Peterson, ed.,
The Problem of Evil. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1992.

Hick, John. “The World as a Vale of Soul-Making.” Michael Peterson, ed., The
Problem of Evil. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1992.

Kolakowski, Leszek. God Owes Us Nothing. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
1995.

The New American Bible. Grand Rapids, MI: Catholic World Press. 1997.

O’Grady, Jean. Early Christian Heresies. Barnes and Noble Books. 1985.

Pagels, Elaine. The Origin of Satan. New York: Random House. 1995.

Pelagius. Letters of Pelagius. Robert van De Weyer, ed. Little Gidding Books. 1995.

Pohle, Joseph. “Pelagius and Pelagianism” from the Catholic Encyclopedia. [On-Line].
Available at: http://www.csn.net/advent/cathen/11604a.htm. 1913.

Puccetti, Roland. "The Loving God: Some Observations on Hick's Theodicy." Michael
Peterson, ed., The Problem of Evil. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1992

Trape, Agostino. Saint Augustine: Man, Pastor, Mystic. New York: Catholic Book
Publishing. 1986.