Talk:Pelagianism

Untitled

I checked on the date for the Council of Ephesus, and according to Justo Gonzalez's A History of Christian Thought, Vol. I, the council took place in 431, not 432. I'm going to change it, but please let me know if my source is inaccurate.

Could you kindly make reference to the original works of the early Christian fathers, rather than to the modern compendium Dictionary of Early Christian thought? That would be most helpful.128.143.131.152 (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Augustinian Position Misrepresented

Mans freewill is only within the boundaries of his soul state. John 6:44 says"noone can come to me(Jesus)unless the Father who sent me draws him". If we are unredeemed then we can only choose sin, but through salvation we now have a new choice; a choice to live as Jesus has. Freewill can be a tricky subject based on terminology. We should be careful of the verbage we use brethren. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.215.11.14 (talk) 04:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Augustine of Hippo, who taught that a person's salvation ultimately comes through the grace of God but that a person must also perform freely chosen good works. Augustine also believed in a form of predestination, but not to the point that it violated or negated man's free will

I think this choice of words tends to misrepresent St. Augustine's position on the state of man's will. In A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, Book IV he wrote this:

free will is assuredly inherent in the nature of man, but that now, however, it is so enslaved that it does not avail to the doing of righteousness, unless when it shall have been made free by grace

I'm amending the article appropriately. Travis Carden 05:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this statement

In the article it says;

Augustine also believed in predestination.

What purpose does this statement have to the preceding one or the article? I also wonder what the reference is?

--Wer2chosen 21:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Unobjective wording in introductory section

I find the wording in the sentence very unobjective:

"According to Pelagian doctrine, since humanity is no longer in need of any of God's graces beyond the creation of will,[1] Jesus' sacrifice is devoid of its redemptive quality."

This wording clearly betrays a non-Pelagian bias, which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. A more neutral wording would be:

"According to Pelagian doctrine, because humanity does not require God's grace for salvation (beyond the creation of will),[1] Jesus' execution is therefore devoid of the redemptive quality ascribed to it by orthodox Catholic theology." 24.116.151.23 16:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Aelswyth

Formatting and number of quotes

I feel that the quotes by early church fathers and by Pelagius need to be formatted so as to be more clear. It may also be worthwhile to omit those quotes that are deemed less important by theologists, so as not to inundate readers with too many details. I have not flagged the article for cleanup or length -- Just a suggestion. Ysageev (talk) 05:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I am trying to clean this up. What a mess. Latinist (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, the paragraph on Pelagius' beliefs begins "In Contrast" but follows a bunch of quotes against original sin. The impression given is that church fathers generally agreed with Pelagius.--Semiautomata (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Original research

In the comparison section, only primary sources are cited and a synthesized conclusion is implicit. This is in violation of WP:OR. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It is. Someone knowledgeable about the topic has considerable work to do in improving the article. -Phoenixrod (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

A query

In the article, I read

St. Jerome suggests he was of Scottish descent but in such terms as to leave it uncertain as to whether Pelagius was from Scotland or Ireland.

Now, I can believe that this sentence is perfectly correct, but (given some of what I've found in Wikipedia, and being unfamiliar with the relevant passage in Jerome) I can also believe that Jerome merely suggested that Peligius were Scottish or Irish, with later readers misinterpretting Jerome simply to say that Peligius were Scottish.

Speaking of the relevant passage, it would be good to have it and the rest of Jerome's response cited in the article. —SlamDiego_←T 14:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

The Jerome reference is because he stated that Pelagius was "stuffed with Scottish porridge". While the most trustworthy witnesses, such as Augustine, Orosius, Prosper, and Marius Mercator, are quite explicit in assigning Britain as his native country, as is apparent from his cognomen of Brito or Britannicus, Jerome (Praef. in Jerem., lib. I and III) ridicules him as a "Scot" (loc. cit., "habet enim progeniem Scoticae gentis de Britannorum vicinia"), who being "stuffed with Scottish porridge" (Scotorum pultibus proegravatus) suffers from a weak memory. Rightly arguing that the "Scots" of those days were really the Irish, H. Zimmer ("Pelagius in Ireland", p.20, Berlin, 1901) has advanced weighty reasons for the hypothesis that the true home of Pelagius must be sought in Ireland, and that he journeyed through the southwest of Britain to Rome. --Bardcom (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless I am misinterpretting things, then, Jerome suggested that Peligius was Irish, using a term whose meaning has since shifted, which shift has caused some later readers to mistakenly infer that Jerome were suggesting that Peligius were a Scot. —SlamDiego_←T 03:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit more difficult than that because back then, your "tribe" was more important than geographic location of birth. So he could have been considered "Irish", but born in Scotland, or vice versa.... --HighKing (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe 'scotti' in Jerome's text will be referring to people who lived in Ireland; this people did later move across to Scotland but in the late 3rd/4th centuries are restricted to Ireland. See for example this footnote [no. 22] correcting a similar problem with Bede's work (picked at random from a selection) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=egy-k7LV-e4C&pg=PA365&lpg=PA365&dq=scotti+pelagius&source=web&ots=C6mMWJ8V8t&sig=4ybgET1FOhZO8BTdeD3nE_bYxZ0&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result . fluoronaut (talk) 07:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Atheism

The article should maybe discuss philosophical relations between pelagianism and some rather common manifestations of atheism. The idea that there is no Adam, that man is totally free, that human nature is uncorrupt, that humanity is the sole bearer of its destiny, etc, these are all ideas which are somewhat held by contemporary atheists, at least to a certain point of comparison. ADM (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Your points are better suited to the misotheism article as they are points mostly made by Nietzsche. The miso article primarily because Nietzsche was deterministic in his eternal reoccuring rather then Metaphysically libertarian.

LoveMonkey (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Sinners as Criminals

I don't understand the meaning of the two following sentences. Aren't the contradictionary? "According to Pelagian doctrine, because men are sinners by choice, they are therefore criminals who need the atonement of Jesus Christ. Sinners are not victims, they are criminals who need pardon." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigfus46 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Church Fathers Against Original Sin

The section added which list the views of Church Fathers which are said to attack original sin in most cases do not. There appears to be a misunderstanding in that section of the word "nature." Furthermore, no explanation is given for these quotes, nor is it explained how they contradict the doctrine of original sin. It seems to be better suited for Wikiquote. Would there a problem deleting it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.54.48 (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

anachronistic

This article, especially the introductory paragraph, is deeply anachronistic. It reads more like a segue in an Arminian/Calvinism debate than like an actual discussion of the Pelagian heresy on its own terms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.211.131.228 (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

material for comment

The material below was submitted by an anon editor and moved here for comment. WBardwin (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

...although it is worth noting that in some of his letter fragments, he himself dissents from a number of the views traditionally associated with his name.

Matthew Foc's condemnation

The Dominican priest Matthew Foc was condemned by Otto Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI as a Pelagianist.John D. Croft (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

irresistible vs free choice?

"Augustine ... an irresistible free gift, the efficacious grace of God, but that this was a gift that one had a free choice to accept or refuse." This sounds like something irresistible can be refused. Am I missing some nuance? If so, could this be rewritten for laymen or another article created to handle it? If there is a (seeming) contradiction in Augustine's writings, could both sides be cited from his writings? 99.91.13.183 (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)