NationStates Jolt Archive

I'm wondering what peole think of Pelagius, the pelagian heresy one, not the pope. Thoughts, opinions? Anything really, I'm just kind of bored...

I think Pelagius was pretty much correct. Grace is necessary for salvation, but we do have to make the effort to ask for it. The whole Augustinian, "People can't possibly be do anything at all good on their own," is BS.

Do you think all the things he was accused of were true? Or was it just Augustine and Jerome making it all up?

Theologically speaking, if there is no original sin, there is no need for Jesus Christ to have died on the cross. Actually, there’s no reason for an infant to die either, as death is the punishment for sin.

All this is purely theological though. So please, direct your tirades about Christianity towards someone who will take offense.

Theologically speaking, if there is no original sin, there is no need for Jesus Christ to have died on the cross. Actually, there’s no reason for an infant to die either, as death is the punishment for sin.

All this is purely theological though. So please, direct your tirades about Christianity towards someone who will take offense.

Wasn't the point (in Pelagianism) that Jesus' good example was to balance out Adam's bad one and show humanity how to reach God?

Wasn't the point (in Pelagianism) that Jesus' good example was to balance out Adam's bad one and show humanity how to reach God?

Reach God by being nailed to a tree? Hmmm....I think I'd rather not.


[/sarcasm]


I haven't studied alot of christian heresays, so I'm not sure. It does sound like one of its points though.

Theologically speaking, if there is no original sin, there is no need for Jesus Christ to have died on the cross. Actually, there’s no reason for an infant to die either, as death is the punishment for sin.

All this is purely theological though. So please, direct your tirades about Christianity towards someone who will take offense.

Incorrect. This is according to one theological viewpoint.

Another viewpoint, rather different from the Anselmian/Augustinian view is the more Abelardian view, that the purpose of Christ was to turn worshippers to God in love, rather than in fear. That, by laying down his life for others(the greatest demonstration of love), Christ would demonstrate God's love and turn those who saw or heard of it to God in love. No original sin necessary there.

Meanwhile, original sin isn't actually necessary in the Anselmian sense either. It is not necessary for Adam's sin to be "passed on" to others for us to see that human beings make mistakes, that we all fall short of perfection. Thus, even without some sort of "taint" from our forefathers, we as individuals would need salvation.

Do you think all the things he was accused of were true? Or was it just Augustine and Jerome making it all up?

As far as I know, he was essentially accused of heresay in suggesting that human beings can actually do anything good without already having salvation - suggesting that a human being can actually seek salvation. Did he suggest that? Absolutely. Was it actually heresay? According to the Catholic Church, yes. According to God, we can only have faith one way or another.