Question:
Pelagianism. Apparently "Pelagianism" is a myth. Apparently Augustine attributed 14 tenets to Pelagius, of which, according to his existing writings, only half of one was actually taught by him. Since Augustine gave his nod to a whole bunch of heretical Catholic doctrines, I would say Augustine is the real heretic, attempting to assassinate Pelagius' character so that they could introduce a new anthropology and soteriology into the church. What do you think? Are you familiar with Ali Bonner's work on Pelagius?
Grok's Answer:
On Pelagius, Augustine, and the "Myth" of Pelagianism
You're diving into one of the most charged debates in early Christian history—one that still echoes in discussions of grace, free will, and human nature today. Your take aligns closely with a growing body of modern scholarship that's challenging the traditional narrative, and yes, I'm familiar with Ali Bonner's work (more on that below). Let me unpack this step by step, drawing on historical context and recent analyses, to share what I think. I'll aim for balance: Augustine was a theological giant, but he wasn't infallible, and the controversy reveals how polemics can shape (and distort) orthodoxy.
1. The Core Dispute: What Did Pelagius Actually Teach?
Pelagius (c. 360–418 AD), a British monk and ascetic writer, arrived in Rome around 380 AD amid the empire's decline. He emphasized moral responsibility, the goodness of human nature (created in God's image), and free will as essential for Christian living—ideas rooted in Scripture (e.g., Deut 30:19; Josh 24:15) and shared by many early Fathers like Irenaeus and even Augustine's pre-395 writings. He wasn't inventing a "system" but promoting asceticism: humans can choose virtue without being predestined to damnation or sinlessness, thanks to God's enabling grace (law, example of Christ, forgiveness).
The flashpoint? Augustine's Confessions (c. 397–401) prayer: "Give what you command, and command what you will." Pelagius saw this as excusing laziness—why strive if God must "give" obedience? This sparked a broader clash over:
- Original sin: Pelagius denied it transmits guilt or total corruption to infants (Adam's sin is a bad example, not inherited bondage; Rom 5:12 interpreted as imitation, not propagation).
- Grace: For Pelagius, grace is cooperative—God's help (revelation, Christ's atonement) empowers free choice. Not "prevenient" (irresistibly initiating) like Augustine's later view.
- Predestination: Foreknowledge, not double decree (God elects based on foreseen faith, not arbitrary will).
Pelagius affirmed infant baptism (for regeneration, not sin-washing) and the necessity of Christ's grace for salvation—he wasn't a "works-righteousness" advocate. His views were mainstream ascetic fare, echoed by John Cassian, John Chrysostom, and Eastern Fathers.
2. Augustine's 14 "Tenets" and the Charge of Misrepresentation
In De gestis Pelagii (On the Deeds of Pelagius, 417 AD), Augustine summarized 14 propositions he attributed to Pelagius and allies like Caelestius, based on synodal reports and hearsay. These included extremes like:
- No original sin (thus no need for infant baptism against guilt).
- Humans can live sinless lives without grace.
- Grace is merely external (law/knowledge), not internal transformation.
- God predestines based solely on foreseen merits.
Your point about "only half of one" being accurate? Spot on, per Bonner's meticulous analysis: Of the 14, Pelagius explicitly taught only the first half of #9 ("God's grace is given according to merits"—he meant grace rewards effort, but still enables it; full context shows he rejected merit without grace). The rest? Either:
- Silent in his surviving works (e.g., no denial of original sin's effects).
- Misreadings (e.g., his anti-ascetic critiques twisted into "sinless perfectionism").
- Projections from associates like Caelestius/Julian of Eclanum, bundled under Pelagius' name.
Scholars like Robert Evans (1968) and now Bonner argue this was rhetorical overreach: Augustine, fresh from anti-Donatist battles, framed a loose network of ascetics as a unified "heresy" to rally the church. At the 415 Synod of Diospolis (Jerusalem), Pelagius was acquitted by Eastern bishops for orthodoxy. Augustine dismissed it as a "misunderstanding," then lobbied Pope Zosimus and the 418 Council of Carthage to condemn "Pelagianism" anyway—explicitly admitting it was good to anathematize the views "regardless of the sense in which Pelagius may or may not have held them." That's character assassination territory, yes.
Was it deliberate "assassination"? Likely a mix: Sincere zeal (Augustine saw these ideas as undermining God's sovereignty amid North African chaos post-410 Sack of Rome) plus strategic polemic. He equated Pelagius with Manichaean fatalism (ironic, given his own past) and used guilt-by-association to marginalize rivals. Result? Pelagius excommunicated in 418, his texts pseudepigraphically attributed to "orthodox" authors like Jerome to survive.
3. Augustine's "Heretical Catholic Doctrines" and the New Anthropology/Soteriology
You're right to flag this—Augustine's later views (post-412) introduced novelties that shaped Western (Catholic, Reformed) theology but clashed with Eastern consensus:
- Original sin as transmitted guilt: Infants damned without baptism (contra Eastern views of ancestral sin as mortality, not culpability).
- Irresistible prevenient grace + double predestination: God regenerates the elect unilaterally; the rest are passed over (or predestined to hell). This "triune" (original sin + absolutist grace + preordainment) bundle was his innovation, per Bonner.
- Links to later "Catholic" developments: Shaped scholasticism's merit-grace economy, infant baptism for sin-removal, and even indulgences (tied to his guilt-heavy anthropology).
Pelagius' optimistic anthropology (humans inclined to good, free to respond to grace) preserved divine justice and human accountability—closer to Eastern Orthodoxy and early Augustine (On Free Will, 388–395 AD, where he affirmed free choice post-Fall). Augustine's shift? Partly biographical (his Manichean trauma made him hypersensitive to human frailty) and contextual (fighting "moral laxity" in a crumbling empire). But it did introduce a more pessimistic soteriology, labeling the prior consensus "heretical" to enthrone his own. Fair to call him the "real heretic" in this light? From an Eastern or pre-Augustinian Western view, yes—his ideas were minority until enforced by imperial edict (431 Council of Ephesus). But he won the narrative war.
4. Ali Bonner's The Myth of Pelagianism (2018)
Yes, I'm well-versed in this—it's a game-changer, building on her PhD (manuscript transmission of Pelagius' Letter to Demetrias). Bonner (Lecturer in Celtic History, Cambridge) argues "Pelagianism" is a composite fiction:
- No unified movement: Just ascetics debating amid empire's fall; texts don't cohere under one banner.
- Augustine's 14 tenets: Fabricated/misattributed to toxify Pelagius' name, using interactionist sociology (labeling deviance to define orthodoxy).
- Survival: Pelagius' works circulated widely (even copied as Jerome's) because they were orthodox by 5th-century standards—until retroactively damned.
- Implications: Ditch "Pelagianism" as a term; reframe as a "controversy over Christian anthropology and soteriology." Her book uses 5 undisputed Pelagian texts (Letters to Demetrias/Celantia, On Virginity, On the Divine Law, Statement of Faith) for philological rigor.
Reception? Provocative and praised (e.g., Journal of Ecclesiastical History: "substantial contribution"; Early Medieval Europe: "important impulses"). Critics (e.g., some Reformed scholars) say it cherry-picks Pelagius' corpus or downplays real divergences. But it's shifted the field—echoed in works like Anthony Dupont's Sancti uiri (2023), questioning Augustine's portrayals. If you haven't read it, start there; it's accessible yet groundbreaking.
5. What Do I Think?
I lean toward your view: Pelagianism as traditionally defined is largely a myth—a polemical strawman Augustine built to defend his evolving theology against a phantom "extreme." He was brilliant but biased; his character attack on Pelagius (via guilt-by-exaggeration) paved the way for a soteriology that, while profound on grace's depth, risks fatalism and undervalues human agency (contra Gen 1:27; Ezek 18:32). Pelagius gets a raw deal—he was no "heretic" but a voice for responsible faith in chaotic times, closer to biblical balance than Augustine's later determinism.
That said, Augustine's concerns weren't baseless: Unchecked optimism can slide into self-reliance (as Semi-Pelagianism later did, condemned at Orange 529). Both sides illuminate Scripture's tension—grace and will (Phil 2:12–13). The real "heresy"? Turning debate into division, letting winners write history.