Post Series
1. Introduction
2. Pagitt and Pelagius On Human Nature
3. Pagitt and Pelagius On Sin
4. Interlude on Sin
5. Pagitt and Pelagius On Salvation
6. Pagitt and Pelagius On Discipleship and Judgment
7. Conclusion
8. (Final Thoughts)
Three weeks and 8 posts later, we’ve reached the end of the “Pagitt and Pelagius” series, an indepth look at Pagitt’s A Christianity Worth Believing
I still stand by that.
My goal was to put the theological teachings of Doug Pagitt and Pelagius of Britania side-by-side in order to see if this modern theologian mirrors the ancient one. People have accused Doug of being a Pelagian and I wanted to see if that was true. So I wanted to bring an academic lens using an academic method to Pagitt’s writings in order to shed light on these accusations. Using my methdology we’ve looked at their views on human nature, sin, salvation, discipleship, and judgment. We’ve seen how they are similar and different.
The area in which they differ the most is the severity of sin and judgment. Pelagius had a very strong view of sinning after baptism, which was the point of forgiveness, salvation, and regeneration. This strong view led to a very strong view of judgment, in that those who fail in this Christian endeavor receive the punishment of hell. For him, every human is in control of their will to such an absolute extent that when they sin after salvation/baptism, having their sins washed away, it is really bad. So bad that “the punishment of hell is promised to all of us who do not live in righteousness.” Pagitt doesn’t follow Pelagius in this regard, however, because he has a low view of sin and a non-existent view of judgment.
The areas in which they are the most similar are in their views on human nature and sin, the areas that caused the most heartburn in the 5th century. Like Pelagius, Pagitt believes that we exist in the state as we were intended at the beginning of creation. Both believe that our wills are still intact and that we are capable, through our own gumption and ingenuity, to be in sync with God, to live as we were intended to live. Ethically we are not morally rebellious. We do not have a sin nature passed to us from by our natural head, Adam. Instead, we are “inherently godly” and “filled with the spark of God.” For both, we are inherently good.
Then why do we sin? We sin because of bad examples, systems, patterns, and habits. Because we are inherently godly, on our own we are capable of living in sync with God. The problem comes when the bad systems and patterns of this world impinge upon our will, causing us to “create disharmony with God and one another.” We are not the problem. Everything and everyone around us is. Our salvation, then, comes not from a sacrifice who does something with the evil, sin, and rebellion around us and in us, but instead from a better example. Both Pelagius and Pagitt need Jesus only as a moral example, because their view of human nature and sin require simply this. We do not need a new nature, because our original one is still intact. We do not need to be re-created, because we are still as we were intended at creation. All that is needed is the best example possible, the best “map and guide to what true partnership with God looks like.” Salvation comes, then, when people “follow Jesus as Joshua into the promised land of freedom and release,” because he is the new pattern of harmony for humanity by showing us what full integration with God looks like and fulfilling what people are meant to do and be.
In short, Pagitt mirrors Pelagius’ theology in regards to human nature, sin, and salvation.
Pagitt believes otherwise, however. In several comments, he has insisted: “I am not a Pelagian.” While he also insists that he has “spent no time with the teachings and thinking of Pelagius,” (and I don’t disregard these words) he has in no way explained why this is not the case, why he is not Pelagian. Put a different way, Doug has not articulated how his theology is different from Pelagius and why he does not mirror his views on human nature, sin, and salvation.
In fact, he has not tried to answer the questions I’ve posed in response to his views. While some have suggested I have used “a bunch of ‘gotcha’ Bible verse at the end that show why all the labels (of Pelagianism, Universalism, and Liberalism) are evil,” I have merely tried to bring this discussion back to the Text. I have disagreements with Doug’s theology on theological grounds, but more so on Scriptural grounds, which is why I’ve asked Him to explain why the Holy Scripture seems to conflict with his theology. These are legitimate questions that Doug has yet to answer:
Regarding Human Nature
•What do you do with Romans 5:12-19, especially verse 12?
•What do you do with 2 Corinthians 5:20? “So if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature: the old creature has passed away; see a new one has been created.”Regarding Sin
•If something outside of us causes us to sin, why then are we in need of a new heart, according to Ezekiel 36:24-27?
•If Jesus Christ thought that what defiled a person comes “out of the heart” why don’t you? (See Matthew 15:1-20 for a refresher course.)Regarding Salvation
•Why is Jesus even necessary to begin with? Furthermore, why was it necessary for Christ to die on the Cross?
•What do you do with the entire Book of Hebrews—let alone the animal sacrificial system of Leviticus—which explicitly argues that Jesus Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice on our behalf, by His own blood, in order to offer for all time one sacrifice for sins?Regarding Judgment
•It is obvious you are a universalist and do not believe in a literal judgment, a separation of good and bad. What do you do with Jesus Christ’s teachings on the subject, 25% of which make-up his teachings, especially his parables?
•In light of your rejection of a real, literal judgment, what do you do with Jesus’ parables of the Nets in Matthew 13 and Wedding Banquet in Matthew 22? Both have an EXPLICIT eschatological orientation and teach about a time of judgment, where the righteous and wicked will be 1) separated and 2) punishment.
These are not “gottcha” questions, but serious questions that deserve serious answers. While Doug did say, “Jeremy, I would be glad to show how 2 Corinthians and all of Romans makes the points I am making” he has yet to do so. I don’t understand why he cannot provide more context to his own theology by dialoguing through these questions, questions which have sat at the heart of historic Christian orthodoxy for centuries.
At this point, I don’t see how Doug’s theology is different or distinguishable from Pelagius. Although, Doug, if you would still like to explain why you are not a Pelagian and how you differ from his views on human nature, sin, and salvation or how I’ve mischaracterized you if this is the case, I am all ears.
Jeremy, I don't think you DESERVE any response from Doug. You have continued to show that you simply want to paint him as a heretic, nothing more. The scope of the Original Sin history is FAR beyond the Augustine vs. Pelagius you've made it out to be – but of course since your conservative seminary only limits you to "orthodox vs. heresy", these other interesting voices must be silenced.
One interesting note on Romans 5:12 (from Tatha Wiley's book):
"The anonymous fourth-century commentator on Paul, referred to as "Ambrosiaster", derived original sin from his exegesis of Romans 5:12. His interpretation of the text was adopted by Austine of Hippo and became a central component of the classical doctrine.
In the modern NRSV, the Greek text of Romans 5:12 is translated this way:
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned—
The Latin Vulgate translation Ambrosiaster used, however, rendered the latter part of the sentence "in whom all sinned", not "because". Ambrosiaster took the "in whom" as an obvious reference to Adam and its meaning – "all have sinned in Adam" – as the metaphysical unity of all human nature with Adam. As scripture, the text was taken by him to be divine revelation of original sin both in Adam and his descendants. All humankind was in Adam as one. When Adam sinned, all humankind who shared his nature sinned with him. "
So Augustine's doctrine was being built on a mistranslation of a very critical word in the text.
"Theological innovation never ends well" –Jeremy Bouma on Fighting for Faith podcast interview.
Of course, he would never consider Augustine or Calvin to be one of these "innovators"…
Wow. If that's true then I want nothing to do with theology. It's just a cul-de-sac…
Well done Jeremy!!!! You laid this out, very well indeed. I am most grateful, and many I know are too, for what you have investigated & written. It isn't about being right, it is always about doing what IS right. Good, right, and true. Kudos & thanks.
Thanks Heidi! I've tried to be fair and let the chips fall where they may. At this point I think Doug's theology is pretty clear, though as I suggested before I am opened to him explaining to us all where I've erred…
-jeremy
Didn't Doug say that he isn't a universalist? Just wondering if he commented on this somewhere?
No, Randy, he has not. And it is clear from his book he is.
In my reading of the book, Pagitt seems not to be an exclusivist, but that does NOT make one an universalist. You don't know the difference, apparently.
I echo Jeff's comment.
non-exclusivist =/= universalist
even though
universalist = non-exclusivist
I would argue that you have been anything but fair, but your "academic" lens is different than mine, obviously. You have not considered ANY modern theological views of "Original Sin" – views that have come about since understanding the Adam and Eve story from a non-historical perspective, in light of our knowledge of science and evolution. Although I personally connect with a lot of what the Celtic monk, Pelagius (and others thinking differently than Augustine) was saying, I find modern-era theologians better informed in Bible history (and translation), better versed in the Hebrew/Jewish context that may have escaped Roman Empire theologians, and better versed in science and evolution.
Are YOU still believing there WAS a literal first couple named Adam and Eve in a perfect garden as Augustine and Pelagius did? Do YOU believe that sin is passed on through sexual intercourse?
A “low” view of sin? A “non-existant” view of judgement? I respect what you’ve tried to do here, but its hard for me to reconcile some of your claims on Pagitt’s theology with what’s actually in the book. What does seem to be wholly accurate – Pagitt’s denial of original sin, for example – is FAR more complicated than just lumping him together with Pelagius. I’d also suggest you may be more likely to get a good response if you don’t start off from the premise “You’re a heretic, preaching a faith other than Christianity.” Perhaps something more like “Here are some concerns I have with Pagitt’s theology. I think he’s off base on the following. What do y’all think?” I doubt I’d be super eager to respond to every single possible question on a “Why Greg is a Heretic” series.
I will always find it rather interesting, when no basis, in factual info or Scripture can be found to support an "idea", the cry of academic goes up. Isn't "theological" different than "academic" in the eyes of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit?
Jeff, I have read the comments written along this series, but I rarely see Scriptural, or tried, tested, and time upheld commentaries, used by you. Jeremy did. Scripture is not conjectual, it is actual. We defend, only what is defendable, by that measure. By Scripture and tested commentary.
Heidi, I guess you did not take note of my reference to Romans 5:12 above where a misinterpretation by Augustine (and those informing him) of a key phrase led to his central idea of sin being transmitted by sexual intercourse (inherited sin). And Augustine was reading Genesis 3 as a historical, factual event. Do YOU, Heidi, read the story in this same literal way as Augustine or are you now informed by evidence of evolution to now consider it a myth/allegory (allowing us to see the story in ourselves)?
What I was ALSO trying to point out to Jeremy (but he has yet to respond) is that there are contemporary theologians, such as Piet Schoonenberg, Reinhold Niebuhr, and Bernard Lonergan who have pushed back against the Original Sin doctrine. I can't speak for Doug, but could it be that some of the ideas wrestled with in his book were informed in part by some of these LATER theologians? Even though Doug stated he was NOT a Pelagian, Jeremy continued on his path to try to cram Doug's theology into that one small container. THAT is not a very fair or "academic" path, is it?
Blessings to you Jeff,
The answer to the quesiton you asked of me, is yes. I do take Scripture literally. I don't believe in Evolution, nor do I believe in mixing left hand & right hand kingdoms. I don't mix Biblical theology and philosophy/intellectualism (Schoonenberg, Niebuhr & Lonergan). So, you and I will not agree on this point.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and looks like a duck, it's a duck, whether it protests to the contrary or not.
Eric, a duck-like feature does not a duck make.
http://www.toptenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/07…
Again, for this "debate" to be stuck back in the time of Augustine and Pelagius as if the doctrine was "frozen in time" is pretty stupid, in my opinion. This is why I don't see this as an honest "examination" of Doug's thoughts on the Fall as originally claimed, but simply an attempt to paint him (and all emergents) as heretics. Now THAT looks like a duck! I can HARDLY wait for Jeremy's "fair and balanced" review of McLaren's book!
Jeremy, you could have saved yourself all this trouble making historical connections and trying to have Doug's theological scales tip a certain way by simply asking instead some very basic questions in an open-ended debate regarding the point of the biblical narrative itself (completely aside from the issue of necessary conformity with certain creeds or not).
RJS did exactly that on Scot's blog today. She wrote: … (see next reply)
"There is a theme beginning in Genesis 2 and 3 – repeated many times throughout the OT – of failure and exile, failure and consequence. This is the backdrop for the story of the gospel. Without this backdrop nothing makes sense. So as I see it at this time the idea that gospel is God's peaceable kingdom established through the power of love is right – but does not dig deep enough. The kingdom is not established through the power of love, but through the power of His love. The gospel is that God through the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus did for us what we were unable to do for ourselves – he broke this cycle of failure, took the consequence. This is what enables the inauguration of the kingdom of God."
Something like that fosters a real dialogue – you painted yourself into a very narrow corner instead.
Jeff –
You seem to be keying on an Augustinian definition of Original Sin in your responses to Jeremy. I'm curious as to how you think modern developments of that doctrine by the theologians you indicated, negates the obvious parallels between Pelagius and Pagitt. What exactly is Jeremy missing? And how would you answer the questions he has asked of Pagitt? You have repeatedly claimed Jeremy is wrong in his assessment of Pagitt's theology, but really haven't offered a substantive response. I'd be interested in hearing where you think Jeremy has erred.
I've offered resources where one COULD learn of the more contemporary thoughts on Original Sin. I don't have the time or energy to unpack it all for you. If you are truly interested, read the books and check the links I have provided – do your OWN homework and make up your OWN mind. Both Augustine and Pelagius would have been assuming a historical original couple named Adam and Eve, and I'm pretty sure Pagitt (as most modern theologians) do not hold to that in light of all the evolutionary evidence. My suspicion of Bouma's narrow comparison is that, while the contemporary theologians I mentioned above have not been labeled as "heretics", Palegius HAS been so labeled. And if Bouma's obvious ploy is to tie Pagitt to a heretic, why WOULD he introduce any one else to compare against?
And I have repeatedly asked Bouma if he believed in a historical Adam and Eve and have received NO response. Do YOU? Do YOU think there was a historical time where two humans lived in a PERFECT world?
Jeff –
I read the article you linked and I guess I just don't see what your point is about original sin. Whether there is a literal Adam & Eve or not, it is abundantly clear that humanity is broken. However you want to characterize the 'fix', we need it. How does Pagitt potentially taking the Adam & Eve story as allegory/myth alter the obvious implication of his theology & soteriology? You are going to have to take the time to unpack it, because I just don't follow.
I will grant you that the pairing of Pagitt with Pelagius could serve as a useful rhetorical guilt-by-association 'ploy.' However, it is only a ploy if Jeremy is being disingenuous in his comparison & conclusions, which I just don't see. Based on the selections from Pagitt's writings, it is clear that Pagitt's theology needs a fair degree of explanation to defend it from these charges. Are you actually going to do that or just keep spamming the comments?
Jeff,
If you cannot by Faith believe, in the words written in Genesis, how & why would Christ have to come & die in my and your stead? To save you from what? To rip the curtain separating us, from God why? If you cannot believe in a literal Genesis, why believe in a literal Jesus Christ, Son of the Living God? If what you say & believe to be true, then our dearest Lord Christ, died & rose for nothing and it was in vain.
Heidi, I have my own ideas for all of your important questions, and they make sense to me, but they might not make sense to you. Suffice it to say that even though I read Genesis as a beautiful myth (which makes it MORE true for today and all times), and even though I don't believe in "penal substitution", I see a clear need for the complete salvation (more that heaven when I die) of the Christ that brings me into the flow of the Trinity. Jesus' life to me was NOT in vain: his life of complete self-emptying, sacrificial, powerless love (kenosis) and complete non-violent path that this took him on – even though it meant his own death on the cross – shows me how I am to live MY life. Jesus' death was NOT in vain: it shows that the world's most powerful empire was powerless over Love – Love Wins, death is not the end. Life goes on for those who do not cling to things, money, power, status, position in THIS life. And we don't have to die physically in order to claim this new Life. We just need to follow Jesus' complete path TO the cross, ON the cross and BEYOND the cross in order to find our Real Life.
Jeff, question, just to clarify what you have written. When you speak of love, are you speaking as a Holy God, the Trinity know It & created It,
or as men define it & have created their meaning of it?
You define yourself as a skeptic, so I can offer you no proof, for what I stake both my lives upon. Both the physical & Eternal. There is more to know of the Trinity, than love. It is to understand the Holy & True. That is the domain of the Holy Spirit, and it is He you must entreat & be openhearted and open to, as He is of Christ & our Father.
Not me, not Jeremy, no human can do that for you. If proof, in human terms & senses, is what you need, we have none to give. Jesus, Christos, Yashua Mashiach, Lord & Savior Jesus, is so much more than man, more than what this world is willing to believe He was and is. Again, that "belief & proof" is the Holy Spirit's domain. It's more than just following, it is trusting, & belief, in something the world cannot see or prove on it's terms, nor in history has been willing to- on HIS TERMS, NOT OURS.
Pelagius, Augustine, Original Sin, Orthodoxy, and the Celts…
http://anamchara.com/2010/03/02/pelagius-augustin…
I know this is an old post but I can answer the questions of what Pelagians think about these things.
Regarding Human Nature
•What do you do with Romans 5:12-19, especially verse 12? [Death and ceasing to exist not hell: Paul doesn’t mention hell, like, ever. Have you ever read Athanasius’ “On the Incarnation of the Word”? Give it a try. See what the great champion of Trinitarian orthodoxy in the Arian crisis believed on this subject. You might be surprised.]
•What do you do with 2 Corinthians 5:20? “So if anyone is in Christ, he
is a new creature: the old creature has passed away; see a new one has
been created.” [You get a new slate; not that you were born some subhuman totally depraved thing, but that what you did wrong since birth is wiped when you are baptized.]
Regarding Sin
•If something outside of us causes us to sin, why then are we in need of a new heart, according to Ezekiel 36:24-27? [Metaphor partially. Secondly, the heart is corrupted by habitual practice of evil, does not start out that way at birth: that’s why we need a new heart.]
•If Jesus Christ thought that what defiled a person comes “out of the
heart” why don’t you? (See Matthew 15:1-20 for a refresher course.) [It does come out of the heart, but not by some necessary determinism of human nature: but by a free will decision to do wrong.]
Regarding Salvation
•Why is Jesus even necessary to begin with? Furthermore, why was it necessary for Christ to die on the Cross? [To enable the wiping of your slate clean upon conversion]
•What do you do with the entire Book of Hebrews—let alone the animal
sacrificial system of Leviticus—which explicitly argues that Jesus
Christ offered Himself as a sacrifice on our behalf, by His own blood,
in order to offer for all time one sacrifice for sins? [Again, To enable the wiping of your slate clean upon conversion]
Regarding Judgment
•It is obvious you are a universalist and do not believe in a literal
judgment, a separation of good and bad. What do you do with Jesus
Christ’s teachings on the subject, 25% of which make-up his teachings,
especially his parables? [You are the one who doesn’t believe in a “separation of good and bad” since you re-frame the categories as “believers and unbelievers” and remove all notion of “Good and bad” from the picture with your standard Augustinian “live like the devil but believe, and go to heaven” vs “live like Jesus and don’t believe, and go to hell.”]
•In light of your rejection of a real, literal judgment, what do you do
with Jesus’ parables of the Nets in Matthew 13 and Wedding Banquet in
Matthew 22? Both have an EXPLICIT eschatological orientation and teach
about a time of judgment, where the righteous and wicked will be 1)
separated and 2) punishment. [Pelagians are the only ones who believe in the parable of net: only Pelagians believe that the Good go to heaven and the Bad do not: you Augustinians make the bad (faith alonist believers who do evil on purpose to prove how committed they are to faith alone) go to heaven and the good (believers who live right) go to HELL for supposedly ‘trusting in works’: you deny the parable of the net buddy.]