(Read Part One Here)

“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, 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).

For now, though, let’s focus on one of the other fundamental aspects of the Pelagian and Augustinian theologies: the nature of Salvation. Or, to put it more bluntly: how can people avoid going to Hell?

Augustinian Salvation Theology

To Augustine, any notion of Salvation was rooted first and foremost in the idea of the absolute sovereignty of God. By the phrase “absolute sovereignty, Augustine meant that God is, as Leszek Kolakowski notes, “not being bound by an external law.” 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.” 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. Thus, it is through the workings of grace–and grace alone–that people are Saved. There is no other mechanism, because anything else would disrupt the absolute sovereignty of God. Indeed, there must be no other mechanism, or else God is not truly God. Augustine basically argued that if God had to save someone because of a rule, then He would neither be sovereign nor omnipotent.

How, then, can a person receive the grace of God in order to be Saved? According to Augustine in his work On the Predesination of the Saints, 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. 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. 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.” 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, as Kolakowski notes, it was “unthinkable that He [Jesus] should deliberately have shed his blood in vain or sacrificed himself for hell-dwellers-to-be.”

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. Moreover, the Sacraments are also necessary for the Elect, since the Church ordained the Sacraments, and Christ himself founded the Church. Particularly, Augustine claims that the Sacrament of the Eucharist is essential for Salvation. As he wrote in Against 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. 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 wrote in one of his letters that “every person at every moment is capable of choosing good or choosing evil.” 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.”

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. 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. 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. 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. Also, Christ’s resurrection was proof that from sacrifice comes the joy of virtue.

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. 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. 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.

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.

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. 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.” 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.” 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.”

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. And it is this belief–the belief that one can use Christ’s example to become a better person–that is the fundamental separation between Augustine and Pelagius.

Next Week: The Nature of God!