Is there any books that I can read afresh the controversy between these two? First hand writings if possible would be helpful. I was also looking for a history of this discussion to present day.
The main controversy between these two is about Original Sin. Im sure there must be plenty written about this.
I found ST. AUGUSTINE: ANTI-PELAGIAN WRITINGS in my library. I am having a hard time finding the exact writings that Augustine reacted against.
Do you have the Catholic version or Protestant? I have Catholic in Logos only. But Im reading the Protestant version and it has alot of notes and helpful comments, that I would be confused without.
I am have the protestant edition
Quite a bit has been written about this. In the New City Press edition of Augustine for the 21st Century there are four volumes devoted to Augustine's Anti-Pelagian writings. But probably I would start with Peter Brown's Augustine of Hippo: A Biography for a solid historical intro first, and then read "On the Spirit and the Letter". I have heard that Bonner's St Augustine of Hippo: Life and Controversies is great, but haven't read it myself.
To get some of the "other side", Pelagius' commentary on Romans is available. Probably you should read some "semi-Pelagians" like John Cassian too.
SDG
Ken McGuire
I am having a hard time finding the exact writings that Augustine reacted against
If I remember correctly, most of those works have been "lost to history," and what remains is the reaction to those works.
That would make sense why I am having a hard time finding his writings. That truly makes it hard to have an objective perspective on the controversy looking at it historically.
The problem is that Augustine "won" and so some of his opponents writings have not been preserved. But http://www.seanmultimedia.com/Pie_homepage.html has a few of them available, specifically Pelagius, Coelestius, and Julian of Eclanium.
The problem is that Augustine "won" and so some of his opponents writings have not been preserved. But http://www.seanmultimedia.com/Pie_homepage.html has a few of them available, specifically Pelagius, Coelestius, and Julian of Eclanium. SDG Ken McGuire
Thanks, on my first click of the website I was able to confirm what Alabama24 was saying
"This book was written by Pelagius and explains his beliefs regarding the free-will that God has given to mankind. It was a short treatise composed of four books. These fragments are taken from Augustine's two book work entitled "On the Grace of Christ, and on Original Sin". Unfortunately for those wishing to fully understand Pelagius' views Augustine is not a faithful quoter when it comes to his archenemy's writings. Augustine will quote him in one place, then repeat the quote later in a different way, each time wording it in such a way that best suits his argument. We are left to wonder if he has done this with all of the quotations that he has made from Pelagius' writings, perhaps exaggerating his statements to present them in an extreme light that the original author never meant. This would explain why two ecclesiastical synods, two popes, at least thirty-two bishops and several influential Christians could not find anything wrong with Pelagius' doctrinal stances".
What we have are quotations, and not Pelagius' full exposition on the subject. Not that I am in disagreement with the stance of Augustine at all, I do however feel it is super important to read first hand information. [:(]
Which is why I first mentioned Pelagius's commentary on Romans which has been discovered as well as Casian's works which were preserved.
Probably you should read some "semi-Pelagians" like John Cassian too
Semi-Pelagians dont deny original sin. So study one wont help studying the other.
I just started reading this work and so far the most important quote from Augustine is this from the first book.:
Sin is from Natural Descent, as Righteousness is from Regeneration; How “All” Are Sinners Through Adam, and “All” Are Just Through Christ—Moreover, if Christ alone is He in whom all men are justified, on the ground that it is not simply the imitation of His example which makes men just, but His grace which regenerates men by the Spirit, then also Adam is the only one in whom all have sinned, on the ground that it is not the mere following of his evil example that makes men sinners, but the penalty which generates through the flesh. Hence the terms “all men” and “all men.” For not they who are generated through Adam are actually the very same as those who are regenerated through Christ; but yet the language of the apostle is strictly correct, because as none partakes of carnal generation except through Adam, so no one shares in the spiritual except through Christ. For if any could be generated in the flesh, yet not by Adam; and if in like manner any could be generated in the Spirit, and not by Christ; clearly “all” could not be spoken of either in the one class or in the other. But these “all” the apostle afterwards describes as “many;” for obviously, under certain circumstances, the “all” may be but a few. The carnal generation, however, embraces “many,” and the spiritual generation also includes “many;” although the “many” of the spiritual are less numerous than the “many” of the carnal. But as the one embraces all men whatever, so the other includes all righteous men; because as in the former case none can be a man without the carnal generation, so in the other class no one can be a righteous man without the spiritual generation; in both instances, therefore, there are “many:” “For as by the disobedience of one man many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”
Indeed, very helpful, thank you
I think there is a "Celebrity Death Match: Augustine vs. Pelagius" video on Youtube...you'll have to look it up yourself.
[A]
The Pelagian argument is.. If not "All" are just through Christ, how can "All" be condemned through Adam.
I find that interesting that it seems Augustine does not here make a distinction between justification and regeneration, but seems to portray them as one. "righteousness is from regeneration". It seems as though he is saying that we become justified through regeneration. Maybe I am reading that wrong, looks like I need to spend some time on that, the implications concerning the order of salvation is mind blowing
Not to answer your question one way or another but just remember...Augustine is a Catholic and he believes in baptismal regeneration.
Yes, it is the Pelagians who denied that people need to be regenerated in Baptism
Should one assume that the reference was to baptism, or did Augustine speak of regeneration with reference to faith? I am not trying to get too far into a theological discussion, but this is pertinent to what I am working on right now. I found that quote a very interesting rabbit trail I did find this in searching
"In like manner He says to His disciples, “Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the throne of His glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”3 Here we learn that Jesus shall judge with His disciples. And therefore He said elsewhere to the Jews, “If I by Beelzebub cast out devils, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges.”4 Neither ought we to suppose that only twelve men shall judge along with Him, though He says that they shall sit upon twelve thrones; for by the number twelve is signified the completeness of the multitude of those who shall judge. For the two parts of the number seven (which commonly symbolizes totality), that is to say four and three, multiplied into one another, give twelve. For four times three, or three times four, are twelve. There are other meanings, too, in this number twelve. Were not this the right interpretation of the twelve thrones, then since we read that Matthias was ordained an apostle in the room of Judas the traitor, the Apostle Paul, though he labored more than them all,5 should have no throne of judgment; but he unmistakeably considers himself to be included in the number of the judges when he says, “Know ye not that we shall judge angels?”6 The same rule is to be observed in applying the number twelve to those who are to be judged. For though it was said, “judging the twelve tribes of Israel,” the tribe of Levi, which is the thirteenth, shall not on this account be exempt from judgment, neither shall judgment be passed only on Israel and not on the other nations. And by the words “in the regeneration,” He certainly meant the resurrection of the dead to be understood; for our flesh shall be regenerated by incorruption, as our soul is regenerated by faith."
Augustine of Hippo. (1887). The City of God M. Dods, Trans.). In P. Schaff (Ed.), A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, First Series, Volume II: St. Augustin’s City of God and Christian Doctrine (P. Schaff, Ed.) (424). Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company.
I am assuming if regeneration is being referenced it is "believer" baptism, and not infant? Otherwise, I am not too sure how to take that statement. Would you be willing to move this conversation to a different place, it is getting beyond a reference to works? I would like to discuss the topic further for research on Augustines perspective. It would seem that if Pelagius did not hold to infant baptismal regeneration then Augustine would take the contra position.
"This controversy, which lasted from 411 to the end of Augustine’s life, had its roots in the shift in his thinking of the mid-390s. It started when Pelagius and his more vociferous follower, Coelestius, passed through North Africa on their way to Palestine from Rome, and were cited as saying that infant baptism was not necessary to remove the guilt of original sin. Pelagius was not denying the worth of infant baptism, but he was viewing it (in a way many twentieth-century Christians do) as the sacrament of initiation. Infants, in his eyes, do not need the forgiveness of sin because sin requires free will, which they do not have. From here the controversy grew. Augustine distinguished between ‘freedom of choice’ and ‘freedom of will’"
Hart, T. A. (2000). The dictionary of historical theology (44–45). Carlisle, Cumbria, U.K.: Paternoster Press.
At the time of Augustine, Infant Baptism was becoming more and more common. While not all Christians had been baptized as infants, it was a well-known, and non-controversial practice. I am not aware of anyone before the Reformation as having really made a distinction between "Believers Baptism" and Infant Baptism. Baptism, was rather Baptism, no matter who the person is who is Baptized. But that is getting off topic for the discussion.
To the best of my knowledge, the debate started when Pelagius heard Augustine's Confessions, especially Book 10. Pelagius was expecting a dramatic conversion story where the Christian states how all the old way was behind them. Instead Augustine spoke of how it is more complicated than that. Specifically, he prayed "Command what you will: give what you command". To Pelagius this made light of human conversion and discipline. Pelagius emphasized how Catholics insist that this creation is created GOOD.
A key point by Augustine was that Nature, while Good, needed to be completed by Grace, and so Nature by itself needs Grace. Why else to we Baptize people, including Infants? As Tertullian had famously said, Christians are made (in Baptism) and not born. The debate went on from there... But Infant Baptism and the Grace associated with it (which no one denied at the time) was a key part of Augustine's criticism of Pelagius.
Peace to you, Kenneth! Peace to all from Christ our Saviour, the Prince of Peace! *smile* Thanks for the insights!
Indeed, thanks for the help..
I'm blushing. FYI, the best patristic bibliography I have found online is Harmless's at http://moses.creighton.edu/harmless/bibliographies_for_theology/Patristics_0.htm He knows way more than I do...
Available Now
Build your biblical library with a new trusted commentary or resource every month. Yours to keep forever.
