Original Sin
Part 5
Is What Augustine Did To Pelagius Just?
From what I have read, Augustine lost a couple of cases before Pelagius was condemned. It is also claimed that Augustine created a straw man of our Pelagius beliefs so that he could overturn Christian Orthodoxy. What follows is ChatGPT’s response to my statements.
🧭 1. The two earlier “acquittals” of Pelagius — what really happened
📍 A. Synod of Diospolis (Lydda), 415
(Also called the Council/Synod of Diospolis)
This is the key event where Pelagius personally appeared.
What happened:
- Pelagius was accused by two Western bishops (notably Orosius, acting on behalf of others).
- The synod was made up of Eastern (Greek-speaking) bishops.
- Pelagius defended himself in person.
Why was he acquitted? Pelagius made a series of clarifications, like: “I anathematize those who say that man can be without the grace of God.” That sounded orthodox to the bishops.
The key issue:
- Pelagius used language acceptable to the East
- But did not affirm Augustine’s stronger doctrine of inner, transforming grace
Augustine’s later reaction. From On the Proceedings of Pelagius: “He was acquitted because he condemned those doctrines—whether sincerely or not is another matter.”
(Notice, in Augustine’s own words, how he calls into question the integrity of Pelagius? Is that the conduct of a man of God?)
In short, Pelagius was acquitted because his statements could be interpreted as orthodox.
(Chat says Pelagius’s statement could be, not that it should have been, interpreted as orthodox. Does that not reveal a bias against Pelagius? And what was orthodox back then? The early church almost universally affirmed that we can obey God and that we all have free will. That is not what Augustine affirmed, even if he used the same words. He changed the definition of the same words.)
📍 B. Earlier local investigations (Jerusalem, 415)
There was also a hearing in Jerusalem presided over by Bishop John of Jerusalem.
Outcome:
- No formal condemnation
- The matter was essentially deferred
Why:
- Language differences (Latin vs Greek theology)
- Uncertainty about what Pelagius actually meant
⚖️ 2. Important clarification
You’re partly right—but with a key correction:
- ✔️ Pelagius was not condemned at these Eastern synods
- ✔️ He was effectively cleared (or at least not convicted)
- ❗ But this was not a full doctrinal endorsement of Pelagianism as later defined
(And as we have seen the 14 points of heresy that Pelagius supposedly affirmed, according to Dr. Ali Bonner, Pelagius actually only agreed to a part of only one of the 14. Is this not another example of creating a straw man out of Pelagius? Do children of God act like this? They may, but they most assuredly should not behave in this manner. Do you agree?)
The Eastern bishops:
- did not share Augustine’s framework of original guilt
- and were satisfied with Pelagius’s wording
🏛️ 3. The African response (Augustine’s sphere of great influence)
Back in North Africa, things unfolded very differently.
📍 Councils of Carthage and Milevis (416)
African bishops—strongly influenced by Augustine—held councils that:
- condemned Pelagian teachings
(Even if Pelagius denied that he believed what they were accusing him of. Such charity on their part.)
- sent decisions to Rome for confirmation
- Pelagius was not in attendance
(Why were they in such a hurry to condemn him, even when he was not able to defend himself? Is that Christ-like? Or was there an agenda on Augustine’s part?)
👑 4. The role of the Popes (this is where your question is crucial)
📍 Pope Innocent I (d. 417)
Pope Innocent I
- Received the African councils’ decisions
- Agreed with Augustine
- Condemned Pelagianism
📍 Pope Zosimus (r. 417–418)
Pope Zosimus
This is the controversial moment you’re thinking of.
Initially:
- Zosimus received a confession of faith from Pelagius and Caelestius
- He was inclined to view them as orthodox
- He criticized the African bishops for acting too quickly
This looks like a temporary rehabilitation of Pelagius.
Then everything changed
Under pressure from:
- African bishops (again led intellectually by Augustine)
- AND the Western Emperor Honorius
Zosimus reversed course.
(It is much later that the Infallibility of the Pope was affirmed by the Roman Catholic Church. But why did he change course? Did Augustine have that much influence on the Emperor? What would motivate the Pope to change his mind?
See the appendix – Why Did the Pope Change His Mind About Pelagius – at the end of this article for more details.
After carefully reading ChatGPT’s response to my question, I have this comment. This sounds like Augustine used the power of the state/empire to enact his theological novelties. That makes sense, but it also speaks to the godless carnality of it all. It makes me sympathetic to Pelagius and disgusted with Augustine. This is how the world acts, not how saints of God act.)
📍 Final decision (418)
Zosimus issued the Epistola Tractoria, which:
- condemned Pelagian teachings (even though initially he thought Pelagius was Orthodox?)
- required bishops to subscribe to the condemnation
At the same time:
- The Council of Carthage (418) issued its canons
⚖️ 5. So, was this political?
Short answer: partly—but not purely, per ChatGPT.
(But why would ChatGPT conclude that it was partly but not purely political? It seems to me to be almost entirely politically driven, primarily and only secondarily a theological divide. And when we consider Augustine’s novel (not a compliment) reinterpretations of grace, truth, anthropology, and salvation, it seems that his influence led the church leaders to set aside the earlier teaching of the entire Christian Church up to these later-in-life moves by Augustine.)
✔️ Political elements were real:
- Emperor Honorius issued laws against the Pelagians
- Unity in the Western Church mattered politically
- Zosimus did reverse himself under pressure
❗ But it wasn’t just politics claims ChatGPT.
(I disagree with that statement by ChatGPT. It was primarily politics, and secondarily, it was a made-up theological division proposed by Augustine. That is my assessment.)
There was also a real theological divide:
- Augustine and the African bishops saw Pelagian teaching as:
- undermining grace (Augustine’s new definition of grace, which is justice and not grace.)
- contradicting Paul (especially Romans 5)
(Their new interpretation of Romans 5 was wrong, but fit well with what they had already predetermined regarding Original Sin. The early church fathers, before Augustine, did not interpret Romans 5 as did Augustine.)
- Eastern bishops:
- didn’t frame things in terms of inherited guilt
- were less alarmed at Pelagius’s errors
🔍 6. Was Pelagius “found orthodox”?
The most accurate answer:
- At Diospolis (415):
✔️ Yes, conditionally and based on his own explanations - In the West (Africa & Rome, 418):
❌ No—his teaching was condemned
(What were those teachings, and did Pelagius actually hold to them, or did Augustine make this stuff up? We have already reviewed all this material in the early segments of this study. Refer back to the supposed 14 heresies of Pelagius.)
🧠 7. What’s really going on underneath
This wasn’t just a dispute about one man—it exposed a deeper divide:
East (Greek tradition)
- Emphasizes free will + cooperation between God and us
- Less emphasis on inherited guilt
West (Augustine)
- Emphasizes original sin + necessity of grace (Which is not grace but is basic justice)
- Stronger doctrine of human inability
🧭 Final takeaway
Your instinct is pointing to something real:
- Pelagius was not immediately condemned everywhere
- He did successfully defend himself in the East
- Rome initially hesitated to condemn him
- And yes—pressure (including political pressure) played a role
But:
The final condemnation came from a combination of theological conviction and ecclesiastical consolidation, not politics alone.
(Combined political and theological pressure polluted Christian orthodoxy just as Augustine planned. See Dr. Ali Bonner’s work. Is this really how men of God determine the will of God?)
What did Pelagius actually submit to Rome? And how Eastern Orthodox theology (both ancient and modern) evaluates the whole dispute.
📜 1. Pelagius’s Confession of Faith to Rome (under Pope Zosimus)
After the events at Diospolis (415), Pelagius sent a written confession (often called a libellus fidei) to Rome. This is one of the key reasons Zosimus initially leaned toward him.
Here are representative excerpts (condensed but faithful to the original content):
🔹 On grace
“We confess that the grace of God is necessary for every moment and for every act.”
✔️ This sounds fully orthodox—even Augustinian at first glance.
🔹 On free will and dependence on God
“We do nothing good without God.”
Again, this aligns with what Augustine would say—in wording.
🔹 On infant baptism
“We hold that infants ought to be baptized for the remission of sins.”
This was crucial because denying infant baptism would have been an immediate red flag.
🔹 On sin
“We have always said that men need God’s help, and that no one can be without sin unless God grants it.”
Notice the careful phrasing:
- He does not clearly affirm inherited guilt
(Praise God for that. He had enough courage to speak the truth to power. Most church fathers rejected this false idea, and so did Pelagius.)
- He keeps the focus on help, not the transformation of nature
(I do not see it or believe it. It keeps the focus on inner transformation, contrary to ChatGPT’s comment. What help can it be if it is not transformative help? We do not need help to accumulate more facts. We need help to transform our selfishness into love.)
⚠️ Why this caused controversy
To the Roman bishop, initially, this looked acceptable.
But to Augustine of Hippo and the African bishops, it was strategically ambiguous.
They argued Pelagius was:
- using orthodox language
- but redefining key terms
(These are the very tactics used by Augustine and his theological children today, who were probably the greatest offenders when it came to using supposed orthodox language but redefining key terms. The impudence and gall of Augustine and all his children are impressive and disappointing.)
🧠 Augustine’s complaint
From On the Proceedings of Pelagius:
“He was acquitted because he condemned the statements… but it was not examined how he understood them.”
In other words: The issue wasn’t just what Pelagius said—but what he meant.
(So, the man of God, Augustine, assumed the worst of Pelagius, even if he disputed them. What do you think of that? Is this something a godly person would do?)
🧭 2. How Eastern Orthodox theology evaluates this
The Eastern tradition never fully adopted Augustine’s framework of original guilt or total inability.
So their evaluation is more nuanced.
🏛️ A. On Pelagius
Eastern theologians generally say:
✔️ They reject Pelagianism
Because:
- It downplays grace
(But Augustine’s view of grace is but justice and not grace at all.)
- risks making salvation a human achievement
(The same is said of Eastern Orthodoxy. In addition, this is a bogus claim. No repentant sinner would ever claim that they alone saved themselves. They might claim that there are conditions to salvation, but that is not to suggest that salvation is only and strictly a human achievement. But without meeting the conditions of salvation, we can’t be saved. Human effort in the right direction is necessary for salvation. See my articles on the conditions of salvation.)
❗ But they often say Augustine went too far
They tend to see Pelagius as wrong, but not as radically dangerous as Augustine thought.
Some modern Orthodox theologians even argue:
- Pelagius was misunderstood or overstated
- his emphasis on responsibility reflects earlier Christian tradition
(And based on my research, both are true and accurate.)
🏛️ B. On Augustine
Eastern Orthodoxy respects Augustine as a Father—but does not treat him as definitive on this issue.
Common critiques:
1. On original sin
- Reject inherited guilt
- Affirm instead ancestral sin (mortality and corruption, not legal guilt)
2. On the will
- Reject the idea that the will is “bound” in the strong Augustinian sense
- Maintain that humans can still respond to God
3. On grace
- Strongly affirm grace
- But always in terms of synergy (cooperation)
🔹 Example (modern Orthodox perspective)
A common summary in Orthodox theology:
“We are not born guilty, but we are born mortal and inclined to sin.”
(But was Jesus inclined to sin? If not, then He does not know what it is like to be tempted as we are. See my other articles on this subject. At this point, I do not find the Eastern Orthodox position to be accurate and biblical. God will show me if I am missing something.)
⚖️ Side-by-side: how Orthodoxy reads the controversy
| Issue | Pelagius | Augustine | Eastern Orthodox view |
| Human birth | Neutral | Guilty in Adam | Fallen, but not guilty |
| Grace | Helpful | Absolutely necessary | Absolutely necessary |
| Free will | Fully capable | Bound without grace | Weakened but real |
| Salvation | Largely human effort | Entirely grace-driven | Cooperation (synergy) |
🔍 3. Key insight (this explains everything)
From an Eastern perspective, the Western controversy may look like:
Two extremes arguing past each other
- Pelagius → protects human responsibility
- Augustine → protects divine grace
(But I must reaffirm that Augustine’s position doesn’t protect divine grace at all, for it confuses grace with justice. Moreover, Augustine’s position makes Christ a minister of sin.)
Orthodoxy tries to hold both:
“God acts first—but man must truly respond.”
🧭 Final takeaway
You were right to notice the tension:
- Pelagius could sound orthodox (and sometimes was in wording)
(But why does ChatGPT say Pelagius could sound orthodox and sometimes was in wording? Could it be that Chat wants us to believe that Augustine was right to condemn Pelagius? Chat wants us to believe that even though Pelagius sounds orthodox, don’t trust him, trust Augustine. Let us remember that Augustine was not orthodox and sought to replace early Christian Orthodoxy with his own updated version, which contradicted much of what the early church fathers believed.
I would say that Augustine, more than Pelagius, sounded orthodox and sometimes was in wording, but in truth, Augustine was most definitely not orthodox in theology and practice.
- Augustine pressed the implications further than many in the East were comfortable with
- The final Western decision (418) reflects Augustine’s theological framework winning out
Augustine’s invented theology won out by replacing early Church orthodoxy. Imagine that. A good case might be made that Pelagius was more orthodox than Augustine. I definitely lean in that direction.)
We will now examine how later traditions (Catholic, Protestant, and Orthodox) interpret Augustine differently. Provided by ChatGPT.
This is one of the clearest ways to see Augustine’s long-term impact. All three traditions revere Augustine of Hippo, but they receive him differently, especially on sin, grace, and free will.
🏛️ 1. Roman Catholic interpretation of Augustine
The Catholic Church affirms Augustine strongly, but does not follow him in every detail—especially where he sounds most extreme.
🔹 What Catholics keep from Augustine
1. Original sin is real and inherited
- Humanity is truly affected by Adam’s fall
- Baptism removes original sin and regenerates
2. Grace is absolutely necessary
- No one can be saved or do good without grace
🔹 Where Catholic theology modifies Augustine
This happens especially through Thomas Aquinas.
1. Nature is wounded, not destroyed
Augustine (at times): Sounds like human ability is nearly gone (it is gone)
Catholic development: Human nature is damaged but still functional
2. Free will truly cooperates
- Grace to be able comes first (this is Augustinian)
- But humans really cooperate with it
This is called: Synergistic cooperation after prevenient grace (that is not grace it is justice.)
3. Predestination is softened
- Augustine sometimes sounds very close to double predestination
- Catholic teaching avoids that
🔹 Bottom line (Catholic view)
Augustine is a major authority, but interpreted through a broader tradition that preserves both:
- Grace (Not it doesn’t)
- and meaningful human cooperation
✝️ 2. Protestant (especially Reformed) interpretation
This is where Augustine’s influence is strongest and most direct.
Key figures:
- Martin Luther
- John Calvin
🔹 What Protestants take from Augustine
1. Total dependence on grace
- Humans cannot even begin to turn to God on their own
2. The will is bound by sin
Luther (echoing Augustine):
The will cannot choose God apart from grace
3. Predestination emphasized
Especially in Calvin:
- God decisively determines salvation
🔹 Where Protestants go beyond Augustine
1. Stronger “total depravity.”
- Not just wounded—radically corrupted
(I am not sure that is really accurate, for Augustine believed even Christians sin daily. How is that not total depravity?)
2. Justification by faith alone
- Developed more explicitly than in Augustine
3. Irresistible grace (in Reformed theology)
- When God gives saving grace, it effectively produces faith
(Is this really materially different than what Augustine taught? I do not think so.)
🔹 Important nuance
Not all Protestants follow Augustine the same way:
- Reformed (Calvinist) → very Augustinian
- Lutheran → also strongly Augustinian
- Arminian/Wesleyan → modify Augustine with more emphasis on free will.
- (I add that the Eastern Orthodox also seems very close to an Arminian understanding of a bent or inclination to sin.)
Example:
- Jacobus Arminius reintroduces a stronger human response
- John Wesley emphasizes prevenient grace for all
(And I must also say that Wesley believed in Original Sin and guilt like Augustine. But recognizing the injustice in this, Wesley advanced the idea of prevenient grace, which is not grace at all. It is justice.)
🔹 Bottom line (Protestant view)
Augustine is often treated as a forerunner of the Reformation, especially on grace and human inability.
🏛️ 3. Eastern Orthodox interpretation
This is the most different.
The Eastern Church:
- Respects Augustine
- But does not treat him as decisive on this issue
🔹 What Orthodoxy accepts
1. Grace is necessary
- No disagreement here
2. Humanity has fallen
- Humans are corrupted, mortal, and inclined to sin
🔹 Where Orthodoxy rejects Augustine’s framework
1. No inherited guilt
- Rejects Augustine’s interpretation of original sin as legal guilt
Instead:
“Ancestral sin” = corruption and death, not guilt
2. The will is not bound in Augustine’s sense
- Humans retain the real ability to respond to God
(But what is a real ability when we are born inclined or bent toward sin? Did Jesus have this bent toward sin? I have discussed this in more detail in other articles. I do not agree with a bent and inclination toward sin as they and others describe it, because it conveys the message that sinning is nearly inevitable. And every theological explanation that conveys the idea that we are fully or partially unable to obey God is an outright encouragement to sin, whether intentional or not.
I think the Jewish idea of Yetzer Ha Ra and Yetzer Ha Tov is a much more biblical way to describe human nature. We have both an inclination toward good and evil. See my article titled, Yetzer Ha-Ra and Yetzer Ha-Tov.)
3. Strong emphasis on synergy
- Salvation is always:
God’s grace + human cooperation/effort
4. Suspicion of predestination language
- Especially anything resembling double predestination
🔹 How Orthodoxy sees Augustine
Common view:
A great Father—but not always followed, especially where he departs from earlier Greek tradition.
⚖️ Direct comparison
| Issue | Catholic | Protestant (Reformed) | Eastern Orthodox |
| Authority of Augustine | High, but not final | Very high | Respected, not decisive |
| Original sin | Yes (guilt + corruption) | Strong yes | Corruption, not guilt |
| Human ability | Wounded | Totally unable | Weakened but real |
| Grace | Necessary, initiates | Absolutely decisive | Necessary, cooperative |
| Free will | Real cooperation | Bound without grace | Real synergy |
| Predestination | Affirmed, moderated | Strong emphasis | Largely avoided |
🧠 Big-picture insight
You can think of it like this:
- Augustine set the agenda
- Catholicism balanced him
- Protestantism intensified him
- Orthodoxy partially resisted and reinterpreted him
🧭 Final takeaway
All three traditions agree on something crucial:
Salvation requires God’s grace. (But does that actually mean grace or justice?)
But they disagree on:
How much of the process depends solely on God vs. human cooperation?
Closing Comments
You tell me, was Pelagius treated justly and fairly by Augustine and the Church leadership? With friends like that, who needs enemies?
Appendix
Why did the Pope change his mind about Pelagius?
That is the key historical question, because the shift was not merely theological. It was also ecclesiastical and political. Here is the sequence in clearer historical terms.
When Pelagius and Caelestius were condemned by the North African bishops, they appealed to Pope Zosimus in Rome after the death of Pope Innocent I. Zosimus initially reacted very favorably toward them, especially toward Pelagius himself. Why? Because at first glance, Pelagius sounded orthodox.
Pelagius was careful in wording. He affirmed:
- grace,
- baptism,
- free will,
- the need for Christ,
- and moral transformation.
Pelagius denied being a heretic and argued that his enemies were misrepresenting him. Zosimus read Pelagius’s confession of faith and reportedly considered it substantially orthodox. He especially thought the African bishops had acted too hastily against Caelestius.
But then several pressures converged.
First: the African bishops did not back down.
The North African church — especially the circles influenced by Augustine of Hippo — responded aggressively and persistently. Councils at Carthage and Milevis had already condemned Pelagian teaching. Augustine himself was enormously respected intellectually, even beyond Africa, and his allies flooded Rome with documentation showing statements from Pelagius and Caelestius that appeared to deny:
- inherited corruption,
- the necessity of interior grace,
- and the helplessness of fallen man apart from divine aid.
The Africans argued that Pelagius used orthodox language while secretly redefining terms.
(What irony, because this is exactly what they did to Christian orthodoxy. Today, we see the very same thing in politics. One party accuses the other of doing something wicked while they do exactly the same thing. A growing number seem to understand, but that takes time.)
For example, Pelagius could say “grace” but mean:
- free will itself,
- the law,
- the teaching of Christ,
- forgiveness,
- or external assistance —
rather than the kind of inward transforming grace Augustine insisted was necessary for every good act.
That made many bishops suspicious that Pelagius was verbally orthodox but materially heterodox.
(That is precisely what Augustine was doing. He redefined almost all Christian words and doctrines.)
Second: the issue became politically explosive.
The western empire under Honorius was already unstable:
- barbarian invasions,
- internal fragmentation,
- and doctrinal disputes threatening unity.
In the late Roman world, theological conflict was never “just theology.” Religious unity was considered essential to civil order.
The African bishops had major influence because North Africa was one of the intellectual power centers of Latin Christianity and also economically vital to the empire. Augustine himself was probably the most formidable theological mind in the Latin West at the time. His writings circulated rapidly, and he had networks of bishops supporting him.
In addition, Augustine’s doctrine appealed to many clergy because it:
- magnified dependence on God,
- reinforced infant baptism,
- strengthened ecclesiastical sacramental theology,
- and combated what they perceived as moral self-sufficiency.
(And all that sounded good to the religious establishment. They thought that magnifying dependence on God and combating moral self-sufficiency justified it, regardless of the adverse consequences for the truth, the gospel, and morality in general. At its foundation, it was antinominianism. What they did was to cast God as the consummate evil in the universe and to cast us as the victims.)
Third: imperial pressure entered directly.
In 418, Emperor Honorius issued an imperial rescript condemning the Pelagians and ordering compliance with the anti-Pelagian decisions. Once the emperor became involved, the stakes changed dramatically.
At that point, Zosimus was in a difficult position.
If he continued defending Pelagius:
- he would oppose the African episcopate,
- risk conflict with the emperor,
- and appear soft on a doctrine increasingly viewed as dangerous.
So Zosimus reversed course and issued the famous Epistola Tractoria in 418, condemning Pelagian teachings and requiring western bishops to subscribe to the condemnation.
In other words, the reversal was not simply: “Zosimus carefully reconsidered the theology and changed his mind.”
It was a combination of:
- continued theological argument from Augustine’s side,
- exposure of more explicit Pelagian statements,
- ecclesiastical pressure from African councils,
- and imperial-political pressure from Honorius.
The political dimension is very important. In the late empire, emperors regularly intervened in doctrinal controversies:
- Arianism,
- Donatism,
- Nestorianism,
- Monophysitism,
- and Pelagianism alike.
The church and empire were deeply intertwined.
One final important point:
Augustine did not yet possess the later medieval concept of papal supremacy over all doctrinal matters. Ironically, this episode actually shows the bishop of Rome being pressured and corrected by regional councils and imperial authority. Zosimus initially leaned toward Pelagius, but the broader western episcopate — especially Africa — effectively forced a reversal.
That is one reason historians often say the Pelagian controversy was won not only by Augustine’s theology, but by Augustine’s alliance of:
- intellectual influence,
- episcopal networks,
- conciliar pressure,
- and imperial enforcement.
(This sounds like Augustine used the force of the state/empire to get his theological novelties enacted. That makes sense, but it also speaks to the godless carnality of it all. It makes me sympathetic to Pelagius and disgusted with Augustine.
What do you think? Did Augustine and church leadership treat Pelagius fairly and justly? I have grave doubts about it.)
