Talk:Pelagianism

message: Last sentence of the first paragraph in the history section:
"Augustine also taught that a person's salvation comes solely through an irresistible free gift, the efficacious grace of God, but that this was a gift that one had a free choice to accept or refuse."
If the grace of God is irresistible, how do we have a free choice to accept or refuse it? 8 May 2013  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.26.208.18 (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Unclear Statement

message: I checked on the date for the Council of Ephesus, and according to Justo Gonzalez's A History of Christian Thought, Vol. I, the council took place in 431, not 432.  I'm going to change it, but please let me know if my source is inaccurate.
Could you kindly make reference to the original works of the early Christian fathers, rather than to the modern compendium Dictionary of Early Christian thought? That would be most helpful.128.143.131.152 (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Mans freewill is only within the boundaries of his soul state.  John 6:44 says"noone can come to me(Jesus)unless the Father who sent me draws him". If we are unredeemed then we can only choose sin, but through salvation we now have a new choice; a choice to live as Jesus has.  Freewill can be a tricky subject based on terminology.  We should be careful of the verbage we use brethren.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.215.11.14 (talk) 04:32, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Augustinian Position Misrepresented 

message: In the article it says;
What purpose does this statement have to the preceding one or the article? I also wonder what the reference is? 
--Wer2chosen 21:12, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the purpose of this statement 

message: I find the wording in the sentence very unobjective: 
"According to Pelagian doctrine, since humanity is no longer in need of any of God's graces beyond the creation of will,[1] Jesus' sacrifice is devoid of its redemptive quality." 
This wording clearly betrays a non-Pelagian bias, which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. A more neutral wording would be: 
"According to Pelagian doctrine, because humanity does not require God's grace for salvation (beyond the creation of will),[1] Jesus' execution is therefore devoid of the redemptive quality ascribed to it by orthodox Catholic theology." 24.116.151.23 16:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unobjective wording in introductory section 

message: I feel that the quotes by early church fathers and by Pelagius need to be formatted so as to be more clear.  It may also be worthwhile to omit those quotes that are deemed less important by theologists, so as not to inundate readers with too many details.  I have not flagged the article for cleanup or length -- Just a suggestion.  Ysageev (talk) 05:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I am trying to clean this up.  What a mess.  Latinist (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Likewise, the paragraph on Pelagius' beliefs begins "In Contrast" but follows a bunch of quotes against original sin.  The impression given is that church fathers generally agreed with Pelagius.--Semiautomata (talk) 16:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting and number of quotes 

message: In the comparison section, only primary sources are cited and a synthesized conclusion is implicit. This is in violation of WP:OR. --Flex (talk/contribs) 13:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is. Someone knowledgeable about the topic has considerable work to do in improving the article. -Phoenixrod (talk) 06:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research

message: In the article, I read
:St. Jerome suggests he was of Scottish descent but in such terms as to leave it uncertain as to whether Pelagius was from Scotland or Ireland.
Now, I can believe that this sentence is perfectly correct, but (given some of what I've found in Wikipedia, and being unfamiliar with the relevant passage in Jerome) I can also believe that Jerome merely suggested that Peligius were Scottish or Irish, with later readers misinterpretting Jerome simply to say that Peligius were Scottish.
Speaking of the relevant passage, it would be good to have it and the rest of Jerome's response cited in the article. —SlamDiego←T 14:25, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Jerome reference is because he stated that Pelagius was "stuffed with Scottish porridge".  While the  most trustworthy witnesses, such as Augustine, Orosius, Prosper, and Marius  Mercator, are quite explicit in assigning Britain as his native country, as is  apparent from his cognomen of Brito or Britannicus, Jerome (Praef. in Jerem.,  lib. I and III) ridicules him as a "Scot" (loc. cit., "habet enim progeniem  Scoticae gentis de Britannorum vicinia"), who being "stuffed with Scottish  porridge" (Scotorum pultibus proegravatus) suffers from a weak memory. Rightly  arguing that the "Scots" of those days were really the Irish, H. Zimmer  ("Pelagius in Ireland", p.20, Berlin, 1901) has advanced weighty reasons for the  hypothesis that the true home of Pelagius must be sought in Ireland, and that he  journeyed through the southwest of Britain to Rome. --Bardcom (talk) 18:58, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless I am misinterpretting things, then, Jerome suggested that Peligius was Irish, using a term whose meaning has since shifted, which shift has caused some later readers to mistakenly infer that Jerome were suggesting that Peligius were a Scot. —SlamDiego←T 03:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a bit more difficult than that because back then, your "tribe" was more important than geographic location of birth.  So he could have been considered "Irish", but born in Scotland, or vice versa....  --HighKing (talk) 15:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  A query 

message: The article should maybe discuss philosophical relations between pelagianism and some rather common manifestations of atheism. The idea that there is no Adam, that man is totally free, that human nature is uncorrupt, that humanity is the sole bearer of its destiny, etc, these are all ideas which are somewhat held by contemporary atheists, at least to a certain point of comparison. ADM (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your points are better suited to the misotheism article as they are points mostly made by Nietzsche. The miso article primarily because Nietzsche was deterministic in his eternal reoccuring rather then Metaphysically libertarian. 
LoveMonkey (talk) 19:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Atheism

message: I don't understand the meaning of the two following sentences. Aren't the contradictionary?
"According to Pelagian doctrine, because men are sinners by choice, they are therefore criminals who need the atonement of Jesus Christ. Sinners are not victims, they are criminals who need pardon."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vigfus46 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Sinners as Criminals

message: The section added which list the views of Church Fathers which are said to attack original sin in most cases do not.  There appears to be a misunderstanding in that section of the word "nature."  Furthermore, no explanation is given for these quotes, nor is it explained how they contradict the doctrine of original sin.  It seems to be better suited for Wikiquote.  Would there a problem deleting it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.209.54.48 (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: which section is this referring to? Retonom (talk) 08:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Church Fathers Against Original Sin

message: This article, especially the introductory paragraph, is deeply anachronistic.  It reads more like a segue in an Arminian/Calvinism debate than like an actual discussion of the Pelagian heresy on its own terms.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.211.131.228 (talk) 20:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  anachronistic 

message: The Dominican priest Matthew Foc was condemned by Otto Ratzinger, now Benedict XVI as a Pelagianist.John D. Croft (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Matthew Foc]]'s condemnation

message: "Augustine ... an irresistible free gift, the efficacious grace of God, but that this was a gift that one had a free choice to accept or refuse."
This sounds like something irresistible can be refused. Am I missing some nuance? If so, could this be rewritten for laymen or another article created to handle it? If there is a (seeming) contradiction in Augustine's writings, could both sides be cited from his writings?
99.91.13.183 (talk) 17:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  irresistible vs free choice? 

message: I for one think that every article needs a "in popular culture" section, and I find that this article is rather lacking of such a section. For starters, there's St. Toirdealbhach in T. H. White's The Once and Future King. If somebody were to make a section detailing some of the more famous adherents, it would be much appreciated. 2602:304:CD9D:9980:6C94:AB43:7B7:23E7 (talk) 19:47, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pelagianism in Popular Culture 

message: Pelagius was identified as an Irishman . . .
Terms indicating 'nationality' are misleading and unhelpful and suggest that it is known which part of Britain he came from, but this is not known(Pamour (talk) 09:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  'nationality' 

message: These sentences: "Jerome was also an ascetic and critical of earthly wealth, so it is not entirely clear why he opposed Pelagianism. Historian Wolf Liebeschuetz suggested that his motive was envy of Pelagius' success.[22]" seems quite out of place. Maybe he just opposed Pelagianism because he thought Pelagius was wrong...? There are plenty of reasons to be ascetic; one doesn't have to be a Pelagian to be ascetic. I recommend deletion of these two sentences. Catholic things (talk) 18:05, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out-of-place anti-Jerome bias, unsourced 

message: Article refers to both Gerald Bonner and Ali Bonner as Bonner.  Needs tidying, preferably by someone who knows which is which.  If still an issue at my next visit, I will do this myself, guided by the male and female pronouns in the article. Geofpick (talk) 12:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bonner 

message: All the bits about supposed political influence and relevance of Pelagianism vs Augustinianism - quite substantial chunks of text - are from one source, Nelson 2019, which seems to be engaged in some tortured intellectual construct to the effect of 'if you don't believe in original sin and believe in free will, you should believe that Jeff Bezos deserves his billions and poor people deserve to starve' - a weird exploitation of theology to produce a sophisticated form of classical liberal / right-libertarian propaganda. I don't even see any confirmation in the article that the Pelagians themselves claimed that suffering in the world is generally the result of sin, not to mention that self-identified orthodox Christians have long been perfectly happy to make such claims. At least reviews of / responses to Nelson should be included. 62.73.69.121 (talk) 12:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much weight given to Nelson 

message: I'm referring to this text:
 Early Christianity was theologically diverse. While Western Christianity taught that death was the result of the fall of man, a Syrian tradition, including the second-century figures Theophilus and Irenaeus, asserted that mortality preceded the fall. Around 400, the doctrine of original sin was just emerging in Western Christianity, deriving from the teaching of Cyprian that infants should be baptized for the sin of Adam. Other Christians followed Origen in the belief that infants are born in sin due to their failings in a previous life. Rufinus the Syrian, who came to Rome in 399 as a delegate for Jerome, followed the Syrian tradition, declaring that man had been created mortal and that each human is only punished for his own sin.[3]
Show me where Irenaeus asserted, that mortality preceded the fall. I can't find anything about it. Then it goes on to say that Origen believed in a previous life, but on Wikipedia it says this:
 
 Origen may or may not have believed in the Platonic teaching of metempsychosis ("the transmigration of souls"; i.e. reincarnation).[160] He explicitly rejects "the false doctrine of the transmigration of souls into bodies",
I doubt that anything in this passage is accurate. Rufinus the Syrian may not even have existed. And the book ascribed to him survives in ONE manuscript altogether. There is more confusion about Rufinus than anything else:
 There are a total of seven references to persons named Rufinus from around 400 and scholars are unsure how many individuals lie behind them. There are three other Rufinuses who are often identified with the Mercator's Syrian Rufinus. If "Syrian" was being used in its broad sense (i.e., of Syria Palaestina), then Mercator's Rufinus may be identical to the Rufinus who was a monk in Bethlehem and went on a mission to the West for Jerome in early 399.
To me the whole paragraph should either be deleted or it should backup its claims with credible sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Retonom (talk • contribs) 08:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph is sourced to Eugene TeSelle's book chapter. It's always possible that he's wrong or that I misinterpreted what he wrote, but we're going to need a better source than Wikipedia to change the article. (t · c) buidhe 16:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questionable statements about original sin