Michael M.

Christensen
MA Philosophy of Religion, Theology
(For a much fuller treatment see God, Adam, and You:
How Original Sin, the Flesh and Holiness Integrate in the Christian Life
by Michael M. Christensen)

A Description and Analysis of Pelagius’ Views on Original Sin

Few accusations in theological circles are meant to sting more than the charge of being a

“Pelagian.” Pelagius is well-known for his controversies with Augustine in the early sixth

century on the issues of original sin, the freedom of the will, and the grace of God.1 Pelagius

was thought by some to be a British monk, but evidence suggests he was not ordained. He was,

however, a moderate ascetic and a theologically literate layman.2 He came to Rome in the early

500’s AD and found parishioners and clergy to be very corrupt. He sought to quicken their

consciences by reinforcing the notion of human freedom and its relation to virtue. Later in his

Roman stay, a bishop quoted a prayer of Augustine that seemed to Pelagius to turn humans into

puppets and to destroy the freedom needed for moral effort.3 This was one influence that spurred

him to develop his controversial views on original sin and human freedom. This paper centers

on these two views and will describe and analyze them, evaluate them theologically and

biblically, and offer suggestions on how his perspective may be useful in today’s Christian

world.

1
Extant works of Pelagius are his commentaries on the Epistles, his letter to Demetrias and five others with less
relevance to the present study. Some fragments have been published. Some lost works are known through
Augustine’s references and quotes in his dispute with Pelagius and other Pelagians. See B. R. Rees, Pelagius: A
Reluctant Heretic (Wolfeboro, NH: The Boydell Press, 1988), 133-34.
2
Pelagius. Pelagius’s Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, trans. Theodore DeBruyn (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1993), 10.
3
G. F. Wiggers, An Historical Presentation of Augustinism and Pelagianism from the Original Sources, trans.
Ralph Emerson (New York: Gould, Newman & Saxton, 1840), 42-44.
 1

Pelagius’ Views on Original Sin and Human Freedom

One source that concentrates Pelagius’ comments on original sin and freedom is his

commentary on Romans. Commenting on Romans 5:12, Pelagius remarks that sin entered the

world through Adam and sin came to the rest of the world by his example or pattern. The death

that came from Adam’s sin was spiritual death. He insinuates that it is unjust for those born

today to have an ancient sin (Adam’s) imputed to them; rather God seeks to forgive persons their

sins through Christ (v. 15). In fact, Christ’s forgiveness is a greater model of righteousness than

Adam’s was of transgression (v. 16). Many followed Christ, but, criminally, many followed

Adam’s example (v. 19).4 Therefore, Adam’s original sin was harmful to the whole race, not by

some sort of transmission, but by the imitation of his example. Consequently infants are born

without any evil or fault and there is nothing in them but what God has formed.5 Stated similarly

in another citation, good or evil is not born with us, but done by us. We are procreated without

virtue or vice, and previous to our will’s own action we are as God formed us.6 As a result an

infant that dies unbaptized is not condemned.7 This is because sin is not a substance, but the

doing of a wrongful deed. Frequently, behind wrongful deeds are the sins of pride and contempt

toward God.8 As such, sin cannot be something transmitted. Pelagius believed each soul was

created by God (contra Augustine’s traducianism) and it is nonsense to think that God would

directly create a sinful nature in the human body or soul.9

4
Pelagius, Pelagius’s, 92-95.
5
Aurelius Augustin, “On Original Sin,” vol. 5 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmanns, 1971), XV, 242.
6
Ibid., ch. XIII, 241.
7
Aurelius Augustin, “On Nature and Grace,” vol. 5 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Wm. B.
Eerdmanns, 1971), IX, 124.
8
Ibid., XXIX, 127.
9
Robert F. Evans, Pelagius: Inquiries and Reappraisals (New York: The Seabury Press, 1968), 98. Here and later,
secondary sources are used when primary ones were not available.
 2

Because original sin has not directly tainted humanity, humans retain three elements that

come into play when any action is proposed: (1) ability, (2) volition, and (3) actuality. Ability

to do good is in our nature and is bestowed by God; it is inherent. Volition is our will. Actuality

is the effect of our willful act. When doing a good work praise belongs to humans and God, who

has given us the capacity for doing his will and work, and his grace ever assists our capacity.10

Our natural ability and the lack of negative effects from Adam’s sin results in an ability

not to sin. When questioned by the Synod of Diospolis about his views, Pelagius vowed that

humans can be without sin and can keep the commandments of God. This does not mean that

there has been anyone who has never sinned from infancy to old age. However, if one is

converted he can be without sin by his own efforts and God’s grace—sin is not inevitable.11

Even those who are separate from God display chastity, temperance, generosity, and kindness.

These good qualities are part of their nature; they display how God made them. How much

more, then, can Christians do, whose natures have been restored to a better condition by Christ

and assisted by divine grace?12 Paul also mentions those who lived before Moses who followed

their interior law. They were a law unto themselves, showing that God’s law was written on

their hearts, with their consciences either accusing or defending them (Rm 2:14). Abel, Enoch,

Noah, Melchizedek, Abraham, Joseph, and Job are examples of those who were upright, godly,

and blameless.13

Implied in this ability not to sin is human freedom. We, as rational creatures, have God’s

gift of a good will and the power of free choice. We are naturally capable of good and evil. In

fact the capacity for evil is necessary for there to be a voluntary choice for good, therefore the
10
Aurelius Augustin, “On the Grace of Christ,” vol. 5 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Wm.
B. Eerdmanns, 1971), IV, 219.
11
B. R. Rees, Pelagius: A Reluctant Heretic (New York: The Boydell Press, 1988), 136.
12
Pelagius, “Letter to Demetrias,” Theological Anthropology, ed. J. Patout Burns (Philadelphia: Fortress Press,
1981), 4, 43.
13
Ibid. 4-6, 44-47.
 3

ability to do evil is itself a “good.”14 Examples of freely chosen evil abound in Scripture:

Simeon and Levi did evil (Gn 49:5-6), Jerusalem’s inhabitants abandoned God’s way (Jer 9:3-

14, Mt 23:37), and Isaiah prophesied to a sinful Israel (Is 65:12). These describe the acts of

refusing and choosing and not an inherently sinful nature that determines moral conduct.15

The above examples show that a free and good nature can do both good and evil. Adam

and Eve sinned and were driven from Paradise, Enoch pleased God and was taken up, Cain and

Abel received bad and good rewards for their actions. Their natures were adequate to do all that

was just. This was the case as long as habitual sinning did not obscure their reason. Because

people became corroded by vice and the rust of ignorance, God later provided the Law, which

acted like a file to polish their natures by repeated correction, to restore it to its original sheen.

This illustrates that doing good can be difficult due to a long custom of sinning, which begins in

childhood.16 Referring to the sinning habit, Pelagius declares:

Over the years it gradually corrupts us, building an addiction and then holding us bound
with what seems like the force of nature itself. All the years during which we were
negligently reared and were trained in the vices, during which we even labored at evil,
during which the attractions of wickedness made innocence seem foolish, all these years
now rise up against us. They come out against us, and the old practice battles the new
decision. After we have labored so long to learn wickedness, are we then surprised that
sanctity is not mysteriously bestowed upon us while we remain idle and at ease without
working to build good customs?17

The state of someone in this condition is described further by Pelagius in his commentary

on Romans 7. Under the Old Covenant, God brought forth the Law because people became

oblivious to their natural conscience through repeated sinning (vv. 11-13). The carnality Paul

talks about is thus due to the habit of living carnally (v. 14). Paul makes himself a slave of sin,

as if drunk, therefore he does not understand what he does (v. 15). Sin lives in him as a guest, as

14
Ibid., 3, 42.
15
Ibid., 7, 49.
16
Ibid., 8, 49-50.
17
Ibid., 8, 50.
 4

an accidental quality (v. 17). Nothing good lives in his flesh, which is different from saying,

“My flesh is not good.” (v. 18). Paul says I do not do what I want because habit has overtaken

me (v. 19). My inner self (my rational soul) is in harmony with God’s law and the law of the

soul is not to be led by irrational passions. However, my outer self is the body and its law is to

gratify the sensual pleasures and it fights against reason (v. 22). The “other law” at work is evil

habit and the persuading of Satan (v. 23). Because the grace of God through Christ has already

set Paul free, Pelagius believes Paul was speaking in the person of someone else. This carnal

person is in a sense made up of two persons, divided against each other (v. 25).18 In these

descriptions Pelagius does not use a soul-body or soul-flesh contrast. The physical body as a

contrary substance is a Manichean doctrine, and that is what Pelagius is against. However, in

this time of grace in which we live it is still the case that the majority of persons lack the power

to overcome the effects of their sinful habits.19

Eventually, however, even the Law proved insufficient. Christ is the only one who can

redeem us from the habit of sin. Christ assumed our nature and endured the condemnation of

death because of our sin. He submitted to our curse, having become a curse for us because of

our disobedience. God’s forgiveness has been given and his love has been shown. Christ is also

a revealer. He teaches, gives commandments, and shows us a good example.20 This is his

“help”—he opens the eyes of our hearts, points us to the future, shows us the snares of the devil,

and enlightens us with heaven’s grace. These are the works of the Holy Spirit.21 There is no

antithesis between law and gospel; the law is now written on our hearts. Furthermore, Christ is

an example. By his love, humility, simple life, and sacrificial servanthood he shows us how to

live a godly life. The effects of Christ’s revealing and example allow us to overcome habitual
18
Pelagius, Pelagius’s, 103-05.
19
Evans, Pelagius, 102.
20
Ibid. 106.
21
Saint Augustin, On, VIII, 220.
 5

sin and open up the possibilities of a life without sin. One can summarize Pelagius’ doctrine of

grace to include: (1) an endowment of a rational will by which we can obey (not sin), (2) the law

of Moses, (3) the forgiveness of sins due to Christ’s atonement, (4) the example of Christ, (5) the

teaching of Christ, to include both “law” and what pertains to our nature and salvation.22

Comparison to Other Christian Views

Pelagius’ views are the polar opposite of the Reformed/Arminian view. The Reformed

view is usually federalist in nature, seeing Adam as our representative. What he did we did and

the consequences he incurred by choice we incur by inheritance. Therefore we are dead

(spiritually and physically) because of Adam’s sin and our own sin, and are guilty for both

(Arminianism differs here, not attributing the guilt of Adam’s sin to us). The result is that every

part of our nature is harmed (total depravity) to such an extent that our will is bound to sin, not

by habit, but by inherited nature. Freedom to do good is nonexistent until after regeneration.

For the Arminian, prevenient grace enables the unbeliever’s enfeebled will to respond positively

to the gospel. Semi-Pelagianism takes a middle ground. There is no federalism. Though our

wills are weakened and our other faculties are dimmed, we can still respond positively to God.

We are physically depraved at birth, but not morally so. We have a bent toward sin, but it is not

a necessity; it is likely. God’s actions toward us and our actions toward him are synergistic. Of

all the views just discussed, Pelagius’ describes the least negative effect of Adam’s sin and give

humans the greatest amount of freedom to respond to the gospel and live a holy life.

Evaluation of Perspectives

22
Evans, Pelagius, 107-08, 111.
 6

The Reformed/Arminian perspective has more weaknesses than strengths in the opinion

of this author. A common doctrine for them, the federalist position, is based mainly on an

interpretation of Romans 5:12-19 and holds that Adam acted as our representative—when he

sinned we all sinned. However v. 12 affirms that death came to all not because Adam sinned,

but because all sinned. Another weakness reveals itself several verses later. If the “many” or

“all” died directly because of Adam’s sin, then Paul is also saying that the same “many” or “all”

will be saved by the grace of Christ (implying universalism, vv. 15, 18, 19). Since the Reformed

do not believe in universalism, they are inconsistent in applying the first part universally and the

second part only to those who respond to the gospel. The better interpretation seems to be that

in v. 17 Paul does indeed qualify who will be saved—those who receive God’s abundant

provision of grace and v. 12 also qualifies those who experience death (spiritual and physical)—

those who sin.

A theological problem arises then, especially for the Reformed, if they desire to be

consistent. Those who die in infancy or who have severe mental obstacles (and for some

Reformed, those who never hear the gospel) still possess a sinful nature and according to the

system, they must suffer the punishment of hell. Some Reformed show grace in these cases, but

this is an unexplainable and ad hoc exception to their system.

Morally, it seems the federalist interpretation is something a good God would not allow.

He is free and can do what he wants; he determines the consequences for sin. Yet, in this

scheme he sets up, or at minimum, allows consequences that are diametrically opposed to his

purposes—to save us and make us Christlike. It brings to mind a kingdom divided against itself

(Mt 12:25). To make sin inevitable and to punish persons for choices they cannot control or not

make does not fit with the actions of a loving God. This is less of a “mystery,” as many
 7

Reformed/Arminians refer to it, and more a case of misunderstanding God’s sovereignty and the

nature of sin. The only qualified positive for this position is that it has a guaranteed explanation

for the pervasiveness of sin.

The Pelagian view also seems to have weaknesses mixed with its strengths. Pelagius

sees no impediments in the way of a life of holiness except the will of the person. Adam’s sin

had no direct and minor indirect effects. The pervasiveness and severity of sin is hard to explain

with this view. Although Pelagius acknowledges that there is no one who has gone from infancy

to old age without sinning, it would seem there would be more goodness and more Christians if

the world was as he describes. Another weakness is a blunted perspective on God’s grace, which

is usually interpreted as God’s teaching and example. Although the “how” of grace’s

functioning is rarely defined in Scripture, it seems that it is mentioned by the biblical authors

much more than Pelagius does and its effects expand beyond teaching and example. Paul and

others speak of God’s grace working in us (Acts 1-2, Eph 2:7, 3:7, 2 Thes 2:16, 1 Tim 1:14, Heb

4:16, Jas 1, 4:6). God’s grace enables us to be witnesses, to do miracles, to be encouraged, to

withstand trials and sufferings, and to resist the devil. Pelagius barely mentions the work of the

Holy Spirit in the heart and life of the believer. More emphasis on God’s workings through

grace and his Spirit would have presented a more representative picture of what the Scriptures

describe. Positively, he does give hope and raise expectations for those seeking to make

headway in pleasing God. The exhortation of 2 Peter 1:3-11 seems possible to follow.

The semi-Pelagian position seems to possess the most strengths. It acknowledges the

effects of sin in an indirect way on humanity, but not to the degree that we are helpless in

responding to God. Sin is likely and almost inevitable due to circumstances, but it is not

necessary, determined, or foreordained. This view also gives hope to those who have never
 8

heard the gospel. The Arminian position returns the ability to respond to the gospel through

prevenient grace, but this is after God has allowed it to be taken away by total depravity. Not to

have taken it away in the first place (the semi-Pelagian position) seems just as gracious. This

does not mean we can respond whenever we want to and can put God off. As eloquently

described by Pelagius, the habit of sin and the influence of the world can bind us. We may come

to the point where we are callous to the Spirit’s overtures and we have no desire to seek God or

live for him. We cannot trifle with or grieve the Holy Spirit without suffering consequences.

However, God, in love, seems to draw (by persuasion, not an effectual causing) everyone toward

himself (Jn 6:40,44-45) Christ promises that if we seek him, we will find him (Mt 7:7). The

semi-Pelagian perspective seems to do the best justice to the revealed character of God—love,

justice, mercy, impartiality. A possible weakness is that it explains the pervasiveness of sin, but

it does not fully guarantee it.

Practical Effects of Pelagius’ Perspective and Conclusion

Certainly one’s perspective on sin affects the doctrines of salvation and sanctification.

This affects how preaching and teaching is carried out in the church and in evangelistic outreach.

Pelagius’ perspective may affect the salvation message and the discipleship message of

sanctification in both positive and negative ways. Positively, his views would encourage an

active response from people. People would not feel they have to wait for God to act on them or

to feel a certain way before they respond to God. They realize there is a synergism in their

relationship with God and that God expects them to respond. Negatively, persons may not feel
 9

adequate dependency on the working of God’s Spirit. They may underestimate the effects of sin

in their life or give too little credit to the necessity of God’s grace to draw and regenerate them.

They may feel less need to pray or seek God’s help for salvation or growth in grace. They may

be discouraged if progress in sanctification is not as fast as their theology suggests. This is why

the semi-Pelagian perspective is preferred. It seems to give the right accent to both God’s and

our participation in a relationship with him and with others. We can preach and teach the love,

justice, and mercy of God along with the consequences of sin. We can know that our

evangelistic efforts directed at anyone can produce fruit; there is no doubt about whether

someone is able to respond. All can respond and can be expected and encouraged to. This gives

confidence God will add the work of his Spirit to our efforts, and that a spiritual harvest and a

mature church can result. This is good news!

Select Bibliography

Augustin, Aurelius. “On Nature and Grace.” Vol. 5 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers.
Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmanns, 1971.

———. “On Original Sin.” Vol. 5 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Grand Rapids:
Wm. B. Eerdmanns, 1971.

———. “On the Grace of Christ.” Vol. 5 of The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Grand
Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmanns, 1971.

Evans, Robert F. Pelagius: Inquiries and Reappraisals (New York: The Seabury Press, 1968.

Ferguson, John. Pelagius. Cambridge: W.Heffer & Sons, 1956.

Pelagius. “Letter to Demetrias,” Theological Anthropology. Edited by J. Patout Burns.

———. Pelagius’s Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Translated by Theodore
DeBruyn. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.

Rees, B. R. Pelagius: A Reluctant Heretic. New York: The Boydell Press, 1988.

Wiggers, G. F. An Historical Presentation of Augustinism and Pelagianism from the Original