David -
The distinctions between Pelagianism and the Augustinian-type views that came to be accepted in the western church have to do with the status of humanity after "the fall" - or, to put it another way, with the effects of the fall. Both would hold that humanity before the fall was able to avoid sin - posse non peccare. Pelagians would say that after the fall humans could, with the common grace of creation & the example of Christ, avoid sin. The Augustinian view is that after the fall people are not able not to sin, and can be saved only with the grace won through the death and Christ and mediated by baptism and other means of grace.
N.B. This is a very rough description of the situation. I am describing "Pelagianism" as the term has commonly been used, which does necessarily correspond in all its particulars with what the historical Pelagius thought. & I put my 1st use of "the fall" in quotes, though I didn't pedantically continue with that, because the very use of the term conveys the sense of an abrupt transition from a perfect state, something that is debatable in light of evolution.
The question you pose about the pre-fall state of humanity has to do with the fact that, in view of evolution, the existence of an historically real "state of integrity" of the 1st humans, or their "original righteousness," is hard to maintain. For their pre-human ancestors who were not moral agents, acts like murder, theft &c would not have been "sins," as they would be after they became moral agents. Presumably their becoming moral agents is to be connected in some ways with some kind of awareness of God's revelation. How that might have happened is, of course, something we can only speculate about.
Shalom
George
> > > Question: is it Pelagianism to assert that before the Fall, it was possible for humans not to sin? I always understood Pelagianism to mean that after the Fall, it is impossible for humans not to sin, but that it is consistent with an Augustinian notion of original sin to say that Adam did not necessarily have to have chosen to sin. > > > I ask because I'm discussing with someone whether pre-existing tendencies towards selfishness, violence etc. inherited through biological and social evolution are in themselves "sin." My view is that such pre-existing tendencies aren't in themselves "sin"; free will is still possible and only volitional acts in furtherance of such tendencies would be "sin." Only after the Fall is it inevitable that our volitional acts, absent Grace, will tend towards choosing to perpetuate selfishness, violence, etc. >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Feb 19 2008 - 13:22:48 EST