One big difference between the Eastern and Western churches is the idea of original sin, Instead of "original sin" the Orthodox Church holds to "ancestral sin" which has been described to me as centering around the idea that nothing God makes is inherently evil. The *OrthodoxWiki* article Original sin says that > "In the Orthodox Church the term ancestral sin (Gr. προπατορικό αμάρτημα) is preferred and is used to define the doctrine of man's 'inclination towards sin, a heritage from the sin of our progenitors' and that this is removed through baptism." The first line of the *Wikipedia* page on Pelagianism states > "Pelagianism is a Christian theological position that holds that the fall did not taint human nature and that humans by divine grace have free will to achieve human perfection." If we are all created good simply with the ability to sin or even a proclivity to sin but are not corrupted by sin then wouldn't it be possible for someone of their own will to not sin? Is that not simply Pelagianism?

I've been studying the topic of Open Theism in comparison to other perspectives on God's sovereignty, omniscience, and man's free will. As I understand it, on a scale spanning from full on deterministic fatalism to fully libertarian freedom, Hyper-Calvinism is on one extreme end and Pelagianism is on the other extreme. Since Calvinism allows for a form of free will, it is obviously not deterministic fatalism, but it's obviously close by. Also, as I understand it, Augustinianism is very similar to Calvinism (or, rather, vice versa since the former came first chronologically), and Semi-Pelagianism is approximately halfway between Augustinianism and Pelagianism. My question, therefore, is two-fold: 1. Does the above scale provide an accurate structure from which to understand the perspectives listed above? 2. Where does Arminianism, Molinism, and Open Theism fall in comparison to the things listed above? In particular I've heard people effectively say that Arminianism is halfway between Calvinism and Semi-Pelagianism. Is that true, or is it closer to one than the other? I've also heard people describe Molinism as a variant of Arminianism. If true does it shift it towards Calvinism or away from it? Finally, it seems like Open Theism and Pelagianism are similar in that they exclusively focus in on either the nature of God or nature of man in ways fundamentally contrary to Scripture, and make vague statements on the nature of man or God. Ultimately, I'm trying to get a big-picture overview of all these things and how they relate to one another, so if part of all of my understanding above is way off base, I'd appreciate an explanation of where I went off the rails, and how you would explain the relationship between all these things.

The Catholic [Catechism #847](https://www.vatican.va/content/catechism/en/part_one/section_two/chapter_three/article_9/paragraph_3_the_church_is_one,_holy,_catholic,_and_apostolic.html) gives exception to the (ordinary) rule of need for baptism for salvation. This extraordinary means is found outside the visible church, in the invisible church in righteousness through conscience, while being ignorant of the direct revelation of God (cf [Rom 2:6-16](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=rom+2&version=NABRE)) . Thus, the unevangelised and ill-evangelised may typically fall under it. > *Catechism #847*: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. This development from Augustine has been reportedly credited to Aquinas 13th century who talked about "baptism of desire" where someone who desired baptism but died before receiving it could be saved by their desire and repentance; Council of Trent (1545–1563) and Second Vatican Council (1962–1965). [Pelagianism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism) is defined by the denial of [Augustinian Original sin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concupiscence) , that man has free will to achieve perfection, original sin did not taint human nature. The Catholicism also rejects the tainted nature of man due to original sin. The essential characteristic for salvation in Pelagianism is defined by righteousness, rather than religion or baptism/sacrament. It is best described as Synergism, which rejects Monergism with respect to salvation. The difference between the Catholic and Pelagian view maybe seen in the language and perspective, where Catholics may use the term grace or mercy to be the cause of salvation, whereas Pelagius would call it justice. The question is how do Catholic scholars differentiate it with Pelagianism? Is the difference merely of the *initiation* of the salvation process? Is it right to call Catholic view Pelagianism, except for the initiation? Semi-Pelagianism was condemned as heresy at the Second Council of Orange in 529 CE, which emphasized that the *initiative* for salvation lies with God alone, and that human beings cannot take the first step toward God without divine grace.

During the fifth century, John Cassian claimed that the initial steps to salvation were in the power of each individual, unaided by grace. He reacted against Augustine’s view of the irresistible power of grace and predestination. Circa 414 Augustine of Hippo strongly affirmed the existence of original sin, the impossibility of a sinless life without Christ, and the necessity of Christ's grace. 1 Pelagius, a Romano-British theologian, was known for his emphasis on human choice in salvation and his denial of original sin. He believed in mankind’s good nature and individual responsibility for choosing asceticism, stressing the freedom of human will. 2 Pelagianism was a school of thought that taught that the human will was capable of spiritual good without the aid of God’s grace, and that sinless perfection was possible in this life. This was supported by Nestorius. Augustine and Jerome were chief critics of Pelagianism, and it was condemned by church councils in A.D. 418 and 431 (Council of Carthage). From Pilgrim Theology, pp.468 & 470, Michael Horton, Zondervan, 2011 Fast forward to 1610 when five articles of faith based on the teachings of Jacobus Arminius were published in protest against Calvin's doctrines relating to divine sovereignty, human inability, unconditional election (or predestination), particular redemption, irresistible grace, and the perseverance of the saints. The Synod of Dort was convened to examine the views of Arminius, and in 1620 a response was published, rejecting the Arminian position and presenting the Calvinistic position. Although the church was quick to denounce the ideas of Cassian and Pelagius (excommunicating the latter), have some of their ideas on free will and man's ability to accept the salvation offered by God, filtered down through the centuries to influence resistance to the Reformed view of the depraved nature of humanity and God's sovereign power in the matter of election and predestination unto salvation? Is there a theological link between the views of Cassian and Pelagius and Arminianism? Sources: 1 [New Advent: John Cassian](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03404a.htm) 2[Wikipedia: Pelagius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagius)

In St. John Cassian's work "On the Incarnation: Against Nestorius" he claims that Pelagius believed > that Jesus Christ had lived as a mere man without any stain of sin, they actually went so far as to declare that men could also be without sin if they liked. ... They added as well that our Lord and Saviour became the Christ after His Baptism, and God after His Resurrection." *On the Incarnation of the Lord Book I Chapter III. Page 552 or 553 of the second series of Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers.* The author of this answer (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/a/52958/27623) takes issue with that claim. Is this actually what Pelagius himself, or Pelagians in general believed? It seems logical that the patristic teaching of the incarnation implicitly teaches an indwelling of grace in mankind brought about by the union of God and Man within the person of Jesus Christ and therefore this is something that the Pelagians want to deny, so they explain that Jesus Christ was simply a man that through his own will and efforts obtained the indwelling of God (sort of like a Christian version of Nietzsche's super-man) and is gracious to us by giving an example.

In this answer about Pelagianism (https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/48621/did-pelagius-believe-in-faith-alone/52958#52958) the author makes a sort of apology for Pelagianism and claims that St. John Chrysostom was Pelagian himself. The author says in the comments: "early synergist fathers implicitly believed same that man can be saved without grace ... Chrysostom was a Pelagian". I haven't yet dug into the works of this St. John, but found a good article about the topic: St John Chrysostom on Grace and Free Will In which there is the following paragraph: > Chrysostom then raises as a possible objection the famous statement of St. Paul in Romans, “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy” (9:16). His reply is that St. Paul here uses the common idiomatic device in which one who is the author of the greater part of a work is said to be its sole cause, as when a house is said to be an architect’s doing even though in fact he only designed it. Paul’s purpose, he says, is “that we should not be lifted up …Even though you run (he would say), even though you excel, do not consider the well-doing your own; for if you do not obtain the impulse from above, all is to no purpose.” The footnote cites the source as: > Chrysostom, Homilies on Hebrews 12.3 (PG 63 100); tr. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series (= NPNF) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983 [reprint]), vol. 14. I have modified translations from NPNF for the sake of style and to bring out important features of the Greek. I think the author of the aforementioned post is conflating patristic synergism with Pelagianism and therefore teaching what mainline Christianity has considered heresy since the Pelagian controversies. However, I don't have a larger perspective on the views of St. John Chrysostom. Is the referenced article correct and does St. John Chrysostom indisputably teach synergism and that man cannot be saved without grace?

The doctrine of "faith alone," or [*sola fide*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_fide) , teaches that people are justified only by their faith in Christ, not by any works they do. It was emphasized during the Protestant Reformation, where it was one of the marks distinguishing Protestants from Roman Catholics. However, I found an interesting statement in Bruce Shelley's *Church History in Plain Language* that seems to indicate a much earlier origin. He describes the views of [Pelagius](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagius) (d. 418) as follows: > God predestinates no one, except in the sense that he foresees who will believe and who will reject his gracious influences. His forgiveness comes to all who exercise "faith alone"; but, once forgiven, man has power of himself to live pleasing to God. ((https://books.google.com/books?id=RbfVAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA138)) Of course, Pelagius's views on sin differed significantly from those of the leaders of the Protestant Reformation and most modern Protestants. As a result, his doctrine of "faith alone," if it exists, will likely differ in particulars from that of Protestants. So I'd like to know: - Did Pelagius believe in a doctrine called "faith alone" or one bearing resemblance to the Protestant doctrine? - That is, did he believe that faith without works caused someone to be saved? - If yes, what are the main ways in which his view differed from that of Protestant leaders like Luther and Calvin?

The terms "Pelagianism" and "Semipelagianism" are often used in polemical contexts, but what was specifically anathematized by the church when the Pelagian heresy was originally condemned?

B. B. Warfield says in *The Plan of Salvation * \[PDF \]: > Into the place of Pelagianism there stepped at once Semipelagianism; and when the controversy with Semi-pelagianism had been fought and won, into the place of Semi-pelagianism there stepped that semi-semi-pelagianism which the Council of Orange betrayed the Church into. ... The necessity of grace had been acknowledged as the result of the Pelagian controversy: its preveniency, as the result of the Semi-pelagian controversy: but its certain efficacy, its "irresistibility" men call it, was by the fatal compromise of Orange denied. ... [After Orange it was not] any longer legally possible to ascribe salvation so entirely to the grace of God that it could complete itself without the aid of the discredited human will—its aid only as empowered and moved by prevenient grace indeed, but not effectually moved, so that it could not hold back and defeat the operations of saving grace. But I've read through the canons of the Council of Orange and I don't see how he concludes that. Is he right?

In *What Is Reformed Theology?* R. C. Sproul attributes the following quote to [Roger Nicole](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Nicole) , a 20th century Reformed theologian: > We are all born Pelagians. ([source](https://books.google.com/books?id=fYoLvbuIOUgC&pg=PA180&dq=sproul+ "we+are+all+born+pelagians")) By this, Sproul means to say that all people naturally have [Pelagian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism) tendencies, that is, we innately believe we have the ability to choose to do good without God's aid. My question, however, relates not to Pelagianism itself but to the origin of this quote. Was Roger Nicole the first to say it? Or did some earlier theologian say it first?

Both Nestorius and Pelagius believed in a composite subject Christology that the person of Christ is a divine-humane person, the Logos and His tabernacle. Their Christology were condemned at Ephesus (431) and later repeated at Constantinople (553) where both Ss. Cyril of Alexandria and Augustine of Hippo are declared as the Doctor of the Church. Nestorius teaches that the Logos is united with a perfect man. While Pelagius teaches that the perfect humanity of Christ is united to the Logos. So that both teach the Logos unites Himself with a perfect tabernacle as a composite subject. St. John Cassian under a request by Pope St. Leo the Great which at that time was an archdeacon wrote seven volume treatises to combat Nestorianism by connecting it with Pelagianism. >[T]he error of Pelagius ... that in saying that Jesus Christ lived as a mere man without any stain of sin, they actually went so far as to declare that men could also be without sin if they [chose]. > >John Cassian, On the Incarnation against Nestorius, 1:3, in The Works of John Cassian, trans. with preface Edgar C. S. Gibson, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd ser., vol. 11, ed. Philip Schaff. In similar fashion from a different perspective Marius Mercator accuses Theodore of Mopsuestia of being the father of the Pelagian heresy for teaching, >[T]hat the progenitors of the human race, Adam and Eve, having been created mortal by God, did not wound any of their descendants when they strayed by their transgression, but harmed only themselves; that they made themselves guilty of the command before God, but absolutely no one else. > >Marius Mercator, Commonitorium, Patrologia Latina, vol. 48, 110D-111A. Both John Cassian and Marius Mercator linked Nestorianism with Pelagianism. Richard Norris in his study Manhood and Christ observed that Antiochene Christology is aptly enough expressed in the dictum that, “The Nestorian Christ is a fit Savior for the Pelagian man.”1 So how are their Christologies differentiated from one another? ---------- 1 Richard Norris, Manhood and Christ, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963, p. 246.