Is Pelagianism within Orthodox Christianity?

First defintion = Bad definition, one only those rewriting history would employ.

The doctrine of original sin insists that the root of human sinfulness comes from Adam. Through the fall of Adam ..., all people inherited an inclination toward sin (the sinful nature). Pelagius and his immediate followers upheld the belief that Adam’s sin belonged to him alone and did not infect the rest of humanity.​

Note that Calvinism equates denial of being predisposed to sin due to God's imposition of the consequences of Adam's sin upon humanity, with denial of total spiritual inability. Hogwash.

Calvinists use the term and Semi-Pelagianism, to claim those who deny the "total spiritual inability" of the lost are not part of "Traditional Christianity."

 

It is NOT an orthodox position

 

Calvinism lives inside your head. The OP is about Pelagianism.

 

If you were unaware that Calvinist advocates use Pelaganism and semi Pelaganism to "name call" opponents, then you have been enlightened.

First defintion = Bad definition, one only those rewriting history would employ.

The doctrine of original sin insists that the root of human sinfulness comes from Adam. Through the fall of Adam ..., all people inherited an inclination toward sin (the sinful nature). Pelagius and his immediate followers upheld the belief that Adam’s sin belonged to him alone and did not infect the rest of humanity.
​

Note that Calvinism equates denial of being predisposed to sin due to God's imposition of the consequences of Adam's sin upon humanity, with denial of total spiritual inability. Hogwash.

Calvinists use the term and Semi-Pelagianism, to claim those who deny the "total spiritual inability" of the lost are not part of "Traditional Christianity."

 

The OP is not about Pelaganism, but about ascribing heresy to non heretics.

Calvinists use the term and Semi-Pelagianism, to claim those who deny the "total spiritual inability" of the lost are not part of "Traditional Christianity."

And of course the claim is hogwash

 

It is an interesting question. It is not supported by scripture, which clearly teaches Adam’s sin affects us all.

Can a person believe Pelagius was correct, and be saved?

I think it’s possible, since it doesn’t really deny, based on what you posted, the essentials of Jesus Christ and Him crucified.

peace to you

 

"I am convinced that the identification of Arminianism with semi-Pelagianism has become a major polemical tool in the current resurgence of Calvinism among especially American (now spreading to other counties) young Christians. In other words, Sproul and other influential Calvinists present only two options: Calvinism and semi-Pelagianism and label the latter a denial of salvation by grace alone." (Olson)

 

???

Is Pelagianism within Orthodox Christianity?

 

Mankind's sinful nature is a result of Adam's sin and Eve being deceived. It is caused by mankind aquiring God's knowledge of good and evil. Genesis 3:22.

 

Pelagianism like all of the “ism’s” have good points and bad.

The good

1] humans by divine grace have free will but he took it to far when he claimed we could achieve human perfection.

2] stressed the essential goodness of human nature. This is not saying that man does not sin but rather that man in general will strive for the good. Humanity could not survive without it.

3] Pelagius was concerned about the slack moral standards among Christians, as we all should be.


The bad

1] achieve human perfection. Man is to proud and self-centered to achieve that.

2] Adam’s descendants did not inherit a sinful nature passed down to them. We all sin so that point is self-evidently wrong. We inherited Adams sin nature not his sin.

3] every human soul starts out in innocence, free from sin. Just as those before the law were not judged for their sin but still died so with the those that can not discern right from wrong, while not innocent are not judged for there sin.


And here I have to agree with @canadyjd to a point. While Pelagius had some good points I think that the bad points could cause one to trust in their own goodness for their salvation. Although this would not preclude the ability of them to hear and trust in the gospel message. The question is whether they would think they needed to or not?

 

The OP is not about Pelaganism, but about ascribing heresy to non heretics.

Calvinists use the term and Semi-Pelagianism, to claim those who deny the "total spiritual inability" of the lost are not part of "Traditional Christianity."

And of course the claim is hogwash

"I am convinced that the identification of Arminianism with semi-Pelagianism has become a major polemical tool in the current resurgence of Calvinism among especially American (now spreading to other counties) young Christians. In other words, Sproul and other influential Calvinists present only two options: Calvinism and semi-Pelagianism and label the latter a denial of salvation by grace alone." (Olson)​

 

Pelagianism, as defined by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches, is neither Catholic nor Orthodox, again by their definition and determination.

However, many Christians would still agree with certain concerns expressed, e.g., the practice of infant baptism and lax, sinful lifestyles within the church.

The fact is that many times our concerns lead us to overstate our case. This human tendency makes its appearance on all sides of an issue, and in a host of sermons.

 

Pelagianism has been condemned as heresy at Church Councils

it’s not just a Calvinist thing

Pelagius was a moralist

he denied grace like several on here

 

And there it is.

 

Yes, indeed!!
The OP is not about Pelaganism, but about ascribing heresy to non heretics.

Calvinists use the term and Semi-Pelagianism, to claim those who deny the "total spiritual inability" of the lost are not part of "Traditional Christianity."

And of course the claim is hogwash

"I am convinced that the identification of Arminianism with semi-Pelagianism has become a major polemical tool in the current resurgence of Calvinism among especially American (now spreading to other counties) young Christians. In other words, Sproul and other influential Calvinists present only two options: Calvinism and semi-Pelagianism and label the latter a denial of salvation by grace alone." (Olson)​

 

It has nothing to do w a resurgence