WJEC/Eduqas RS for A2/Yr2: Religion and Ethics (DRAFT)

WJEC / Eduqas Religious Studies for A Level Year 2 and A2 Religion and Ethics

However, for Pelagius, simply asking for forgiveness is not enough for a human being to receive repentance of their sins. Repentance entails not only freely asking for forgiveness, but also choosing not to sin again. While Pelagius recognises that human beings might, through habit or free will, sin again, he maintains that those sins need to be confessed, and an effort be made to avoid sin and act righteously. According to Evans, this aspect of Pelagius has been one of the main contributors to misunderstandings of his view. We need to consider his historical, undeveloped view and not that associated with later Pelagianism or that seen purely through the eyes of Augustine. Indeed, the initial dialogue between Augustine and Pelagius is always seen through the eyes of Augustine – original sin is necessary to ensure that salvation is by the grace of God and through faith alone. There is no in between ground for Augustine. This then becomes the main question and focus: is grace necessary for salvation? The answer can only be if we all have sinned. However, what we should be asking, according to Pelagius – and to avoid any accusation of Manichaeism – is, ‘what is the role and nature of that grace that is required for salvation?’ For Pelagius, justification by faith alone can take place without respect to human merits but at the same time he also speaks of the ‘merit’ of faith and deserving the grace of God. As Evans writes, ‘Faith “merits” grace in the sense that it is the indispensable and freely chosen condition of the effectual working of grace.’ It seems that rather than disposing of the role of grace in salvation as is often understood of Pelagius, instead Pelagius appears to give the role of grace a ‘light touch’ as it were, rather than the fully-fledged and absolute dependence of Augustine’s theology. It is this ‘correlative doctrine’ between good works and God’s grace that opens up Pelagius to the accusation, whether justified or not, that he preaches a gospel of salvation through good works. In summary, it appears that we are back where we started. Free will allows good works but challenges the nature of salvation; original sin raises the question of the possibility of such depraved creatures achieving good. Augustine was terrified of Pelagius’ theology because it suggested that humans have some decisive role in their own salvation; Pelagius was horrified that the idea of original sin was closely aligned with the Manichaean teaching of dual nature as well as being a general excuse not to strive for the moral life. Maybe both Augustine and Pelagius were not poles apart and that their concerns reflect the possible extremes of challenge to Christian theology; the two sides of the Christian theological coin, so to speak. Just as sola fide leads to James’ concerns about ‘good work’, then maybe Pelagius’ insistence on morality as a means to salvation naturally throws up concerns about the role of God’s grace? It is clear from the history of Christianity that Augustine won the battle. It is a shame there is no ‘middle ground’. However, maybe that is where Arminius enters the debate! AO1 Activity Work in groups of four. Firstly, divide the four parts of Pelagius free will theory between you: 1. Pelagius’ free will theory – the role of original sin. 2. Pelagius’ free will theory – humanity maturing in God’s image and accepting the responsibility of free will. 3. Pelagius’ free will theory – free will as used to follow God’s laws 4. Pelagius’ free will theory – the role of grace in salvation Each person then summarises their theory in no more than 50 words. Each person then presents their summary to the other three people in their group.

DRAFT

4.18 Brie y explain why the fall of Adam and Eve was a good thing for human beings.

114