“Pelagius got people stirred up before the African entered the lists. I would say Augustine’s views generally were more defined by the Donatist conflict than by any supposed Manichianism but also, I think, by his rejection of Plotinus. I think that he saw in Pelagius a reflection of neo-platonism.”
Pelagius did stir things up, for sure. In some senses Pelagius was, in his personal life, somewhat holier than thou. Initially, Augustine admired him, which I have always found odd.
I have heard the argument that Augustine’s position on Pelagianism was born of his battles with the Donatists. I don’t agree. The whole doctrine of Original Sin and the utter depravity of man simply reeks of Manichianism. You may well be right about his rejection of Plotinus. I hadn’t thought of that.
“The Latin Church, in any case, did not affirm Augustine’s doctrine in its more extreme form, which one finds in someone like Calvin.”
Thank God!It is unfortunate, however, that what the Latin Church did affirm was so outside the consensus patrum. Augustinianism has had a profound effect on Western Latin theology, let alone what the Protestants might believe. The IC, a “dogma” which lay undiscovered, at least unproclaimed, for 1800 years, is a good example of its effect. You know, R, it has been argued by “real” theologians (as opposed to the likes of me!)that the IC is a Christological heresy because it denies Christ’s humanity.
Why? The doctrine doesn't deny Mary's humanity at all.
And it has been said that the dogma was proclaimed, when it was proclaimed, because it affirmed the divinity of Christ at a time when liberal Protestantism--followed within a generation or two by Catholic modernists--were rejecting it and the whole mindset of the early councils, as Greek essentialsm.