Introducing Thacker

Hello @thacker, tell us about yourself. What brings you here?

I’m just a feller curious about stuff that probably doesn’t matter, but for some reason, it matters to me. I saw you with WLC on YouTube and thought I’d visit your space. I appreciated your willingness to consider out-of-the-box thought, and I have that in spades.

Other than that, I’m a nobody of note.


Oh and Julian of Eclanum strikes me as a hero!

1 Like

I’m glad you are here, and I hope you enjoy yourself.

He was a Pelagian. Interesting. A lot of Christians think pelagianism does not work. What draws you to Julian?

“That which is of Nature (matter) cannot be sin”, when I read of him, I found argument and principle I had argued for years.

Based on a post you wrote on another thread, I would think that you would not agree with Pelagianism, or am I reading that wrong?

So, as I recall Julian stood for Pelagius to argue against Augustine and his version, Original sin; or unmerited imputed sin. I found him while researching St Morgan and his assertion we are not born corrupted by Adam’s act; Federal or Seminal, or even Circumstantial (re EOC) and thus paedobaptism was absurd.

I admire Julian for several reasons, 1) he didn’t care that Pelagius was deemed a heretic, or that he’d be implicated as a heretic, 2) His arguments were perfectly on point; Augustine was arguing for a type of Gnosticism where matter could have moral property, specifically in the Seminal argument for Original sin. 3) His clarity and enthusiastic defense was nothing short of glorious. And 4) by rights, imo, he should have won, but the results of Augustine’s theory were too beneficial to the RCC at that time, and to some extent, now. Which 5) he knew at the time, or I’m petty sure he did, that he was going to lose, yet he hammered home his points regardless. And that, imo, makes him a hero.

Several points Julian argued fit perfectly with my perspective;

  1. Matter and/or Material constructs (no matter how sophisticated) has no moral obligation, no moral property, no moral accountability inherent to them. Now, this doesn’t mean they can’t do something immoral; the ox that pushes its horn and kills someone for instance. Where that’s plumb naughty, it can be summarily put down; no trial, witnesses, evidence, judge, etc is necessary, the only one who might require those things is the owner (the obligated Agent), particularly if he knew the ox had that propensity.

  2. Whatever is the cause of corruption has to be an act of the accused Agent, w/o coercion or force beyond or outside its control. In many cultures then (and it seems now) a woman raped could be tried for sexual immorality, where it is true, she had sexual relations outside of marriage, her participation in that event was involuntary, as such, she is guiltless. If Augustine was right, Adam’s progeny were raped and by God’s law merited mercy. This of course is not the Biblical assertion, and thus should be (and should have been) dismissed summarily by the Pope and Christianity as a whole.

  3. Pelagius did not assert a resolution to the Universality of sin that I know of, but given the foregoing facts (imo), we are left with only one option for that final fact of the Bible; If sin is an uncoerced, voluntary act, and we are born here sinful, then we sinned before we got here.

Now, all of those points can be fleshed out much further, but that is, imo, the only plausible conclusion which fits with the Biblical facts, God’s law and our state here.