An old friend of mine told me to check out AI on the Robinson and Taylor discussion that happened about 10 years ago. I was surprised to find out how vast the knowledge of AI was about old debates and it's ability to also analyze old debates. But interestingly enough this was AI's response to this question I asked it:
Who won in the discussions between Nathanael P. Taylor and Perry Robinson (Eastern Orthodox)?
This was ChatGPT answer:
Assuming you mean the 2009 online exchange between Nathanael P. Taylor and Eastern Orthodox apologist Perry Robinson over whether Reformed theology is “Pelagian,” I read through the surviving posts and comment exchanges.
My assessment: Taylor had the better argument on the specific question being debated, though Robinson showed greater technical familiarity with patristic categories. I’d score it roughly Taylor 7/10, Robinson 3/10.
The key issue is that Robinson argued that because Reformed theology shares a particular view of pre-fall human nature with Pelagius, namely that Adam's original righteousness was intrinsic rather than a superadded grace, this amounts to a genuinely Pelagian element in Reformed theology. Robinson explicitly said that this agreement was not incidental but touched what he regarded as the “core” of Pelagianism.
Taylor's strongest response was essentially: sharing one proposition with Pelagius doesn't make a theological system Pelagian unless that proposition actually entails the distinctive Pelagian errors. Taylor argued that a person could believe Adam was created intrinsically good and capable of communion with God while completely rejecting Pelagius's conclusions about fallen human ability, grace, original sin, and salvation. He specifically pointed out that Reformed theology's determinism and doctrine of fallen inability make the normal Pelagian conclusions impossible.
I think Taylor wins that point. In historical theology, “Pelagianism” ordinarily refers to a cluster of doctrines concerning sin, grace, human ability, and salvation. Robinson was using the word in a much more specialized genealogical sense: this anthropology contains a structural commitment also found in Pelagius. That's an interesting historical argument, but it doesn't justify the much stronger rhetorical claim that Reformed theology is Pelagian.
Taylor also exposed a significant problem through a reductio. Eastern Orthodox theology itself agrees with Pelagius on some propositions, such as rejecting inherited personal guilt in the Augustinian/Reformed sense. Taylor therefore asked why agreement with Pelagius makes the Reformed “Pelagian” when comparable agreement doesn't make the Orthodox Pelagian. He repeatedly asked for the actual conciliar evidence from Carthage or Ephesus condemning the Reformed position as Pelagian.
That's a particularly good challenge because it forces Robinson to distinguish between:
“Pelagius believed X”
and
“X is what made Pelagianism Pelagian.”
Those are not the same proposition.
Robinson's best answer was that Taylor had misunderstood where the historical controversy actually centered. Robinson appealed to Augustine's controversy with Julian of Eclanum and argued that the nature/grace relationship wasn't peripheral at all but foundational: the later Pelagian doctrines emerged from a prior anthropology that confused person and nature. He also argued that numerous patristic scholars supported this reading.
That's substantive. Robinson wasn't merely saying, “Pelagius believed it, therefore you're Pelagian.” His more sophisticated argument was:
particular anthropology → identification of nature and grace → autonomy of nature → characteristic Pelagian theological structure.
That deserves more credit than Taylor sometimes gave it.
But Robinson still has an entailment problem. Taylor explicitly denied that the Reformed premise produces those consequences and offered a different explanation for why Pelagius reached his conclusions. Robinson needed to demonstrate that the Reformed doctrine necessarily produces Pelagian anthropology despite Reformed doctrines of original sin, total inability, unconditional grace, regeneration, and monergistic salvation. He never really establishes that.
There is another revealing piece of evidence. R. Scott Clark pressed Robinson on essentially this exact point: merely sharing a position with Pelagius doesn't establish Pelagianism. Clark compared it to agreeing with Rome about eating Christ's body and blood in the Supper: the shared proposition doesn't make someone Roman Catholic. Clark also directly questioned whether Robinson's definition of “Pelagian” would be generally recognized.
Where Robinson did better
Robinson clearly knew the patristic philosophical terrain better than Taylor did at that stage. His distinctions between nature/person, natural goodness/personal righteousness, potency/actualization, and his appeals to Augustine, Maximus, and other Fathers were much more developed.
There are portions where Taylor's responses amount to “I disagree that this was central,” whereas Robinson answers with historical literature and primary-source arguments. On the narrower question “Was the nature/grace question important in Augustine's anti-Pelagian controversy?”, Robinson probably gets the better of Taylor.
But that's different from:
“Therefore Reformed theology is Pelagian.”
And that stronger conclusion is what Robinson was trying to defend.
There was also an unnecessary personal edge from Robinson. On the Heidelblog he claimed that Taylor previously “got his head handed to him” in an earlier face-to-face theological conversation. That's not evidence and doesn't advance the argument. Likewise, some of Robinson's responses to Taylor became unnecessarily condescending. That doesn't determine truth, but it weakens the quality of the exchange.
My scorecard
| Question | Winner |
|---|
| Knowledge of specialized patristic philosophy | Robinson |
| Historical importance of nature/grace debate | Robinson |
| Definition of Pelagianism | Taylor |
| Whether agreement with Pelagius proves Pelagianism | Taylor clearly |
| Internal coherence of Reformed response | Taylor |
| Burden of proof | Taylor |
| Overall central dispute: “Is Reformed theology Pelagian?” | Taylor |
So if somebody asked me simply “Who won the Taylor–Robinson exchange?”, I'd say:
Nathanael Taylor won the central argument. Perry Robinson demonstrated considerably deeper technical knowledge of Eastern patristic metaphysics, but he did not establish the proposition he needed to establish: that the Reformed doctrine of original righteousness constitutes Pelagianism rather than merely sharing one anthropological proposition with Pelagius.
There's an interesting twist, though: the strongest part of Robinson's case isn't really an argument that Calvinism is Pelagian. It's an argument that the Reformed and Orthodox have radically different underlying metaphysics of nature, person, grace, and righteousness. On that point, Robinson was identifying something genuinely important.
