I’m not an enjoyer of the Pelagian language, per se. It is thrown about much too haphazardly as smear and dismissal. But that notwithstanding: the language itself, historically, was intended to signify a basket of theological beliefs; and beliefs that have roundly been repudiated as at odds with the Gospel implications; particularly with reference to an anthropology. Even if the word itself has been played out, this doesn’t mean its original signification has been overcome, per se.
To me, then, this is an invitation to engaging with the ideas themselves. Is there a theological problem that corresponds with what the label of Pelagianism was originally intended to identify, or not? Just avoiding the theological nuancing that the language is intended to signify, does not negate its material realities itself. Those realities remain. Ultimately, I take it to entail a competitive understanding of a God-world relation. And this understanding is not limited to the Arminians (and its subsets), but touches the Calvinists as well. It is the issue of an Augustinian dualism; a methodological salvation-ism that thinks persons vis-Γ -vis God in terms of an individualism rather than a personalism, indeed. A personalism that is necessarily trinitarian in orientation and extent.