在基督宗教的歷史中，對伯拉糾思想，特別在其人觀方面的評價，都會認為他是：強調人類的能力而貶低上帝恩典的代表。對於伯拉糾人觀的評價，明顯，很多都是引用自奧古斯丁對伯拉糾人的理解及評價。然而，奧古斯丁的人並非基督宗教內唯一的人觀傳統，故奧古斯丁對伯拉糾人觀的理解及評價亦並非代表基督宗教內唯一的聲音。基於這理解，本文嘗試重新檢視歷代的「伯拉糾」的理解及評價是否正確的問題。在基督宗教的人觀傳統是多元的理解下，本文提出歷代對「伯拉糾」的理解及評價並不全然正確。伯拉糾的人觀其實是代表早期基督宗教的修道主義傳統，是一個有別於奧古兮丁的人觀傳統。

In the history of Christianity, assessments of Pelagius-especially of his anthropology-have always been based on the claim that he is representative of those who both emphasize the capacity of humans and degrade the grace of God. Obviously, most of these assessments are more or less derived from how Augustine understood and assessed Pelagius’ anthropology, as well as Augustine’s own anthropological understanding. Yet Augustine’s anthropology is not the only voice in Christianity. Thus, his criticism of Pelagius is not representative of all different assessments of him in Christian history. Based on this understanding, this paper aims to reexamine the understandings and assessments of Pelagius throughout Christian history. In view of a pluralistic understanding of anthropology in the Christian tradition, this paper argues that the assessments of Pelagius’ anthropology cannot be seen as totally correct. In fact, his anthropology is representative of the ascetic tradition in early Christianity, which is distinct from Augustine’s anthropological tradition.