Featured Semi Pelagianism

The Formula of Concord (under Negative Theses) rejects the “error of the Semi-Pelagians, who teach that man by his own powers can make a beginning of his conversion, but without the grace of the Holy Ghost cannot complete it.”

The document continues by rejecting “Also, when it is taught that, although man by his free will before regeneration is too weak to make a beginning, and by his own powers to turn himself to God, and from the heart to be obedient to God, yet, if the Holy Ghost by the preaching of the Word has made a beginning, and therein offered His grace, then the will of man from its own natural powers can add something, thought little and feebly, to this end, can help and cooperate, qualify and prepare itself for grace, and embrace and accept it, and believe the Gospel.”

The first rejection is Semi-Pelagianism, and I agree that many reject Arminianism falsely (Arminianism does not claim that men can turn to God and then allow God to do the rest). But the second rejection does appear (to me) to be Arminianism (although the objection is pre-Arminianism). I do not know if both points were meant to be taken as Semi-Pelagianism (and if so, I do not know if the term had expanded to incorporate the action of man as effecting salvation).

But that's one reason I prefer to talk about what people believe instead of the "isim" that defines their view. Very often positions are stereotype and characterized in ways that are not necessarily reflective of their views.

 

Just to be clear to readers, the Formula of Concord is a Lutheran document that attempted to reconcile Luther's strict Augustinianism with Melanchthon's revisions.

The negatives on this point deal with a number of issues, not strictly Pelagianism. For example, it also condemns the Enthusiasts, whose soteriological views are similar to that of many Primitive Baptists, i.e., they "imagine that God without means, without the hearing of God's Word, also without the use of the holy Sacraments, draws men to Himself, and enlightens, justifies, and saves them."

In rejecting that "the will of man from its own natural powers can add something, though little and feebly, to this end, can help and cooperate, qualify and prepare itself for grace, and embrace and accept it, and believe the Gospel” is a condemnation of some Lutheran theology and may describe some Arminian thought, but that formulation is absent from classical Arminianism, though not perhaps from later developments.

 

What I wonder, reading the Formula of Concord, is whether or not Semi-Pelagianism was originally or at least by the end of the 16th Century (by 1577) taken as a broader term than the OP allows. In this Lutheran document, it seems that three errors may fall into this category (the third being that man can, after regeneration, perfectly observe God's Law and merit salvation). But even if I am mistaken regarding how the Lutherans organized those "errors", I wonder if the term in contemporary usage can legitimately refer to any theory whereby salvation depends on an act or will of man.

The reason I bring this up is that definitions change. Some may be tempted to take the "words have meaning" position, and I'd agree to an extent, but we can't ignore that language evolves. In a historic context alone, dealing with original definitions only, we would not be having this dialogue because we are Baptists. Lutherans coined the phrase "Calvinism" not to address soteriological differences but positions in sacramental views. Arminianism itself is of Calvinist trajectory (lest we forget, Arminius died a Calvinist), so it carries with it (in a strictly historic and original context) views contrary to Baptist theology.

Definitions change and we have to work within the bounds of what these things mean in order to communicate effectively. I believe what is more important than the terms used is the meaning of those terms and how they are used.

That said, the terms "Semi-Plagainism" and even "Arminianism" have often been thrown about as insults rather than legitimate talking points. Glad4mercy has started what could be an interesting discussion (if the temperament of the board allows).

 

I think some simple definitions are necessary in order to intelligently continue this discussion.

1. Pelagianism: Man is capable of initiating his own salvation solely on the basis of his own free will apart from the grace of God.

2. Semi-Pelagianism: man does not have an unlimited free will, but man and God could cooperate to a certain degree in this salvation effort: man can (unaided by grace) make the first move toward God, and God then increases and guards that faith, completing the work of salvation.

3. Classic Arminianism: Man is Totally Depraved and thus unable to come to God unless God first intervenes with Prevenient Grace which precedes a person's decision for Christ and is completely apart from any human merit. Prevenient Grace enables a person to engage their God-given free will to choose the salvation offered by God in Jesus Christ or to reject that offer.

4. Lutheranism: Conversion is through a "means of grace," such as the "Sacrament" of Baptism wherein the recipient is "born again in baptism." As history shows us that all those initiated into the church of Luther do not necessarily grow into Christians it would seem that this form of Augustinianism is, therefore, at least to some extent, resistible.

5. Classic Augustinianism: By God's Sovereignly bestowed regenerating grace one is given faith to believe and grace to live the abundant life in Christ.

Any person holding to any one of these positions should feel free to object or modify my understanding of your position.

But please, don't try to tell me what somebody else believes. The above were formulated by those who believe those position, not by opponents.

 

It seems that the Formula of Concord addresses what it sees as error in Christian theology (guarding the Lutheran church from what they reject). For my clarification, what exactly is the historical position that “although man by his free will before regeneration is too weak to make a beginning, and by his own powers to turn himself to God, and from the heart to be obedient to God, yet, if the Holy Ghost by the preaching of the Word has made a beginning, and therein offered His grace, then the will of man from its own natural powers can add something, thought little and feebly, to this end, can help and cooperate, qualify and prepare itself for grace, and embrace and accept it, and believe the Gospel” properly titled?

It appears to be fairly well described and rejected in the Formula of Concord as error, but this was prior to the controversial teachings of James Arminius (he would have been about 16, I think, when this was addressed by the Lutherans). I can see that it is stated differently, but I don’t see a difference between what they were addressing and the doctrines put forward by the Remonstrant movement.

 

Thanks. When I read the views expressed and debated I realize that there are two barriers I face - variety of positions and a poor understanding (on my part). What role (if any) would you say that our "natural powers" would serve in terms of a man being saved?

 

Thank you for taking the time to answer my question. Both sides of the Cal/Arm debate (historically) reject a works based salvation. The way you see it, is the difference strictly in context of whether or not one has the capability to resist this grace?

The reason that I ask is I do view grace as prevailing. I do not think that God can have mercy to an extent that salvation is revealed without that revelation itself carrying the man forward (I suppose for support my first appeal would be to God blinding Pharaoh's heart in Exodus 9:12). My initial thought would be that your position has man prevailing over God, but I also know that this would be neither a fair assessment of your position nor a statement of your conclusion.

 

We do? Who says?

1 Timothy 4:10 For therefore we both labour and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe.

Is Christ the Savior of all persons without exception in exactly the same way, or is He Savior of all, but in a special sense of those who believe?

 

James,
In what sense do you mean (that everyone, without exception, will be saved)?

 

Regarding for whom Christ died, I find myself very much in agreement with you here on many points.

I agree that Christ died that all may be saved. But in terms of election, I do believe it unconditional and therefore what ultimately determines the difference between belief and disbelief resides with the Father electing rather than the Son dying. I will also point out that historical Calvinism has existed on both sides of this issue. Some have viewed the crux as those for whom the Son died while others have concentrated on the election of the Father (holding that Christ died literally for all men). I believe the former to be error while ascribing to the latter.

I agree with your assessment that Christ died for those who will reject Him. In fact, I find this not only biblically but also experientially true. The Bible says that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Before I was “in Christ” I was found outside and in a state of rejecting Him.

I suppose the greatest difference between you and I here would be that while I agree that Christ died so that all may be saved, I do not believe that Christ died to save all. All can be saved on the basis of Christ as the propitiation for their sins (Christ died as the propitiation for the sins of the whole world). Jesus is Savior, period. But none are saved on provision. Salvation is a Trinitarian and supernatural work of God in the lives of men who exist in a state of condemnation for rejecting Christ already.

 

I'm not sure that I understand you, James. What becomes of those who are "saved" but are without faith in Christ (those who are not "saved by the washing of regeneration" as they are not believers)?

As it stands now, it seems to me that you are speaking of the bodily resurrection of all (some to condemnation and some to glory) as a "salvation", but I am not sure I am following you. (I may just be a bit thick headed this morning).