Featured Semi Pelagianism

It first appeared (negatively) in the Lutheran Formula of Concord (1577), though the beliefs it describes go back to the fourth century.

 

The term "Semi-Pelagian" was not used unto around the 16th century. Historically the group advocating that doctrine were called Massilianists, and centered around the town of Marseille from the early 5th century. The doctrine was condemned in 529 at the Council of Orange.

 

I believe that often disagreements arise over issues of conjecture. Sometimes our contentment to trust God is accompanied by a natural desire to understand even those things we cannot fully understand (sometimes we go beyond God's revelation in "connecting the dots"). Our comprehension is limited, but men (myself included) strive nonetheless to build human constructs to house the Divine. I believe that it is natural that we understand things as if they are within the human experience (this is how we comprehend things). Raising my son, I often reflect back on how he rationalized and comprehended ideas that were beyond his understanding. We laugh now at some of his conclusions, but this illustrates our own limitations. We age and mature, but we do not outgrow the human condition in this lifetime.

I say all of that simply to point out that we agree insofar as trusting God and allowing some “mystery” to exist in election. While I believe Scripture repeatedly confirms unconditional election, I also know that the mind of God in choosing is far beyond anything I can truly grasp. Our goal should not be to understand the thoughts of God (they are beyond us) but to have that mind in us that is in Christ. Still, reading what God has revealed in Scripture, I cannot help but see both unconditional election and prevailing grace (I can’t see one without the other). Perhaps this is something of my own making, and perhaps the only way that I can understand the topic in my ignorance. If so, I wouldn’t be surprised for I’ve stood firmly on ground in the past that I now reject (I never claimed to be the sharpest tool).

But I keep coming back to election because I believe it the root of the disagreement (at least for me). The reason I believe in prevailing grace is because I believe election is unconditional (I rely quite a bit on immutability and God's words to Israel in Ezekiel 36 for support). So while I would never disagree that man must accept God’s grace in order for that grace to be effective, my argument remains that God works within the will of some men in such a way that the do accept that grace.

 

People are different. Men understand and rationalize things in different ways. Last month I talked to a kitchen manager about their freezer. We both understood that the freezer was purposed to keep the compartment at a steady temperature. But he had a mistaken idea of how a series of relays operated in that unit. He had misunderstood the compressor to be controlled directly by the thermostat rather than pressure (this was a newer compressor with a module). His misunderstanding did not effect the freezer. It did not effect the temperature of the box. It did not even effect the manager's job because his task insofar as that freezer was concerned was to simply set the thermostat and monitor the temperature - not to understand how the thing worked.

I am concerned that I am among the elect. I am concerned about what God has to say to the elect (both individually and corporately). I am less concerned about the opportunity that may or may not have existed for those who reject Christ. I certainly am not so concerned about the inner-workings of God's election that I would let it come between me and my brothers. That is not my job.But, like you, years of study has led me away from a belief in conditional election and a grace unto salvation that can be overcome by men.

That said, I am not sure that it is correct to ascribe to Arminianism the idea that God seeks man's permission to save them, or that man somehow nullified God's plans. I see this sometimes attributed to their belief (on this board we have seen this), and this is the ultimate "logical" conclusion that I would arrive at. But when I read the works of John Wesley this does not seem to be where he lands (at least not so easily).

 

So it is.

BACKUS, I. and GOUDRIAAN, A. (2014) ‘“Semipelagianism”: The Origins of the Term and its Passage into the History of Heresy’,The Journal of Ecclesiastical History, 65(1), pp. 25–46. doi: 10.1017/S0022046912000838.