Arminianism and Semi-Pelagianism:Soteriologically Similar

[Marcia]

I have recently tried not to but I figured I would give this one a chance. I figured giving factual data of beleifs and historical points would at least correct some misconceptions and myths. But alas - it appears to fall on deaf ears.

It is rare to find anyone on the BB agreeing on these terms, so you have your work cut out for you!

 

[OldRegular]

In another thread a strong debate has come forward over the issue of Arminianism and Semi-pelagianism. Are they similar (not the same, but similar), or are they drastically different.

Reformed theology views them as more similar than different. Arminians, out of necessity to distance themselves from what is generally seen by both sides of the debate as outright heresy (Pelagianism and its daughter, semi-pelagianism), strenuously defend themselves as being nothing like the semi-pelagians.

Here are the basic differences:
Pelagianism - man can come to God by himself, needing no assistance from God.
Semi-Pelagianism - man can only come to God with the assistance of God, but man is the primary mover (first cause) in this.
Arminianism - man can only come to God with the assistance of God, but God is the primary mover (first cause) in this.
Reformed Theology / Calvinism - man has no ability within himself to come to God, and God must originate and complete the work.

Notice the similarities / differences between S-P and Arminianism. Though they view how the work is accomplished differently, they both teach a synergistic approach to salvation - man and God cooperating. Arminianianism is not totally distinct from its S-P roots. And while it attempts to bridge the gap between Augustianism (Reformed Theology), and Pelagianism, it can only do so by following the same path as the semi-pelagian views held by those who tried it centuries before.

In the spirit of fair and honest debate, I would like to hear from both 'sides' of this matter, and if you are quoting a work, please give references so everyone can check it up. Also, if a position is countered by another poster, it would be nice to see a counter-argument made, not ignored.

If the Arminian-leaning contributors to this forum do not feel this brief definition of the 4 views is not acceptable, please explain why or why not.

I look forward to reading what everyone has to say.

I would say that many of the diatribes against the Doctrines of Grace posted on this Forum are more semi-Pelagian in nature than Arminian.

 

[webdog]

I would say that many of the diatribes against the Doctrines of Grace posted on this Forum are more semi-Pelagian in nature than Arminian.

My friend, the doctrines of grace consist of salvation by grace through faith. Calvinism does not have this market cornered. I believe in the "doctrines of grace", but not calvinism or what is known as reformed theology.

 

[OldRegular]

My friend, the doctrines of grace consist of salvation by grace through faith. Calvinism does not have this market cornered. I believe in the "doctrines of grace", but not calvinism or what is known as reformed theology.

We have at least one thing in common. I am not a Calvinist either, However, when I speak of the Doctrines of Grace I mean the Sovereignty of God in Salvation not Freewillism!