Is Semi-Pelegainism heresy?

[rsr]

Yes, most of what we know comes from Augustine.

There is a reconstructed transcripts of one of his hearings. An apparently friendly synod never got to the core of his own beliefs and accepted his denials of heresy, which consisted of anathemizing what other people had said.

However, it seems safe to assume that he denied original sin, a position that his followers explicated into what became known as Pelagianism, whether or not he would have agreed with all the points it entailed.

 

[Van]

Yes, I read that in a previous post, my question concerned what the inspired writers said about "another gospel." They used phrases like "different gospel" or strange gospel or teach strange doctrine.

If you want to study the topic, you might start with Galatians 1:6-11. Other verses of interest might be 1 Timothy 1:3 and 6:3.

For example, another Jesus might be one who did not rise from the dead, or was not God in the flesh.

Forum rules preclude publicly posting the results of our efforts to test the spirits to see if they are from God, but people sent from God will exude kindness and truth.

 

[Reformed]

Calvinists also like to point out that, “Pelagianism has been condemned as heresy by councils all throughout Church history.” I always find it amazing when the so called “Reformed” and “Sola Scriptura” crowd will point to Catholic councils about Pelagius. They are not very reformed if they appeal to Rome, and they are not sola scriptura if they appeal to councils.



There were three councils that condemned Pelagianism; the Council of Ephesus in the year 431; the Council of Carthage in the year 418; and the Council of Orange in the year 529. This is because Pelagius was not invited nor present to defend himself but his opponents and adversaries stated his doctrine for him. When Pelagius was able to defend himself, the Council of Diospolis in 415 declared Pelagius orthodox. And Pope Zosimus also declared Pelagius’ orthodoxy in 417. He was always acquitted when present to clarify and defend his views. If these are our authorities to determine orthodoxy, do we accept the ones in favor of Pelagius or the ones against him?



In addition, the Council of Orange and the Council of Carthage were not ecumenical councils. They did not consist of Bishops from the entire church, which mean that the rulings of the Councils were not universally affirmed by the Eastern and Western churches.



If heresy is heresy because a council says so, or because of majority vote, Calvinism must be more heretical than Pelagianism was because there were more councils that condemned Calvinism than condemned Pelagianism. The Calvinist doctrines of predestination, limited atonement, and irresistible grace were condemned throughout history. Lucidus was condemned by the Council of Oral in 473, Council of Arles in 475, and Council of Orange in 529. And Gottschalk (Gotteschalcus) was condemned by the Council at Mentz in 848 and the Council of Chiersey (Quiercy) in 849. And what do Calvinists think of the Council of Constance in 1414 for John Huss, or the Council of Worms in 1521 for Martin Luther, or the Council of Trent in 1561 for the Protestants? Are these Councils not the voice of Orthodoxy as Ephesus and Carthage supposedly were?



In fact, the Council of Orange that condemned Pelagianism also condemned the doctrines of Calvinism. Specifically, the doctrine of limited atonement and double predestination was condemned by the Council of Orange. If the council is authoritative in the former case, it must be equally authoritative in the latter as well. But if it was mistaken in the latter case, maybe it was mistaken in the former as well.



On the other hand, the Synod of Philadelphia declared Albert Barnes as orthodox in 1829, after he presented his case for rejecting limited atonement, natural inability, and the imputation of Adam’s sin and guilt to all his posterity. And Lyman Beecher was accused of heresy for his new school theology in 1835 but was acquitted by the Synod of Cincinatti. Though “New England Theology” or “New School Theology” was accused of being “Pelagian” by “Old School Calvinists,” it was nevertheless declared orthodox by Christian Synods.



And just so that nobody feels left out, the Synod of Dort condemned the doctrines of Arminianism in 1618-1619. Certainly the Arminian camp should not, therefore, give credibility to councils which determine orthodoxy by popular vote.



But to determine if Pelagius really was a heretic, we should go to his actual words to see what he taught. It is a common error for Calvinists to quote from Pelagius’ opponents and accusers to express what Pelagius taught, rather than to quote from Pelagius himself. Certainly, Calvinists would not like it if people quoted from the opponents of Reformed Theology to state what Calvinism teaches. We should give Pelagius the same honesty and fairness that we would want our doctrine to be treated with.



http://biblicaltruthresources.wordpress.com/about/the-morrell-family/

With all due respect you are uninformed on the Protestant and Reformed view of the early church councils. The first ecumenical councils were catholic in the sense that they included all known contemporary Christian views of the time. Eventually the councils shifted in focus from catholic to Roman Catholic. That is a distinction that you failed to make.

Councils, and the creeds and pronouncements that they generated, are not infallible truth, but they do provide a valuable historical account of contemporary issues like Arianism and Pelagianism. The Reformers had a duty to determine whether the early church councils were right in their conclusions based on their own study. In other words, just because a council says something does not make it so.

As to whether the councils were correct on Pelagianism, the Reformers unequivocally said "yes". I concur. Pelagianism is a pure synergistic view. Man cooperates with God in salvation. Full blown Pelagianism is heresy. Thankfully most mainline Baptists are not Pelagians. They are semi-Pelagians. I do not question their salvation based simply on their misunderstanding. They are confused, but I am happy to call them "brethren".

 

[Inspector Javert]

FYI, no one truly knows what Pelagius believed...his writings were burned by Augustus of Hippo, no?

Not all of his writings were destroyed....

His entire commentary on Romans survives:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0198269803/?tag=baptis04-20

His "Letter to Demetrias" survives: (due to it's being falsely attributed to Jerome I've heard)

Some smaller snippets of some of his treatises on the will etc. also survive.

 

[quantumfaith]

With all due respect you are uninformed on the Protestant and Reformed view of the early church councils. The first ecumenical councils were catholic in the sense that they included all known contemporary Christian views of the time. Eventually the councils shifted in focus from catholic to Roman Catholic. That is a distinction that you failed to make.

Councils, and the creeds and pronouncements that they generated, are not infallible truth, but they do provide a valuable historical account of contemporary issues like Arianism and Pelagianism. The Reformers had a duty to determine whether the early church councils were right in their conclusions based on their own study. In other words, just because a council says something does not make it so.

As to whether the councils were correct on Pelagianism, the Reformers unequivocally said "yes". I concur. Pelagianism is a pure synergistic view. Man cooperates with God in salvation. Full blown Pelagianism is heresy. Thankfully most mainline Baptists are not Pelagians. They are semi-Pelagians. I do not question their salvation based simply on their misunderstanding. They are confused, but I am happy to call them "brethren".

You are correct, I am not a historian and particularly not a church historian. I would welcome some explanation of your point concerning catholic vs. Catholic representation at these councils. For the council of Cathage (419), what was it representation? Was it Catholic or simply catholic (universal)?

 

[rsr]

Neither the Second Council of Orange nor this Council of Carthage were ecumenical; the former being French and the latter African. However, the strictures against Pelagianism were codified by the Council of Ephesus (431), which was an ecumenical council.

 

[preachinjesus]

Well, 47 posts later and we still don't have an accurate definition of semi-Pelagianism by the OP or thereafter.

 

[rsr]

Try this one from Arminian theologian Roger E. Olson (who argues that most of American Christianity is either Calvinist or semi-Pelagian):

What is Semi-Pelagianism? It s a technical term used in the discipline of historical theology for the teaching of the “Massilians” John Cassian, Faustus of Riez and Vincent of Lyons (and others such as possibly Prosper of Aquitaine) that the initiative in salvation is on the human side even though full salvation can only be by God’s grace.

Cassian termed the initiative in salvation “exercising a good will toward God” and argued that God awaits it before he offers grace.

 

[quantumfaith]

Neither the Second Council of Orange nor this Council of Carthage were ecumenical; the former being French and the latter African. However, the strictures against Pelagianism were codified by the Council of Ephesus (431), which was an ecumenical council.

RSR, how does this "square" with the following:

Pursuant to the papal command, there was held on 1 May, 418, in the presence of 200 bishops, the famous Council of Carthage, which again branded Pelagianism as a heresy in eight (or nine) canons (Denzinger, "Enchir.", 10th ed., 1908, 101-8). Owing to their importance they may be summarized:

Death did not come to Adam from a physical necessity, but through sin.
New-born children must be baptized on account of original sin.
Justifying grace not only avails for the forgiveness of past sins, but also gives assistance for the avoidance of future sins.
The grace of Christ not only discloses the knowledge of God's commandments, but also imparts strength to will and execute them.
Without God's grace it is not merely more difficult, but absolutely impossible to perform good works.
Not out of humility, but in truth must we confess ourselves to be sinners.
The saints refer the petition of the Our Father, "Forgive us our trespasses", not only to others, but also to themselves.
The saints pronounce the same supplication not from mere humility, but from truthfulness.
Some codices containing a ninth canon (Denzinger, loc. cit., note 3): Children dying without baptism do not go to a "middle place" (medius locus), since the non reception of baptism excludes both from the "kingdom of heaven" and from "eternal life".

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11604a.htm

 

[quantumfaith]

Well, 47 posts later and we still don't have an accurate definition of semi-Pelagianism by the OP or thereafter.

This may be due to the fact that it is very difficult to precisely "pin down" what Pelagius actually believed and held to. Seems as though much of his documents did not survive antiquity. Was there a concerted effort by his opponents, such as Augustine, to rid the world of his documents?

 

[rsr]

RSR, how does this "square" with the following:

Not sure what the question is. Although the canons were later adopted by an ecumenical council, Carthage itself was an African synod, including none of the other geographical "churches."

 

[Van]

Just as the doctrines encapsulated with the acronym "TULIP" were never penned by John Calvin, the doctrine of Semi-Pelegainism, was never penned by Pelegus. So all this effort to address the lost views is off target. The question is, what do the Calvinists mean when they hurl this smear at all those who believe God desires fallen men to turn to Him and trust in Christ. At its core, any rejection of the mistaken doctrine of "Total Spiritual Inability," Calvinist say is close (semi) to heresy.

There is no need to debate how many Pelegus views can dance on the head of a pen.

 

[Rippon]

Just as the doctrines encapsulated with the acronym "TULIP" were never penned by John Calvin,

Despite some controversy on particular redemption --which I still believe Calvin held to --he would have agreed with the Canons of Dort.

the doctrine of Semi-Pelegainism, was never penned by Pelegus.

Of course --he was into full-blown Pelagianism --not a halfway house.

what do Calvinists mean when they hurl this smear at all those who believe God desires fallen men to turn to Him and trust in Christ.

What smear? Calvinists believe that God commands all people everywhere need to repent and believe the gospel.

At its core, any rejection of the mistaken doctrine of "Total Spiritual Inability," Calvinist say is close to heresy.

Calvinists are not the only ones who believe in Spiritual inability and the pervasive corruption of the heart. You have not been paying attention.

 

[Van]

I will refrain from "channeling" the departed and claim I know what he thought.

I will agree, Pelegus did not invent "semi-Pelegainism.

Calvinism says God commands us to do what He prevents us from doing. Go figure.

I agree, scripture teaches limited spiritual ability, fallen men can understand and respond to the milk of the gospel, but are unable to understand spiritual meat, which requires being enabled by the indwelling Holy Spirit.

 

[Rippon]

I will refrain from "channeling" the departed and claim I know what he thought.

No need for channeling. You simply need to read his books to know what he thought.

I will agree, Pelegus [sic]did not invent "semi-Pelegainism. [sic]

How reasonable.

Calvinism says God commands us to do what He prevents us from doing. Go figure.

To figure means to understand and come to reasonable conclusions on a matter. You have not.

The Lord has given commands yet the human heart is wicked. God did not cause them to be wicked. It was their 'choice.'

I agree, scripture teaches limited spiritual ability,

You are not agreeing with me. I did not say that people have 'limited' spiritual ability. I said that people have spiritual inability and pervasive corruption of the heart. You do not pay attention.

 

[Yeshua1]

I also want some defs by Arminian on this doctrine which I probably got in Chosen But Free. Geisler says they are confused and in error but not heretics.

Would agree with him on that definition of a heretic, as they would hold to the death of Jesus for their sins and his resurrection as ONLY hope to get saved, but they would tend to see it still as in God sent jesus to die for me, gives me enough grace to respond, and waits to see if I will chose jesus or reject Him still...

They do see us as being fallen and not able to come to God apart from him allowing that by His prevelient Grace, but all can freely choose Jesus if they so desired...

 

[Van]

Anyone who pays any attention to what Mr. Rippon says about John Calvin's thoughts on "semi-Pelegainism" is naive. No quote will be forthcoming.

According to Calvinism, God imposed "total spiritual inability" upon all fallen men, making them unable to not sin or seek God or trust in Christ.
Calvinism blames men for doing the only thing God has allowed them to do. It is a absurd irrational and mistaken view.

Total Spiritual Inability is refuted by Matthew 23:13 where fallen men are seeking God, actually in the process of entering heaven, when they are blocked by false teachers.

Just as the doctrines encapsulated with the acronym "TULIP" were never penned by John Calvin, the doctrine of Semi-Pelegainism, was never penned by Pelagius. The phrase was coined in the 16th century. So all this effort to address the lost views is off target. The question is, what do the Calvinists mean when they hurl this smear at all those who believe God desires fallen men to turn to Him and trust in Christ. At its core, any rejection of the mistaken doctrine of "Total Spiritual Inability," Calvinist say is close (semi) to heresy.

 

[Rippon]

Anyone who pays any attention to what Mr. Rippon says about John Calvin's thoughts on "semi-Pelegainism" is naive. No quote will be forthcoming.

I have said absolutely nothing about John Calvin's thoughts on semi-Pelagianism. The doctrine wasn't even called that until 13 years after his death. You must have been daydreaming again. ;-)

According to Calvinism, God imposed "total spiritual inability" upon all fallen men, making them unable to not sin or seek God or trust in Christ.

Before you go about trying to destroy Calvinism it would be wise to actually read what Calvinists have said. There is no Calvinist who thinks that God has imposed spiritual inability on the human race. Where do you come up with such absurdities? People have natural spiritual inability. Sin has radically corrupted them.

Just as the doctrines encapsulated with the acronym "TULIP" were never penned by John Calvin,

But his doctrines were in conformity with the canons of Dort.

the doctrine of Semi-Pelegainism, was never penned by Pelagius.

Well duh.

what do the Calvinists mean when they hurl this smear at all those who believe God desires fallen men to turn to Him and trust in Christ.

What smear? Calvinists believe that God commands all people everywhere to repent and believe the gospel. You apparently were not "listening" the first time I said this a few posts ago.

At its core, any rejection of the mistaken doctrine of "Total Spiritual Inability," Calvinist [sic]say is close (semi) to heresy.

Calvinists are not the only ones who believe in spiritual inability and the pervasive corruption of the heart due to sin. You continue to be inattentive to things that have been clearly stated over and over.

 

[Van]

Mr. Rippon continues to run away from Calvinism, hurling falsehoods to cover his retreat.

Does God predestine whatsoever comes to pass? Yes according to Calvinism. Thus fallen man's inability to not sin, seek God and trust in Christ was predestined by God. So simple a cave man could understand it.

Mr. Rippon says "There is no Calvinist who thinks that God has imposed spiritual inability on the human race."

However, if you search on this question, numerous cites pop. Here is an excerpt from one of them:

John Calvin sums this up in stark language:

"Let it stand, therefore, as an indubitable truth, which no engines can shake, that the mind of man is so entirely alienated from the righteousness of God, that he cannot conceive, desire, or design anything but what is wicked, distorted, foul, impure and iniquitous; that his heart is so thoroughly envenomed by sin, that it can breathe out nothing but corruption and rottenness; that if some men occasionally make a show of goodness, their mind is ever interwoven with hypocrisy and deceit, their soul inwardly bound with fetters of wickedness."2

As for the source of this total corruption of man, there was but one in the mind of Calvin: "...the corruption by which we are held bound as with chains originated in the first man's revolt against his Maker."3 The Fall (not a biblical term for Adam and Eve's sin) was the cause of man's inability toward all good. Every man, therefore, is born unable to respond to God. Calvinist theologian Augustus Strong notes: "Man's present inability is natural, in the sense of being inborn, - it is not acquired by our personal act, but is congenital."4 As with our race or eye color, our inability is a state over which we have no control.

The Calvinist, because of his doctrine of Total Inability, denies that man has a free will. All sin-born humanity, without exception, has a will wholly enslaved to always doing what is wrong and unspiritual. Boettner explains this:

"In matters pertaining to his salvation, the unregenerate man is not at liberty to choose between good and evil, but only to choose between greater and lesser evil, which is not properly free will...As the bird with a broken wing is 'free' to fly but not able, so the natural man is free to come to God but not able...." ...This loss of ability to receive spiritual truth is one of the consequences of Original Sin,

 

[Rippon]

Mr. Rippon continues to run away from Calvinism, hurling falsehoods to cover his retreat.

How have I been running away from Calvinism? What falsehoods have I said?

Mr. Rippon says "There is no Calvinist who thinks that God has imposed spiritual inability on the human race."

Yes, indeed. And you have produced nothing that contradicts that from Calvinists.

You apparently have a bee under your bonnet.