Pelagianism vs. Semi-pelagianism

[webdog]

Why do you continually ignore context? Paul follows verse one by saying that he gave them milk... They had the Spirit and they had spiritual understanding but it was not mature.

1Co 3:1 Brothers, I was not able to speak to you as spiritual people but as people of the flesh, as babies in Christ.
1Co 3:2 I fed you milk, not solid food, because you were not yet able to receive it. In fact, you are still not able,
1Co 3:3 because you are still fleshly. For since there is envy and strife among you, are you not fleshly and living like ordinary people?

But let's give you the benefit of the doubt. What about the unsaved man? He has none of the Spirit of God.

OK. Nobody is born with the Spirit (unless you are following the John the Baptist thread and believe he was saved before birth). God's Word tells us that the Spirit draws all men. This text still does not answer why one has faith in Chris,t and why someone doesn't after they are both drawn by the Holy Spirit.

 

[saturneptune]

[Personal attack deleted]

[ May 18, 2006, 01:40 AM: Message edited by: rsr ]

 

[whatever]

[Response to personal attack deleted]

[ May 18, 2006, 01:41 AM: Message edited by: rsr ]

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Andy T.:
O.k., so I assume by being drawn that means to enable. I was just trying to get at the difference between the Semi-P view and Arminian view. The Arminian view says that God must enable a sinner in order to believe (but that sinner can also reject such grace). The Semi-P says that such grace is not needed at all - that a person's faith comes completely from their own good will.

This is, indeed, a very important difference between the Arminian view and the semi-pelagian view. Arminius believed in total depravity, insofar as he admitted that we are totally fallen and dead, not just wounded.

Semi-pelagians argue that the reasone we are able to choose Christ of our own free will is because [fill in the list of typical arguments here which amount to the fact that we are not totally fallen but just wounded].

An example argument in favor of our having the innate ability to choose Christ is that we are all made in the image of God, which means we still have a measure of goodness within us.

Another example argument comes closer to full pelagianism, which is that we must have free will because God would never command us to do something unless we had the ability to comply (implying that we had this ability from birth, which translates into being at most just wounded and not dead).

I have very rarely seen anyone qualify the above arguments by saying we are born dead in sin, without the ability to comply, but then through the Grace of His calling, God gave us the ability to comply, after which we choose of our own free will.

If this is what people mean when they say things like "God would never command us to do anything unless we were able to comply", they should state their entire views more clearly. The difference is extremely significant, even if I happen to disagree with both statements. And the statement implies otherwise. "Unless we were able to comply" suggests that it is within our own power to comply. "Unless God granted us the ability to comply by His Grace" would be more accurate, but isn't that almost Calvinism?

 

[Andy T.]

I think if we had the opportunity to sit down with the first generation Arminians, we would be surprised at how Calvinistic they sound. Most people today float in between Arminianism and Semi-P. I don't think there are very many self-consciously Semi-P's, although many non-C's reasoning is influenced by Semi-P.

I can respect classical Arminianism to a point, because it does not wholly strip God from the work of salvation. But the Semi-P thinking that tries to elevate man and keep God a "perfect gentelman" is something I have less patience for.

 

[Andy T.]

Originally posted by webdog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Why do you continually ignore context? Paul follows verse one by saying that he gave them milk... They had the Spirit and they had spiritual understanding but it was not mature.

1Co 3:1 Brothers, I was not able to speak to you as spiritual people but as people of the flesh, as babies in Christ.
1Co 3:2 I fed you milk, not solid food, because you were not yet able to receive it. In fact, you are still not able,
1Co 3:3 because you are still fleshly. For since there is envy and strife among you, are you not fleshly and living like ordinary people?

But let's give you the benefit of the doubt. What about the unsaved man? He has none of the Spirit of God.

OK. Nobody is born with the Spirit (unless you are following the John the Baptist thread and believe he was saved before birth). God's Word tells us that the Spirit draws all men. This text still does not answer why one has faith in Chris,t and why someone doesn't after they are both drawn by the Holy Spirit. </font>[/QUOTE]Is there a verse that states the Holy Spirit draws all men? I know there is John 12:32, but that is where Jesus says that he will draw all peoples to himself (NKJV) to signify the type of death he would die - i.e., an atoning death. But is there any that speaks of the Spirit drawing all men?

I can think of a scenario where one might believe that the Spirit draws only some or even most men, but that some of those men will reject such grace. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the classical Arminians held to this.

The whole notion that the Spirit has to draw all men is rooted in the "fairness" of God - that it wouldn't be fair for God not to draw all men equally. But as our experience tells us, some people get way more opportunity to hear the Gospel than others. How fair is that? This whole equal opportunity theory is definitely more Semi-P than Arminian.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by webdog:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Why do you continually ignore context? Paul follows verse one by saying that he gave them milk... They had the Spirit and they had spiritual understanding but it was not mature.

</font>[/QUOTE]This was a very unfortunate and uncalled for choice of words for me that I later corrected. I hope you will accept my sincere apology. I had confused you with someone else I had been interacting with recently.

 

[Scott J]

Originally posted by webdog:
OK. Nobody is born with the Spirit (unless you are following the John the Baptist thread and believe he was saved before birth).

That's interesting but I'd say we just don't have enough information about John to draw such a conclusion.

God's Word tells us that the Spirit draws all men.

But that cannot be interpretted in a way that contradicts scripture that says his sheep hear his voice and follow and that say whom he called he also justified.

If your interpretation is correct God draws all as in every single person equally then either God is impotent to always accomplish what He sets out to do or else He draws and the good come while the wicked don't. Do you have another explanation?

This text still does not answer why one has faith in Chris,t and why someone doesn't after they are both drawn by the Holy Spirit.

In view of my last point, this text does very much tell us why those subject to the general call whether given as special or general revelation do not believe. They are still subjected to the nature of the natural man. There must be a change within to free them from that bondage.

 

[npetreley]

I hate to see this thread die without getting a more satisfying answer as to why the soteriology of pelagianism is heresy but the soteriology of semi-pelagianism is often considered doctrinal truth.

The answer that I think came closest to addressing this was the one about how pelagianism says we can achieve our own righteousness through our own efforts (Christ being an example, not a savior). That is an excellent way to describe why pelagianism is heresy. But I wasn't asking why pelagianism is heresy.

It doesn't explain why, in spite of its similarities to pelagianism, people assert semi-pelagian arguments as doctrinal truth. It simply states that semi-pelagianism doesn't go so far as to demote Christ to an example.

Semi-pelagianism still elevates man above the state of being totally fallen. Even Arminius asserted total depravity and could not strictly be called semi-pelagian.

It asserts that man still has enough "good" in him that he is able to choose Christ of his own free will, on his own steam. Thus man attains justification and righteousness by his own decision to have faith. Man is the hinge and turning point of his own salvation, even more so than in Arminianism.

And it even relies on pure pelagian reasoning - such as "God would not command us to do something unless we had the ability to comply".

Now, if this were just an academic question, I wouldn't care about letting it die. But if you scan these forums you'll see exactly these kinds of arguments. People here claim that man is not totally fallen but just wounded. People here claim that we still have good in us because we're made in the image of God. People here claim (often) that God would not command us to do something unless we had the ability to comply (also stated as "responsibility implies ability"). These are all semi-pelagian statements, not Arminian statements.