Was there ever a historical group rallying under the name Semi-Pelagians, though, or was that term always more of an accusatory name from opponents?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Semi Pelagianism
- Thread starter glad4mercy
- Start date
- Status
Was there ever a historical group rallying under the name Semi-Pelagians, though, or was that term always more of an accusatory name from opponents?
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.
Given the 'utter depravity' of your flesh, is it not inevitable that if grace were resistible, you would resist it? And if reception of the gift is 'only made possible by preceding grace,' how does that differ from irresistible grace? And if that prevenient grace only enables you to accept the gift rather than compelling you, then is that not synergistic in that it still requires your compliance?
And what does Hebrews 1:3 have to do with it?
glad4mercy
Active Member
I believe all will be resurrected, but some will be resurrected to everlasting shame/eternal punishment.
glad4mercy
Active Member
good questions. Here is my understanding of them
a. A person who is left to themselves is completely and hopelessly enslaved to sin. But the Gospel and the convicting ministry of the Spirit has the power to break all chains. When a person hears the Gospel and is drawn by the Father through the Spirit, they can respond by believing or they can resist the offer of pardon and release.
b. It differs from irresistable grace, because it can be rejected.
c. It is not synergistic because you are not adding anything to your salvation. You are receiving a gift. You are not adding any work or effectual power to your salvation. God did all the work and He provides all the power. Therefore, it is monergistic.
d. As far as Hebrews 1:3, Jesus did all the work in the cleansing of our sins. There is no work that we can do to cleanse ourselves. It is all His work
glad4mercy
Active Member
Good post. As far as election is concerned, that is something I am content to trust Him with. I am content to know that He knew me and loved me and all believers from eternity, and that He chose to make me His Son. Some of the doctrine of election may be a mystery, and therefore perhaps we should'nt try to fit election into a neat little box either way.
Exactly. And in being raised, our bodies will be a new creation, cleansed of sin.
The very thing which happens in the inner man of believers, will happen to every nan bodily. That's what Romans 5 is talking about, and why it has a universal ring to it in verse 18
That's the sense in which Jesus died for all men.
the gift analogy is usually posited in a way that God reaches out with a gift, and we reach out and take it. Scripture would condemn that as a works salvation because there are two aspects of the grace of God - merit and access.
As you wrote further, Jesus did all the work in cleansing our sins. That's the merit which we can't add to.
However, scripture also condemns works access. We access grace through faith (Rom 5:1). And it is contrasted against works in Galatians 3 - did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law or by believing what you heard? Also in Romans 4:4-5 to the one who works, it is not counted as a gift but wages. But to the one who does not work, but believes in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited as righteousness.
Those in Galatia weren't trying to say they didn't need Christ, they acknowledged the merit of His death but were falling into the view of access by works. Paul told them "you have fallen from grace, and Christ has become no benefit to you"
If you're trying to reach out and take the gift, you're working to access the gift, according to scripture.
The analogy of an organ transplant works better, imo.
The surgeon is doing all the work to implat the organ. The body doesn't work to accept the organ. If it matches, it's simply a seamless fit. But the body might reject the organ.
Now, some might see that as working at not rejecting, but it's not.
Along this thought.
1 Cor 15:26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed (abolished, eliminated, done away) is death.
Will the death of Abel be destroyed?
Cain?
Someone asked me in another thread to deal with Semi-Pelagianism. This request was made in light of my stating that my beliefs most closely reflect Classical Arminianism. I will take the opportunity to address this as requested, because contrary to the notion of some, Classical Arminianism is not semi-pelagianism. First, I will address what semi pelagianism is, then state the position of the Classical Arminians.
Semi Pelagianism teaches that a person can decide to turn to Christ without the aid of Divine Grace, ie that a person can initiate faith and take the initial steps toward salvation on their own initiative. This is not the view of Classical Arminians.
Arminius- In this state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, maimed, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace.
Arminius The Second thing to be observed is, that as the very first commencement of every good thing, so likewise the progress, continuance and confirmation, nay, even the perseverance in good, are not from ourselves, but from God through the Holy Spirit. For "he who hath begun a good work in you, will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ;" (Phil. i. 6
Remonstrants, article three- That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, “Without me ye can do nothing.” [4]
Remonstrants, article four- That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishment of all good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and cooperative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ. but respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible; inasmuch as it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost. Acts 7, and elsewhere in many places.
So the statement that Armiianism in it's original form is a form of Semi-pelagiianism is wholly invalid, and people who say such things harm their own credibilty.
You would view salavtion though as being God and man co enabling the sinner to get saved, as God provides the means, but up to the sinner to accept/reject based upon their own Free Will?
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.
Last edited:
Many years before that, the epithet appeared in Geneva in Bible notes, attacks on rival Bible translator Sebastian Castellio, etc.
Beza's Bible of 1556:
Library of Geneva
‘Semipelagianism’: The Origins of the Term
That was wehat forced me away from former beliefs, as could not reconcile how God seemed to pland and purpose the surety of salvation for his own elect, and yet could and was stopped from saving them due to them refusing him "permission" to save them!
seemed a lot of planning going on, but still inultimate sense God not even sure who would get saved!
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).
Many years before that, the epithet appeared in Geneva in Bible notes, attacks on rival Bible translator Sebastian Castellio, etc.
Beza's Bible of 1556:
Library of Geneva
‘Semipelagianism’: The Origins of the Term
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.
glad4mercy
Active Member
The lost will not be cleansed of sin in the resurrection. They will be made undying, but their state will be of abject lostness and seperation of God.
glad4mercy
Active Member
You're hung up on thinking faith and repentance are works. They are not works, they are responses wrought by a monergistic drawing.
Who said anything about reaching out and taking the gift?
The Scripture says “DO NOT SAY IN YOUR HEART, ‘WHO WILLASCEND INTO HEAVEN?’ (that is, to bring Christ down), 7or ‘WHO WILL DESCEND INTO THEABYSS?’ (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead).” 8But what does it say? “THE WORD IS NEAR YOU,IN YOUR MOUTH AND IN YOUR HEART”—that is, the word of faith which we are preaching, 9that if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
I don't see any works here. God did all the work by bringing Christ down from heaven, Christ died on the cross, and the Triune God raised Christ from the dead. SO we don't have to reach up into heaven, or reach down into the abyss, all we have to do is receive the FINISHED WORK OF GOD.
The surgeon/transplant analogy is pretty good there. Receiving the new nature from God is not working at not resisting. It is just a response. Not a work, not some sort of meritorious or efficacious striving, simply humbing yourself under the mighty hand of God.
Last edited:
glad4mercy
Active Member
a. I do not like the co-enabling part. All of the ability in salvation comes from God.
b. The sinner cannot accept apart from preceding grace, so the answer to the second part is no. This is because it leaves too much in the sinners hand. It is up to the sinner to accept or reject BASED UPON THE GRACE OF GOD that is working and drawing them.
glad4mercy
Active Member
I do not subscribe to Unconditional Election ( I think election is one of those things that belong to the Lord), but this is an excellent post. I am hesitant to fully embrace either unconditional or fully embrace conditional election, because I beleive that election happened outside of time in eternity, so I am not sure we can neatly put it into either box. This is due to the fact that our (or at least my) understanding is limited regarding such a sublime topic.
- Status