Featured Two Questions

Don't all questions have an agenda? Sometimes the agenda is simply to find the truth.

Because that is why we are here.

 

The problem is that we often use Theological terminology in a sloppy way.

An Arminian believes: (And remember, the Remonstrance was published after the death of Jakob Hermanszoon (Jacobus (James) Arminius).

The divine decree of predestination is conditional, not absolute. (This is really the only major difference.)

The Atonement is in intention universal. (Yes. Sufficient for all.)

Man cannot of himself exercise a saving faith. (Yep. Man is helpless without the intervention of God.)

Though the grace of God is a necessary condition of human effort, it does not act irresistibly in man. (Man often resists God's grace. That is man's default position. It is only after the efficacious intervention of God that a man believes, repents, and is enabled to obey.)

Believers are able to resist sin but are not beyond the possibility of falling from grace. (This was not the conclusion of the original Remonstrants. They admitted they were divided and the subject needed more study.)

On the other hand, Semipelagian thought stands in contrast to Pelagianism which basically says people are responsible for their own salvation.

Semipelagianism on the other hand was developed as a compromise between Pelagianism and the teachings of Augustine and others (commonly referred to as "Calvinism"), who taught that people cannot come to God without the regenerating grace of God.

Semipelagianism makes a distinction between the beginning of faith and the increase of faith. They believe in a small but exercisable kernel of faith that results in the outpouring of God's grace.

Most baptists, by saying "I am neither Calvinist nor Arminian" are, in essence, saying they stand in the middle, ground owned by Semipelagian soteriology.

I wonder if they realize by saying "I man neither" they are actually admitting to being Semipelagian.