-
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!
what would be the differences between Arminianism and Semi pel?
- Thread starter Yeshua1
- Start date
Greektim
Well-Known Member
As I understand it, Arminianism sprung out of reformed theology and held to the same view of total depravity as Calvinism - total inability (cf. the 3rd remonstrant). How it handled that situation was the dividing line. Arguing for a prevenient grace which enabled all people to have the capacity to believe led the way for what we now know as Arminianism. Thus everything is then dependent on the person to decide or refuse... before or after salvation.
Semi-Pelagianism (pelagianism being simplistically that man has goodness within him) says that man has inherent within him the capacity, the faith, the ability to respond to God's call of salvation apart from a Sovereign act of God in changing the will of the person. It does not deny God's role in leading or drawing a person to faith (like secondary causation), but the onus is on the individual to enact what is within that person.
The similarities are that man has the capacity to believe: i.e. total ability. The difference is that Arminianism says God gave humans the ability to believe in response to their total inability. SP says that God has created humans with the capacity to believe despite sin or depravity.
THey both lead to very similar places so as little distinction is made between them. For instance, many who are closer to SP are called ARminian b/c they have a similar belief. Many who do not like labels contest these altogether, although it is hard for them to escape the reality.
Last edited by a moderator:
What is the difference?
:laugh: Who is using the term and why :tongue3:
"Semi-Pelagian", is a term obsessed over by Calvinist Polemicists....it is rarely used by any Arminian Apologists. I must personally thank Calvinists for keeping his beliefs alive and well....as they were good enough to teach me and any others who would never have been exposed otherwise to this heresy, having grown up an Arminian and never having heard of the man.
I suspect.... that Pelagius himself, and the general bulk of his writings would have faded into obscurity and hardly anyone would even know who he was If it were not too convenient for the Calvinist Polemicists to utilize him as a cuss word. Even the RCC was smart enough to try to wipe his memory off of the face of the Earth. (A lot of his writings are lost to history. I believe most of what we know about his beliefs are only from Augustine's [the pro-prostitution-sex-obsessed pervert] no doubt impeccable representation of them
) But, I do not claim to have an in-depth knowledge of Historical Theology, I could be wrong. Pelagius was ostensibly a heretic. Arms recognize this.....Cals are obsessed with him, not Arms. Arms are content with letting heretical sleeping dogs lie.
:laugh: Who is using the term and why :tongue3:
"Semi-Pelagian", is a term obsessed over by Calvinist Polemicists....it is rarely used by any Arminian Apologists. I must personally thank Calvinists for keeping his beliefs alive and well....as they were good enough to teach me and any others who would never have been exposed otherwise to this heresy, having grown up an Arminian and never having heard of the man.
I suspect.... that Pelagius himself, and the general bulk of his writings would have faded into obscurity and hardly anyone would even know who he was If it were not too convenient for the Calvinist Polemicists to utilize him as a cuss word. Even the RCC was smart enough to try to wipe his memory off of the face of the Earth. (A lot of his writings are lost to history. I believe most of what we know about his beliefs are only from Augustine's [the pro-prostitution-sex-obsessed pervert] no doubt impeccable representation of them
) But, I do not claim to have an in-depth knowledge of Historical Theology, I could be wrong. Pelagius was ostensibly a heretic. Arms recognize this.....Cals are obsessed with him, not Arms. Arms are content with letting heretical sleeping dogs lie.
Last edited by a moderator:
And that's why these topics make for worthwhile discussion. The conclusions that any of us hold to could be wrong. It's always good to go back to the Word to check and re-check.
HeirofSalvation said:
Oncologists are obsessed with diagnosing and eradicating cancer. They find the error (cancer). Treatment can include radiation, surgery, or chemotherapy (or a combination of all three). Those who study the Bible, especially those who teach others (pastors/elders), need to identify error and guard against it. Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism are both heresies. Classical Arminianism (not what sometime passes for Arminianism) is a heresy. Gnosticism is a heresy. Donatism is a heresy. Arianism is a heresy. The problem with all of these heresies is that they're currently wearing modern clothing and speaking modern language but their damning doctrine is still leading people astray. They need to be identified and countered by correct biblical teaching.
Sure....but having been raised essentially Arm myself...it was indeed the Word I was taught....as it would have been with any decent Cal Sola Scriptura tradition. As such, I had no personal need to be exposed to his particular heresy. I was taught the Word well enough to have known that those unique things personally believed by Pelagius were heresy. One need not study counterfeit to be able to recognize the real thing....Knowing the real thing, is sufficient to spot counterfeit.
How does this answer the OP? The gaseous unrelated reference to Oncology does not answer this for me...All you are doing is proving my initial post....Use the term "Pelagian" as a cuss word and "Arminianism" in the same sentence....and it is a powerful tool of Cal. Polemics, which only the ill-educated will fall for, or think signifigant. This is what you are doing. If it were not for Cal Polemics....I maintain, Pelagius's idiocy (as told to us by the pervert Augustine) would have been long forgotten...as Arminians, who have a decent grounding in the Word... would not have ever thought his writings or beliefs worth mentioning.....Some statements are so stupid they do NOT need to be dignified with a response.
Arms know Pelagian thought is false enough to not be even worthy of response....Do Calvinists realize how foolish "Pelagianism" is?
humblethinker
Active Member
I think you may be incorrect about your claim regarding Classical Arminianism being a heresy:
"Arminianism affirms the divine initiative in salvation; semi-Pelagianism denies it. "
"Classical Arminianism says there is no point in salvation where the sinner-being-saved is autonomous."
-Roger E. Olson
The comments at the end of this blog post are really good regarding the OP.
Michael Wrenn
New Member
Since Calvinism has always been a minority opinion in the worldwide church, it is the heresy.
The answer's "false" because ice cream doesn't have bones.
And now we have exposed it.....sraight from the horses mouth, or do you retract your statement....
Anything "DAMNING" is a heresy which (by definition) if adhered to, or placed saving faith in, assures the eternal place in hell for the adherent....so, now the obvious (I smelled on you ages ago). You believe Arminians go to hell, as it was included in your list of damning heresies. According to this, at least, unless you admit a mistake in how you explained yourself. You may retract:
My eternal proposition....words may be used and/or defined at will by (MOST) not all, Calvinists. These include:
1.) Grace (anything deterministic)
2.) Faith (which is apparently also known as...."works"... in contradistinction to the entire book of James)
3.) Choose (which, if given as divine command means....hope fervently that God has already negated any "choice" of yours and chosen for you.)
4.) Semi-Pelagian (an aside reference to an historical person, whose actual writings are largely lost to history....Most of what we think he believed is "known" by the characterisations presented by his single greatest Theological opponent.... [the perverted prostitution-enthusiast] Augustine of Hippo...who accurately preserved his beliefs for us.
)Note: No one who ascribes to Classical Arminianism could care less what Pelagius believed or didn't believe, inasmuch as what little we know about him, or think we know, tells us that he was a heretic who held to, what are arguably, if not actually, damnable heresies, and is therefore not worth the mention. We, as Arminians, wish that what are understood to be his obvious and un-Scriptural doctrines were placed upon the ash-heap of history, to be forgotten, but unfortunately, our co-labourers in Christ, the Calvinists, are so obsessed with his non-starter ideas, that they often seem to be incapable of ignoring or letting them go........
Understand, young Arminians, that Pelagius and "Semi-Pelagianism" is a would-be forgotten heresy, that we (who have a completed and entire revelation of the Word of God and are therefore not near as subject to possibly honest, if mis-informed blatant departures from the complete Scriptural cannon) wish we might forget or ignore. Yet we must waste our time discussing it in lieu of the truths of Scripture.... largely because of the fetish our co-laboring Calvinists have with the man and his patently false ideas.
Remember this....we have our knowledge of what this Mr. Pelagius believed mainly from the mouth of his Theological opponent and not the preservation of his actual works.
Last edited by a moderator:
Greektim
Well-Known Member
Sorry your OP has deteriorate so quickly. I tried to make it a good discussion - fair and balanced.
You did, actually, and sorry, I suppose for my part....but, as I object to the very terminology itself.....then even your objective attempt to explain it is sort of challenged by default.....Arms are kind of sick of "Pelagius" and "Arminianism" being used in conjunction with one another...You are suggesting a perfectly fair argument....You would (I think) contend that Arminianism and what is so-called "Semi-Pelagianism" have a negative logical consequence which must be dealt with. That is a fair enough argument. The problem is most do not distinguish between an argument against the perceived logical consequences of an idea, and the idea itself.....most people are simply easily led by the repeated conjunction of the two terms in the same place at the same time. You are trying, as reasonably as you can, to describe the "actual" similarities....at least as you see them. I am responding by saying the answer to the OP is "Nothing, nothing at all, and the correlation between the two is ill-conceived, and unfair"
Both are legit points of view I suppose....but if the answer is in fact, nothing, nothing at all, what do you expect non-Cals to do? Consider allowing their very name to be endlessly associated with an obvious heretic? Please answer that last question. What are they to do? Are they to accept the direct accusation or synonymity with a heretic? Actually, I do not think the thread has truly been as "de-railed" as you would like to think....the very onus of the thread has been challenged, and on its own prescribed merits. That is what is called fair and balanced honest debate. Arminians do not have to accept your beginning proposition to fairly respond sir, They simply reject the premiss altogether....The correlation does not exist.....You claim it does....So.....
I would assume Calvinists are able to quote directly from Pelagius's mouth, and directly from the mouth of the Classical Arms to establish the correlation right? That, or they are engaged in Devilish trickery, in that he is the father of sublty, and tact to mis-guide and mis-lead. He is the father of lies...I assume my Calvinist brethren can directly quote from Pelagius himself and the Statements of faith of Classical Arminians to establish the similarity no????? Wasn't that the question posed in the thread? We await the direct quotes from the writings of Pelagius to the correlation between the Statements of Faith from Arminians......Please provide them.
:applause::applause::applause::thumbs:
Michael Wrenn
New Member
Prove that Calvinism has ever been the majority opinion in Christendom at any time in history. You can't, so your words are wind.
convicted1
Guest
Pushing more heresy eh?
The answer is because frogs hate pickles. You need to get your facts straight before you purport you beliefs....:laugh: I pray that you know I post this in jest only.
You want to joust? "Come see the violence inherent in the system!" :laugh:
I like that. My words are wind... Kind of paints a poetic picture, don't you think? Reminds me of the movie Dances with Wolves. I wonder what would be the Sioux translation for "Words are Wind." If they ever make a movie about me I will certainly mention you in the credits.
Arminianism and what some of you call non-calvinism has also always been a minority opinion in the worldwide church.
Catholics and Eastern Orthodox make up about 2/3s of the worldwide church.
So by your OWN definition you are saying that YOU are a heretic.
And for a few hundred years Calvinism and it's near cousin Lutheranism were the VAST majority of non-catholic and non-eastern orthodox Christians.
So if we are heretics based on your definition, you are a FAR greater heretic historically.
No one who knows beans from apple butter about church history since the Reformation doubts for millisecond that Calvinism was the DOMINATE theology among all non-catholic and non-Eastern Orthodox Christians.
The Anglicans were VERY Calvinistic by the last quarter of the 16th century. Their 39 Articles is still their confession to this day. It is Calvinistic. Their counterparts, the Puritans, were perhaps Calvinism's strongest proponents. The Lutherans were not completely and thoroughly Calvinistic, but they were MUCH closer to Calvinism than the Arminians were. They were as Calvinistic as MANY Calvinists today.
And that was basically it in the 16th century for all practical purposes.
It was the pilgrims at Plymouth who brought Calvinism to America. Yes, the Pilgrims were ARDENT Calvinists.
The Puritans were the first to spread like wildfire. Yes, your American forefathers who founded this nation WERE CALVINISTS! GASP!!!!!
The Great Awakening under Edwards and Whitefield was a THOROUGHLY Calvinistic revival in the 1700's in America.
The VAST majority of Baptists in this nation of ours and in England were THOROUGH Calvinists.
In fact the name REGULAR Baptist became the name of Calvinist Baptists in America because MOST Baptist churches were Calvinist.
This continued until Finneyism took a stranglehold on this country at the middle of the 19th century.
So yes, Michael, if being in the minority makes one's viewpoint heresy- you are part of the historical small minority of heretics.
In his rebuttal to Mohler, Eric Hankins never actually explained how his statement was not semi-pelagian (and without the affirmation, it would've been full-blown pelagianism).
From Roger Olson: The problem with this Southern Baptist statement is its neglect of emphasis on the necessity of the prevenience of supernatural grace for the exercise of a good will toward God (including acceptance of the gospel by faith). If the authors believe in that cardinal biblical truth, they need to spell it out more clearly. And they need to delete the sentence that denies the incapacitation of free will due to Adam’s sin.
I think he is right. The difference between semi-pelagianism and classical arminianism is that arminians DO believe that the will is incapacitated by sin. Prevenient grace is the remedy.
Olson's blog about the traditional statement
From Roger Olson: The problem with this Southern Baptist statement is its neglect of emphasis on the necessity of the prevenience of supernatural grace for the exercise of a good will toward God (including acceptance of the gospel by faith). If the authors believe in that cardinal biblical truth, they need to spell it out more clearly. And they need to delete the sentence that denies the incapacitation of free will due to Adam’s sin.
I think he is right. The difference between semi-pelagianism and classical arminianism is that arminians DO believe that the will is incapacitated by sin. Prevenient grace is the remedy.
Olson's blog about the traditional statement
Skandelon
<b>Moderator</b>
The point that pushes people into any form of pelagianism is their view of the gospel. If you believe that it takes a powerful, Holy Spirit wrought work of God for men to have faith in Christ then you are not a Pelagian, for Pelagius (according to what reports we have) denied the doctrine of original sin and believed men were born innocent and without need of a savior until they themselves acted sinfully. In short, the gospel and the work of Christ isn't needed for salvation UNTIL the individual actually sins. True Arminians strongly disagree with this, and rightly so IMO.
True Arminians believe God must initiate the work of salvation through a powerful, enabling work of the Holy Spirit. The difference between an Arminian and a Calvinist is that Arminians recognize that the Gospel ALONE is that powerful work and Calvinists do not. They think the "work" is some secret inward "irresistible calling" which precedes (or at least accompanies) the Gospel's work (most refer to this as 'regeneration'). Scripture clearly and often credits the Gospel as being the means of power, not some other working. There is no biblical basis for the view that the Gospel alone in insufficient to enable a response. Such a view only gives men who hear and reject the gospel an excuse for their rebellion, a view clearly rejected by the text.
True Arminians believe God must initiate the work of salvation through a powerful, enabling work of the Holy Spirit. The difference between an Arminian and a Calvinist is that Arminians recognize that the Gospel ALONE is that powerful work and Calvinists do not. They think the "work" is some secret inward "irresistible calling" which precedes (or at least accompanies) the Gospel's work (most refer to this as 'regeneration'). Scripture clearly and often credits the Gospel as being the means of power, not some other working. There is no biblical basis for the view that the Gospel alone in insufficient to enable a response. Such a view only gives men who hear and reject the gospel an excuse for their rebellion, a view clearly rejected by the text.
Last edited by a moderator: