what would be the differences between Arminianism and Semi pel?

[Herald]

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.

Few professed Christians are full fledged Pelagians. Instead, semi-Pelagianism became the term to define those who believe that man cooperates with God in salvation. In actuality even those Christians who believe that fallen man can actually exercise his free will, prior to regeneration, are not consistently semi-Pelagian at heart. Their view of free will does not travel to its logical conclusion - Pelagianism. There is a happy inconsistency present, in that they cast themselves upon God's grace and mercy. That's missing in full fledged Pelagianism which teaches man is born with a blank slate and can save himself by obedience to God's law.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

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.

Why thank you!

I was trying to be discreet so as not to get an unjust warning -- by calling you a windbag.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

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.

Sorry to disappoint you, but I am not Arminian. And since Arminianism arose at about the same time as Calvinism, both have been a minority opinion in the church, so by the historical definition of the word, both are heresies.

See bolded part: Which if true, would still make them a minority opinion in the church, but of course it isn't true. Just taking Anglicanism by itself would make your claim untrue. yes, Anglicanism was able to contain Calvinistic thought -- and as well Lutheran, Roman Catholic, Celtic, Eastern Orthodox, Zwinglian, Arminian, and other "systems".

Let me help you to define my position since you are obviously having such a difficult time: Soteriologically, I am close to Eastern Orthodoxy and the Anabaptists, which counting Eastern Orthodoxy alone would not make me a heretic based on the original meaning of the word.

If you are going to joust with me on church history and theology, (edited by author -- rethought my comment)....better familiarize yourself more with that, and with what I actually believe.

 

[Greektim]

Sorry to disappoint you, but I am not Arminian. And since Arminianism arose at about the same time as Calvinism, both have been a minority opinion in the church, so by the historical definition of the word, both are heresies.

See bolded part: Which if true, would still make them a minority opinion in the church, but of course it isn't true. Just taking Anglicanism by itself would make your claim untrue. yes, Anglicanism was able to contain Calvinistic thought -- and as well Lutheran, Roman Catholic, Celtic, Eastern Orthodox, Zwinglian, Arminian, and other "systems".

Let me help you to define my position since you are obviously having such a difficult time: Soteriologically, I am close to Eastern Orthodoxy and the Anabaptists, which counting Eastern Orthodoxy alone would not make me a heretic based on the original meaning of the word.

If you are going to joust with me on church history and theology, (edited by author -- rethought my comment)....better familiarize yourself more with that, and with what I actually believe.

Well instead of saying your soteriology is like 2 different denominations (or whatever the anabaptists were), why don't you explain it. I see little definition in your position.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Well instead of saying your soteriology is like 2 different denominations (or whatever the anabaptists were), why don't you explain it. I see little definition in your position.

I have done that many times on this forum.

 

[Greektim]

I have done that many times on this forum.

Forgive me. I'm still new in my interaction with others. For instance, you seem to be posting a lot all of the sudden (from my perspective). Can you at least provide a link for that???

 

[webdog]

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.

Actually the denial of original sin is not the hinge, but the ability one has in coming to God. Many arminians and non cals deny Augustinianism. Being deemed not guilty of sin until it is committed does not equate to not needing God in working on man's heart due to the affects of sin.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Forgive me. I'm still new in my interaction with others. For instance, you seem to be posting a lot all of the sudden (from my perspective). Can you at least provide a link for that???

No need to ask for forgiveness, but now I'll need to because I can't post a link. I've got more than 2600 posts on this forum. Please just do a search, maybe?

 

[Greektim]

No need to ask for forgiveness, but now I'll need to because I can't post a link. I've got more than 2600 posts on this forum. Please just do a search, maybe?

I fear that will take longer than it is worth. No worries. This thread is all but dead anyhow.

The objection I have with the non-Calvies who do not like the lable "semi-pelagian" is that they associate it with full blown pelagian dogma. Just look at the above posts about original sin as if that is the issue for the non-cals here. The issue is man's ability and semi-pelagian (unfortunate title perhaps) says man has the capacity to believe within himself. I think the vast majority of non-cals are closer to a semi-pelagian (inherent faith) view of salvation than arminian.

 

[Cypress]

Actually the denial of original sin is not the hinge, but the ability one has in coming to God. Many arminians and non cals deny Augustinianism. Being deemed not guilty of sin until it is committed does not equate to not needing God in working on man's heart due to the affects of sin.

:thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:............

 

[Herald]

I fear that will take longer than it is worth. No worries. This thread is all but dead anyhow.

The objection I have with the non-Calvies who do not like the lable "semi-pelagian" is that they associate it with full blown pelagian dogma. Just look at the above posts about original sin as if that is the issue for the non-cals here. The issue is man's ability and semi-pelagian (unfortunate title perhaps) says man has the capacity to believe within himself. I think the vast majority of non-cals are closer to a semi-pelagian (inherent faith) view of salvation than arminian.

I concur. Few Baptists who believe in the free will view of salvation are truly Arminian in the classical sense of the word. They are more akin to semi-Pelagianism. But lets praise God for a happy inconsistency in their positions because most of them would affirm salvation is by grace through faith in Christ alone.

 

[Skandelon]

Actually the denial of original sin is not the hinge, but the ability one has in coming to God.

Who cares about their ability to come unless you've first established their NEED to come?

Many arminians and non cals deny Augustinianism. Being deemed not guilty of sin until it is committed does not equate to not needing God in working on man's heart due to the affects of sin.

There is much debate on the difference between guilt and culpability etc...but Baptists have consistently supported the doctrine which teaches that men are born in need of a Savior. An infant who dies doesn't get to heaven on his own innocence. He gets there by God's grace provided through the atoning work of Christ. There is NO other way to heaven.

 

[webdog]

Who cares about their ability to come unless you've first established their NEED to come?

How does an infant understand this?

There is much debate on the difference between guilt and culpability etc...but Baptists have consistently supported the doctrine which teaches that men are born in need of a Savior. An infant who dies doesn't get to heaven on his own innocence. He gets there by God's grace provided through the atoning work of Christ. There is NO other way to heaven.

Agreed, but to state they are guilty of Adam's sin is begging the question. The Bible is clear we are dead in OUR sins and trespasses in which WE used to walk.

At any rate, ability is what separates Semi pelagians and pelagians from arminians, not the denial of Augustine's theory.

 

[Herald]

The Bible is clear we are dead in OUR sins and trespasses in which WE used to walk.

This is quite true; however Paul wrote that passage (Eph. 2:1) to an adult audience who was capable of understanding his words. He was not writing to infants. The point being that Paul wasn't making a theological point that only those capable of understanding were once guilty of sin. Scripture is clear on the fact that "all" have sinned. It makes no distinction between age and/or the ability to understand.

I recognize that this is a sensitive topic. Even the old Puritan Baptists understood how emotional the issue was; moreso in their time than ours since infant morality was much higher in the 17th century. Those Puritan Baptists penned this:

Elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ through the Spirit; who worketh when, and where, and how he pleases; so also are all elect persons, who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

The reason that they, like us, saw the conundrum regarding infants is because the Bible states that all are sinners and makes no distinction on age or ability to understand. It's a hard providence to reconcile in our own minds. No doubt about that.

 

[Yeshua1]

How does an infant understand this?
Agreed, but to state they are guilty of Adam's sin is begging the question. The Bible is clear we are dead in OUR sins and trespasses in which WE used to walk.

At any rate, ability is what separates Semi pelagians and pelagians from arminians, not the denial of Augustine's theory.

but this is at the heart of the dividing line...

IF one accepts the biblical notion that ALL were condemned by god when Adam choose to willfully sin...

We are born sinners, seperated from god atbirth, and spiritual unable to come to Him in ourselves...

That would mean that God HAS to directly intervene to save ANY of us...

His Will to save one of us would beaccomplished by His Will to save, not our will to get saved!

IF we are not seen as estranged by god untilwe chose to commitactive sin, wouldn't that mean ALL infants small children would HAVE to be saved by god in your understanding?