Who Would be Seen As the Arminian Theologian To Calvin?

[Skandelon]

Skandelon,
Could you cite that Hendryx quote? If it's the same one of Monergism.com fame, I'm sure it came from that site which has about six trillion articles :laugh:

Sure, I meant to do that when I quoted it. HERE IT IS>

 

[Skandelon]

I'd take that challenge.

And you would lose.

And furthermore, if Allan thinks that Calvinists have not historically considered Arminianism to be semi-pelagianism, his education that he keeps touting and that you have joined in with him touting is not that credible.

I don't mean to speak for Allan, but I don't think he was attempting to say that no Calvinists throughout history have ever attempted to make that link. Instead, I heard him saying that such efforts to equate the two were misrepresentative or reflective of ones own misunderstandings regarding the historical and theological differences. These quotes, from scholars on the subject, prove my point well:

"Classical Arminianism, which sees Arminius as its figurehead, and Wesleyan Arminianism, which sees John Wesley as its figurehead. Wesleyan Arminianism is sometimes synonymous with Methodism. In addition, Arminianism is often misrepresented by some of its critics to include Semipelagianism or even Pelagianism, though proponents of both primary perspectives vehemently deny these claims." -Olson, Roger E. Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press, 2006) 17–18

"Within the broad scope of the history of Christian theology, Arminianism is closely related to Calvinism (or Reformed theology), and the two systems share both history and many doctrines. Nonetheless, they are often viewed as rivals within evangelicalism because of their disagreement over details of the doctrines of divine predestination and salvation." -Gonzalez, Justo L. The Story of Christianity, Vol. Two: The Reformation to the Present Day (New York: Harpercollins Publishers, 1985; reprint – Peabody: Prince Press, 2008) 180

Those two quotes sound a lot like what Allan actually said in his reply to you on that subject:

It is easy to prove Semi-Pel is not akin to Arminianism as they are diametrically opposed to one another. Cal and Arminianism are much closer in kinship than they are!

Maybe he is a bit more scholarly than you give him credit for... :smilewinkgrin:

 

[TomVols]

Sure, I meant to do that when I quoted it. HERE IT IS>

Thank you.

I'm not sure what to do with Hendryx. I don't know I'd agree with his assessment on everything. But he's thorough, that's for sure :type:

 

[webdog]

I think that is an assumption. It may be that Dr. Bob thinks that, but he also may not have meant that. I'd prefer to let him speak for himself.

Kind of like I'd prefer to let me speak for myself, despite Luke's intentions :laugh:

If you would like to know my thoughts regarding whether or not Arminianism and Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism are compatible, I'll address that. Or if you prefer I delve into a much deeper theological subject, we can talk about how frustrating my beloved Cincinnati Reds are. :laugh:

Based on past interaction with Dr. Bob I believe my assumption to be correct.

At any rate I would be interested in your take (and not the Reds...my Indians have lost 3 in a row and I'm not up for talking baseball today

 

[webdog]

Bump..waiting for Tom's response.

 

[TomVols]

Ahh....sorry.

Too busy watching the Reds....well, be the Reds :BangHead:

I believe some Arminians may unwittingly adopt some Pelagian thoughts. However, others may tend to lean more on planks rightly called Semi-Pelagian (a modern term, that may just as well be called Semi-Augustinianism). We have to clarify our terms here, and that may be hard to do. Just which Arminian are we talking about?

I would reject (as did the church historically) that man's will is not harmed by the fall. I would suspect most would also join me in this. Therefore, we would believe that a divine work of grace that is interior and intentional must occur. The extent to which we believe that work of grace is necessary decides a lot. One step away from the error of Pelagius is almost two or three towards a more Augustinian understanding. However, some will move away from Augustine's views, and every step away you get from him is one more back on the scale. Most Arminians I know tend to settle near the Semi-Pel spot on the gameboard, but some speak like they want to head to Pelagian land. When pressed they quickly and rightly retreat, just like some Calvinists may sound hyper but quickly will distance themselves from it and rightly so. Prima facie, I'd say that Arminianism has more in common with Semi-Pel, but some Arminians (those who are most non-Cal) would sound like Pelagians. Finney probably did more here to make that a case as Arminian scholars will attest. We also must admit that this is a fluid thing we're talking about to some degree.

Long answer to a short question. I hear I'm good at that

Now, back to the important stuff: your Indians still bested my Reds 3 straight. That's a beat-down no matter how you look at it. So every knee must bow, of those wearing Red hats with white wishbone C's :smilewinkgrin:

 

[JesusFan]

Ahh....sorry.

Too busy watching the Reds....well, be the Reds :BangHead:

I believe some Arminians may unwittingly adopt some Pelagian thoughts. However, others may tend to lean more on planks rightly called Semi-Pelagian (a modern term, that may just as well be called Semi-Augustinianism). We have to clarify our terms here, and that may be hard to do. Just which Arminian are we talking about?

I would reject (as did the church historically) that man's will is not harmed by the fall. I would suspect most would also join me in this. Therefore, we would believe that a divine work of grace that is interior and intentional must occur. The extent to which we believe that work of grace is necessary decides a lot. One step away from the error of Pelagius is almost two or three towards a more Augustinian understanding. However, some will move away from Augustine's views, and every step away you get from him is one more back on the scale. Most Arminians I know tend to settle near the Semi-Pel spot on the gameboard, but some speak like they want to head to Pelagian land. When pressed they quickly and rightly retreat, just like some Calvinists may sound hyper but quickly will distance themselves from it and rightly so. Prima facie, I'd say that Arminianism has more in common with Semi-Pel, but some Arminians (those who are most non-Cal) would sound like Pelagians. Finney probably did more here to make that a case as Arminian scholars will attest. We also must admit that this is a fluid thing we're talking about to some degree.

Long answer to a short question. I hear I'm good at that

Now, back to the important stuff: your Indians still bested my Reds 3 straight. That's a beat-down no matter how you look at it. So every knee must bow, of those wearing Red hats with white wishbone C's :smilewinkgrin:

Don't forget the almighty detroit Tigers!
OK..

isn't is as simple as saying that cals see God as provoding for means to save us, in Cross of Christ, and is the One who ultimate sense redeems his own people?

And that Arms see God as providing means/grounds to save us in the Cross, but that in the ultimate sense its we whio save ourselves, by agreeing to co operate with God?

 

[webdog]

Ahh....sorry.

Too busy watching the Reds....well, be the Reds :BangHead:

I believe some Arminians may unwittingly adopt some Pelagian thoughts. However, others may tend to lean more on planks rightly called Semi-Pelagian (a modern term, that may just as well be called Semi-Augustinianism). We have to clarify our terms here, and that may be hard to do. Just which Arminian are we talking about?

I would reject (as did the church historically) that man's will is not harmed by the fall. I would suspect most would also join me in this. Therefore, we would believe that a divine work of grace that is interior and intentional must occur. The extent to which we believe that work of grace is necessary decides a lot. One step away from the error of Pelagius is almost two or three towards a more Augustinian understanding. However, some will move away from Augustine's views, and every step away you get from him is one more back on the scale. Most Arminians I know tend to settle near the Semi-Pel spot on the gameboard, but some speak like they want to head to Pelagian land. When pressed they quickly and rightly retreat, just like some Calvinists may sound hyper but quickly will distance themselves from it and rightly so. Prima facie, I'd say that Arminianism has more in common with Semi-Pel, but some Arminians (those who are most non-Cal) would sound like Pelagians. Finney probably did more here to make that a case as Arminian scholars will attest. We also must admit that this is a fluid thing we're talking about to some degree.

Long answer to a short question. I hear I'm good at that

Now, back to the important stuff: your Indians still bested my Reds 3 straight. That's a beat-down no matter how you look at it. So every knee must bow, of those wearing Red hats with white wishbone C's :smilewinkgrin:

Thanks for the clarification. I still disagree that the majority of arminians are even semi-pel's. Semi-pelagianism teaches (like pelagianism) man can still come to God on his own apart from His working which deny's God giving man creation, His law written on their hearts, the desire to live eternally and having been placed in the perfect location and time in history to seek Him.

 

[webdog]

Don't forget the almighty detroit Tigers!
OK..

isn't is as simple as saying that cals see God as provoding for means to save us, in Cross of Christ, and is the One who ultimate sense redeems his own people?

And that Arms see God as providing means/grounds to save us in the Cross, but that in the ultimate sense its we whio save ourselves, by agreeing to co operate with God?

If I go to work, get a paycheck, buy you a gift and you accept it...how can you claim you are "in the ultimate sense" the one who rightly receives credit for the gift? That kind of logic is mind baffling.

If you are required to use something, are given this gift to use, and then use it...how are you NOT "cooperating" with the one who gave it to you?

 

[TomVols]

Thanks for the clarification. I still disagree that the majority of arminians are even semi-pel's. Semi-pelagianism teaches (like pelagianism) man can still come to God on his own apart from His working which deny's God giving man creation, His law written on their hearts, the desire to live eternally and having been placed in the perfect location and time in history to seek Him.

Would you believe Arminians are more Pelagian than Semi?

I am not familiar with Semi-Pel writings that would say that man can come to God without the interior intentional working, but there may be someone out there I haven't read or have forgotten.

If I go to work, get a paycheck, buy you a gift and you accept it...how can you claim you are "in the ultimate sense" the one who rightly receives credit for the gift? That kind of logic is mind baffling.

If you are required to use something, are given this gift to use, and then use it...how are you NOT "cooperating" with the one who gave it to you?

We've been through this one a lot. I don't know that this is a good argument. One, why are you giving the gift? Two, if you were given a job, can you even take credit for giving the gift since the money you earned was given ultimately because of a worthiness deemed and given, not earned by you. Third, the cooperation strikes at the heart of the matter: monergism vs. synergism. Fourth, analogies are just that. Fifth, my Reds continue their semi-free fall, so I may just need to shut up. :laugh:
Sixth, points one through four have been discussed ad naseum and I think we're off topic. Seventh, It's my fault we're off topic one more post since I responded.

I'll stop at seven. It's a perfect number, right? :smilewinkgrin:

 

[Ed B]

On the other hand you do believe very similarly to the semi-pelagians- I didn't say identically. A difference you nameless guys claim is that you believe in prevenient grace to help the sinner choose God.

But you certainly do believe this:

Semi-Pelagianism settled for the following positions:

* Human nature is neither good nor bad, but injured. Just as an injured person can't quite do whatever he'd like to do, so likewise because of original sin, man's moral abilities became restricted. His free will remained, but was weakened by the Fall. Man, then, can still decide to seek and receive help.

* Man's need for grace: Although Semi-Pelagianism believes in man's need for God's grace (for man is too weak to help himself), man by his own free will is able to decide whether he wants God's grace. Whereas Pelagius taught that salvation is totally man's own doing, and Augustine taught that salvation is totally from God, Semi-Pelagianism teaches that salvation is a combination of the efforts of both man and God. According to Semi-Pelagianism, salvation is accomplished when man decides to co-operate with God and accepts the grace God offers him. This is often viewed as a synergistic concept of salvation.

* God's sovereignty: Semi-Pelagianism essentially maintains that the sovereignty of God is limited by man's decision to co-operate with God or not. God's gospel of salvation in Christ can be rejected by man and so return to God empty. Though God may wish to save someone, He can only do so if that person chooses to accept it and cooperate with grace.

Based on these definitions I have met hundreds of Semi-Pelagians in my life. Most were descendents of Wesleyanism of some stripe or from Restoration movement (CofC).