# Semipelagian



## A5pointer (Nov 29, 2007)

I have encountered some Arminians who bristle at being refered to as semipalagian. What are distinct differences that should cause such a reaction?


----------



## py3ak (Nov 29, 2007)

Some Arminians do believe in total depravity --God has just taken away its effects through prevenient grace that comes upon all men. So as I understand it, you are dead in trespasses and sins by nature; but the grace of God has come upon all men enabling them to believe if they should so choose when they hear the gospel.


----------



## A5pointer (Nov 29, 2007)

Thank you, I get that sense however it seems like semmantics to me since "total depravity" of Arminianism is hardly the same if it is remmedied universally and the remedy is innefective without cooperation of man.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 29, 2007)

Indeed. It's an incoherent system, like most errors.


----------



## SRoper (Nov 29, 2007)

Doesn't semipelagianism, properly defined, mean that we take the first step apart from grace? Arminians afirm that we need grace to make the first step, but as Ruben pointed out this grace is given to everyone (even those who haven't heard the gospel!).


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 29, 2007)

The effect is the same, so that by their definition of prevenient grace, everyone has the potential to do their part. It's a game. Depravity becomes a mere nomen without substance. It's a way of affirming depravity without having to face the consequences of human inability. Ockham did virtually the same thing. It's a way of talking about grace but denying it simultaneously. This is why the Reformed reacted so vehemently to the Remonstrants and why, at Dort, the churches did not describe them as "semi-Pelagian," which might have been more polite, but as Pelagians.

rsc


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 29, 2007)

R. Scott Clark said:


> The effect is the same, so that by their definition of prevenient grace, everyone has the potential to do their part. It's a game. Depravity becomes a mere nomen without substance. It's a way of affirming depravity without having to face the consequences of human inability. Ockham did virtually the same thing. It's a way of talking about grace but denying it simultaneously. This is why the Reformed reacted so vehemently to the Remonstrants and why, at Dort, the churches did not describe them as "semi-Pelagian," which might have been more polite, but as Pelagians.
> 
> rsc



 It's a distinction without a difference, in my opinion.


----------



## SRoper (Nov 29, 2007)

I see what you are saying. The substance of Pelagius's objection was not so much that we need grace but that we we have a moral inability to do God's will. Both the Pelagians and the Remonstrants affirm the current ability of every man to respond to God, and it matters little that they disagree about he got to that state.


----------



## py3ak (Nov 29, 2007)

I guess an Arminian might use their doctrine to buttress the inexcusability of those who reject the Gospel. You were spiritually dead, and yet God gave you the ability to accept Him, and you *still* didn't. But it does absolutely nothing to explain why some believe and some do not. Only God's sovereignty settles that point.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Dec 3, 2007)

To the question, Why do some believe and others don't, they must admit in the end it is something in man -- for God has given the same grace to all alike. The one must be smarter, more spiritually inclined, or something in and of himself, which is the determining factor in his salvation. Semi-pelagians say this "free will" ability is natural and was not lost in the Fall. The Arminian says this "free will" ability was lost in the Fall, but universally offset by prevenient grace.

Therefore the Arminians are quick to say that salvation is attributed to God's grace at all points, unlike Pelagians or Semi-pelagians.


----------



## ReformedChapin (Dec 19, 2007)

py3ak said:


> Some Arminians do believe in total depravity --God has just taken away its effects through prevenient grace that comes upon all men. So as I understand it, you are dead in trespasses and sins by nature; but the grace of God has come upon all men enabling them to believe if they should so choose when they hear the gospel.



As far as I understand ALL Arminians adhere to "total depravity" but it does not mean the same as the calvinistic system as you described above. Insted (according to their system) Christ distributes his grace through all man kind giving them an opportunity to reject or accept his grace.


----------



## ReformedChapin (Dec 19, 2007)

Gomarus said:


> To the question, Why do some believe and others don't, they must admit in the end it is something in man -- for God has given the same grace to all alike. The one must be smarter, more spiritually inclined, or something in and of himself, which is the determining factor in his salvation. Semi-pelagians say this "free will" ability is natural and was not lost in the Fall. The Arminian says this "free will" ability was lost in the Fall, but universally offset by prevenient grace.
> 
> Therefore the Arminians are quick to say that salvation is attributed to God's grace at all points, unlike Pelagians or Semi-pelagians.



Can you provide this documentation for these views? I have never seen an arminian specify to what extent God distributed his grace to all mankind.


----------



## cih1355 (Dec 19, 2007)

Gomarus said:


> To the question, Why do some believe and others don't, they must admit in the end it is something in man -- for God has given the same grace to all alike.
> [\quote]
> 
> Would Arminians believe that, that something in man is "goodness"? Even if the Arminian does not call that something in man, "goodness", the Arminian view of salvation ultimately makes salvation dependent on man.


----------



## Simply_Nikki (Dec 19, 2007)

Don't know how many of you have seen this article/diagram.. it's pretty neat about Arminians view of "grace" and man's salvation.

Do You REALLY Believe that Salvation is by Grace Alone?


----------



## Thomas2007 (Dec 20, 2007)

You might try calling them semi-augustinian and see if they still bristle, or you might ask them which side they lean to most, semi-pelagian or semi-augustinian, it might open the doors for some interesting discussions.


----------



## moral necessity (Dec 21, 2007)

For SoliDeoGloria,

Although it may not be the documentation that Gomarus was referring to, you will find similar teaching in the book Arminian Theology by Roger E. Olson. Also, Arminius' Declaration of Sentiments (Works of Arminius,Vol.1,pp.580-732) and his other works provide much of the distincion between Arminians and Semi-Pelagians. I've found that the earlier writers on Arminius' theology stuck closer to Arminius' own thinking. Two or three generations later, the Arminians fell farther away from Arminius' thinking, and still kept the label. Some Arminians today seem as if they are Semi-Pelagian at best, with regard to their theology. They would be appalled to see that Arminius' theology was closer to Calvin's then their own is, and yet still very distinct.
Hope this helps your study in some way.
Blessings.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Dec 21, 2007)

SoliDeoGloria said:


> Gomarus said:
> 
> 
> > . . . Semi-pelagians say this "free will" ability is natural and was not lost in the Fall. The Arminian says this "free will" ability was lost in the Fall, but universally offset by prevenient grace.
> ...



The following is extracted from an article by Sam Storms which gives a modern source on Wesleyan-Armininan doctrine of universal prevenient grace:

Thomas Oden is a contemporary Wesleyan theologian (professor of theology at Drew University). Storms notes that Oden contributes greatly to our understanding of the Wesleyan-Arminian view on _prevenient grace_. 

Grace, says Oden, arrested man in his fall and placed him in a salvable state and endowed him with the gracious ability to meet all the conditions of personal salvation. The redemption that God intends for all must be cooperatively chosen by freedom cooperating with the conditions of grace enabled by the history of grace in Christ. Oden writes: 

"Insofar as grace precedes and prepares free will it is called prevenient. Insofar as grace accompanies and enables human willing to work with divine willing, it is called cooperating grace" (_Transforming Power of Grace_, 47). 

"To no one, not even the recalcitrant unfaithful, does God deny grace sufficient for salvation" (48). 

"Actual grace both removes the obstacles to salvation and enables the will to act in a salutary way. Grace works negatively to remedy the infirmity resulting from sin, and positively to elevate the soul to salutary acts, so that the soul may be enabled to receive God's own justifying action manifested on the cross and persevere in this reception" (57-8). 

Prevenient grace, says Oden, is responsible for "healing the nature vitiated by original sin and restoring the liberty of the children of God" (58). Again, 

"God antecedently wills that all should be saved, but not without their own free acceptance of salvation. Consequent to that exercise of freedom, God promises unmerited saving mercies to the faithful and fairness to the unfaithful" (77). 

"*God provides sufficient grace to every soul for salvation *. . . . Those who cooperate with sufficient grace are further provided with the means for grace to become effective" (77).


----------



## ReformedChapin (Dec 21, 2007)

Gomarus said:


> SoliDeoGloria said:
> 
> 
> > Gomarus said:
> ...


Brother would you attest that those quotes in fact state that Prevenient Grace provides enough grace for man to decide to choose God and be regenerated but don't imply (at least to my understanding) that it's distributed evenly. Frankly I don't see how an arminian would be able to resolve that logically.

Thank you for your that information btw.


----------



## Vytautas (Dec 21, 2007)

Thomas2007 said:


> You might try calling them semi-augustinian and see if they still bristle, or you might ask them which side they lean to most, semi-pelagian or semi-augustinian, it might open the doors for some interesting discussions.



I think most of them want to avoid labels by not wanting to be defined by what some other theologian thought in the past.


----------

