Arminianism and Semi-Pelagianism:Soteriologically Similar

Wrong. Men such as Steve Lawson, R.C. Sproul, Gary L.W. Johnson, J.I. Packer and A.A. Hodge have stronly asserted that Arminianism and Semi-Pelagianism share a similar soteriological bent; i.e. synergism.

Nonsense.

 

Yes, and they show their ignorance of the subject in asserting such nonsense or worse a willful misrepresentation of the facts.

God is not working with nor along side man for salvation if man is the one who obtains it as a reward for his efforts. Sorry, anyone who sees this as synergism has a comprehension problem.

 

Bumpity, bump, bump :type:

 

I have already discussed to great extent the difference in both my posts #5 and #13.

To presume that man and God are working 'together' in the semi-pel view makes absolutely no reasonable or rational sense.
Please read those posts which I made to you explaining not only the view of S but also Arminianism and they can by no rational thought be said to be similar.

Arminianism is the exact OPPOSITE of semi-pel.

 

Now come on. I know you want to put as much distance as you can from the two -- but exact opposites? No way. Hyper-Calvinism is more of an opposite to Arminianism.

Arminianism shares too much affinity with Semi-Pelagianism.

 

You can say what you want and continue to misrepresent the truth in light of historical facts. I choose not to.

 

Correction - My posts #11 &13

 

Nope, I stand by the historical facts and completely disagree (as do many others) with certain mens ignorance of those facts in order to demonize anothers view in spite of the truth.

 

You claimed that Arminianism and Semi-Pelagianism are exact opposites. That's absurd. You won't find anyone making that assertion but yourself. You haven't a leg to stand on, historical or otherwise, to make that fiction stick. Yet you say that I am misrepresenting the truth?!

Give sources, even died-in-the-wool Arminian sources,which make your claim. Even Roger Olson and David Pawson don't go to such ridiculous lengths to defend Arminianism.

This would be interesting.Tell us what the polar opposite of Calvinism is based on your understanding of Historical Theology.

 

You gave no such 'succintness' at all.
You did show a lack of understanding regarding the beliefs of each group and through your own 'opinion' (actaully that of some Reformers opinions) of what these groups believe, and tried to place them together in the same catagory. No matter how one wants to slice it, that is intellectually dishonest if not wilfully misrepresenting the truth to say they are soterologically similar, period.

Their basic ideas have no similarity at all, soterologically.

It is apparent you are seriously misinformed as to what the base premise of semi-pelagainism holds to and I know you have very little understanding of what the Arminianism believes because what you stated is their view was completely contradicted by me with the Arminiams actaul points of belief. You were absolutely wrong in your assumption of their belief, and I showed you that.

Thus far in both areas I have proven you are completely wrong, with the facts.
SP - man is the first cause
Ar - God is the first cause
Similarities - none (with this one point you agree, but miss the fact that this one point is basis for everthing pertaining to ones soterology)

SP - Man seeks after and understands God without any influence from God
Ar - Man can not seek after or understand God without God's influence and grace upon him.
Similarities - none

SP - Man is rewarded for his good works with grace to be saved
Ar - man is saved by grace through faith
Similarities - None

SP - There is no cooperation with God to be saved - it is a reward for his good works.
Ar - Like Calvinism, hold that our salvation is not based upon works but faith.
Similarities - None.

SP - Man chooses to believe in and of himself apart from any influence of God
Ar - Man chooses to believe due to the influence and grace of God.
Ca - Man chooses to believe due to the influence and grace of God.

Arminianism and Calvinism both hold that God can not and will not any man apart from mans concent and desire for God save him.

These are the facts and historically understood. Any attempt to try to make them seem similar is complete dishonesty or worse slanderous lies against ones brethren.

 

The only distancing that needs to be done if from the absurd and dishonest misrepresentation that Arminianism is kin or similar to semi-pelagainism made at best by the uninformed or at the very worst the slanderers of the brethren speaking lies.

No one has said that but you. I said both Arminianism and Calvinism are synergistic.

Now you are just making things up as you go along.

No the above can be taken in various ways and is thus a poor example of synergism.
Arminians deny the above.
The Arminian holds that man does not walk part way to God but that God comes all the way to him. However man must believe that God might save him/carrie him.

Yes, it is monergist ONLY if the person has no say. However Calvinist just like Arminianism says man must willingly believe in order for God to save him. Therefore God is waiting on mans choice and you just proved my point that Calvinism isn't Monergistic but synergistic.

Wrong. And what is worse you KNOW this because I have been telling you over and over and over. Other have shown you from various links like Wiki, Theopedia, and others. There is NO similarity soterologically AT ALL.

Yes, and your point? Arminians hold to the very same thing or did you not read my post in which I quoted 5 Remonstrances.

 

What is absurd is your ignorance on the subject. If I am the only stating such then I must have created those sourses previously cited in this thread that dispute it and the thousands of others out there on the internet and paper documents. Hmm... Yeah, your wrong again.

Sorry but that is just stupid. No Arminians says they are semi-pelagain nor do they state they are similar to it, at least none that actaully know what they believe.

 

So it's your position that those nasty Calvinists have foisted those offensive labels upon innocent parties? What about all the ancient heresies long before the 16th century? Christian creeds confronted the errors of Pelagianism, Semi-Pelagianism, Appollinarianism, Arianism etc. They were written centuries before the 1500's. Who ya' gonna' blame for those made-up compartments --which incidentally, were highly descriptive of anti-biblical teachings? Should we (Arminians too)dispense with systematizing categories altogether?

 

You said that Arminianism and Semi-Pelagianism are exact opposites. Document that.

I know reading. spelling and grammar are not in your realm of expertise. However, you either do not comprehend very clearly-worded English or you're playing dumb.

I know that no Arminian says that they are actually Semi-Pelagian. I said (for the umpteenth time) that not even an Arminian of any repute would say that Arminianism and Semi-Pelagianism are exact opposites.

Document where anyone else but you has said such a thing.

 

Let me be clear.

If the Arminian position is not the same as nor is it similar to semi-pelagianism then what is the logical conclusion of the Aminian position in relation semi-pelagianism? Is it or is it not - the opposite?

 

He's not by himself, as I agree they are polar opposites. One is works based salvation (pel and semi pel), the other is salvation by grace through faith. If you don't believe works based salvation is the opposite of salvation by grace, it is you that holds to fiction.