Arminianism and Semi-Pelagianism:Soteriologically Similar

I disagree with your definition of semipelagian.


From Wikipedia

Both of these heresies state that man can come to God unaided by the grace of God.




This is exactly what Allan said in another thread that you disagreed with. He is right.

(bolding mine)

 

Reformed Theology still needs to add to the picture that man comes to God once they are regenerated, that to me means man still responds to God and also that God is relying on "man" (shock horror) to preach the gospel to "draw out" the elect.

Darren

 

This is how I view things between the lines. IF the gospel is preached to a multitude of say 5000 people, they ALL heard, my understanding of scripture is that ALL 5000 God will draw to believe, some will believe while others will continue to reject/rebel refusing to believe. What RT would say is those whom did not believe God had no intentions of saving or enabling them to believe and further more they were not regenerated and their wills are locked in that they can only further reject God. This to me is seriously questioning the power of God's Word and God's drawing/intevention from the preaching of His Word. The Holy Spirit is always at work where ever the gospel is preached/heard/read. I don't see any argument for regenerated/not regenerated, elect/non elect in that example as the fall guy to explain the reasons for those whom don't respond. God has given everyone the ability to believe/reject the gospel once they are given the gospel.

Darren

 

Acts 16:6 Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia, -

Its a matter of God taking an order to where He wants His name proclaimed first and which order to establish churches...etc As we seen that God eventually had the gospel preached throughout Asia establishing churches. Act 19:22, 26, 20:18.. 1 Cor 16:9...etc

No problem. :saint:

Darren

 

You said it's your "between the lines" view. Where in the Bible does it say any such thing that God will draw all when the Gospel is preached? Drawing, according to Scripture (John 6) is done by by the Father for some, not each and every.

 

Yes exactly. I'm applying what I read in scripture to an actual example.

I have been through this. The Word of God preached has the power to bring sinners to salvation, or better understood, God uses the preaching of the testimony of Christ (the gospel) to lead lost sinners to faith in Christ. If you mean all that the Father gives to the Son will believe, I don't interpret that the way Calvinism does as I have previously stated. The Father gives believers to the Son, the Son raises up believers, simple as that. Again this is off topic, I think.

Darren

 

And here begins you problem. They were not correct in their assuption when they tried to saddle Arminianism with the label of Semi-Pel to try to make it somehow sinister to keep people and other cals away from it's teachings.

Pure biased opinion with not one grain truth to it. They are not the same (as you stated) therefore can not be equated 'as the same' nor from the same 'root'.

Historical Arminianism or Reformed Arminianism is similar to Calvinism, does that make them Calvinists?

Ok.

A very watered down version, here is a better one:
Man can understand and seek after God without any influence from God (man being the first cause, as you say), but man in doing so realizes that he can not save himself apart from God's help. God rewards man for his efforts by giving his grace so as to be saved.

Here man is not saved by grace through faith, but is in fact rewarded with salvation through grace for his efforts/works.

I believe a better defintion is:
Man cannot be righteous, understand God, or seek after God of or by himself. Therfore God is the initiator and thus the orginator (first cause) and is the mover/drawer, and revealer and also God alone must complete the work of salvation (God alone saves), which is by faith/belief willingly given by man.

More on this aspect of Arminianisms soterology (actaully more of a comprehensive read) that is not from wiki; from 'answers.com'. What I give below is the comparison of Arminianism, Pelagainism, and simi-Pelagainism

True in part. Even Calvinism believes that man must willingly believe 'in order to be' saved and that God will not and is not going to save man without his consent/faith. Therefore God's completion of 'the work' is based upon man's choice to believe.

No, your definition is incorrect. Semi-pel is not God cooperating with man but is actaully God rewarding mans efforts. That is an entirely works based salvation.

The fact is this - Both Arminianism and Calvinism soterology are basically the same with respect to immutable truths, but they just see the mechanics operating differently on certain things. They agree that - No man comes to faith apart from God's working and no man is saved by God apart from excersizing willing/freely his faith. Thus man is involved in the salvation process in both systems and in both systems man is not the reason for his own salvation. He can not save himself, nor does he trade his faith for salvation but in fact through faith believes God and cries out for God to be merciful and choose to save him by His grace.

There is no 'roots' to speak of.

A false assumption due to a flawed premise.

Hope the above helps you somewhat brother :flower:

 

Problem #1. Calvinists do not determine what others believe and how, nor do they determine the definition or defining peraminters of anothers beliefs. Therefore Calvinists are not appointed nor designated to place people in their personal little preconceived boxes, which typically misrepresent those groups anyway.

Problem #2. To assume that Calvinists are without error or flaw in speaking for others beliefs is to begin with a flawed premise.

Problem #3. As noted in my posting previously it is only the 'Calvinistic or Reformed' group who makes such claims as the OP tries to do and when such an attempt is tried it always falls short of the truth when examined.

Problem #4. Your sourse is completely wrong regarding Historical Arminianism with respect to man naturally seeking God, since it holds just as strongly to total depravity as Calvinism. Therefore to the Arminian as well, man can not and will not 'naturally' seek after God. Such a statement is ignorant of any historical data.

Here are the 5 articles of the Remonstrance - notice 3, 4 and 5:

As you can plainly see, he and you are both wrong in your assumption of what Arminianism teaches in that, like semi-pel, states that man can come naturally to God, which it obviously does not.

Problem #5. Pelagainism and Semi-Pelagainism are a works based salvation in which God rewards man with salvation, not that they are working with God but are reward by God for their greatness. This is not synergism and to imply it is shows a great lack of understandiing at best.

Problem #6. Calvinism and Arminianism agree that - No man comes to faith apart from God's working and no man is saved by God apart from excersizing willing/freely his faith. Thus man is involved in the salvation process in both systems and in both systems man is not the reason for his own salvation. He can not save himself, nor does he trade his faith for salvation but in fact through faith believes God and cries out for God to be merciful and choose to save him by His grace.

If man had no involvment in his salvation then you would have monergism but the fact is even in Calvinism/Reformed theology man is involved (no matter how slight) and that his willing involvment is absolutely necessary in order for God to save him. Therefore, both are synergistic.

 

This is a good thread, It would also be interesting to see more people aligned with some sort of historical position.

I know people do not like names around here but I hope people see that if they can't line up with one of these positions then they would be implying that no significant number of Christians ever got it right for the first 1900+ years.

 

Why? We are told to study to show ourselves approved, not align to any one systematic theology. I have no problem whatsoever eating the meat and spitting out the bones in ANY theological system.

 

No prob :thumbs:

Please understand that my post was not specifically about you, but was toward many Cals/Reformed in general and was my intent in 'Problems #1 and #2'.

Agreed, and I do try to help them to understand their misconceptions on many reformed points even if I don't agree with them. The main issue comes, from both sides, when a person reads one groups thoughts about anothers beliefs and then believe everything they read without going back to the source to see if it is true. This type of study breeds ignorance and misunderstanding, but it is common because to often many hold such men/authors in to high a regard than they should be.

True.

As well as you and others, and there is nothing wrong in this.

I did not say 'you' were defining them, I said Calvinists do so. Many of the 'catagories' that are out there are there because Calvinists created names for them and then defined what they thought those views taught so as to label people's beliefs and thus catagorize them into theological groups.

This is not a bad thing so long as you properly understand their views and can relay them back in a manner that is acceptable to the one who believes it. The issue is typically that Cals/Reformed in general do 'not' convey the understanding of anothers beliefs properly and thus they are quite often accused of misrepresenting views and beliefs of other believers.

That very assertion is proved incorrect by Arminians own statements. Therefore no such 'assertion' has any merit. There is no soterological similarities. As I showed in a previous post Arminianism is more kindred to Calvinism and shows no relationship with semi-pelagainism in it's soterological views.

I am not asking you to defend Reformed thinking, my point was that many of the Reformed writers are wrong in their understanding of others beliefs and thus the catagorizing of Arminianism with or in close kinship to semi-pel is simply not substantiated in light of the facts. As I showed in my previous posting that the author of the quote you give does not understand Arminianism and thus gives 'his' rendition of their views as he sees them. I then posted the Arminians actaul beliefs to the author of your quote was indeed incorrect and thus his premise of Arminianism being similar to semi-pelagainism was a statement made from ignorance with respect to their views.

Please reread what I said. It had nothing to do with the 'premise of calvinism' but the flawed premise is with respect to many Reformed writers as being without error in their understanding of others views.

But there is a substantial difference. The main problem is that Calvinists assume their assumptions of what others believe is correct and that they have not err'ed in their understanding of it. Fact is, many times, they have. And if you start with a false premise you will end up with a false conclusion.

Very true, but we are not talking about two of the same 'kind' but different 'kinds'.

No, S-P are not synergistic.
Pel and semi-pel are works based salvation in which man himself aquires salvation by God rewarding him for his efforts. If man is the first cause, then there is absolutely no kinship between this and Arminianism.

Arminianism holds that God is the 'first cause', and also to total depravity.

I look forward to it. :thumbs:

 

I'm held accountable for what I believe, not for what someone else believes. My "systematic theology" is infallible (as yours), and I have changed my views on many things over time. That is an impossibility for a system that is already in place.

 

Congratulations! When did you reach that level of perfection?