Arminianism and Semi-Pelagianism:Soteriologically Similar

I don't want to hurt your feelings WD, but you aren't someone of good repute that I was looking for.

 

It's clear that you can't furnish anyone but yourself who makes the claim that Arminianism and Semi-Pelagianism are exact opposites. I'm still waiting for documentation of anyone of good repute who makes your claim that the two are exact opposites.

You are weasling around. First of all no Calvinist here says that A. is the same as S.-P. We have said that they are similar; not identical -- they spring from the same root. The primacy of man's will is central to both A. and S.-P.

The two are quite alike -- so saying that they are exact opposites is unsupportable.

I asked before. Since you claim to be up on Historical Theology -- what belief system is the opposite of Calvinism?

 

..........

 

No hurt feelings, Ad Hom's are your M.O....and opinions are like nostrils.

I see you think works based salvation and salvation by grace as the same thing. If they are not the same...what is that little word that begins with "O" that deal with things that are not the same? Rhymes with "composite"?

 

On these threads, people redefine terms to suit their views. This is one reason I do not participate.

 

I need the *thank you" icon. I guess this will do: :wavey:

 

…and some people form their views on what they have been systematically programmed to believe of other’s views and will blindly insist on only one conclusion regarding a label instead of allowing the others which hold to that view their outlook. What bugs me is the insistence to label with attached dogma that is then used to demean while turning a blind eye toward any distinguishing theories regarding that label that they wish to place on another. That is one reason I don’t participate in many of these treads which attempt to make stereotypical another’s view to suit there own schema.

 

This is an outright lie and has been shown, proved and substantiated over and over again, using the arminians own doctrinal points. To even make such a claim, is to prove yourself to be purposely slanderous against your brethren.

Again you show a complete lack of understanding what semi-pelagianism holds. They don't even hold mans will is affected 'at all' because they don't subscribe to original sin and thus don't hold to mans depravity. It is for THIS reasom man can desire to seek after God and understand spiritual things WITHOUT any influence or grace of God prior.

No they do not 'agree on the matter of the will of a fallen man' and you show your ignorance by stating it even when it has been proven to be wrong.

You have continued to hold to a misrepresentation of the facts even when shown you are completely in error. Therefore there is no need to continue in this thread if you keep neglecting historical facts for your prefered mythology. You become the epitome of what Marcia states in her post "people redefine terms to suit their views", when you choose not to listen.

What is most funny for me is that I am not even an Arminian, but I at least know what they believe as well as what Pelagians and semi-pelagians, and Calvinism (both supra and sub), Open Theism, and others, teach theologically.

Until you choose to work with the historical facts of these belief 'systems' and thereby depict their views accurately (which you have done for neither), you show there is no reason to give 'any' credence to you with respect to 'this' subject.

 

Exactly, and what is most saddening is that when confronted with the facts they typcially will choose to ignore it and maintain their misrepresentation by being now, willfully slanderous.

 

I have recently tried not to but I figured I would give this one a chance. I figured giving factual data of beleifs and historical points would at least correct some misconceptions and myths. But alas - it appears to fall on deaf ears.

 

From AA Hodge's Outline Of Theology -- Chapter 6 : A Comparison Of Systems

Semi-Pelagianism ... is in its essential principles one with that system which is now denominated Arminianism...

...Cassianism would be the proper historical designation of that Middle or Semi-Pelagian scheme now commonly styled Arminianism.

From Brian Schwertley's Man's Need Of Salvation :Total Depravity And Man's Inability

Although there are differences between Semi-Pelagianism and classical Arminianism, the similarities between Semi-Pelagianism and what is taught in many modern evangelical churches is striking.

Although Arminianism as a system is more developed than Semi-Pelagianism, it still adheres to the central core of Semi-Pelagianism teaching.

 

Darren's answer to this question wasn't wrong necessarily, but I wanted you to consider something else with regard to this. When Jesus was on earth the Jews were being hardened (Jn 12:39-40). Jesus was speaking in parables so that they couldn't understand and repent (Mk 4). Why? Because he had a greater purpose to fulfill. The cross. The Jews, in their rebellion, would kill the Messiah, but only if they REMAINED IN THAT REBELLION. Jesus' miracles could have convinced many of them to believe, but that is not what God wanted. So, he was blinding them purposefully. However, once Christ was raised up he sent the disciples out into all the world to draw all men to himself by the preaching of the word.

 

:laugh::laugh:

It is typical to find 'Calvinists', and interestingly enough only Calvinists, making such assumptive leaps of ignorance to state that Arminianism is equal to Semi-Pelagianism - as Hodge does. Actually in reading Hodges work it is not only apparent but sadly a work of regergitation of other reformers (who were just as ignorant and wanting to demonize Arminianism) making the claim of such with nothing more than his OPINION. He make no connection to the two systems but only ascertions that they are the same or similar system and that one is more defined than the other.

The only similarity of the two is that both affirm man is allowed the will to choose. This however isn't even similar in understanding since Semi-Pel ascerts that man choose whatever and whenever without anything from God. Arminianism ascerts that mans will is limited to those choices God gives him.

The FACT that both Pel and Semi-Pel affirm man comes to God FIRST, prior to any work of grace by God establishes that Arminianism isn't even kin because they have completely different understandings of mans sin nature, God's grace and salvation. For the Pel and Semi-Pel view, salvation is a reward for man seeking God (and that seeking is specifically without the aide or intervention of God's grace)

Arminianism IS akin and comes from Calvinism but distinct in the mechanics of some. Anyone who knows the history of Arminianism knows that the Remonstrants affirm mans total depravity, the absolute need for God work of grace upon man to be saved, and the giving of faith 'to man' by God that he 'can' beleive, and that Christ redemptive work, though effecient for all, is applicable only to the elect of God forknown since the foundation of the world.

It is interesting however that your will only find Calvinists making such a claim and pretend it true only because they so. :laugh:

 

Where did you get the definitions you posted in the OP? Why should we accept them as correct?

 

I would not call this a discussion of systematic theology. Far from it. It's a discussion of man-made labels that no one agrees on.

 

WHEW! You are certainly on a rant here. I think AAH was a bit more astute than you bud. He knew historical theology. Before spilling your venom take some deep breaths, think, and then type. I think you are the demonizing one, not AAH.

 

No matter how badely you want to walk around the facts you can't.

He wasn't assute in any way regarding his opinion of those views nor did he use any real data to prove his opinions were true other than his rhetoric.
The facts are facts and no intellectually honest person can make any such statement knowing them. The doctrinal position of S-P does not compare in any real way to that of the Historic or Reformed Arminianism views. To assume that 'man's choice' is the defining link of the two is purposely forget that even in Calvinism man chooses as well. That even in Calvinism God will not and can not save a man until he has choosen to believe - and only then can and will God save him. If the Cal wishes to state that their understanding is different that S-P and Arm. then you must give the same clarification to the Arminians who's view is distinctly different (since their view is similar to Calvinisms) from that of S-P.

The fundamental views have no similarity at all, soterologically.

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 (this fact is the primary basis for everthing pertaining to each ones soterological view)

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 (seeking after God) with grace so as 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 apart from any influence and grace of God
Ar - Man chooses to believe due to the influence and grace of God.
Cal - 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, yet both agree that God is the first cause unlike Pel and semi-pel.

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

I would suggest you stop studying what others tell you to believe about anothers view and start studying it for yourself. You will find most, on both sides, are often wrong just like AAH is on this issue. AAH is more like Dave Hunt here.