Pelagius - Augustine Spectrum

[PointyHaired Calvinist]

I've been reading lately about the ancient heresies, and realize I have been in error calling Arminians "Semi-Pelagians". There is actually a much more nuanced spectrum, and I thought I'd post it -

Pelagianism

• Denies Original Sin - Adam only provided a bad example and we are born with a "clean slate"
• Believes that man can of his own believe and honor God
• Jesus was a great example, and man can live like Him on his own, or with God's help if needed
• Examples: Some Church of Christ churches, Mormonism

Semi-Pelagianism

• Adam's sin was bad, but not so bad as to ruin free will
• Believes the decision to serve God must be of man's own free choice
• After we "choose Christ", then God helps us along in our Christian walk
• Examples: None I know of, but I would guess many modern evangelicals lean this way

Semi-Augustinianism

• Adam's sin corrupted the entire human race, and man is dead in sin
• God gives "prevenient grace" (or something to that effect) to all men to overcome the corruption of sin
• Man still chooses Christ (by aid of prevenient grace) and can resist the Spirit
• God helps us grow in grace, provided we choose to do so
• Examples: Romanists, modern Lutherans, Arminians, Wesleyans

Augustinianism

• Adam's sin corrupted the entire human race, and man is dead in sin
• God chooses to regenerate whom He will, and these will all come to faith
• God works holiness and sanctification within and with the believer
• Examples: Calvinists, Jansenists

Critique me if I'm off on any of this.

 

[NB3K]

Arminian's do not believe that man is guilty for Adam's sin.

 

[earl40]

Arminian's do not believe that man is guilty for Adam's sin.

What is interesting is try saying that "reprobation like election is not based on works" in most reformed settings and sit back and watch the fireworks.

 

[Jake]

I generally call most broad evangelicals Semi-Pelagian, and this chart would confirm this. I would put many Pentecostals in this group as well. True Arminians are closer to what we believe, but still in deep error.

I think hyper-Calvinism would fit on the other side to round it out, in view of Pelagian being included.

 

[Apologist4Him]

Arminian's do not believe that man is guilty for Adam's sin.

Many if not most Arminians do believe the doctrine of "Original Sin" (it is the historical Arminian position: The Reformed Faith) however the difference lies in the extent to which man has fallen. They say while man has fallen, he's not fallen to the extent that his will is dead to God, we say man has fallen to the extent his will is dead to God, at enmity with God.

 

[Scott1]

It is helpful to understand that all "five points" (of Calvinism) are necessarily biblically and logically related to and dependent upon one another.
Yet, man imagines otherwise, on a spectrum of error.

That's why there are people who imagine themselves "three point" Calvinists.

It goes back to basic misunderstandings that re-define terms such as total depravity and sovereignty. And the error runs the spectrum, you are correct.

And this is nothing new.

 

[CharlieJ]

Jonathan, I'm glad you're raising these issues. It's important not to divide the world into two groups: people who agree with me, and everyone else.

I would pick up the book The Plan of Salvation by B. B. Warfield. He places the major theological systems on a spectrum in relation to one another, but he nuances it a bit more. One thing he does nicely is break out different types of Arminianism. There is even a handy-dandy chart in the front of the book. I highly recommend it.

 

[Rufus]

Many Lutherans (I've talked to a lot recently) would probably put themselves as Augustinian, I would probably put them somewhere between Augustinianism and Semi-Augustinianism but becuase that is not an option Semi-Augustinian is fine. They do believe in monergism, they affirm Total Depravity and unconditional election, conversion however comes about via the Sacraments and is resistible, and they do believe in unlimited atonement and that you can eventually become apostate and fall away, however it is not like Arminianism when this is conditional to one's own continued faith in Christ. I've often heard it said (or written) that Lutherans are synergistic because of Melanchthon, however The Book of Concord was somewhat a response to some of the views of his followers, particularly that Melanchthon himself picked up Synergism from his friend Erasmus and a more Reformed view of the Lord's Supper from his friend John Calvin .

 

[NB3K]

Arminian's do not believe that man is guilty for Adam's sin.

What is interesting is try saying that "reprobation like election is not based on works" in most reformed settings and sit back and watch the fireworks.

Well reprobation & election are both works of God according to His divine choosing. Romans 9:11 teaches us this clearly in the choosing of Jacob and the rejection of Esau before they were not yet born or could do any good or evil.

They fail to believe that they are condemned already for the first man's sin. If they believed that they were already condemned, they would teach that every work that they will to do is condemned also.

---------- Post added at 09:15 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:12 PM ----------

Jonathan, I'm glad you're raising these issues. It's important not to divide the world into two groups: people who agree with me, and everyone else.

I would pick up the book The Plan of Salvation by B. B. Warfield. He places the major theological systems on a spectrum in relation to one another, but he nuances it a bit more. One thing he does nicely is break out different types of Arminianism. There is even a handy-dandy chart in the front of the book. I highly recommend it.

A good book to read on this would be Charles Hodge's Systematic theology. Hodge does a great job at showing the differences in the many system's of faith in contrast to the true faith.

 

[Peairtach]

Arminian's do not believe that man is guilty for Adam's sin.

What is interesting is try saying that "reprobation like election is not based on works" in most reformed settings and sit back and watch the fireworks.

Isn't it the case that preterition isn't based on works but reprobation is based on works?

I.e. God didn't pass over the reprobate for election (preterition) because they were any worse than the elect, but he did predestine their place in Hell (reprobation) based on their different levels of wickedness.

See Shedd, Calvinism: Pure and Mixed (BoT).

 

[NB3K]

Many if not most Arminians do believe the doctrine of "Original Sin" (it is the historical Arminian position: The Reformed Faith)

That's not altogether true. I thought that one of the tenants of Original Sin was the imputation of Adam's guilt on all of his offspring. This they do reject. They also hold to a preventing grace that makes everyone free from this original sin to be free to choose Jesus or reject Him. This is why they deny total inabilty, because their so-called doctrine of "preventing-grace" they say makes man able to co-operate with God in their salvation.

 

[hammondjones]

I'm not sure Mormonism belongs on there at all.

 

[Apologist4Him]

Many if not most Arminians do believe the doctrine of "Original Sin" (it is the historical Arminian position: The Reformed Faith)

That's not altogether true. I thought that one of the tenants of Original Sin was the imputation of Adam's guilt on all of his offspring. This they do reject.

Yes that is one of the tenants, Arminians in the truest sense of the word do not reject the imputation of Adam's guilt on all of his offspring. I know a little about Arminian interpretation, I grew up with Arminian teachings, held to Arminian theology for nearly 30 years. I was an Arminian up until about 8 years ago, I'm almost 37 years old now. If you had read from the link I provided, you would have read...

"Although human nature was seriously affected by the fall" - Loraine Boettner from the section "The Five Points of Arminianism"

"No system of Arminianism founded on Arminius or Wesley denies original sin or total depravity" - Arminianism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

One of the problems in dealing with Arminians today is that so many do not even know or understand their own position historically. Their beliefs are a theological haphazard mess, and that is also why there are so many varieties or shades of different Arminians.

They also hold to a preventing grace that makes everyone free from this original sin to be free to choose Jesus or reject Him. This is why they deny total inabilty, because their so-called doctrine of "preventing-grace" they say makes man able to co-operate with God in their salvation.

Yes they hold to prevenient grace (a twisted version of common grace), but no they would not say it makes everyone free from original sin, but is the means by which everyone is given an ability to overcome the sinful nature we're born with. At times the differences are so subtle and the reason it can be so frustrating trying to convince someone that the Doctrines of Grace are Biblical. Like I said, the issue in dealing with Arminians proper, is not convincing them of the doctrine of original sin (outside of the Bible is found in the writings of Augustine and the Catholic Church held to), but the issue is the extent to which everyone is fallen. We believe because of original sin, man is born spiritually dead (effecting the entire person, body, mind, and soul), and because man is spiritually dead, his will is dead, and will remain that way unless or until God decides to regenerate a person. We deny prevenient grace because it is not Biblical, it is an invention of man, and the implications of it, make Christianity (though subtly) into another works based religion.

 

[J. Dean]

Many Lutherans (I've talked to a lot recently) would probably put themselves as Augustinian, I would probably put them somewhere between Augustinianism and Semi-Augustinianism but becuase that is not an option Semi-Augustinian is fine. They do believe in monergism, they affirm Total Depravity and unconditional election, conversion however comes about via the Sacraments and is resistible, and they do believe in unlimited atonement and that you can eventually become apostate and fall away, however it is not like Arminianism when this is conditional to one's own continued faith in Christ. I've often heard it said (or written) that Lutherans are synergistic because of Melanchthon, however The Book of Concord was somewhat a response to some of the views of his followers, particularly that Melanchthon himself picked up Synergism from his friend Erasmus and a more Reformed view of the Lord's Supper from his friend John Calvin .

Lutheranism is in a strange place as it carries elements of Calvinism and Arminianism, yet does not squarely side with either. I've been in the company of several Lutherans lately (both online and in person) and they criticize Calvinists for "putting Enlightenment-fueled reasoning over the plain sense of the Bible" on things such as the sacraments and the concepts of Limited Atonement, citing that Calvinists don't permit for the possibility of paradox and point to the Trinity in their defense.

 

[SRoper]

Many if not most Arminians do believe the doctrine of "Original Sin" (it is the historical Arminian position: The Reformed Faith)

That's not altogether true. I thought that one of the tenants of Original Sin was the imputation of Adam's guilt on all of his offspring. This they do reject. They also hold to a preventing grace that makes everyone free from this original sin to be free to choose Jesus or reject Him. This is why they deny total inabilty, because their so-called doctrine of "preventing-grace" they say makes man able to co-operate with God in their salvation.

You are not representing the Arminian position accurately. Arminians do not deny total inability. Article 3 of the Five Articles of Remonstrance states:

That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John xv. 5: 'Without me ye can do nothing.'

 

[J. Dean]

You (all) also need to remember that Arminians are not monolithic on the first and fifth DAISY (Arminian equivalent of TULIP) points. I've met Arminians who believe in total depravity and also believe in eternal security (perseverance of the saints).

 

[NB3K]

Many if not most Arminians do believe the doctrine of "Original Sin" (it is the historical Arminian position: The Reformed Faith)

That's not altogether true. I thought that one of the tenants of Original Sin was the imputation of Adam's guilt on all of his offspring. This they do reject. They also hold to a preventing grace that makes everyone free from this original sin to be free to choose Jesus or reject Him. This is why they deny total inabilty, because their so-called doctrine of "preventing-grace" they say makes man able to co-operate with God in their salvation.

You are not representing the Arminian position accurately. Arminians do not deny total inability. Article 3 of the Five Articles of Remonstrance states:

That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of and by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving Faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John xv. 5: 'Without me ye can do nothing.'

Those 5 points are 5 points of deception.

They deny total inability by their doctrine of preventing grace.

8. Personal Choice
224. We believe that humanity's creation in the image of God included ability to choose between right and wrong. Thus individuals were made morally responsible for their choices. But since the fall of Adam, people are unable in their own strength to do the right. This is due to original sin, which is not simply the following of Adam's example, but rather the corruption of the nature of each mortal, and is reproduced naturally in Adam's descendants. Because of it, humans are very far gone from original righteousness, and by nature are continually inclined to evil. They cannot of themselves even call upon God or exercise faith for salvation. But through Jesus Christ the prevenient grace of God makes possible what humans in self effort cannot do. It is bestowed freely upon all, enabling all who will to turn and be saved [WESLEYAN DOCTRINAL STATEMENT]

 

[Unoriginalname]

You (all) also need to remember that Arminians are not monolithic on the first and fifth DAISY (Arminian equivalent of TULIP) points. I've met Arminians who believe in total depravity and also believe in eternal security (perseverance of the saints).

I think the point is to describe what arminians classically believed. I believe that many times calvinists unhelpfully label noncalvinists arminians when that is not a fair assessment of what they believe. I do not remember who made the point but I would have to agree that the historic Wesleyan or Arminian position is actually better than what many evangelicals believe. Many unfortunately teeter closer to a view that would be similar to open theism.

They deny total inability by their doctrine of preventing grace.

Yes, but at the same time they would say a part from the Lord's grace, man would be unable. That is different than most evangelicals who would just say that the fall did not take away man's ability to seek the Lord. While prevenient grace is a silly doctrine it still allows the believer in it to affirm that man apart from grace is hopeless.

 

[NB3K]

While prevenient grace is a silly doctrine it still allows the believer in it to affirm that man apart from grace is hopeless.

No it doesn't; it just adds smoke and mirrors to their deception. Their grace is not grace. Pauls says that it is by grace we are saved. Paul does not say that we are saved by a grace that makes our salvation possible but that we ARE saved BY Grace end of story.

 

[Unoriginalname]

No it doesn't; it just adds smoke and mirrors to their deception. Their grace is not grace. Pauls says that it is by grace we are saved. Paul does not say that we are saved by a grace that makes our salvation possible but that we ARE saved BY Grace end of story.

I am not arguing that, I am simply trying to be fair to their system. Whether or not their definition of grace is a good definition is not the question I am trying to answer. A belief in prevenient grace is much different from believing that man does not need any help from the Lord to believe. Not all poor beliefs are equally poor.

 

[NB3K]

A belief in prevenient grace is much different from believing that man does not need any help from the Lord to believe. Not all poor beliefs are equally poor.

That's the problem. Man doesn't need help. Man needs to be saved. If God helped man with the Arminian's preventing grace it would do nothing but cause man to boast before his Creator.

 

[SRoper]

Jason, I'm fine with saying that what Arminians give with one hand they take away with the other, but to say they deny total inability is not true as I and others here have demonstrated. Tearing down straw men doesn't do anyone any good.

 

[NB3K]

They do not hold to the doctrine of total inability. You cited one point in their so-called 5 points of Remonstrants that was simply used to decieve the people. If you would simply read their works you will see that they do not believe the said point that was already quoted.

If they believed in total inability or original sin, then the Synod of Dort, John Owen, Augustus Toplady, Spurgeon and a host of other Divines would have mis-judged their system of doctrine for over 400 years.

Arminianism is not "Semi-Augustinian" as the op laid down. THey are and have always been labeled as "Semi-Pelagian" A Semi-Augustinian would be someone like the moderate 4-point calvinists or Lutherans. The Romanists would also be classifed as Semi-Pelagian.

Some good books to read on this subject are:

Display of Arminianism: Being a Discovery of the Old Pelagian Idol Free Will with the New Goddess Contingency by John Owen

Arminianism: The Golden Idol of Freewill by Augustus Toplady

Arminianism: The Road to Rome! by Augustus Toplady

 

[August]

Another (Arminian?) statement I keep running into, from someone who hangs on every word Roger Olson says, is that original sin, total inability, the need for grace etc is all true and valid, but that God purposely restricts or limits His own sovereignty when it comes to the freedom of the human will. This allows God to be sovereign when He wants to be, but He never interferes with the human freedom to choose or not choose Him, because He doesn't want to. When asked where that can be Scripturally justified, the person replies that Jesus is an example of God limiting His power by becoming human. Of course, that is at best analogous, and at worst not at all relevant to the point being argued. The further argument includes all the Weslyan prevenient grace and unlimited atonement statements from classical Arminianism. Has anyone else come across that argument?

Total inability being negated by prevenient grace is to make total inability a purely theoretical and academic exercise, with no real impact or significance. If man is conceived and born in sin, with total inability, exactly when does prevenient grace limit the extent of original sin? If it is at the moment of an individual coming into existence, then man does not have total inability as a characteristic, because he never had it. If it is sometime after that, then freedom of choice prior to when prevenient grace becomes effectual is not free at all, and the whole argument becomes arbitrary. If it is argued that it is corporate, like Arminians argue about election, and specifically about Rom 9-11, then the same counter applies, total inability that is corporately negated or limited by prevenient grace is no sin-imparted inability at all, it is just a theoretical exercise since no individual is ever really affected by sin to the extent that they are in bondage to it.

 

[earl40]

Arminian's do not believe that man is guilty for Adam's sin.

What is interesting is try saying that "reprobation like election is not based on works" in most reformed settings and sit back and watch the fireworks.

Isn't it the case that preterition isn't based on works but reprobation is based on works?

I.e. God didn't pass over the reprobate for election (preterition) because they were any worse than the elect, but he did predestine their place in Hell (reprobation) based on their different levels of wickedness.

See Shedd, Calvinism: Pure and Mixed (BoT).

I don't see it this way. I see God willing or wanting to demonstate His glory to His children by choosing some to go to hell. Why He chose you or I I do not know but I do know it was based on His will totally and not based on "their different levels of wickedness".

 

[SRoper]

Jason, by that reasoning the reformed only believe in total inability for those who are not elect. Saving grace makes the idea of total inability for those who are elect merely theoretical.

 

[NB3K]

Jason, by that reasoning the reformed only believe in total inability for those who are not elect. Saving grace makes the idea of total inability for those who are elect merely theoretical.

No. Jesus said NO man can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. Paul says no one understands, no one seeks for God, no one does good not even one. If it was not for God's predetermined plan to save me in the act of glorifying Himself, I like the rest of the elect would have gone to hell. I had not the power to believe. Before I was converted, I hated God. I tried with all my might to believe that there was no God at all. It was God that took me off the path of destruction and placed me on the path of righteousness. I understand that I could have never done it because I was a wicked sinner who loved my sin and hated God and His law. Total inability is not theoretical to me. I understand it clearly because I was once dead, but God by the great love with which He loved me MADE me alive in Christ. It was by His grace that I am saved.

 

[Peairtach]

Arminian's do not believe that man is guilty for Adam's sin.

What is interesting is try saying that "reprobation like election is not based on works" in most reformed settings and sit back and watch the fireworks.

Isn't it the case that preterition isn't based on works but reprobation is based on works?

I.e. God didn't pass over the reprobate for election (preterition) because they were any worse than the elect, but he did predestine their place in Hell (reprobation) based on their different levels of wickedness.

See Shedd, Calvinism: Pure and Mixed (BoT).

I don't see it this way. I see God willing or wanting to demonstate His glory to His children by choosing some to go to hell. Why He chose you or I I do not know but I do know it was based on His will totally and not based on "their different levels of wickedness".

I didn't say that He didn't choose those who were not elected. This is preterition. But that they were involved in earning themselves their particular place in Hell.

For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.(Romans 6:23)

Election is unto salvation, and preterition is unto reprobation.

Preterition like election is not based on works but God's all wise and free choice, but reprobation is based on works, because God will justly punish people according to their works.

Salvation in Heaven will also include gracious rewards for good works done in Christ by grace.

 

[earl40]

I didn't say that He didn't choose those who were not elected. This is preterition. But that they were involved in earning themselves their particular place in Hell.

Election is unto salvation, and preterition is unto reprobation.

Preterition like election is not based on works but God's all wise and free choice, but reprobation is based on works, because God will justly punish people according to their works.

Salvation in Heaven will also include gracious rewards for good works done in Christ by grace.

"earning their particular place in hell"? Well if you mean the the amount of punishment in hell I am OK with that.

So far as the difference in reprobation and preterition I think both terms deal with God passing judgment. I will look into the difference these these terms. I believe the destination (hell) is determined by God. The amount of punishment is determined also by God as the ultimate cause, with man being the proximate cause.

If I may lay this out in layman's terms.....the destination of the unelect is determined by being found in Adam who's sin caused us to be born spiritually dead. In other words, Adams sin determines the where an unelect person end up. The unelect sin will determine the amount of punishment.

 

[Peairtach]

The unelect sin will determine the amount of punishment.

That is basically my point. It may be the point of those who disagree with you that reprobation is not by works. It depends on how you use the word "reprobate"/"reprobation".

Preterition like election is not by works.

But our ultimate place in Heaven is related to God's gracious rewarding of good works done in Christ - the gift of God is eternal life.

And the unsaved will earn a place in Hell - the wages of sin is death.

Adam's sin is of course our sin, as well as actual transgressions being ours. Something about our peculiar relationship to him as the organic head of our race, made the CoW possible in the form in which it took.

Here's a blog about it:
http://www.dougwils.com/Brief-Notes-on-Jet-Fuel-Calvinism/Reprobation-and-Preterition.html

******************************

Pardon me, Earl. I see that I'm getting somewhat confused myself.

The usual Reformed terminology is that reprobation itself has two parts or aspects, preterition and condemnation.

Sorry about the confusion. My memory failed me.