Semi-Pelagianism, Arminianism and Hersey
- Thread starter rchapman
- Start date
- Status
Maybe, due to a lack of response, I should restate my question. I'm just wondering were the points of difference are between Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism and were do they begin to loss contact with historical Christianity, if in fact they do? Any thoughts! Anyone! Thanks, Bob Chapman
Bob. In my humble opinion it boils down to who is Sovereign. God or man.
This has been around forever, so it is nothing new. It rears its ugly head under different names, but the inside is the same.
Right now there are more "Calminians" than ever.:bigsmile:
Joseph
Afore_Prepared
Inactive User
Well, I can try - though admittedly I am less than the least of those here capable of answering. Without looking anything up, or quoting from authors, I'll do my best. Let's start with definitions, ok?
*Pelagianism - Started by a British monk named Pelagius, who believed that whatever God told mankind to do, mankind was capable of. In other words, mankind was responsible for earning his own way to Heaven by doing the maximum number of good works, and Pharisaically living a "holy" life. Pelagian followers were obsessed with doing "good works," and made it their life's devotion to obtain condign merit from God.
*Semi-Pelagianism - The belief that mankind is very, very sick spiritually, and desperately in need of God's grace. Though mankind is fallen, there remains in man's will this tiny island of righteousness, by which man can reach out for the grace of God - apart from any kind of prevenient regeneration. ALL mankind is capable of "choosing Christ" when the opportunity avails itself, because that one tiny unfallen part of our nature retains this ability.
*Arminianism - This is where the distinctions really blur... Arminians are slippery like eels, and desperately difficult to nail down on their own beliefs - because they are just that: Each seperate Arminian really has their own belief structure, and almost none of them has a thorough systematic appraisal of their Soteriology prepared for defense. Though their own beliefs on Soteriology are vacuous, thoroughly disorganized, and devoid of Scriptural support, Arminians are almost always prepared to vilify Calvinists and combat (weakly) the Doctrines of Grace. To do this, they rely heavily on ad hominem emotional arguments for the character of God, and support these with the "all, every man, and the world" verses of Scripture, of which some are clearly hyperbole.
Strange that an Arminian is usually not characterized by what he does believe, but rather by what he is certain that he doesn't believe, don't you think?
Arminianism, when you research it yourself, (because its adherents won't) is described as a "total reliance on the grace of God" - yet this is deceptive, as we shall see. According to this belief system, man is dead in sin, and unable to "come to Christ" apart from the prevenient grace of God... Sounds good, no? Let's dig deeper... This prevenient grace is a "common grace" given to all in equal amounts, so that the grace of God is cast abroad. This grants all men the propensity to choose Christ equally, though this prevenient grace is entirely resistable by man. What Arminians fail to see, (aside from the MASSIVE weight of Scripture against this) is that if everyone can "choose Christ," and yet some don't, those that do made a better decision. This, by nature, leaves man with something of which to boast. Synergism (cooperative salvation) is wicked and evil, because it lauds the convert with making the "correct choice," while vilifying those that remain in their sins for "choosing poorly." Where, then is boasting? Everywhere!
Arminians in general hate it when people bring up the doctrine of election, because though completely incompatible with Arminianism, election is discussed at length in the Bible. They are forced to take some stand on it, or they have deleted doctrine from Scripture...
When confronted with Romans 8 and 9 in particular, the Arminian either plugs his ears and changes the topic, or, if more creative, will tell you of the "prescient" view of election. This is the idea that God elected people from eternity based on forseeing their decision regarding His Son. Sounds good again, doesn't it? Alas, the prescient view also reveals a Sovereign God, who still creates those who are ultimately destined for Hell. God, if really all-loving, could easily prevent all those not forseen choosing His Son from ever being created, thus sparing them from the fires of Hell - and yet they are created anyway. Prescience either defeats itself, or reveals fallacious statements about the character and power of God, such as the statement "God would like to do more about people burning in Hell, but can't." This creates instant impotence on the Throne, which we know to be untrue from the Word. The other danger of the prescient view of election is that in order to salvage God's Loving character, people are tempted to introduce annhiliationism and universalism. If God must be Loving, and He creates people who will ultimately reject Him, it must be that people either suffer only enough to atone for their sins and then are annhilated, or that everyone goes to Heaven - but Christians have it better there than non-Christians. Wrong again. See how dangerous Arminianism is, and where it can possibly lead?
And now (finally) to answer your question... Each of these departs from Truth in two distinct overarching ways, that of Anthropology and Theology Proper.
I'll explain, starting with Theology Proper first. All three of these have quite clearly lost sight of the Sovereignty of God, and sacrificed His Sovereignty on the altar of His Love. If God is his attributes, he is 100% of each, not a combination of them adding up to 100%. God, in their minds, is not 100% Loving if he is 100% Sovereign and 100% Just. What any synergist is actually saying is that God OWES all men the chance to get to heaven, or he's not Just and Loving. Search the Scriptures, you won't find that man-centered notion anywhere! What the overwhelming weight of Scriptural evidence actually says is that God OWES every man justice for his offenses before a Holy God. If God owed everyone something, by definition it would cease to be mercy and become justice. This is offensive to man at first, honestly. The thought that some of our loved ones may not end up in Heaven with us is frightening, and painful - but that is not excuse to believe something contrary to Scripture!
All three of these also have an incorrect (or incomplete, if you like) Anthropology - they all have a wrong view of man. To the Pelagian, man is spiritually well... To the Semi-Pelagian, man is very, very sick... To the Arminian, man is dead, but has been given an equal portion of Divine grace nonetheless, so in effect, man is as well off or better off than Semi-Pelagians would have him.
I would like to believe all of these Anthropological distortions, but the overwhelming (and in fact, total) weight of Scriptural evidence is to the contrary. Mankind is spiritually dead, as surely drowned in the seas of our sins as Jonah, and buried in the eternal consequences of our transgressions. Man is a hater of God, an enemy in his mind through wicked works, and nothing is farther from our natural inclinations than "choosing Christ" and living a holy life... I think you know the classic Reformed position on this.
This is only scratching the surface of the evil of Arminianism - their Atonement is also worthless, their Christ is massively impotent, and their God is a lonely old man in Heaven hoping someone will join Him.
I hope this will be helpful to you, Mr. Chapman.
Yours in Christ,
~andrew
[Edited on 4-9-2005 by Afore_Prepared]
[Edited on 4-9-2005 by Afore_Prepared]
Afore_Prepared
Inactive User
"Nice try being humble!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"
I assure you, I really was trying... I'm not all that great a theologian yet, especially in light of being a servant of Christ only since November '03. Most of you here are way better at explaining things than I am.
I take this quite seriously regarding myself:
"For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned." (Rom 12:3)
Still, that was pretty funny...
Oh, and I meant that "not quoting" thing not as though I don't need to 'cause I'm smarter than you, but rather I write long enough without quoting, and I'm too lazy to dig through my library... Brevity, simplicity, and just plain lazy!
[Edited on 4-9-2005 by Afore_Prepared]
I assure you, I really was trying... I'm not all that great a theologian yet, especially in light of being a servant of Christ only since November '03. Most of you here are way better at explaining things than I am.
I take this quite seriously regarding myself:
"For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned." (Rom 12:3)
Still, that was pretty funny...
Oh, and I meant that "not quoting" thing not as though I don't need to 'cause I'm smarter than you, but rather I write long enough without quoting, and I'm too lazy to dig through my library... Brevity, simplicity, and just plain lazy!
[Edited on 4-9-2005 by Afore_Prepared]
Afore_Prepared
Inactive User
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
