The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Definition of Semi-Pelagianism

I had asked AC a question on the free will thread, and I wanted to pursue it a little without derailing that thread. Here is a portion of what AC posted in response to my question:


What I wanted to pursue further was whether or not the above definitions of Semi-Pelagianism are accurate. It was my understanding that the label "semi-pelagian" was used to describe the idea that while the grace of God is necessary to turn man toward God (a rejection of Pelagius) it was no longer necessary after that (a rejection of Augustine) and hence the term "semi." The Lutheran Formula of Concord (1580) says this:

Now, to me, the Concord definition seems to be a bit different from the definitions that AC posted, and it also seems to line up with the definition that I was familiar with and espoused. So, which one is correct? I was under the impression that the belief that man cooperates with the grace of God is not necessarily a heresy. Paul even uses the greek word "synergeo" in 2 Corinthians 6:1. I certainly agree that if one believes that grace is not necessary to persevere, that would be heretical. But I previously had not thought that cooperating with the grace of God so that the reception of His grace would not be in vain was heretical. Do you guys think I was wrong?

Hi Newman,

My quotes are from the Monergism web-site. It actually states that the RCC practices a type of semi-pelagianism...

Hi Newman

when you say...


Could you be more specific? What is it to cooperate with God's grace? so that this reception would not be in vain?

I think the RCC-concept of grace is very vague...

1. The view that believes that man "cooperates with God" in anything prior to justification is heresy. In justification the sinner is once for all declared righteous on the basis of the merits of Christ's substitutionary atonement. Even the faith exercised is of God; the result of regeneration. (Eph 2:8,9; Acts 13:48; Titus 1:5)

2. Re: 2Cor 6:1... "synergeo" refers back to 5:20:

2 Corinthians 5:20 (KJV) "Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech [you] by us: we pray [you] in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God."

Thus it was the missionary endeavors of the apostles/disciples in the preaching of the Gospel that was "synergistic"; they working with and by the Spirit of Christ in Christ's behalf.

3. Salvation is ALL of grace, "Sola Gratia" (Jonah 2:9; Matt 16:17; Jh 1:12,13; 6:37,44,65; Acts 16:14; Rom 3:22-26; 1Cor 4:7; Phil 1:29; Col 2:12; Jam 1:16-18)

4. Sanctification is "synergistic" in that there is a real effort on the part of the believer to persevere in the faith unto holiness. Yet, the furtherance and guarantee of their sanctification is also due to the inner working of the Holy Spirit and the promise of God. (cf. Isa 43:1-3; Jer 32:40; Matt 18:12-14; Jh 5:24; 10:27-30; Eph 1:4; 2:10; Phil 2:11,12; 1Thess 5:23,24; 2Tim 4:18; Heb 9:12,15; 1Pet 1:3-5; Jude 1,24,25)

Well, I think Pilgrim stated it pretty well. I agree with what he said about cooperation.

But what you cut and pasted seemed to imply otherwise so I'm a bit confused by that as well, I guess. The monergism website said "The modern Roman Catholic church clearly embraces a form of Semi-Pelagianism." Now I understand those aren't your words, but you offered them up as an explanation for your beliefs (I'm assuming.) So is there a difference between their vague concept of grace (as you interpret it) and their clear teaching of Semi-Pelagianism (as you put forth by way of the website?)

Newman,

Now you have me confused



Regarding grace unto salvation and man's role in the process the Arminians, Roman Catholics, Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians all got it wrong no matter how you want to label them. The Reformed Church got it right (we are passive recipients of grace and made new creatures alive in Christ)

Just stick to what Pilgrim said!

Peace!

AC

Cassian (360-435 A.D.) was abbot of the monastery of Massilia. He opposed both Pelagius's and Augustine's doctrines and proposed a middle way. Semi-Pelagianism is often named Cassianism because its distinctive approach to grace originated with the abbot. Cassian sought to preserve the universality of grace and the real moral accountability of fallen man. It was the issue of Augustine's irresistible grace to which he vigorously reacted. For Cassian, man's free will was impaired by the Fall of Adam. It became infirm or sick. But it was not dead or inoperative. It could respond on its own to the Gospel. When God sees a sinner using his will to the good, He immediately moves to assist that will by way of illumination, comfort and incitement toward salvation. The key point is the initial striving of good will in the sinner. In Augustine's scheme, the will is disabled and incapable of making any initial striving toward God. It requires initial grace. Cassian affirms that the will, though impaired, is still able to initiate. Possessing an ability in his will to cooperate with divine grace, man is capable of moral renovation assisted by grace. In later Medieval theology the term "facere quod in se est" = "Do whatever is in you" The implication of this is that if that sinner does what is in him, then God will do the rest and bring him to salvation.

Thank you Nick. I think Cassian also talked about grace not being necessary to persevere which the Lutheran Concord talks about, but I'll have to do some more reading on him. As I understand it though, Cassian's idea that the will was able to initiate justification (the middle way between Pelagius and Augustine) was renounced at the Council of Orange and the renunciation was reaffirmed at the Council of Trent, so, I'm kind of stuck in the same place I guess. But yeah, that makes sense. Here are the Trent texts:



and

My past as a semi-Pelagian: I was converted by the preaching and the witnessing of some very, earnest, young believers who urged me to “receive Christ as your Savior” by placing my faith and transferring my trust to Him alone for salvation. They explained the substitutionary work of Christ to me and my need to repent of my sins. They did an excellent job of showing me the Scriptures relating to the Law of God and to my need for forgiveness, and to Christ and His work on the cross. God used their faithful and Scriptural witness to faith. There was however a decisional emphasis in their approach. They emphasized my decision. And so I began my Christian life with the definite impression that I had exercised my will and free choice. I even boasted once in a testimony,” I’m so glad I chose Christ to be my Savior.” I had little sense of the amazing nature of God’s free grace. Salvation seemed to me more of a transaction. My previous lostness appeared in my mind to have to do with the just penalty of my sins. I didn’t understand my previous blindness and hardness of heart and the power of my flesh. I didn’t know about Satan’s activity holding me captive. Ephesians 1 and Romans 9 were passages that I longed to understand. My stubborn assumptions about free choice interfered with my ability to understand those Scriptures. Could it be that God took the initiative and that I had been more lost than I had ever assumed? No. It couldn’t be. Romans 9 bothered me because I didn’t have a good explanation for its language. "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. . . . Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.” Then one day the thought crossed my mind, “Why not accept the full force of this language? Why is it necessary to hem and haw and explain it away?” Ephesians 1:4-6 then came to mind and suddenly clarity, joy and admiration for the immense grace of God in redemption began to fill my mind. God had had mercy on me and it was His free choice, not mine. My years as a semi-Pelagian came to an abrupt end. Grace became most wonderful and truly amazing.

Cool testimony! Thanks for sharing.

Nick, your post is a very personal one, and I hope you don't mind discussing your past and present views on salvation. I am curious about whether your initial experience of deciding to receive Christ actually counts in your mind as the moment you were saved. If not, is there another moment, and does the moment you described very much like an epiphany concerning Romans 9 and Ephesians 1 relate in some way to the moment you were saved? I seem to think from your testimony that you were saved earlier, but gained some additional wisdom later on that answered questions to some difficult scriptures?

Thanks,
Mike