Semi-pelagianism discussion, and defence from a non-calvinist perspective

[AverageJoe]

From Monergism’s website:

“Semi-Pelagianism is a Reformation-era term that came to designate a softer sort of Pelagianism that arose after the Council of Ephesus, in the sixth century. According to Semi-Pelagianism, man is not free to choose good or evil, but he is at least free to make the first move to God, to turn to him in faith, and so be given the power to choose good by God's grace. Man is not free to do good in his fallen nature, but he is at least able to believe and come to God in his own native strength.”


I’m not exactly sure what they mean by the second bolded statement (though I suspect philosophic concepts of “deadness” and total depravity are lurking, lol) but I have never heard the first bolded notion expressed that way in my non-Calvinist church/sermons. Nevertheless I most certainly agree that unless God initiates a wooing/drawing by His initiative-taking grace that no man would ever come to Christ.

And this (your explanation of the first bolded statement) is where the misinterpretation by MOST Calvinists comes into play. God is always going to woo through the Gospel and the death of his son. It's an offer....an offer of love and salvation. Nobody denies that...it's in the interpretation where the problematic issues arise.

 

[ALAYMAN]

I am a (C) Simple Compatibilist, lol

 

[ALAYMAN]

And this (your explanation of the first bolded statement) is where the misinterpretation by MOST Calvinists comes into play. God is always going to woo through the Gospel and the death of his son. It's an offer....an offer of love and salvation. Nobody denies that...it's in the interpretation where the problematic issues arise.

Only a minor insignificant quibble, because in simple essence I heartily agree with your intended point about God’s wooing “offer” (as understood by both garden-variety Cals and Arms), but as you know Hypercals ardently deny the free offer of the gospel to any persons other than those elect individuals that display some sort of inward realized efficacious call.

 

[AverageJoe]

Only a minor insignificant quibble, because in simple essence I heartily agree with your intended point about God’s wooing “offer” (as understood by both garden-variety Cals and Arms), but as you know Hypercals ardently deny the free offer of the gospel to any persons other than those elect individuals that display some sort of inward realized efficacious call.

Yes, they do...and sadly, there are several "hypers" here.....

 

[FSSL]

"Deadness" is not a philosophical interpretation. It is a biblical terminology/teaching: Eph 2.1 "dead in your trespasses"

 

[AverageJoe]

"Deadness" is not a philosophical interpretation. It is a biblical terminology/teaching: Eph 2.1 "dead in your trespasses"

Who says it is?

 

[ALAYMAN]

"Deadness" is not a philosophical interpretation. It is a biblical terminology/teaching: Eph 2.1 "dead in your trespasses"

Can these “dead” people do any good thing?

 

[FSSL]

Who says it is?

Alayman just said it in post "I suspect philosophic concepts of “deadness” and total depravity are lurking, lol"

If biblical terms can be rejected as "philosophical concepts" how do you guys ever expect us to accept nonbiblical "freewill?"

 

[AverageJoe]

Can these “dead” people do any good thing?

Good question....I would like to know myself. Abel had to learn about God somewhere, and about the necessity of a sacrifice, and he had to make a decision on whether or not to follow that direction. Cain CHOSE to give a sacrifice that wasn't acceptable (not a blood sacrifice), and Abel gave a blood sacrifice. Being dead in trespasses and sins, how could he make a decision to follow God....HE DID.

 

[AverageJoe]

Alayman just said it in post "I suspect philosophic concepts of “deadness” and total depravity are lurking, lol"

If biblical terms can be rejected as "philosophical concepts" how do you guys ever expect us to accept nonbiblical "freewill?"

You've yet to conclusively that there is no free will.

 

[FSSL]

Can these “dead” people do any good thing?

Sure. They can do good things... but even those good things are defind biblically, All of our righteousness are as filthy rags.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Sure. They can do good things... but even those good things are defind biblically, All of our righteousness are as filthy rags.

Just making sure that philosophically/biblically we weren’t asserting that “dead” men can do no good thing.

 

[FSSL]

Their righteousness look good but they are just filthy rags. So, how good is that?

 

[ALAYMAN]

Their righteousness look good but they are just filthy rags. So, how good is that?

The deeds/works done to earn righteousness by a “dead” person are menstrual-like for sure. Matter of fact, nothing done without faith will ever satisfy God, even by a “live” person. Is faith a work/deed?

 

[FSSL]

Faith is a gift from God that does not come naturally from man.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Faith is a gift from God that does not come naturally from man.

Ephesians 2:8-9 “gift” is contested, even among your own divines.

 

[FSSL]

Ephesians 2:8-9 “gift” is contested, even among your own divines.

So, you are now denying another clear statement from Scripture? How about the phrase "not of yourself" and "lest every man should boast."

Certainly you didnt just cram this verse in your head to pass an AWANA handbook. It's meaning is ultra clear, yet rarely understood by IFBs

 

[ALAYMAN]

So, you are now denying another clear statement from Scripture? How about the phrase "not of yourself" and "lest every man should boast."

Certainly you didnt just cram this verse in your head to pass an AWANA handbook. It's meaning is ultra clear, yet rarely understood by IFBs

So you are now misunderstanding/ignoring/twisting the plain meaning of my words (again)? Do you deny that the object of the gift in Ephesians 2:8-9 is disputed as to whether the referent is salvation or whether it’s faith?

 

[FSSL]

Since I read Greek, the referent is clear. the gift is faith... then, by extension, we are saved through faith... so it is a meaningless discussion.

It is the "gift" "not of your own doing" "no one may boast" which is where the Arminian ideology is destroyed.

 

[ALAYMAN]

Since I read Greek, the referent is clear. the gift is faith... then, by extension, we are saved through faith... so it is a meaningless discussion.

So FSSL can read Greek therefore it is thus absolutely conclusive that HIS Greek skills are greater than Calvin’s and all other Greek exegetes? Looks like you think fairly highly of your opinions, lol.

It is the "gift" "not of your own doing" "no one may boast" which is where the Arminian ideology is destroyed.

If faith were a work you’d have a point, but this same divinely inspired Paul told us otherwise in Romans.