Before I get to that point, I digress. Are there really only five strains of heresy in the history of the church like some pose: Judaizers, Gnostics, Arians, Pelagians, and Socinians? One old one, seen through the New Testament, and then throughout church history, but especially today in professing Christianity, is antinomianism, where grace is used as an occasion of the flesh, what seems to be the grace of modern Christianity. Now back to the point of this post.
Pelagianism gets its name from Pelagius, a fifth century British monk. Pelagius taught something contradictory to established truth of scripture and his position became prominent especially in its conflict with a contemporary, Augustine. Wikipedia gives a suitable definition of the essence of Pelagianism:
Pelagianism, also called Pelagian heresy, is the Christian theological position that the original sin did not taint human nature and mortal will is still capable of choosing good or evil without special divine aid or assistance.
Also represented by this:
The novelty of the doctrine which he taught is repeatedly asserted by Augustine, and is evident to the historian; but it consisted not in the emphasis that he laid on free will, but rather in the fact that, in emphasizing free will, he denied the ruin of the race and the necessity of grace.
In the 16th century, Protestant reformer Theodore Beza coined the term, "Semipelagianism," targeting Roman Catholicism. Just being honest, even though Augustine was Roman Catholic, Beza recognized that infant sprinkling didn't leave its object with only an inclination to sin. Semipelagianism to Beza attributes salvation partly to God’s grace and partly to human effort, which is a doctrine of Roman Catholicism. He was targeting a Roman Catholic perversion with his term. As a reaction, certain Roman Catholics embraced a late fifth century modification of John Cassian, a Syrian monk who moved to Marseilles, France and staked out a middle position between Augustine and Pelagius that was widely accepted, in essence accepting Beza's analysis.
"Semipelagianism" was weaponized after Beza to label any degree short of complete or hard determinism. Using logic as an explanation, they work anything smacking of "synergism" back all the way into Pelagianism, barely slowing down at Semipelagianism. The line follows: no one can make a decision or it is actually Pelagianism, which is a type of salvation by works because then someone not totally depraved can then be saved by works. With Beza, semipelagianism was the invention that original sin could become just an inclination to sin with water sprinkled on a baby's head.
Today I've noticed that Calvinists are fine with people who behave like Pelagians and call themselves Calvinists. This is widespread. Does the grace of God actually change someone or is he left with only an inclination to sin?
If a person is not a Calvinist, a lot, probably a large majority, of Calvinists would call him a Semipelagian. This would be one of those weaponized usages of the term several iterations after Beza. In my reading of Calvinists, someone is a Semipelagian if he is the ultimate decider (with the crucial adjective, "ultimate")? There can be only one ultimate decider and that is God, so if someone thinks a person needs to or can decide to be saved, then he's Semipelagian.
I think someone has to decide to be saved. And I'm saying I'm not Pelagian or Semipelagian. I can agree to original sin. I reject infant sprinkling. Total depravity. I don't believe man initiates salvation. Salvation is of the Lord. Faith isn't a work. We love God because He first loved us. I don't seek after God, but God works in me to will. God gets all the credit and the glory for my salvation. But I still will. I still decide. I turn from idols to serve the living and true God.
Especially in the United States, most professing Calvinists trace the size of their church back to their methods, their music, how good the preaching is, the conveniences, and their relevance. The fruit of what I just described is all over Calvinist belief and practice today. All that matters is a Calvinist doctrinal statement and verbal profession, essentially joining the Calvinist club. All of the human means of coercing a bigger church contradict their major, if not primary, thesis.
As I write this, I watch three Calvinists in a podcast, dedicated determinists with the hard rock music theme song, tipping back their beers, and oozing with machismo, interview another Calvinist about heresy. In the discussion, they laugh over the recognition of most Baptists as especially semipelagian. In the midst of the questioning, the hosts ask how that statism especially is Pelagian. They could see the connection, I think, in light of the "woke church" today that favors socialism. Socialism doesn't fit their postmillennial view of the future. Statism proceeds from Pelagianism, he explains, because the state thinks people are good and so it governs as if it can change people. I was asking myself, what about state churchism, both Roman Catholic and Protestant? Isn't that statism too?
I understand people's heads spinning over pigeon holes and applied labels. It matters if you reject original sin. It matters if you believe in salvation by works or baptismal regeneration or easy prayerism or pragmatism or denying eternal security. In other words, anything that disagrees with or violates scripture is a problem. If someone calls you a semipelagian. That doesn't matter. Even if it did, you couldn't do anything about it. Everything is predestined. You don't have a choice.
12 comments:
Kent says: the RC church was not the church nor any Protestantism that grew out of the RC church (Reformation, etc).
Yet Kent is always leaning on the history of the RC church and those Reformers when convenient. Why? Since all those people (Augustine, Pelagius and the rest) are not part of the church in your mind, why do you even quote them and reference them?
Why don't you focus on what you consider the real church's history and teaching? Oh yes, I remember now: you can't. You don't have any writing to speak of from the "church" for 1500 years or so.
You can't have your cake and eat it too Kent. If that is not the real church, you can't use its history to prop up your beliefs and convictions as you very often do in situations like this or even your notions about women wearing pants. If the RC church and Protestants are not the true church, doesn't matter what they taught about dress. Just sayin...
Anonymous,
If you gave your name, this would be a better conversation, but I want to answer this comment, because it is a red herring. It would be better because you would be less disrespectful if you gave your name. The truth is the truth, and that is what should matter to you. I do think the truth will be consistent, and it is in this case. This isn't having my cake and eating it too. All of the heresies that I'm talking about are heresies in the church and I do mean the true church. It is called Pelagianism because it came from Pelagius. The debate was with Augustine. I'm not saying the Roman Catholic Church is the true church, but I'm not writing about that in this piece, as you would know. Why not just deal with what I wrote? It's an interesting point, don't you think, but you're a troll instead. I'm still going to deal with your fake point though, because it's something I'm comfortable with.
When I say the history of the church, I mean that there is one church, Christ's church, not any other, and Pelagianism is a heresy in the church, period. It diverts off scriptural doctrine. So does Arianism, Socinianism, Gnosticism, Antinomianism, Legalism, whatever. That's an entire book to write about how it affects the church. All of these are a problem no matter what.
I'm dealing with Roman Catholicism and Protestantism too. Obviously Beza was being somewhat disingenuous with Roman Catholicism probably because of his view of the church. I don't have that problem. I would call it Pelagianism in Roman Catholicism, not Semipelagianism.
Bringing dress into the discussion, that's a joke on your part, because it is a cultural issue. It's wrong whether it is in church, out of church. It isn't a doctrinal issue. That's the kind of thing that explains why you wouldn't put your name.
The post is about Semipelagianism. Non-Calvinists, like myself, are not Semipelagian. It's not what Semipelagianism is. What should matter is what scripture says. I would think you cared about the truth if you could acknowledge that.
I get your point of the article. I think that as usual you are way off base on application. To call someone Pelagian in nature because they drink alcohol is just stupid. But that is not what I was writing about. I just noticed that once again, you display a remarkable inconsistency in referring to church history of a church that you don't believe was a church. The Augustine Pelagius spat should not matter at all to you but yet you drag it in.
I have read you many times defend your convictions (several times on the pants issue) by saying that you had history on your side. That the church had agreed with you until the 20th century or modernism or whatever. I find that funny because one of three things are true: 1) You are relying on historical precedent of a church that you don't consider a church. 2) You have found some ancient writings of the "real" church that no one else knows about. 3) You are making it up.
Which is it?
The truth is you have no church history unless you have that church history. If I asked you for "real" church history, I already know that the best you could come up with is a few centuries of Anabaptists. So while I do find it interesting that you call the spat between Augustine and Pelagius to be church history, I guess you don't have a choice.
Appealing to RC and Reformation history for precedent to support your positions does make you inconsistent though. That was my point.
Anonymous,
This post has nothing to do with the "pants issue." It says nothing about "drinking alcohol." All the "heresies" that I mentioned were heresies not just to Roman Catholicism or Protestants, but also separatist churches, the non state churches. When it comes to history, we have what we have, it's true, but coming out the other side today, we recognize these various heresies in their iterations still. They are false doctrines. They divert from the truth. I don't think you are debunking anything here, and I don't get your point, except that you don't like that I defend my positions from the Bible and with history.
In this post, today, today anonymous, Baptists are called Semipelagian if they are not Calvinist. The definition of Semipelagian has to come from history, and defined based on its origination. Did I prove that point or not?
Hi Kent,
Calvinism teaches both divine sovereignty and human freedom, as even a cursorily glance at the Westminster Confession of Faith bears out. Read chapter 3 (decree of God) and chapter 5 (Providence) with chapter 9 (Freewill) Both concepts are 100% true even if they appear to be contradictory, and each should be given their fullest expression. In my experience, it is futile trying to find where one ends and the other starts.
I am afraid your last sentence had all the appearance of a cheap throw away remark.
Regards,
Wee Calvin,
I agree with you that the Westminster Confession disagrees or perhaps repudiates a harder determinism or a hyper Calvinism. However, could you not agree that it is a large number of professing Calvinists who use the word Semipelagian to anyone who says "a person chooses" or synergism? They are moving non-Calvinists into heretical territory. They say they don't believe man chooses at all? Hence, yes the tongue in cheek comment at the end, one, however, that might be true in hard determinism anyway.
John Piper in his Five Points book writes this:
“Election refers to God’s choosing whom to save. It is unconditional in that there is no condition man must meet before God chooses to save him. Man is dead in trespasses and sins. So there is no condition he can meet before God chooses to save him from his deadness.”
Hi Kent,
My experience is that there are those on BOTH sides who like to push the other unto heretical ground. Your own website hosted a whole page denouncing Reformed theology as heretical: https://kentbrandenburg.blogspot.com/2013/01/were-reformers-heretics-appendix-part-2.html
Re: Piper's statement. As I read it, giving words their literal meaning and with no access to wider context, Piper merely affirms unconditional election like any 5 point Calvinist would do. He is not, however, affirming unconditional SALVATION, void of the requirement on the sinner's part to repent and believe the gospel. If Piper is out of order, even heretical, on this matter, then so is every basic Calvinist including Spurgeon, Whitefield, Owen and others who seem to be acceptable to positively reference on your site.
I think that you have misread Piper in the quote you gave.
Regards,
Colin Maxwell
Okay, it's you Colon, thanks for your comment.
The Piper statement in my comment isn't the best statement to use as an example, and I should have looked for something more like I was attempting to illustrate. The piece to which I referred made the "ultimate decider" point, something by Bill Combs in the Detroit Theological Journal. The part by Piper in the realm of what I was writing was "choosing whom to be saved," because I wouldn't have a problem with anything else in that quote. "Choosing whom to be saved" would present a situation where the person saved doesn't have a choice. However, I put a larger context to show where that statement set.
I haven't read a statement like Piper's from Spurgeon. Spurgeon reads from my reading as someone who believes in election like I do. God did choose before the foundation of the world. Our salvation was set in stone before the foundation of the world by God's choosing. I have no problem with that.
Related to Thomas's article on the Reformers, do you see their false doctrines as heresies. Read the article, and do you see Thomas accurately represent Luther.
I'm choosing something very narrow that non-Calivinists are called heretics, called semipelagians, because we say that man chooses too. I don't disagree that the false doctrine of Luther was heresy.
Hi Kent,
On my mobile (cell)phone here, so I must be brief.
1) CHS frequently declared himself to be a 5 point Calvinist and subscribed to the 1689 Baptist Confession which clearly teaches unconditional election He repudiated the idea that election flowed from foreseen faith.
2) My point about TDR's heresy page is that CHS and others (including those positively referenced by TDR elsewhere) would fall within its condemnation. TDR particularly mentioned Limited Atonenent. CHS affirmed this doctrine in his sermon entitled, "Particular Redemption". My point being that we all can be quick to throw the heresy jibe around.
3) Calvinists use the term "decide" or "choose" also. I am away from home at the moment, so unable to supply proof, but I can remember reading Calvin himself using the word choose or its synonyms on occasions. Basically, we believe tbat we choose Him b/c He first chose us.
Regards,
Colin Maxwell
Colin,
Like other Calvinists on this one, not only does Spurgeon not prove his point from scripture, but he contradicts himself with other statements. However, I get where he's coming from, because this is a difficult issue to comprehend. There are points of theology where we reach a wall and must leave it to God. So I get why it's hard here.
Man is dead. He is unable. God knows everything. He is all powerful. He is sovereign. He is right. On the other hand, He is loving, merciful, longsuffering, and good. None of the attributes are in contradiction.
Does God create a majority of men to send to Hell? Since they are unable to believe without His working, because they are dead, then is God just arbitrarily and preemptively sending people along to Hell? Scripture doesn't read that way.
I want God to get all the credit. At the same time, it's not His fault when men perish. If we hold ourselves to scriptural parameters, we get this right, and I see Spurgeon and others go over the line of that. They are saying something scripture doesn't say. If I lean toward the extreme, I lean Spurgeon's way. When people say they believe Spurgeon and then they live like they are Finney, that's where I have my biggest problem today. They do the same with God's Word. God is sovereign over salvation, but He couldn't keep all His Words, according to them.
Much more to be said, but there we go, Colin. We allow Calvinists in our church. It isn't a separating issue, but no Calvinist has stayed in our church, because they take to the place of disobedience. There have been two in our church. One wouldn't work, and maybe He was too quietistic to work. The other didn't like evangelism, because at the end, like Spurgeon, we invited people to receive Jesus Christ. Too much for him.
A little explanation as to Calvinism and a separating issue:
Someone could be Calvinist and agree with our doctrinal statement. We don't have Calvinism in our doctrinal statement, but someone could believe everything in the doctrinal statement, I think, and be Calvinist. I'll take it through five points to explain what I mean.
Total depravity. That's not going to stop someone with agreeing with our doctrinal statement.
Unconditional election. We believe in election, but we don't have a statement that it is conditional in our doctrinal statement.
Limited atonement. We don't have a statement it is unlimited in our doctrinal statement. We say Christ died for our sins.
Irresistible grace. We don't have a statement that grace resistible in our doctrinal statement. We say it is by grace alone.
Perseverance of the saints. We have eternal security in our doctrinal statement.
When I say it isn't a separating issue, I'm talking about someone not causing division in our church. If someone wasn't a hyper-Calvinist, I think he would find the way our church acceptable, unless he had to have Calvinism preached.
I don't know of a Calvinist, who believes and practices like our church. Is that because of Calvinism? It shouldn't be. Other doctrines and practices distinguish our church from Calvinist churches already, before we would ever get to Calvinism.
Hi Kent,
I appreciate out chat and since it is taking me longer to scroll down to your article, this usually is the sign to move on. I am not one of those folk who need to have the last word on any issue, but I think you might find the following observation helpful. You wrote:
Does God create a majority of men to send to Hell? Since they are unable to believe without His working, because they are dead, then is God just arbitrarily and preemptively sending people along to Hell? Scripture doesn't read that way.
I see here a major difference in our two ways of looking at the depravity of man. As it stands, your statement presents the sinner as a virtual victim. It seems that he cannot believe and it would be cruel of God to leave him in this state he finds himself in. No Calvinist would (or should) take that view. Obviously, we need to have compassion on sinners etc., (esp. since we too were children of wrath even as others) but the sinner is not a victim, but a willing accomplice. His inability is both moral and self afflicted. He is not sitting in involuntary darkness, but constantly and wickedly loves and seeks out this darkness. This indeed is the cause of His condemnation (John 3:19-21). Since God is not obliged to save any sinner (otherwise grace would not be grace) then He is not obliged to all sinners. His choice is not arbitrary in the sense of a lottery, but in the sense that He chooses for reasons entirely within Himself which He has not chosen to reveal to us, but still consistent with all His attributes.
In closing, I think your second reply on how a Calvinist could join your church was good. The first church in which I was a member was an open Brethren Assembly with a fundamental but brief statement of faith. There were a few Calvinists in membership, but our Calvinism was never divisive. The Assembly was the Assembly and that was that. However, if we return to the pejorative of heresy, then its use must necessarily impact on who can actually join the church. A heretic is to be rejected, not brought into membership.
Anyway, starting to warm to this again when I should be cooling off. I appreciate you taking the time to answer me.
Regards,
Colin.
Post a Comment