Replies

While it would be tempting to avoid the danger of false accusation by simply considering fortheDeclaration to be a "Semi-Pelagian" rather than a full-blown Pelagian, in past tangles with Woody, ftD has gone so far as to deny the omniscient foreknowledge of God in regard to free human choices.

Actually, I gave this some thought. I can't decide if he belongs in the semi-Pelagian camp. But since that is where I consider the RC church to be, I don't like that.

I've decided he's an ordinary Arminian.

You know the only way your usage would work would be to say God knew the most private thoughts that we would have, one being, who would respond to the Gospel and who would not. - fortheDeclaration

This reminds me of when the Nazarene minister Randy was here and telling us that God used a crystal ball to look into the future and create the prophecy of the Bible and then threw away his crystal ball so He wouldn't violate our free will. Well, he didn't write it exactly that way. But the case is similar. One sees a retreat from obvious Bible truth in order to support the radical free-will position, a view of human history in which the entire point of God's plan was man's choice.

It seems we fight the pro-choicers on all fronts, doesn't it? They ask "What have I decided?" and we ask "What has God ordained?". It's a Great Divide.

I was reading some material by Custance on the history of the period between Augustine and the Reformation, the rise of semi-Pelagianism and such. In some respects, it seems that these classifications are a little bit plastic. And the history of this period has some strange turns, perhaps something that people would enjoy reading more about. I know I did. But the chapter from the Custance book is just too long to post on FR.

Are semi-Pelagian and Arminian essentially interchangable terms? How does one distinguish? Is the difference merely theological or is it salvific (involving fatal error)?

Actually, I gave this some thought. I can't decide if he belongs in the semi-Pelagian camp.... This reminds me of when the Nazarene minister Randy was here and telling us that God used a crystal ball to look into the future and create the prophecy of the Bible and then threw away his crystal ball so He wouldn't violate our free will. Well, he didn't write it exactly that way. But the case is similar. One sees a retreat from obvious Bible truth in order to support the radical free-will position, a view of human history in which the entire point of God's plan was man's choice.

That's pretty much my point. On the one hand, we could argue that Woody over-states his case in calling ftD "Pelagian", seeing as ftD's soteriology probably is the lesser Semi-Pelagian/Arminian error, not full-blown Pelagianism per se (near as I can tell). BUT, on the other hand, ftD's theology is downright Socinian -- which is an even greater error than Pelagianism!! (Well, his Triadology might be trinitarian, sure, but his theology is still essentially Socinian)

I don't remember seeing "Randy's" posts on FR, but taking your summation as a basically-accurate run-down of his views, it illustrates my last post... these guys are making up God as they go along to satisfy the constraints of the humanocentric "It's all about Me!!" theological-construct to which they have already committed.

In other words, God and His incommunicable attributes are pretty much expendable in the cause of Man's Sovereignty.

I was reading some material by Custance on the history of the period between Augustine and the Reformation, the rise of semi-Pelagianism and such. In some respects, it seems that these classifications are a little bit plastic. And the history of this period has some strange turns, perhaps something that people would enjoy reading more about. I know I did. But the chapter from the Custance book is just too long to post on FR. Are semi-Pelagian and Arminian essentially interchangable terms? How does one distinguish? Is the difference merely theological or is it salvific (involving fatal error)?

They can be, and have been, a little "plastic" in application; but if memory serves, Augustine's exhortations towards the "Massilian heretics" (the original "semi-Pelagians") suggested to me that their views were awfully close to the mass of professing Christians whom we would call today by the name, "Arminian". And, again racking my memory (it's been like a year-and-a-half since I last read Augustine's letters to the Massilians), Augustine did regard the Massilians differently than the Pelagians... treating them as badly-confused and potentially divisive Christian heretics, but generally not regarding them as unregenerate blasphemers like (many of) the Pelagians.

HOWEVER, the Massilians did not deny the omniscince of God!! While they glorified Man's Free Will, their position was akin to that of the Arminian "Buggman" on FreeRepublic -- giving a quick-and-dirty retelling of my exchange with Bugg, when I showed Buggman the Chorazin/Bethsaida passage, his response boiled down to "Well, as long as we agree that the Tyrians and Sidonians did have a free and uncompelled choice in the matter, I have no argument with the fact that God in effect 'predestined' their choice by His sovereign control of the conditions and events which inform their free will one way or the other".

That kind of Arminian I believe I can sup with in reasonable fellowship. He's confused about the sheer depth of Man's spiritually-ruinous Fall; and he's probably misunderstood the Calvinist teaching on "Irresistible Grace" (which, as Jerry_M once explained, usually has more in common with the most irresistible cherry-cheesecake ever fixed, than the most irresistible bulldozer [though in Paul's case, Grace was akin to a bulldozer]).... But at least Bugg is willing to let God be God!! At least Bugg admits of real Omniscience and a real sort of absolute Predestination, albeit with different mechanics.

The trouble is, many Arminians these days are not so willing to let God be in charge. They are not merely looking to safeguard their understanding of "Man's Free Will", within the context of Created Time, as is Buggman; they are looking to take God out of the driver's seat altogether -- even denying His absolute Foreknowledge if they have to... which, in order to install Man upon the Throne of Sovereignty, they do.

So while their error might look like just another case of soteriological semi-Pelagianism (the spiritual equivalent of an unhealthy case of pneumonia), if you scratch underneath the surface, you'll find a far more serious case of theological Socinianism (the spiritual equivalent of fatal Pneumonic Plague).

And that's the problem. For many of today's Arminians, their arminianism is not their biggest problem... it is merely a soteriological symptom of a far more serious spiritual cancer, the question of whether God, or Man, shall be acknowledged as Lord.

One sees a retreat from obvious Bible truth

Obvious is it? You stated you cannot explain the Fall of Satan and Adam. Nor, can other Calvinist. It just goes into the 'black hole' of the TULIP myth.

in order to support the radical free-will position, a view of human history in which the entire point of God's plan was man's choice.

How, about the entire point of God's plan was creating RATIONAL creatures (having intellect, sensiblity and will) so God could share His happiness with them. Now, God wants those who are sharing that happiness to do so willingly or He gets no pleasure out of it. God could have created us robots and we all could have served Him without a second thought. We would have never known but He would have

The problem with the Calvinist/Arminius debate is that it only centers around salvation. God has a far greater future, in which time now is only a small beginning. It is God who wants free will, so man can choose to love him or not. God gets pleasure in being loved by those whom He loves.

Since there is no love in the Augustian/Calvinistic system it is a godless, lifeless system devoid of any Biblical truth.

Even so, come Lord Jesus