Are Arminians Semi-Pelagian?
By and large, I have completed my review of Owen’s position on the atonement. Owen does however make an additional argument against Arminianism. Owen relates Arminians with Pelagians. Additionally, J. I. Packer calls Arminians Semi-Pelagian in his introduction to Death of Death in the Death of Christ. Calling Arminians Pelagian or Semi-Pelagian is somewhat of a reformed tradition. The Synod of Dort repeatedly did so, clearing the path for generations to come.
The charge that Arminians are either Pelagians or Semi-Pelagians is false. I intend to demonstrate this though 1) comparing the Canons of Orange to Arminius and 2) critiquing Packer’s argument.
The primary difference between Arminians and both Pelagians and Semi-Pelagians is the issue of the necessity of grace. Pelagians deny grace is necessary for conversion. Semi-Pelagians deny grace is necessary for man to begin conversion (although, contrary to Pelagians, they think God’s must meet man half way). Arminians insist that God’s grace is necessary from the very beginning of conversion and throughout the entire process. For a simple explanation of the differences by way of analogy, please see this post.
Why compare Arminius to the Canons of Orange to address this topic? To get answers straight from the horse’s mouth. It’s my contention that Arminius is the best source on historic Arminianism and the Cannons of Orange are the best historical source on what the church condemned about Semi-Pelagianism.
For more on the Canons of Orange, please see the New Advent’s excellent summary on the subject here.
Comments
However, I would like to make known that John Cassian and some of his followers believed that Grace for the beginning of salvation was necessary for "some" people.
In his works called "the conferences", in book 2 conference 13 chapter 11 he says:
http://www.osb.org/lectio/cassian/conf/book2/conf13.html#13.11
"Whether the grace of God precedes or follows our good will. AND so these are somehow mixed up and indiscriminately confused, so that among many persons, which depends on the other is involved in great questionings, i.e., does God have compassion upon us because we have shown the beginning of a good will, or does the beginning of a good will follow because God has had compassion upon us? For many believing each of these and asserting them more widely than is right are entangled in all kinds of opposite errors. For if we say that the beginning of free will is in our own power, what about Paul the persecutor, what about Matthew the publican, of whom the one was drawn to salvation while eager for bloodshed and the punishment of the innocent, the other for violence and rapine?"
The council of orange rejected his idea that both Zaccheus and the thief on the cross took the first step.
As seen in the next paragraph of his conference in book 2,conference 13 chapter 11
"But if we say that the beginning of our free will is always due to the inspiration of the grace of God, what about the faith of Zaccheus, or what are we to say of the goodness of the thief on the cross, who by their own desires brought violence to bear on the kingdom of heaven and so prevented the special leadings of their vocation?"
This is what got the Semi-Pelagains in trouble with the more moderate Augustinians of the council of Orange.
And this is what most english speaking christians mention when talking about semi-pelagianism. We assume they tought that "all men" were able to take the first step in the beginnings of salvation. This speculation is false. They only believed that such a thing was true for "some people".
And this is why they were called "semi-Pelagain". They held a half way view between Agustine's "Grace must preceed the will of man" and Pelagian's "man's will preceeds the grace of God".
For the semi-pelagian God's grace preceeded the will of "some men". Maybe even most men. But they also believed that for other men.....their will was able to preceed the grace of God.
When you read the council of Orange you will notice that they only condemned a portion of what John Cassian tought.
Canon 8 of Orange said:
http://the-highway.com/Orange.html
Quote:
"CANON 8. If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith. For he denies that the free will of all men has been weakened through the sin of the first man, or at least holds that it has been affected in such a way that they have still the ability to seek the mystery of eternal salvation by themselves without the revelation of God. The Lord himself shows how contradictory this is by declaring that no one is able to come to him "unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44), as he also says to Peter, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 16:17), and as the Apostle says, "No one can say 'Jesus is Lord' except by the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:3)."
Notice how the first sentence of Canon 8 says:
"If anyone maintains that some are able to come to the grace of baptism by mercy but others through free will, which has manifestly been corrupted in all those who have been born after the transgression of the first man, it is proof that he has no place in the true faith."
They condemned the half/half view. Or 50%/50% view. In the eyes of the council of orange "all men" are unable to use their will to preceed the grace of God.
The decrees of the council of orange were mainly against what Saint John Cassian wrote in the quote I posted above.
This is another quote of the canons of the council of Orange in relation to what Saint John Cassian said about the theif on the cross and Zacchaeus.
"Quote:
"We also believe and confess to our benefit that in every good work it is not we who take the initiative and are then assisted through the mercy of God, but God himself first inspires in us both faith in him and love for him without any previous good works of our own that deserve reward, so that we may both faithfully seek the sacrament of baptism, and after baptism be able by his help to do what is pleasing to him. We must therefore most evidently believe that the praiseworthy faith of the thief whom the Lord called to his home in paradise, and of Cornelius the centurion, to whom the angel of the Lord was sent, and of Zacchaeus, who was worthy to receive the Lord himself, was not a natural endowment but a gift of God's kindness."
Please correct me if I'm wrong but I think Arminianism teaches that God's grace must preceed the will of "ALL MEN".
This is a major difference with classical semi-pelagianism.
Also I would like to mention that Orange was a moderate Augustinian council. They rejected some of the teachings of both Saint John Cassian and Saint Augustine.
They rejected the idea of double unconditional election. Or the unconditional predestanation of the wicked. They also rejected the idea that God is the author of sin or evil....something like that. It's been awhile since I read Orange. I might be wrong but I think it's in the conclusion statements of the Canons.
But I'm sure you will see it when you read it.
Take care and God bless
JNORM888
Because Semi-Pelagianism believed that the will of some men was able to preceed the Grace of God.
One could say that classical Semi-Pelagianism was against the "necessity" of prevenient grace.
They didn't believe that Prevenient grace was necessary for everyone.
So one could say that Arminianism believes in the "Necessity" of Prevenient grace for "EVERYONE".
I hope that helps. It's alot shorter and to the point then what I said before.
It's kinda hard to explain the 50/50 view of semi-Pelagianism. But looking at it with the lense(perspective) of "Prevenient grace". I am seeing that it is alot easier to explain the view with less words.
One could also look at the difference in regards to the doctrine of the fall.
Classical Semi-Pelegainism doesn't believe in the "necessity" of the total inability (not being able to choose God) of the will for everyone.
So it's about the "necessity" for all. They believed it was the case for some, but not for all men.
Classical Arminianism believes in the "Necessity" of the total inability (not being able to choose God) for all men.
I do relies that the language of total inability is extremely strong with both Arminius and John Wesly. I may be wrong but I read that it wasn't as strong with Simon Episcopus and some of the other Remonstrants. I may be wrong agian but maybe their language had to be strong because they had to defend themselves against the charges of the Calvinists in regards to "Semi-pelagianism" and "Pelagiansim".
I assume you are well read in the works of Simon Episcopus so maybe you could correct me where I am wrong.
I depart from both Arminius's and Wesly's strong language in regards to the will being "destroyed/annihilated" and lost". My understanding of the will is tied to the doctrine of man being created in the Image of God. When man fell, the image was corrupt but not annihilated....for that would mean we would cease to exist.
Therefor, I believe when man fell his will was corrupt. And because it is corrupt God's prevenient grace must always preceed the will of every man in order to heal the will so that we can choose him.
So in a way I am a "light" Augustinian since I take his position of the "necessity" of prevenient grace. And like John Wesly and maybe Molina I believe it is for "All men". I Partly agree with the semi-pelagians that the will of man is sick or weak. But unlike them I don't see the will of anyone preceeding the grace of God.
Instead, the will of man is so sick. So weak that God's grace must preceed the will of all men.
Or
God must begin the workings of salvation in all men. ...not some men.
Well.....I guess that's it. Have a blessed Lord's day.
JNORM888
Here's the quote from the Canons that you mentioned:
According to the catholic faith we also believe that after grace has been received through baptism, all baptized persons have the ability and responsibility, if they desire to labor faithfully, to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul. We not only do not believe that any are foreordained to evil by the power of God, but even state with utter abhorrence that if there are those who want to believe so evil a thing, they are anathema.
I see this as a sort of balancing. I.E. don't go too far and believe we don't have to do anything or in double predestination...
Ironically, this might be more problematic for some Calvinists than the 25 canons are for Arminians.
Your comments on Cassian are interesting. Before I can answer your question, could you clarify one point? Did Cassian think that God's grace does precede conversion (for some people) or that it must precede conversion (for some people)?
If Cassian is saying God does, but doesn't have to, provide prevenient grace, then the difference between Semi-Pelagians and Arminians is the necessity of prevenient grace. On the other hand, if Cassian is saying that prevenient grace is necessary for some people, but not others, then the difference between Arminians and Semi-Pelagians is that Arminians say that prevenient grace is necessary for everyone.
God be with you,
Dan
I also know that in regards to "prevenient grace" which is what the argument between him and Augustine was all about.
He(and his followers) didn't believe in the "Necessity" of Prevenient grace for all. But then again with your question it could be possible that they were against the "Necessity" of Prevenient grace. They did teach the doctrine but they didn't believe God did it for all.
Now does this mean that they believed in the "Necessity" of prevenient grace for some?
At this point in time I don't know. What I do know is that they truely believed that "Prevenient grace" did preceed the will of some.
I will have to reread conference 13 again to make sure.
There is also another place where he mentions it as well. I will have to reread the conferences to make sure, but until then I will quote
Owen Chadwick's preface to the book John Cassian conferences:
In the book John Cassian: conferences, translated by and prefaced by Colm Luibheid and introduction by Owen Chadwick page 27
Chadwick says
"But -to the soul totally helpless? The prodical son was sick of the husks the
swine ate, and turned homeward. And while he was still a great way off, his
father saw him and ran to meet him. Are there cases - perhaps rare cases- where
the first tiny initiative comes from the soul turning back because sick of
husks, and then God comes with his saving grace to help? To this question Cassian
answered yes, There are cases-they may be very rare cases-where the soul makes
the first little turn. Might the theif on the cross be one such? And because
Cassian answered yes to this question, he almost destroyed his reputation as a
theologian. For if Cassian is right, said the critics, we are not helpless
without God. Cassian may say we are helpless. He cannot mean it. We need not
enter this controversy of the centuries. It will be sufficient to say here: (1)
No one can doubt that Cassian disapproved of the doctrine of Saint Augustine. He
thought it rigid. He thought parts of it untrue. He wrote one conference, the
thirteenth, to confute Saint Augustine. (2) No one can doubt that Cassian was a
deeply Christian moralist and never for an instant supposed that a soul could
ascend any ladder, or fight any fight, without God pouring in His grace."
hmmm, it's hard to say.
This is a long quote from Conference 13 chapter 15. He seems to have a strong view of the necessity of grace.
Quote:
CHAPTER XV.That the understanding, by means of which we can recognize
God's commands, and the performance of a good will are both gifts from the
Lord. FURTHER the blessed David asks of the Lord that he may gain that very
understanding, by which he can recognize God's commands which, he well knew,
were written in the book of the law, and he says "I am Thy servant: O give me
understanding that I may learn Thy commandments." Certainly he was in possession
of understanding, which had been granted to him by nature, and also had at his
fingers' ends a knowledge of God's commands which were preserved in writing in
the law: and still he prayed the Lord that he might learn this more thoroughly
as he knew that what came to him by nature would never be sufficient for him,
unless his understanding was enlightened by the Lord by a daily illumination
from Him, to understand the law spiritually and to recognize His commands more
clearly, as the "chosen vessel" also declares very plainly this which we are
insisting on. "For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do
according to good will." What could well be clearer than the assertion that both
our good will and the completion of our work are fully wrought in us by the
Lord? And again "For it is granted to you for Christ's sake, not only to believe
in Him but also to suffer for Him." Here also he declares that the beginning of
our conversion and faith, and the endurance of suffering is a gift to us from
the Lord. And David too, as he knows this, similarly prays that the same thing
may be granted to him by God's mercy. "Strengthen, O God, that which Thou hast
wrought in us:" showing that it is not enough for the beginning of our salvation
to be granted by the gift and grace of God, unless it has been continued and
ended by the same pity and continual help from Him. For not free will but the
Lord "looseth them that are bound. "No strength of ours, but the Lord "raiseth
them that are fallen:" no diligence in reading, but "the Lord enlightens the
blind:" where the Greeks have kurioV sofoi tuflouV, i.e., "the Lord maketh wise
the blind:" no care on our part, but "the Lord careth for the stranger: "no
courage of ours, but "the Lord assists (or supports) all those who are down."
But this we say, not to slight our zeal and efforts and diligence, as if they
were applied unnecessarily and foolishly, but that we may know that we cannot
strive without the help of God, nor can our efforts be of any use in securing
the great reward of purity, unless it has been granted to us by the assistance
and mercy of the Lord: for "a horse is prepared for the day of battle: but help
cometh from the Lord," "for no man can prevail by strength." We ought then
always to sing with the blessed David: "My strength and my praise is" not my
free will, but "the Lord, and He is become my salvation." And the teacher of the
Gentiles was not ignorant of this when he declared that he was made capable of
the ministry of the New Testament not by his own merits or efforts but by the
mercy of God. "Not" says he, "that we are capable of thinking anything of
ourselves as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God," which can be put in
less good Latin but more forcibly, "our capability is of God," and then there
follows: "Who also made us capable ministers of the New Testament."
hmm, it's hard to say. I know that Orange condemns Saint John Cassian here too in regards to our prayers. Wait, I may be wrong about that. But i think they said that even our prayers must be initiated by the promptings of God. So I think that maybe Cassian was saying about David that he was able through his natural will to read the Bible and pray. And then after that God did the rest or helped out.
I may be wrong but I think Augustine and Orange both said that God must first prompt/move/incline the will to read the word and pray in order for God to come and help us.
I don't know. It's hard to say at this time.
I will have to reread conference 13 to make sure.
You said:
"If Cassian is saying God does, but doesn't have to, provide prevenient grace, then the difference between Semi-Pelagians and Arminians is the necessity of prevenient grace. On the other hand, if Cassian is saying that prevenient grace is necessary for some people, but not others, then the difference between Arminians and Semi-Pelagians is that Arminians say that prevenient grace is necessary for everyone."
Good point. And to that I must say "I don't know". At least at this time.
His conferences are extremely long, but I will try to work through the ones where he talks about "GRACE and FREE WILL". I think they are in two places. One is book 2, conference 13. I will have to find out where the other one is.
Take care and God bless.
JNORM888
That last quote I quoted. I just read again and it seems as if he thought that the natural ability of the will wasn't good enough(in regards to David)
"Certainly he was in possession
of understanding, which had been granted to him by nature, and also had at his
fingers' ends a knowledge of God's commands which were preserved in writing in
the law: and still he prayed the Lord that he might learn this more thoroughly
as he knew that what came to him by nature would never be sufficient for him,
unless his understanding was enlightened by the Lord by a daily illumination
from Him, to understand the law spiritually and to recognize His commands more
clearly, as the "chosen vessel" also declares very plainly this which we are
insisting on. "For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do
according to good will." What could well be clearer than the assertion that both
our good will and the completion of our work are fully wrought in us by the
Lord?
So there seems to be some type of necessity that goes beyound the natural ability of the will.
At least in regards to King David.
JNORM888
I followed this link you provided.
http://www.osb.org/lectio/cassian/conf/book2/conf13.html#13.11
Here are a few comments that Arminius would have objected to:
“for when God sees us inclined to will what is good, He meets, guides, and strengthens us” - Chapter 11
But that it may be still clearer that through the excellence of nature which is granted by the goodness of the Creator, sometimes first beginnings of a good will arise, which however cannot attain to the complete performance of what is good unless it is guided by the Lord – Chapter 9
But if we say that the beginning of our free will is always due to the inspiration of the grace of God, what about the faith of Zaccheus, or what are we to say of the goodness of the thief on the cross, who by their own desires brought violence to bear on the kingdom of heaven and so prevented the special leadings of their vocation? – Chapter 11
I haven’t finished reading the whole conference, but I intend to. Thanks for providing the link.
God be with you,
Dan
Isn't it fair, though, to say that "modern Arminianism" in the American Evangelical world is often nothing less than semi-Pelagianism (or often Pelagianism)? The beliefs of Arminius and Wesley were much closer to Luther and Calvin than the beliefs of Charles Finney and those who have followed in his wake. Please don't be too hard on us Reformed fellows, keeping this in mind. I readily confess we should be more guarded in our language and careful with our accusations.
Isn't it fair, though, to say that "modern Arminianism" in the American Evangelical world is often nothing less than semi-Pelagianism (or often Pelagianism)?
Modern churches are sadly (without knowing it) Pelagian. Those that know it are even sadder still. I don't know if they should be called Arminians though. I like Roger Olson's book, Arminian Theology Myths and Realities, Robert Piciilli's book Grace, Faith and Freewill and Keith Stanglin's book Arminius on the Assurance of Salvation. I think they have all made progress, in their own ways, to shedding misconceptions about Arminianism.
I agree with you about Finney.
As for being "too tough" on Calvinists, your right that I get a bit defensive on some things. I try to keep my comments to Calvinism rather than Calvinists.
God be with you,
Dan