Talk:Semi-Pelagianism

message: Yeah, I'm not thrilled with this as it stands.  The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church gives an entirely different derivation for the term, as well as a different contextual explanation for it.  Pelagius, as he appears in the writings of Augustine, seems to suggest that original sin is the introduction of error, but not the transmission of evil to all mankind.  Thus, original sin still has an enormous impact, because it incurs the divorce of God from man's direct apprehension.  It makes man imperfect, and anything imperfect is cut off from the divine presence.  So that's not just a "bad example."  This is per Augustine, Pelagius's enemy.  Semi-pelagianism, according to Cross et al., was a furtive redefinition and mediation of the Pelagian view.  According to it, man is depraved: not just in error but evil by nature, but man is not totally depraved.  I.e. the entirety of the divine nature was not obliterated by a sin, as much as it was clouded and alloyed by sin.  Thus, it is possible for man to attempt and achieve virtue (as opposed to piety or good) by his own lights alone, and it is possible for man to seek out God based on the remaining goodness that tells him that there must be a summum bonum.  It was, of course, condemned as heresy, and the two accounts of the doctrine agree from that point on.  However, one thing missing from this is that semi-Pelagianism is a cornerstone of the enlightenment.  Both Deism and rationalism require a semi-Pelagian outlook.  Thus, although the doctrine was never sanctioned, it slipped into many, many theological movements later.  My dispute, I guess, is that this article seems to rely too much upon an evangelical definition and context.  From an older church's point of view, things don't appear this way at all.  Geogre 13:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your comments seem valid based on my readings.  But I don't see it contradicting what is said in Semipelagianism so much as Pelagianism.  Clarifications to Semi- and modifications to Pelagianism along the lines you mention should be acceptable and perhaps a little more NPOV.  I suggest you make some changes/edits supported by appropriate citations.  The articles will likely be the better for it. Jim Ellis 16:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dispute 

message: "It" was condemned in 529, but the term was coined in the 1500s? Was there a typo, or is "it" Pelagianism?
:It's not an error, just a little hard to explain in two sentences.  Read carefully, it seems clear to me: The heresy advocated by monks of Southern Gaul (at and around Marseille after 428) is what was condemned in 529.  This "heresy" received the name "semi-pelagianism" in connection with Luis Molina's doctrine of grace (between 1590 and 1600). The name stuck and is now directly associated with the doctrine condemned at the Council of Orange in 529, even though it was not used at that time. Hope this helps. Jim Ellis 13:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Error?

message: I have re-written the lead paragraph, trying to give the pertinent info quickly and NPOV.  I also added categories, so that future editors have a clear division of how to sort the info about the topic.
*Consider revisiting the "see also" list.  Terms linked in the article don't need a link there, and some of the links still seem to be POV accusations of semi-pelagianism against a particular theology.
*Consider adding more references throughout.
Pastordavid 17:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean-up 

message: The Pelagianism page defines the teaching in the present tense (i.e., Pelagianism is) rather than the past tense (i.e., Pelagianism was).  Which directions should this article go with pelagianism and semi-pelagianism?  Past or Present?  Has anyone checked through other heresy pages to see how it is handled?  I really have no preference; it would be nice if one of the other pages had already discussed this and come to a consensus.  For myself, the heresies don't stop to exist once they are declared unorthodox, and to speak of them in the past tense assumes that we never see them any more.  But my biggest concern is that there be some consistancy.  Pastordavid 05:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Past or Present Tense 

message: The introductory paragraph goes on and on before getting to what might be construed as a definition of the term "semipelagianism" --- but not a very clear one.  The main text is worse.  What does the term mean?  Can someone give the definition AT THE BEGINNING before going into all the distinctions?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.176.223 (talk) 23:45, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, 6 years later and the problem still remains. Guess this isn't a high priority. I want to reiterate how terribly written the introduction is today. 97.85.22.176 (talk) 14:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blah, blah, blah -- can someone get to the point? 

message: --97.85.22.176 (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronoun issues and unclear intro 

message: I don't understand how the statements about Wesley's theology can be justified from the source (https://web.archive.org/web/20180322103812/http://www.umcmission.org/Find-Resources/John-Wesley-Sermons/Sermon-44-Original-Sin). The source flatly contradicts the claim in the article that Wesley taught "no man is born in such a state". On the contrary, the article says:
″In his natural state, every man born into the world is a rank idolater.″
Furthermore:
″They [Heathens] knew not that all men were empty of all good, and filled with all manner of evil. They were wholly ignorant of the entire depravation of the whole human nature, of every man born into the world, in every faculty of his soul, not so much by those particular vices which reign in particular persons, as by the general flood of Atheism and idolatry, of pride, self-will, and love of the world. This, therefore, is the first grand distinguishing point between Heathenism and Christianity. The one acknowledges that many men are infected with many vices, and even born with a proneness to them; but supposes withal, that in some the natural good much over-balances the evil: The other [Christianity] declares that all men are conceived in sin," and "shapen in wickedness;" -- that hence there is in every man a "carnal mind, which is enmity against God, which is not, cannot be, subject to" his "law;" and which so infects the whole soul, that "there dwelleth in" him, "in his flesh," in his natural state, "no good thing;" but "every imagination of the thoughts of his heart is evil," only evil, and that "continually."″
And further:
″But here is the shibboleth: Is man by nature filled with all manner of evil? Is he void of all good? Is he wholly fallen? Is his soul totally corrupted? Or, to come back to the text, is "every imagination of the thoughts of his heart only evil continually?" Allow this, and you are so far a Christian. Deny it, and you are but an Heathen still.″
Any scholar of Wesley will acknowledge that Wesley is no semi-Pelagian. Semi-Pelagianism teaches that man takes the initiative in salvation - that, while God's grace is necessary for salvation, man must take the first step toward God, and then God will respond. It's found in popular sayings such as, "God helps those who help themselves". Or "Take one step toward God, and He will take 1,000 steps toward you." I would suggest a paragraph describing his views in more or less the following manner: Wesley is synergistic, but his synergism, like Arminius's, is semi-Augustinian rather than semi-Pelagian. He is very clear that man is by nature corrupt and cannot take the first step toward God. God provides grace, and that grace is given to everyone. Without prevenient grace (prevenient means that it comes before or precedes in time), man cannot have faith and accept salvation. But the difference with Calvinism or monergism is that Wesley teaches that grace is not irresistible, but enabling; it can be resisted. 
See the source here: https://www.catalystresources.org/consider-wesley-59/
There is an article discussing "semi-Augustinianism" as Wesley's position (and Arminius's), but the site is currently down. The author seems to have it made available as a blog post, although I'm not sure if it's identical to the article or not. See below:
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/episode-22-the-spectrum-of-salvation-part-2/id1090218315?i=1000391583960
https://repository.asbury.edu/handle/11415/977
http://cbounds.blogspot.com/2006/10/four-major-views-of-christian.html
CADguyMatt (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, these statements are not at all supported by the source. They have to be deleted immediately, purely and simply whether they are replaced or not with more appropriate statements. Additional material confirming this fact can be found here: Arminianism#Divergence_with_semi-Pelagianism_and_Pelagianism, and can be used to support a new proposal. ---Telikalive (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wesley