Talk:Semi-Pelagianism

Pejorative misnomer?
The term "semi-pelagian" is neither pejorative nor a misnomer. As far as the misnomer is concerned, one user [Buidhe] here reversed my change arguing that no one identifies as a semi-pelagian. By that logic, we need to remove the page on antisemitism because people rarely prefer to refer to themselves in that language. The page actually says "A person who holds such positions is called an antisemite." It's an objective term for a thing that exists. Semi-Pelagianism does exist. If there's another term for it that is more precise, than this page shouldn't exist and should merely link through to that page. If semi-pelagianism does exist, then why are we calling it a misnomer without even offering a more accurate option?

As far as being pejorative is concerned, many objective terms have been used pejoratively. That doesn't make the term pejorative per se. Again, semi-pelagianism actually describes a theological position. It is perfectly fair to argue for another term. It is not fair to act like describing that theological position is inherently pejorative. Tojasonharris (talk) 05:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Rebecca Weaver writes that "The term “semi-Pelagian” and its cognates is a well-known and
 * resilient misnomer... scholars have long recognized and sought to correct the pejorative misnomer". (pp. xiv, xv)
 * Scheck writes that "Ogliari describes the term “Semi-Pelagian” as a convenient party label that is “not easy to displace, in spite of its ambiguous and unjust connotations.”" (Pelagius’s interpretation of Romans, p.87)
 * These are both university press books, so please provide sources that are equally good that state it's not a misnomer or pejorative. buidhe 05:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * These are both university press books, so please provide sources that are equally good that state it's not a misnomer or pejorative. buidhe 05:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * These are both university press books, so please provide sources that are equally good that state it's not a misnomer or pejorative. buidh<b style="color: White">e</b> 05:53, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * McCune writes "Semi-Pelagianism was an attempt to find a mediating position between Pelagianism and Augustinianism. Whereas Pelagianism asserted a pure natural ability, Semi-Pelagianism put forth a modified form of natural ability. Its main ideas are the following." (McCune, R., 2009. A Systematic Theology of Biblical Christianity: The Doctrines of Man, Sin, Christ, and the Holy Spirit, Allen Park, MI: Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, p 68.)


 * Ferguson write "SEMI-PELAGIANISM, a largely monastic movement of reaction against Augustine’s developed anti-Pelagian teachings (and hence more fittingly called Semi-Augustinianism; ‘Semi-Pelagian’ is found no earlier than the 16th century)." (Ferguson, S.B. & Packer, J.I., 2000. New dictionary of theology, p.636.)


 * Demarest write "Semi-Pelagians shared Augustine’s view of the seriousness of sin, but they denied that Adam and his offspring suffered holistic depravity." (Demarest, B.A., 1997. The cross and salvation: the doctrine of salvation, Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, p. 53)


 * Zahl write "Sanders and his partners in the New Perspective have missed completely the distinction between Pelagianism and semi-Pelagianism." (Zahl, P.F.M., 2001. Mistakes of the New Perspective on Paul. Themelios, 27(1), p.8.)


 * Reymond write "That is to say, election to salvation is ultimately contingent on the human creature’s free exercise of repentance and faith in Christ (which if not full-blown Pelagianism is certainly semi-Pelagianism)." (Cottrell, J.W. et al., 2006. Perspectives on election: five views C. O. Brand, ed., Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers, pp. 135-136).


 * There are dozens more... it is absurd to argue that the position doesn't exist. If you've found a person who doesn't like the term, they need to argue a new term and why it should be the primary term used for a centuries old theological position. Tojasonharris (talk) 06:45, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure these support your opinion, after all Ferguson writes that it would be more correctly called "semi-Augustinianism". Specialized Christian presses can be useful for attributed opinion, but we should defer to academic historians for questions of how to classify historical movements (per WP:RS and WP:BESTSOURCES). I never said that "semi-pelagianism" did not exist, but the most reliable sources do call it a misnomer.  <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 06:58, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * See also   more academic source which state that it is a pejorative label. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 07:04, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes, semi-Augustinianism might be a better term. But it's not the one history settled on. Nor have you suggested changing the name of the article.


 * This is a case of religious bias. You cite semi-pelagians complaining about the term, but who offer no alternative term. Again, if there is a correct term for it, let's use it. You agree with me that the position exists, so why give a wrong term and call it wrong instead of giving the right term? The answer is because it IS the right term. But those who hold the position don't like to own it. Again, an argument for an alternative, more objective term would be fine. But semi-Augustinianism is not a better term because Augustine held the mainstream Christian view at the time while the Roman Church of the Reformation era did not hold the Augustinian view. Again, a case of bias against Reformation theology.


 * To whom does one appeal in such matters? Tojasonharris (talk) 07:18, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

, "This is a case of religious bias" -> that's simply untrue. I do not pay any attention to what religion a writer espouses, it simply has no bearing on the reliability of the source. (Furthermore, I'm an atheist, I don't have a dog in this fight). What matters is their reputation for fact checking and accuracy. If you have doubts as to whether a source is reliable, WP:RSN is the correct forum for that discussion. According to article titles we should usually use the common name, which in this case seems to be semi-Pelagianism... but we should also contextualise it appropriately, which is that reliable sources call it a misnomer. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 08:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well I'm a theologian who finds it incredibly offensive that your sources discount the broad scheme of Protestant theology without bothering to offer an alternative, more accurate contender. I do not dispute that some university published scholars think it's a misnomer. I do dispute that this makes it a fact. It's not even something opposing scholars would even say... "Semi-pelagianism, which is a good term for semi-pelaginism, is..." It makes no sense.


 * If you want to argue for a better way to say it, I'm all ears. But the article as it stands is inaccurate and misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tojasonharris (talk • contribs) 09:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The issue is that I've never come across a single scholarly source that uses the term "semi-pelagianism" uncritically. Since that's the case, we have to present the reality that historians consider it a misnomer. <b style="color: White">b</b><b style="color: White">uidh</b><b style="color: White">e</b> 10:38, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I just cited five for you above and offered more. There are literally hundreds in the quick search I did. Semi-Pelagianism is a theological view broadly recognised in mainstream Protestantism.


 * The current version of the article is improved. But it still asserts that "Semi-Pelagianism" is a misnomer without offering the correct or accurate nomenclature. This is an intellectually untenable position. If it's not that, then what is it? The whole article describes a theological position under a name that it argues is a misname. So what is the real name of it? What should it be called? These questions must be answered for the article to have clarity and objectivity. Tojasonharris (talk) 11:29, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

[Untitled]
The "See Also" link to Arminianism seems to be less than NPOV as it implies a relationship between arminianism and semipelagianism which is disputed as the article acknowledges. There is already a link to arminianism in the main body, so this seems unneccesary anyway.

Unattibuted quote
Please check the article in the Catholic Encyclopedia, http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13703a.htm. Much of the text in the section on development seems to be taken from there.

Dispute
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)


 * 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)

Error?
"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)

This paragraph is entirely unclear. Don't blame the reader for pronoun/antecedent issues and incoherency by telling them to "read carefully" -- clean up the grammar and explanation so that it makes sense to someone coming to Wikipedia for information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.85.22.176 (talk) 14:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Clean-up
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. Pastordavid 17:05, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.

Past or Present Tense
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)

Blah, blah, blah -- can someone get to the point?
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)


 * 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)

Pronoun issues and unclear intro
--97.85.22.176 (talk) 14:29, 21 October 2016 (UTC)"The Roman Catholic Church condemns Semipelagianism but affirms that the beginning of faith involves an act of free will. It teaches that the initiative comes from God, but requires free synergy (collaboration) on the part of man:...."

Is "it" the RCC or Semipelagianism? The entire introductory paragraphs are confusing for readers who know nothing about the topic and are coming to wikipedia for help. The overview section is not a place for a detailed discussion on refutations that is more in-depth than the actual treatment of the school of thought itself. I suspect that the second paragraph needs to be its own subheading under the detailed discussion and pulled from the overview altogether, but I'm not certain based on the pronoun issue. If I knew more about the topic, I'd simply clean up the writing for clarity. 97.85.22.176 (talk) 14:33, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Synergism
I dropped some OR from the lead about Synergism. It is not sourced in either article, and is wishy-wasy:

Semipelagianism is similar to synergism such that any differences between them are open to debate. Synergism and semipelagianism both (in contrast to monergism) teach some collaboration in salvation between God and man, but the term semipelagian carries more an idea of heresy. The Roman Catholic Church condemns semipelagianism but affirms collaboration in the form of theological synergism.

Wesley
I don't understand how the statements about Wesley's theology can be justified from the source. 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:

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: CADguyMatt (talk) 15:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)CADguyMatt
 * 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, and can be used to support a new proposal. ---Telikalive (talk) 11:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)