The Calvinist Lie: The Charge of Semi-Pelagianism

Did the Council of Orange Condemn Synergism?

J.C. Thibodaux


Background

  When a non-Calvinist speaks with a Calvinist, the most common epithet hurled towards the former is almost inevitably the title of Semi-Pelagian or just Pelagian. Some Calvinists who have a smattering of knowledge of church history like to throw this term around and use it as a tarbrush to blacken anything that does not fall in line with their view of Christian doctrine.

Most Christians (myself included) who are broadsided by this charge for the first time give the scholarly response:

"Semi- what?"

Semi-Pelagianism, or Semipelagianism is an offshoot of the doctrines taught by a fifth-century monk named Pelagius, who taught that man was able to attain to eternal life apart from God's grace.

Pelagius' doctrines were condemned as heretical by in 418 A.D.; later, other monks within the church (most notably, John Cassian and his followers at Marseilles) taught a similar doctrine that was later to be known as half-Pelagianism or Semipelagianism. Semipelagian doctrine states that while God's grace is necessary for a man to be saved, man must take the 'first step' to God of his own accord.

[Semi-Pelagianism], while not denying the necessity of Grace for salvation, maintained that the first steps towards the Christian life were ordinarily taken by the human will and that Grace supervened only later.

(Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, ed. F.L. Cross, Oxford Univ. Press, rev. 1983, p.1258)

Semi-pelagianism was also condemned as a heresy at the second Council of Orange in 529 A.D.


The Reason Calvinists Use the Term

  Having been condemned as a heresy, Pelagianism becomes a 'Hitler' of the theological debate world: You can't go wrong if you associate your opponent with it. Many Calvinists teach that Synergists (including Arminians) are Semi-Pelagians because, apparently in their very finite universes, the systems of Pelagianism and Synergism are very similar (as both views support a measure of conditionality on men where salvation is concerned). Faulty logic. Let's look at two key points:

1. Guilt by similarity is a logical error. United Pentacostals and other Modalists (people who deny the Trinity -- believing in one God as only one Person in three offices), in an attempt to discredit Protestant Trinitarians will often draw comparisons between said Trinitarians and the Catholic Church because both bodies believe in the Trinity -- the Catholic church being another 'Hitler' apparently (ironically enough, many Calvinists also say Arminianism is 'the road back to Rome'). Guilt by similarity? Jesus believed in the resurrection just as the Pharisees did, that would not logically give the Sadducees room to call Him a semi-Pharisee.

2. Semi-Pelagianism was not condemned as heresy for conditionality, but for their teachings concerning who begins the salvation process and from whence comes the strength to persevere.

In other words, while both systems acknowledge a degree of conditionality, Pelagianism/Semi-Pelagianism says man comes to God, Synergism/Arminianism says that God draws man. World of difference. Conditionality is where the similarity between Pelagianism and Synergism ends, for the two are completely different as far as how it is taught that men come to God. I use Synergism to mean strictly God-centered Synergism, i.e. it is God who chooses us, not we Him, as Semi-Pelagianism teaches (though Semi-Pelagianism as well as Legalism could be called synergistic in a sense, the context in which I use the term denotes teaching similar to the Arminian doctrine).

  Of course on hearing this, most Calvinists scramble to try to draw more comparisons or say that Semi-Pelagianism was in fact condemned for being synergistic. Many write stupid articles with titles like 'There Are Only Two Religions in the Whole World!' (meaning Synergism and Monergism, an actual article by John G. Reisinger -- which is demonstrably nonsensical, since Sunni Islam is strictly deterministic, and therefore also monergistic). Even many of the more prominent and well-read Calvinists are guilty of such gaping negligence. R.C. Sproul wrote,

"Now what is called semi-Pelagianism, as the prefix "semi" suggests, was a somewhat middle ground between full-orbed Augustinianism and full-orbed Pelagianism. Semi -Pelagianism said this: yes, there was a fall; yes, there is such a thing as original sin; yes, the constituent nature of humanity has been changed by this state of corruption and all parts of our humanity have been significantly weakened by the fall, so much so that without the assistance of divine grace nobody can possibly be redeemed, so that grace is not only helpful but it's absolutely necessary for salvation. While we are so fallen that we can't be saved without grace, we are not so fallen that we don't have the ability to accept or reject the grace when it's offered to us."

  While the Semi-Pelagians no doubt believed that men had to comply with the will of God to be saved, this is not the part of their doctrine that was condemned. Sproul tries takes the part of doctrine that Arminianism and Semi-Pelagianism hold in common and holds it us as heresy; yet it was not that part of their doctrine that was condemned! What was condemned was the Pelagian belief that men come to God of their own accord apart from His grace, instead of God drawing them to Himself. I will go into the Articles of the Council of Orange in more detail shortly.

Sproul continues,

"The will is weakened but is not enslaved. There remains in the core of our being an island of righteousness that remains untouched by the fall. It's out of that little island of righteousness, that little parcel of goodness that is still intact in the soul or in the will that is the determinative difference between heaven and hell. It's that little island that must be exercised when God does his thousand steps of reaching out to us, but in the final analysis it's that one step that we take that determines whether we go to heaven or hell-whether we exercise that little righteousness that is in the core of our being or whether we don't. That little island Augustine wouldn't even recognize as an atoll in the South Pacific. He said it's a mythical island, that the will is enslaved, and that man is dead in his sin and trespasses."

Here Sproul is guilty of either near-total ignorance or patent dishonesty. Semi-Pelagianism clearly teaches that man reaches out to God before God gives His grace, not that he responds to God's grace as Sproul asserts. Mr. Sproul is clearly making an attack on Arminianism (and Synergism), which teaches that God draws men and men must comply (and misrepresenting that to boot). Could Sproul simply have been mistaken? Could 'Semi-Pelagianism' be just a name he has given to Arminianism apart from the historical meaning of the word? Unlikely. The next paragraph says,

"Ironically, the Church condemned semi-Pelagianism as vehemently as it had condemned original Pelagianism. Yet by the time you get to the sixteenth century and you read the Catholic understanding of what happens in salvation the Church basically repudiated what Augustine taught and Aquinas taught as well. The Church concluded that there still remains this freedom that is intact in the human will and that man must cooperate with-and assent to-the prevenient grace that is offered to them by God. If we exercise that will, if we exercise a cooperation with whatever powers we have left, we will be saved. And so in the sixteenth century the Church reembraced semi-Pelagianism." (The Pelagian Captivity of the Church, R. C. Sproul pages 5 & 6)

Flat-out blunder, pure and simple. Sproul has no doubt read the Canons of Orange in which Semi-Pelagianism was condemned, and should know very well that it was not 'cooperation with God' that was condemned as heresy, but 'coming to God's grace by our own will.' He, like many Calvinist authors who have no regard or pay little attention to historical and biblical accuracy, uses the title of Semi-Pelagian as a way to associate with heretics anyone who disagrees with him.

So when and how was Semi-Pelagianism condemned in the first place? What was actually condemned? Before I go over the articles, let me clarify what Arminian and Synergist doctrine is concerning the nature of salvation:

As far as man's free will apart from God's grace is concerned:

"That man has not saving grace of himself, nor of the energy of his free will, inasmuch as he, in the state of apostasy and sin, can of an by himself neither think, will, nor do any thing that is truly good (such as saving faith eminently is); but that it is needful that he be born again of God in Christ, through his Holy Spirit, and renewed in understanding, inclination, or will, and all his powers, in order that he may rightly understand, think, will, and effect what is truly good, according to the Word of Christ, John 15:5, "Without me ye can do nothing." "
Article 3 of the Remonstrance*

* Remonstrance: A document from 1610 drawn up by the followers of Jacob Arminius that presented objections to the doctrines of John Calvin.

"That this grace of God is the beginning, continuance, and accomplishmetn of all good, even to this extent, that the regenerate man himself, without prevenient or assisting, awakening, following and cooperative grace, can neither think, will, nor do good, nor withstand any temptations to evil; so that all good deeds or movements, that can be conceived, must be ascribed to the grace of God in Christ, but respects the mode of the operation of this grace, it is not irresistible; inasmuch as it is written concerning many, that they have resisted the Holy Ghost. Acts 7, and elsewhere in many places."
Article 4 of the Remonstrance

Translation: Before God grants us His grace, man is too depraved and sinful to believe; it is only after He gives us His grace and calls us that we can come to Christ at all. The graceless salvation of Pelagius and the 'first step by man' of Cassian are lies. The table below shows the differences between the systems of belief:


System

Is God's grace required for men to be saved?

Who initiates salvation, God or man?

Is it possible to resist God's grace?

Pelagianism

No

Man

Yes

Semi-Pelagianism

Yes

Man

Yes

Arminianism/Synergism

Yes

God

Yes

Calvinism/Monergism

Yes

God

No



  Both Calvinists and Arminians agree that the power to believe and endure comes from God alone, the difference is that Arminians believe that after men have received His grace, they have the power to resist God and turn away (as Article 4 states).

By my own convictions, I do not wish to associate myself with a mortal man as far as what my system of beliefs is (not even Paul - 1 Corinthians 3:4, even though his writings in the New Testament are God-breathed and authoritative), plus I am not sure I agree with everything that Arminius taught (hence my use of the term 'Synergism'). But the points presented in these two articles of the remonstrance state quite well what I likewise believe about the necessity and primacy of God's grace in salvation, so keep these concepts in mind as we review the Canons of the Council of Orange, my comments below are in green.


The Canons of the Council of Orange (529 AD)

CANON 1. If anyone denies that it is the whole man, that is, both body and soul, that was "changed for the worse" through the offense of Adam's sin, but believes that the freedom of the soul remains unimpaired and that only the body is subject to corruption, he is deceived by the error of Pelagius and contradicts the scripture which says, "The soul that sins shall die" (Ezek. 18:20); and, "Do you not know that if you yield yourselves to anyone as obedient slaves, you are the slaves of the one whom you obey?" (Rom. 6:16); and, "For whatever overcomes a man, to that he is enslaved" (2 Pet. 2:19).

Amen. No contradiction with Arminianism or Synergism there, for before God's grace comes to us, we are totally and hopelessly enslaved to sin.




CANON 2. If anyone asserts that Adam's sin affected him alone and not his descendants also, or at least if he declares that it is only the death of the body which is the punishment for sin, and not also that sin, which is the death of the soul, passed through one man to the whole human race, he does injustice to God and contradicts the Apostle, who says, "Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned" (Rom. 5:12).

Yes, I don't think anyone is arguing that men are not spiritually dead because of Adam's sin, and therefore unable to come to God except by His grace.




CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me" (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).

Could not have said it better myself, for we could not even desire God apart from His grace. Notice that complying with the will of God or cooperating with God after His grace is given is not condemned at all in these articles.




CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13).

I agree. Any good that is in our will is worked in us by God, and if evil is done by us to displease God, it means that we act contrary to His grace. Again, nothing to contradict Synergism.




CANON 5. If anyone says that not only the increase of faith but also its beginning and the very desire for faith, by which we believe in Him who justifies the ungodly and comes to the regeneration of holy baptism -- if anyone says that this belongs to us by nature and not by a gift of grace, that is, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit amending our will and turning it from unbelief to faith and from godlessness to godliness, it is proof that he is opposed to the teaching of the Apostles, for blessed Paul says, "And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). For those who state that the faith by which we believe in God is natural make all who are separated from the Church of Christ by definition in some measure believers.

True. Faith is of God and not of us. This contradicts neither Synergism or Arminianism, which state that faith and the power and desire to persevere are from God.




CANON 6. If anyone says that God has mercy upon us when, apart from his grace, we believe, will, desire, strive, labor, pray, watch, study, seek, ask, or knock, but does not confess that it is by the infusion and inspiration of the Holy Spirit within us that we have the faith, the will, or the strength to do all these things as we ought; or if anyone makes the assistance of grace depend on the humility or obedience of man and does not agree that it is a gift of grace itself that we are obedient and humble, he contradicts the Apostle who says, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7), and, "But by the grace of God I am what I am" (1 Cor. 15:10).

Again, true. We have nothing in us apart from what God has given us. Synergistic doctrine makes no claim that man has some innate good in him that enables him to receive God's forgiveness apart from His grace, but that man may resist or comply with the grace and power of God upon him.




CANON 7. If anyone affirms that we can form any right opinion or make any right choice which relates to the salvation of eternal life, as is expedient for us, or that we can be saved, that is, assent to the preaching of the gospel through our natural powers without the illumination and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who makes all men gladly assent to and believe in the truth, he is led astray by a heretical spirit, and does not understand the voice of God who says in the Gospel, "For apart from me you can do nothing" (John 15:5), and the word of the Apostle, "Not that we are competent of ourselves to claim anything as coming from us; our competence is from God" (2 Cor. 3:5).

Very true, for faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God (Romans 10:17). No contradiction with Synergism there.




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).

Again, it simply affirms what Monergism and Synergism have in common and Pelagianism/Semi-Pelagianism denies: that God initiates salvation, not the sinner.




CANON 9. Concerning the succor of God. It is a mark of divine favor when we are of a right purpose and keep our feet from hypocrisy and unrighteousness; for as often as we do good, God is at work in us and with us, in order that we may do so.

I agree with that as well. Apart from Him and His grace we can do nothing truly good.




CANON 10. Concerning the succor of God. The succor of God is to be ever sought by the regenerate and converted also, so that they may be able to come to a successful end or persevere in good works.

No problems there. Actually seems to lend some support to Synergism.




CANON 11. Concerning the duty to pray. None would make any true prayer to the Lord had he not received from him the object of his prayer, as it is written, "Of thy own have we given thee" (1 Chron. 29:14).

I heartily agree.




CANON 12. Of what sort we are whom God loves. God loves us for what we shall be by his gift, and not by our own deserving.

Indeed. Elect according to the foreknowledge (prognosis) of God (1 Peter 1:2). Note that 'conditionality' does not imply 'worth' or 'merit'.




CANON 13. Concerning the restoration of free will. The freedom of will that was destroyed in the first man can be restored only by the grace of baptism, for what is lost can be returned only by the one who was able to give it. Hence the Truth itself declares: "So if the Son makes you free, you will be free indeed" (John 8:36).

Interesting view. The will [i.e. 'the will to do good,' I gather from the context] can only be restored by God's grace. No contradiction there. The only thing I would add is that it is only by the Holy Spirit's working (which to an extent provides us a measure of freedom to accept or reject the gospel message) that we can believe in Christ, which idea finds support in the document's conclusion. Indeed, if the will is indeed free, this would imply it be free for either good or evil.




CANON 14. No mean wretch is freed from his sorrowful state, however great it may be, save the one who is anticipated by the mercy of God, as the Psalmist says, "Let thy compassion come speedily to meet us" (Ps. 79:8), and again, "My God in his steadfast love will meet me" (Ps. 59:10).

We are all wicked till God saves us. I have no quarrel with that statement.




CANON 15. Adam was changed, but for the worse, through his own iniquity from what God made him. Through the grace of God the believer is changed, but for the better, from what his iniquity has done for him. The one, therefore, was the change brought about by the first sinner; the other, according to the Psalmist, is the change of the right hand of the Most High (Ps. 77:10).

Same as above.




CANON 16. No man shall be honored by his seeming attainment, as though it were not a gift, or suppose that he has received it because a missive from without stated it in writing or in speech. For the Apostle speaks thus, "For if justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose" (Gal. 2:21); and "When he ascended on high he led a host of captives, and he gave gifts to men" (Eph. 4:8, quoting Ps. 68:18). It is from this source that any man has what he does; but whoever denies that he has it from this source either does not truly have it, or else "even what he has will be taken away" (Matt. 25:29).

Rightly so. For what God has given us, we are not deserving of. This does not deny the conditionality of His salvation, but it does do away with any means of boasting.




CANON 17. Concerning Christian courage. The courage of the Gentiles is produced by simple greed, but the courage of Christians by the love of God which "has been poured into our hearts" not by freedom of will from our own side but "through the Holy Spirit which has been given to us" (Rom. 5:5).

How true. "God has not given us the spirit of fear..." (2 Timothy 1:7).




CANON 18. That grace is not preceded by merit. Recompense is due to good works if they are performed; but grace, to which we have no claim, precedes them, to enable them to be done.

Agrees with what I stated above under Canon 12: Grace is never merited.




CANON 19. That a man can be saved only when God shows mercy. Human nature, even though it remained in that sound state in which it was created, could be no means save itself, without the assistance of the Creator; hence since man cannot safeguard his salvation without the grace of God, which is a gift, how will he be able to restore what he has lost without the grace of God?

Good line of reasoning. It's silly to say that it's by God's grace we stand, but by sheer force of will that we stood up in the first place. Salvation is of the Lord (Jonah 2:9); note also that the conditionality of salvation does not detract from the fact that it's source is ultimately and completely rooted in God.




CANON 20. That a man can do no good without God. God does much that is good in a man that the man does not do; but a man does nothing good for which God is not responsible, so as to let him do it.

I concur. We can only do good that God allows us to do, and good can only be done through Him.




CANON 21. Concerning nature and grace. As the Apostle most truly says to those who would be justified by the law and have fallen from grace, "If justification were through the law, then Christ died to no purpose" (Gal. 2:21), so it is most truly declared to those who imagine that grace, which faith in Christ advocates and lays hold of, is nature: "If justification were through nature, then Christ died to no purpose." Now there was indeed the law, but it did not justify, and there was indeed nature, but it did not justify. Not in vain did Christ therefore die, so that the law might be fulfilled by him who said, "I have come not to abolish them, but to fulfil them" (Matt. 5:17), and that the nature which had been destroyed by Adam might be restored by him who said that he had come "to seek and to save the lost" (Luke 19:10).

Our fallen nature can do nothing good in keeping the law or being totally righteous, for we can do no good at all apart from Christ. No quarrel there. Note that the canon states that some of the Galatians had indeed fallen from grace.




CANON 22. Concerning those things that belong to man. No man has anything of his own but untruth and sin. But if a man has any truth or righteousness, it from that fountain for which we must thirst in this desert, so that we may be refreshed from it as by drops of water and not faint on the way.

In my flesh, nothing good dwells... (Romans 7:18) No disagreement there. We cannot serve God till God works it in our hearts to serve Him. This does not imply that man cannot refuse to cooperate with God.




CANON 23. Concerning the will of God and of man. Men do their own will and not the will of God when they do what displeases him; but when they follow their own will and comply with the will of God, however willingly they do so, yet it is his will by which what they will is both prepared and instructed.

Exactly. There is nothing in these canons about us being irresistably forced to do God's will; it simply says that what we do will that is good comes from God. Whether we go along with what God has put on our hearts is another matter...




CANON 24. Concerning the branches of the vine. The branches on the vine do not give life to the vine, but receive life from it; thus the vine is related to its branches in such a way that it supplies them with what they need to live, and does not take this from them. Thus it is to the advantage of the disciples, not Christ, both to have Christ abiding in them and to abide in Christ. For if the vine is cut down another can shoot up from the live root; but one who is cut off from the vine cannot live without the root (John 15:5ff).

Cut off from Christ? And Calvinists think this supports their case?




CANON 25. Concerning the love with which we love God. It is wholly a gift of God to love God. He who loves, even though he is not loved, allowed himself to be loved. We are loved, even when we displease him, so that we might have means to please him. For the Spirit, whom we love with the Father and the Son, has poured into our hearts the love of the Father and the Son (Rom. 5:5).

Again, no contradiction with Synergism or Arminianism.




CONCLUSION. And thus according to the passages of holy scripture quoted above or the interpretations of the ancient Fathers we must, under the blessing of God, preach and believe as follows. The sin of the first man has so impaired and weakened free will that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought or believe in God or do good for God's sake, unless the grace of divine mercy has preceded him.

That teaching is perfectly in line with the Articles of the Remonstrance and my comments on Canon 13 listed above.




We therefore believe that the glorious faith which was given to Abel the righteous, and Noah, and Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and to all the saints of old, and which the Apostle Paul commends in extolling them (Heb. 11), was not given through natural goodness as it was before to Adam, but was bestowed by the grace of God.

Yes, for they were but sinful human beings (as we all are) apart from God's grace.




And we know and also believe that even after the coming of our Lord this grace is not to be found in the free will of all who desire to be baptized, but is bestowed by the kindness of Christ, as has already been frequently stated and as the Apostle Paul declares, "For it has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in him but also suffer for his sake" (Phil. 1:29). And again, "He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ" (Phil. 1:6). And again, "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and it is not your own doing, it is the gift of God" (Eph. 2:8). And as the Apostle says of himself, "I have obtained mercy to be faithful" (1 Cor. 7:25, cf. 1 Tim. 1:13). He did not say, "because I was faithful," but "to be faithful." And again, "What have you that you did not receive?" (1 Cor. 4:7). And again, "Every good endowment and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights" (Jas. 1:17). And again, "No one can receive anything except what is given him from heaven" (John 3:27). There are innumerable passages of holy scripture which can be quoted to prove the case for grace, but they have been omitted for the sake of brevity, because further examples will not really be of use where few are deemed sufficient.

Hits the nail on the head, dealing the death-blow to Pelagianism, for grace does not come to us by our own free will, but by the call of God. One cannot make God grant him grace by any of his own actions. Synergism and Arminianism both acknowledge this truth.




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.

Whoah! Wait a minute! "...ability and responsibility"? "...to perform with the aid and cooperation of Christ what is of essential importance in regard to the salvation of their soul"??? Weren't they proclaiming irresistable grace here? Not at all. These canons proclaim that a sinner is so depraved and lost, that even his will is in total bondage to sin, and that he has no power in and of himself to come to Christ, for as they have cited, no man can come to Him unless the Father draw him. The possibility of them rejecting Him and the need to heed once God's grace has been bestowed is not even the issue here. Indeed, the idea that we can cooperate with Christ in doing what is essential to our salvation is purely Synergistic. The Council obviously supported both bondage of the [unregenerate] will and God-centered, grace-centered Synergism. The two concepts are not contradictory.

Note: As the only part of these canons I might take issue with, I do not believe in baptismal regeneration; though historically, salvation and baptism have been very closely associated.




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.

For all you Calvinists who believe that God ordains absolutely everything.




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.

Therein lies the difference: Semi-Pelagianism says we take the initiative and God's grace just assists us; Synergism/Arminianism teaches that God gives us His grace to both hear and believe while we are still dead in sin, and by the divine help or our Teacher and Master and the measure of faith He grants us, we can do what pleases Him. Note also that it says "so that we may...faithfully seek...," which lends no support to the 'irresistible grace' theory.




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.

Amen and Amen.



- End -



  As far as the authority of this document, while it was approved by a large number of churches, I consider something authoritative only as far as it agrees with the teachings of scripture. The emphasis on baptism lends it a distinctly Catholic flavor, but aside from that, I think it is dead on about man's fallen state and inability to come to God by his own free will. Definitely blows Pelagianism and its successors cleanly out of the water, but poses no obstacle to Arminianism or Synergism (it actually lends support to them, as I have pointed out). So when Calvinists try to tell you that the Arminian/Semi-Pelagian heresy has been condemned throughout church history, you can recognize the error in logic.

Calvinist logic:


  But the belief that men could do what was necessary for the salvation of their souls with the "aid and cooperation of Christ" was *supported* by the Council of Orange! What they condemned was the Pelagian doctrine that salvation begins with some goodness in man and not with the grace of God. Yet a great many Calvinist authors fail to recognize this fact, and prefer name-calling and trying to falsely identify their opponents with heretics rather than studying the documents they insist back their claims, much less the Bible.

The simple truth is, that if the doctrines of these men were true, they would not have to stoop to hurling ad hominems, calling Synergists heretics, or lying about church history to smear them. Being in error, these pitiable tools of dishonesty are the only weapons that unprincipled Calvinist writers have against biblical truth. If what one believes is true, he or she need not misrepresent an opponent's position or distort facts to promote and defend it. A word spoken in truth speaks loud enough by itself.


Bottom Line:




Your name :

Your e-mail :

Subject:



Copyright © 2007, InDeathorLife.org
The information on this page may not be reproduced or republished on another website, webpage or other printed media without express permission from the author of this site. Other material(s) referenced on this site are the property of their respective authors or copyright holders, and where applicable are used by permission. "Dewey, there's a principle I learned in military school. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the guy who can't run fast." -Francis, Malcolm in the Middle