Monday, 12 October 2009
-
Semi-Pelagianism: What Can You Do?
By Jon at The Mockingbird Blog
I have recently gone back to school and one of the courses I am taking this semester is centred around the theology of the reformers, specifically that of Luther and Calvin. In class this past week, we were discussing the bound will from Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation, and of course the topic of semi-Pelagianism came up. One of my classmates used an illustration to explain this heresy that is too good not to share with you on Mockingbird.He pointed out that a semi-Pelagian sees God like the Home Depot store whose tagline is “You can do it, we can help”. That set off a discussion about how pernicious this kind of thinking can be. It is actually fatal because it hides what the real problem is, and prevents us from fully embracing the gospel.
To use the Home Depot illustration again, it is like a person who thinks that all they need to make their home presentable is to get a fresh coat of paint, and maybe some new molding, to fix the problems they have with the house. When in reality the root of the problem is that the foundations of the house have rotted away, and it will collapse at any moment (ala Tom Hanks in “The Money Pit”). What is really needed is for the home to be torn down, and a new one erected in its place. That is why the Christian gospel is about death and resurrection—not “you can do it, we can help”!
So many times we don’t like to hear this kind of news. Someone in my class observed that Luther sounds so pessimistic and depressing in his disputation. Yet Luther himself points out how important it is to get the diagnosis of our problem right. In the proof for Thesis 17 of the Heidelberg Disputation, he says:Sin is recognized only through the law. It is apparent that not despair, but rather hope, is preached when we are told that we are sinners. Such preaching concerning sin is a preparation for grace, or it is rather the recognition of sin and faith in such preaching. Yearning for grace wells up when recognition of sin has arisen. A sick person seeks the physician when he recognizes the seriousness of his illness. Therefore one does not give cause for despair or death by telling a sick person about the danger of his illness, but, in effect, one urges him to seek a medical cure. To say that we are nothing and constantly sin when we do the best we can does not mean that we cause people to despair (unless they are fools); rather, we make them concerned about the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.
RecommendRelated Posts
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)
About the Author
-
- From: mockingbirdnyc
- Name: Mockingbird
- Location:
- About Me: Mockingbird is a ministry that seeks to connect the Gospel with the realities of everyday life in as down-to-earth a way possible. For more info, please visit www.mbird.com.
Stats: This Week All Time Posts: 0 109 Views: 0 44679 Comments: 0 683 View all posts by mockingbirdnyc
Comments (23)
I recently heard someone share the quote about "you expect Jesus to walk into your home and say you need to paint the walls and rearrange the furniture but he's going to to tell you to tear it down and start again."
It's true.
Thank you for this post and sharing the excerpt that you shared-- very, very good.
The Home Depot version of the Gospel...interesting. That's definitely in the same line as the belief "God helps those who help themselves."
I'd say it depends on the mindset, really. For me (I guess [emphasis on guess] I'm a Semi-Pelagian, though I have no real "camp" I claim), it's not so much about how I need to paint the walls or "fix up" my "fixer upper" as much as it is about how I believe I have a part in what is to be done. The emphasis to me is on making sure I do my part.
Jesus says to rebuild the house. As a Calvinist, would you say it's God job, and His alone, to rebuild your house, or would you say that He lays the foundation, chooses the materials, shows you the plans, and then says, "I'll build with you"?
That's my take on it. The point is not to say that we do all the work, but that God does not do ALL the work (and we have no part whatsoever, in anything).
Good point, though. Walking a line of Semi-Pelagianism is a very fine one, and very easy to step too far one way or another; however, there really isn't much in the Christian walk that isn't like that in practice, though, is there?
God bless,
~Scott
The OP, in looking to heretics like Martin Luther for theological advice, takes a slap at the Catholic Church by implying that semi-Pelagianism is a Catholic doctrine.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Here is the doctrine of semi-Pelagianism in a nutshell:
Its basic claims were: (1) the beginning of faith (though not faith itself or its increase) could be accomplished by the human will alone, unaided by grace; (2) in a loose sense, the sanctifying grace man receives from God can be merited by natural human effort, unaided by actual grace; (3) once a man has been justified, he does not need additional grace from God in order to persevere until the end of life.
(Go here for the a more complete treatment of this heresy. Use the "edit -> find on this page" and type in pelagianism. You will be taken to the part of the page that discusses semi-Pelagianism.)
All of these propositions, together with those of full-blown Pelagianism, were condemned in 529 at the second Council of Orange (can. 5, 10, and 18) and again in 1546 by the Council of Trent (Decree on Justification, chs. 5, 6, 8, and 13).
It is thus impossible to say that Catholic views on grace and free will are semi-Pelagian, for the Church explicitly condemns the errors of the semi-Pelagians.
And they did it 1000 years before heretic Martin Luther unleashed himself upon an unsuspecting world.
@LoBornlyte@xanga - Much less takes a slap at Roman Catholicism than flat out calling Martin Luther a heretic. Don't forget about the counter-Reformation. It was MUCH needed. Thank you, Martin Luther!
Best Revelife post ever? If not it's definitely up there. I love this example. And especially the Luther quote!
@LoBornlyte@xanga - I don't get the impression that the OP was accusing the Catholic church of Pelagian tendencies. The guy is taking a class focusing on the theology of the reformers; of course he's got Calvin and Luther on his mind. But ignoring the class, everyone speaks from within their own faith tradition, so quoting Luther is never (inherently) a slap at the Roman Catholic church.
I can't imagine anyone with half an education accusing the Catholic church of Pelagianism, when it was the Catholic church that condemned Palegius as a heretic.
@NightCometh@xanga - Much less takes a slap at Roman Catholicism that flat out calling Martin Luther a heretic.
A statement of fact is not a slap. I mean that most sincerely.
Because of great saints like Saint Ignatius de Loyola the Catholic Church purged itself of its Renaissance corruption. But all doctrines taught for the previous 1500 years were reaffirmed at the Council of Trent.
Martin Luther created entirely new doctrines that were never taught by Jesus or the Apostles or the Church. That is why he is a heretic. His teachings are unorthodox and deprive Protestants the fullness of Revelation.
The OP continues the anti-Catholic propaganda by citing a heretic instead of citing the Church which condemned Pelagian heresy 1000 years before Luther was a twinkle in his daddy's eye.
@SirNickDon@xanga - I don't get the impression that the OP was accusing the Catholic church of Pelagian tendencies.
You make excellent points, but part of the Protestant tradition is to accuse the Catholic Church of Pelagianism. This probably comes from the doctrine of indulgence which was horrifically applied by crooked clerics during the Renaissance.
Most well educated Protestants rail at the doctrine of indulgences because they confuse it with Pelagianism.
@MagisterTom@xanga - This post reminds me of a sermon of Greg Boyd's from a few weeks back about Jesus as the cornerstone. If you're interested, you can DL the quicktime vidoe here.
@LoBornlyte@xanga - Yes and yes.
@SirNickDon@xanga - Is downloading now.
Speaking of Greg Boyd, have you read John Piper's thoughts on his open theology? I came across it somewhere, thinking perhaps in the first book of "The Swans are not Silent" series.
Eh. I'm an arminian, keep your semi-pelgaianism to you.
@gelatinemonkey@xanga - He lays the foundation, chooses the materials, shows you the plans, and then says, "I'll build with you"?
Actually, Jesus does everything and then invites you to live in the house with him. This is where the profound joy of Christianity comes from.
And from the standpoint of reason, how could a finite human being even deign to stand by infinite God and help build anything? There is such a mismatch of capabilities.
@LoBornlyte@xanga - I thought that was the infinite beauty of the burning bush, though -- God is a consuming fire, yet the bush did not burn while Moses was there. There is no reason there, because our God can defy reason if He so chooses.
I agree, He does much more work than me, but the thing I tend to point to as to why I believe we have a part is that God asks us to share His Word. Why not just do it on His own and not give us "The Great Commission"? We play a role as well, one which I believe is both free and yet also already known by God. It doesn't surprise Him, but it's still our choice.
I've already had my fair share of people tell me they don't see how it's possible, so perhaps it's still my inability to share my thought correctly.
Perhaps I can try it this way, too: did God build the Temple, or did Moses and the Israelites? God did it through them. He used them, and they made the choice to follow Him (I believe), just as when they made the choice not to follow Him.
My view of "Semi-Pelagianism" as I learned it is that God is the *only* one who starts the relationship, but then we *both* are needed to finish it. This is what I believe, as opposed to the only other acceptable solution which the majority of others believe, which is that God starts it, and then God does all the rest (perhaps termed "Calvinistic").
God bless,
~Scott
@gelatinemonkey@xanga - This is what I believe, as opposed to the only other acceptable solution which the majority of others believe, which is that God starts it, and then God does all the rest (perhaps termed "Calvinistic").
I'm thinking in terms of the gifts of life, freedom intellect and grace that God gives to us. We have our trials, travails and duties but again, those are gifts given to us for our own edification.
God needs nothing from us. He doesn't need us to build temples for him. We are the ones who need temples to aid us in worship. Everything God does is for our good. We do nothing for his good.
@LoBornlyte@xanga - As a minor note at this point, I believe I realized one error was in that I hold a view of "Semi-Augustinianism" and not the "Semi-Pelagianism" viewpoint (which would be humans initiate first, then humans and God continue forward), and transposed the names (an error one should be more careful not to make...). My apologies for that.
God needs nothing from us. He doesn't need us to build temples for him. We are the ones who need temples to aid us in worship. Everything God does is for our good. We do nothing for his good.
Indeed, the verse where even Christ says that only God is good is more than enough to prove your point. I suppose I simply also strive to point out the nuance that the reason behind why He does all that (at least I believe) is so that we might glorify, give thanks, and praise Him more. It's not just so we "get better," though we are in need of Him to help us reach that point. Once we are there, or the reason we get there, is all for Him. He needs nothing, but He is desirous (even jealous) for our worship of Him, for it always has been and is rightly His and His alone.
In other words -- what you wrote, I heartily agree with.
God bless,
~Scott
@gelatinemonkey@xanga - Why not just do it on His own and not give us "The Great Commission"?
This is another example of a gift that has been given to us. It is an opportunity to engage in the work of God. God has invited us into his house to live as his children.
@LoBornlyte@xanga - The point of such a statement was simply to call into question the statement:
Actually, Jesus does everything and then invites you to live in the house with him.
Just how much of "everything" is "everything" that He does in our house? Do we simply sit back once we're in, if He does everything? By your reply, it seems that "everything" does not include that which is our choice, otherwise it wouldn't be for us. And if we must do something, then there is a part we play in "living out salvation well," which would be our choices to the blessings and opportunities God presents before us.
Ergo one reason I believe in Semi-Augustinianism, and that humans do have a role to play.
If you mean He makes the house, but then it's our job to live in it well, then perhaps that would be equivalent to what I'm attempting to say, save that I view the building of the house to be the lifelong process with God, instead of the living in it afterward being that process. Perhaps wires crossed there?
God bless,
~Scott
Love this post! So would Saint Augustine! He would be so very sad today if he saw his beloved church. Pelagian? No... Simi? Absolutely! For where ever synergism in the salvation of man is seen there lies the semi-Pelagian.
Grace and peace!
~Michael
For God has shut up all in disobedience so that He may show mercy to all.
(Romans 11:32)
@gelatinemonkey@xanga - Just how much of "everything" is "everything" that He does in our house? Do we simply sit back once we're in, if He does everything?
Everything means everything.
How much does the recipient of a gift have in the giving of the gift? If the giver is sensitive he will taylor the gift to the receivers deepest desire. That is how much man is involved with the gifts of God.
Our duty is simply to unwrap the gift and let it fulfill our deepest desire.