This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
Tojasonharris, "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 uidh e 08:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
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.
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.
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)
"It" was condemned in 529, but the term was coined in the 1500s? Was there a typo, or is "it" Pelagianism?
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- 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)
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.
I don't understand how the statements about Wesley's theology can be justified from the source ( [1]). 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: [2]
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: [3] [4] [5] CADguyMatt ( talk) 15:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)CADguyMatt
References
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
Tojasonharris, "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 uidh e 08:16, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
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.
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.
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)
"It" was condemned in 529, but the term was coined in the 1500s? Was there a typo, or is "it" Pelagianism?
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)
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)
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)
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)
-- 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)
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.
I don't understand how the statements about Wesley's theology can be justified from the source ( [1]). 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: [2]
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: [3] [4] [5] CADguyMatt ( talk) 15:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)CADguyMatt
References