semi-pelagianism defined

[frumanchu]

My conclusion, it appears support for the false doctrine was obtained by misrepresenting scripture in AD 529.

Whether or not you agree with the Council of Orange is entirely beside the point, Van. You characterized yourself as "now a conservative christian that is non-calvinist, non Arminian, and semi Pelagian with leanings toward Open Theism," to which BWV1080 responded that you were "'out to lunch' with 2000 years of Christian teaching." You replied that you are "not the only non-calvinist on the planet. And I think we are talking about about 400 years not 2000."

My post stands as I have just provided you with a clear repudiation of the semi-Pelagian rejection of prevenient grace that extends back to the 6th Century. Again, you may not agree with what the church fathers had to say on this issue, but your assertion that we're "talking about about 400 years not 2000" is demonstrably false.

Frumanchu, you can see the same sophistry in Canon 5, Philippians 1:6 refers to the post salvation condition, not the pre-salvation condition, and Ephesians 2:8-9 says the gift is salvation, not faith. So more sophistry in support of a false doctrine.

Philippians 1:6 - The verse refers to their ongoing salvation to be sure, but the fact that God is attributed as the One who began that work certainly supports their contention.

Eph 2:8...actually faith makes the most sense upon close study of the verse. See [post=8377714]here[/post] for a closer look at the verse.

Anyway, the original point of my post holds. You were incorrect in asserting that the Calvinist/Classical-Arminian view of Total Depravity and the need for Prevenient Grace extend back only for the last 400 years.

 

[Van]

Frumanchu, I told you what I had in mind. Take it or leave it, but please do not tell me what I was talking about.

As far as Ephesians 2:8-9, I have been assured by folks that claim to know a thing or two about Greek grammar, that the gift is salvation, because the form of the pronoun disagees with both faith and grace. But judge for yourself.

Frumanchu, your post does demonstrate that the Church developed doctrine to rebut the postion of Pelagian, using sophistry, not sound exegesis, back in the sixth Century.

If you consider Philippians 1:6 support for the contention, go right ahead. I do not see where "began" is positioned before salvation, it is an ends driven inferrence to say the begining was before salvation. This is an example of taking an equivocal verse and using it to support false doctrine.

 

[Bulldog]

As far as Ephesians 2:8-9, I have been assured by folks that claim to know a thing or two about Greek grammar, that the gift is salvation, because the form of the pronoun disagees with both faith and grace.

In Gender, yes. But "Salvation" does not agree with "gift" in gender either...

 

[FreeinChrist]

Frumanchu, I told you what I had in mind. Take it or leave it, but please do not tell me what I was talking about.

As far as Ephesians 2:8-9, I have been assured by folks that claim to know a thing or two about Greek grammar, that the gift is salvation, because the form of the pronoun disagees with both faith and grace. But judge for yourself.

Frumanchu, your post does demonstrate that the Church developed doctrine to rebut the postion of Pelagian, using sophistry, not sound exegesis, back in the sixth Century.

"Semi-pelegian" is a term very loosely applied by Calvinists on all who believe that rare concept that that one MUST BELIEVE in Jesus Christ to receive the gift of salvation, which is by grace through faith. It is a fall-back accusation that I have come to deeply disrespect. By "fall back accusation", I mean the idea of 'if you can't convince with ...accuse of heresy'.

What I have found is that they ignore any statements by NonCalvinists (who may or may not be Arminianists) that one does not come to Christ unless drawn by God....we (well, nonCalvinists like me) just don't believe a spirit is regenerated (as in saved) before believing in Christ. I don't beleive God picked and choosed people to be saved or dam**ned...and BTW, the Catholic church didn't agree with Augustine about that. They didn't agree that people were predestined not to be saved (to be da**mned) either.

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]http://demo.lutherproductions.com/historytutor/basic/medieval/story/synod.htm[/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]In a judgment on the views of Augustine of Hippo, this synod adopted views representing the consensus of the western church on the question of predestination. It taught that faith and good works originate in grace alone, but that the damned are responsible for their own condemnation. The synod thus adopted what may be called a semi-Augustinian position. It taught that prevenient grace (illuminating grace granted prior to the free decision of the will) is the source of both faith and good works. It did not, however, accept Augustine's views of irresistible grace (grace that cannot be rejected). It confined the concept of predestination to election to salvation, and it did not confirm Augustine's view that grace is irresistible. Pope Boniface II confirmed and added papal authority to the decisions of the Synod of Orange.[/font]

http://www.the-highway.com/Orange.html
"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. 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." (bold is mine)

 

[Bulldog]

I don't beleive God picked and choosed people to be saved or dam**ned...

Neither do we.

To say so syas that in election, God looked at all nuetrally. (a hyper-Calvinist position) However, we belive that in God's eyes all of mankind is viewed as sinners, totally depraved. Therefore elction is not a positive action towards the non-elect, but a positive action towards the elect. Double predestination does not mean equal ultimacy.

 

[Van]

Bulldog, the idea I believe is salvation is the implied subject, because it is not faith or grace.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Neither do we.

To say so syas that in election, God looked at all nuetrally. (a hyper-Calvinist position) However, we belive that in God's eyes all of mankind is viewed as sinners, totally depraved. Therefore elction is not a positive action towards the non-elect, but a positive action towards the elect. Double predestination does not mean equal ultimacy.

Well, I have run into quite a few that DO beleive that God chose some for salvation and chose the rest for damnation....and it sure looks like John Calvin supported that concept.

So when the finger-pointing goes on about "heresy", what I see is that some chose to point fingers at one group and totally ignore that other anthema. Selective heresy-pointing???

 

[frumanchu]

"Semi-pelegian" is a term very loosely applied by Calvinists on all who believe that rare concept that that one MUST BELIEVE in Jesus Christ to receive the gift of salvation, which is by grace through faith. It is a fall-back accusation that I have come to deeply disrespect. By "fall back accusation", I mean the idea of 'if you can't convince with ...accuse of heresy'.

Sorry, try again...this time without the grossly inaccurate broad-brushed ad hominem attack.

 

[BWV 1080]

Greetings all.

1080, this is a tough argument to support. Tigersnare has come in and agreed with you, so my comments are to you both.

The basic thrust of your posts is that those before us were more dedicated and more scholarly than we.

As such, if we are in disagreement with them, it is probably us that is wrong.

There are 2 major problems with this line of reasoning.

Firstly, it assumes agreement on issues by the preceeding theologians.

The more dedicated and scholarly theologians that came before us never came to agreement on many issues. If I am just supposed to believe those before me regarding predestination and atonement, whom should I choose?

Calvin or Arminius?

And if it right in your eyes for me to choose either one of these and reject the other, then why is it so bad to reject both?

Secondly, if we are all supposed to agree with history and not challenge the theology handed down to us - as you suggest - then there would have been no Protestant reformation.

Luther would have decided he was wrong because he was in disagreement with so much church tradition and history.

So which is it? Was Luther wrong and should we revert to the state of the church before 1500?

Or is it perfectly acceptable to challenge and critique those before us?

Blessings, Pete

The point is that every Christian communion - Calvinist, Arminian, Catholic has condemned the idea that one can come to the faith without first receiving the grace to do so. This is a separate issue than predestination or limited vs. unlimited atonement. Luther and Calvin did believe, rightly or wrongly, that they had tradition and history on their side, hence their looking back to Augustine and the Council of Orange. It seems to me simple humility to take the view that if my personal interpetation of Scripture blatently contradicts what the entire Church has unanimously taught for 2000 years, it is me who is in error and not the mystical body of Christ.

 

[BWV 1080]

"Semi-pelegian" is a term very loosely applied by Calvinists on all who believe that rare concept that that one MUST BELIEVE in Jesus Christ to receive the gift of salvation, which is by grace through faith. It is a fall-back accusation that I have come to deeply disrespect. By "fall back accusation", I mean the idea of 'if you can't convince with ...accuse of heresy'.

What I have found is that they ignore any statements by NonCalvinists (who may or may not be Arminianists) that one does not come to Christ unless drawn by God....we (well, nonCalvinists like me) just don't believe a spirit is regenerated (as in saved) before believing in Christ. I don't beleive God picked and choosed people to be saved or dam**ned...and BTW, the Catholic church didn't agree with Augustine about that. They didn't agree that people were predestined not to be saved (to be da**mned) either.

[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]http://demo.lutherproductions.com/historytutor/basic/medieval/story/synod.htm[/font]
[font=Times New Roman, Times, serif]In a judgment on the views of Augustine of Hippo, this synod adopted views representing the consensus of the western church on the question of predestination. It taught that faith and good works originate in grace alone, but that the damned are responsible for their own condemnation. The synod thus adopted what may be called a semi-Augustinian position. It taught that prevenient grace (illuminating grace granted prior to the free decision of the will) is the source of both faith and good works. It did not, however, accept Augustine's views of irresistible grace (grace that cannot be rejected). It confined the concept of predestination to election to salvation, and it did not confirm Augustine's view that grace is irresistible. Pope Boniface II confirmed and added papal authority to the decisions of the Synod of Orange.[[/font]QUOTE]

Thanks for the post. This is back to my original complaint in the OP against many Calvinists, which is that they incorrectly levy the charge of semi-pelagianism against those who hold what is described above in the quote on Orange you provided as the semi-Augustinian view. They certainly are entitled to argue that Augustine's more rigorous view of predestination is correct, but it is a mistake and a misunderstanding of the term to label anyone who disagrees with that point of view as a semi-Pelagian.

 

[FreeinChrist]

Sorry, try again...this time without the grossly inaccurate broad-brushed ad hominem attack.

Unfortunately, it isn't "grossly inaccurate" or "broad brushed."

I've had the the "you are a semi-pelagian" finger pointed at me by several at this site (in this forum) because, while I believe that God draws us, grants it to us to come to Christ, gives us to Christ, forgives, cleanses, makes new, regenerates, spiritually circumcizes and seals us in the Holy Spirit, I believe that we DO have to respond to His drawing and must believe. It didn't matter that I believe that God does the 'work' of salvation, and that I just received the gift...the finger was pointed. I have seen it many times in the past year.

 

[Van]

BWV 1080 wrote, "The point is that every Christian communion - Calvinist, Arminian, Catholic has condemned the idea that one can come to the faith without first receiving the grace to do so."

I do not know of anyone who does not recognize God's grace in sending His Son, God's grace in revealing Himself through His creation and His word. God's grace in providing the inspired Gospel, and God's grace in teaching believers to make disciples of all nations. The point is your belief, without biblical support beyond clearly equivocal passages, in supernatural mind manipulation to overcome total depravity prior to the unregenerate trusting in Christ. Peter exhorted folks to be saved which does not mesh with your assertion and I think Peter represents the earliest views of the Church.

 

[frumanchu]

Unfortunately, it isn't "grossly inaccurate" or "broad brushed."

I've had the the "you are a semi-pelagian" finger pointed at me by several at this site (in this forum) because, while I believe that God draws us, grants it to us to come to Christ, gives us to Christ, forgives, cleanses, makes new, regenerates, spiritually circumcizes and seals us in the Holy Spirit, I believe that we DO have to respond to His drawing and must believe. It didn't matter that I believe that God does the 'work' of salvation, and that I just received the gift...the finger was pointed. I have seen it many times in the past year.

What I object to most is your attack on the motivations of those who would use the term in the first place. I can assure you that any time I have used the term "semi-pelagian" it has not been because I could not support my own position or provide a reasonable case for it. Quite the contrary, it was often used while doing just that.

I think you also need to realize that while some people may use it as an epithet, others like me merely use it as a theological term pertaining to represent a distinction in views. The same applies to "Calvinist." Some people use it simply as a label to represent a particular set of views, while others use it like a curse word.

If you believe that unregenerate man is indeed totally depraved and that the Holy Spirit must act first to enable man to believe, then I would consider you a classical Arminian. If you think that man comes to faith prior to any work whatsoever of the Holy Spirit in the heart of that person, then I would consider you "semi-pelagian."

One of the essential differences between classical Arminianism and Calvinism on this point is not whether or not unregenerate man is too depraved to believe but rather whether or not the prevenient grace required in order for man to believe is a)universal, and b)efficacious.

 

[Van]

Frumanchu, I have no evidence or support for your view of prevenient grace beyond equvocal passages. Your arguments from authority (I should believe because lots of Church father's believed) and your questioning of my "independent study" (I need to do a little more) are of course without merit. (Didn't one of those Fathers assert the doctrine of "Scripture alone?" Support for the general principle abounds in scripture, God stretching out his arms to a stubborn and rebellious people, but specific support for supernatual "infusion" within the unregnerate before being spiritually baptized into Christ by the Holy Spirit is in my opinion non-existent. Your doctrine is like a house of cards, if God did not elect specific foreseen individuals before the foundation of the world, then there is no need for "total depravity" to spiritually disable all men. And since even in a depraved state we can seek God, there is no need for supernatural infusion to establish that capacity.

 

[FreeinChrist]

What I object to most is your attack on the motivations of those who would use the term in the first place. I can assure you that any time I have used the term "semi-pelagian" it has not been because I could not support my own position or provide a reasonable case for it. Quite the contrary, it was often used while doing just that.

I think you also need to realize that while some people may use it as an epithet, others like me merely use it as a theological term pertaining to represent a distinction in views. The same applies to "Calvinist." Some people use it simply as a label to represent a particular set of views, while others use it like a curse word.

You may object and that is your option. Personally, I find it objectionable when I see a term thrown out in a manner that implies the other person is a heretic. AND I see it often. Does it ever sway a person to a Reformed view if they are pointed out as a heretic in that manner?

If you believe that unregenerate man is indeed totally depraved and that the Holy Spirit must act first to enable man to believe, then I would consider you a classical Arminian. If you think that man comes to faith prior to any work whatsoever of the Holy Spirit in the heart of that person, then I would consider you "semi-pelagian."

And as I often see by those who are Reformed, you find a need to label me as "Arminian", or "semi-pelagian".... right?
Does an "Arminian" believe in eternal security, that one cannot their salvation? No. I believe we cannot lose our salvation.

And since I ALREADY stated in an earlir post that God does the work of salvation.....that He draws, grants, gives, cleanses, spiritually circumcizes, makes new and alive, seals us with the Holy Spirit...tell me how that works into the 'semi-pelagian view.

One of the essential differences between classical Arminianism and Calvinism on this point is not whether or not unregenerate man is too depraved to believe but rather whether or not the prevenient grace required in order for man to believe is a)universal, and b)efficacious.

It is usually Calvinists who classify people as either Calvinists or Arminians (then throw the tag of semi-pelagian at Arminianists). Believe it or not, there are nonCalvinist nonArminianist Christians.

What I have never see proof of in scripture is that we can be regenerated without responding to the God's 'drawing' with belief. For regeneration is salvation the cleansing, making new...

Tts 3:4 But when the kindness of God our Savior and {His} love for mankind appeared,

Tts 3:5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

Tts 3:6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,

Tts 3:7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to {the} hope of eternal life.

Regeneration - Greek word paliggenesia - means recovery, a new birth (like born again), renovation. From palin - again, and ginomai - to become.

"washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit" ...... that is when we are cleansind of our sin, forgiven, made new creatures, spiritually circumcized - salvation.

Saved before believing? unscriptural. Oh - I know all the Reformed responses to this...but they never convinced me. THAT is when the label semi-pelagian tends to get thrown out at me, even though I believe that GOD does the work of salvation, and I can do NOTHING to earn it or get it by myself.

 

[Ben johnson]

If you believe that this decision requires grace, then you are not a semi-pelagian. If you believe that an individual can come to faith "by their own bootstraps", without grace preceeding, then you are a semi-pelagian

Man is depraved; even one verse, John15:5c sufficiently declares that. But if ALL are called to salvation, sincerely called, then the call is sufficient to overcome depravity.

The CALL would be "grace"; the answer would be "faith". So why do I still receive labels of "semi-pelagianism"?

"Semi-pelegian" is a term very loosely applied by Calvinists on all who believe that rare concept that that one MUST BELIEVE in Jesus Christ to receive the gift of salvation, which is by grace through faith. It is a fall-back accusation that I have come to deeply disrespect. By "fall back accusation", I mean the idea of 'if you can't convince with ...accuse of heresy'.

I've wondered that...

What I have found is that they ignore any statements by NonCalvinists (who may or may not be Arminianists) that one does not come to Christ unless drawn by God....we (well, nonCalvinists like me) just don't believe a spirit is regenerated (as in saved) before believing in Christ. I don't believe God picked and chose people to be saved or dam**ned...and BTW, the Catholic church didn't agree with Augustine about that. They didn't agree that people were predestined not to be saved (to be da**mned) either.

Neither do we.

To say so says that in election, God looked at all neutrally. (a hyper-Calvinist position) However, we believe that in God's eyes all of mankind is viewed as sinners, totally depraved. Therefore election is not a positive action towards the non-elect, but a positive action towards the elect. Double predestination does not mean equal ultimacy.

The fact remains, that if ALL are depraved and CANNOT believe without God's unilateral intervention, then His act of "regenerating the FEW", therefore results in positive INaction towards the DEPRAVED. Hence, there is no view BUT "double predestination".

Nowhere does Scripture say "regeneration occurs before belief"; Titus3:5-6 plainly says "regeneration is through the POURED Spirit ('poured' is 'received'), the poured Spirit is poured through belief in Jesus, OUR Savior." There is no difference between the "ekcheo-poured" Spirit in Titus3:6, and the "ekcheo-poured" Spirit in Acts10:45.

And Acts11:17 says the POURED Spirit, was poured AFTER BELIEF...

 

[frumanchu]

Frumanchu, I have no evidence or support for your view of prevenient grace beyond equvocal passages. Your arguments from authority (I should believe because lots of Church father's believed) and your questioning of my "independent study" (I need to do a little more) are of course without merit.

Since we don't have a lot of history posting to each other on these issues, let me be abundantly clear that I absolutely do not place historic tradition above Scripture. Ben johnson can vouch for the fact that I rarely bring up church history and focus instead on Scripture itself and basic logic/reason.

My comment about your study was applicable given that it certainly appeared you were speaking of the historic semi-pelagian position.

(Didn't one of those Fathers assert the doctrine of "Scripture alone?"

Not just one, but amuzingly the one to whom you refer happens to be one who totally disagrees with your theology

Support for the general principle abounds in scripture, God stretching out his arms to a stubborn and rebellious people, but specific support for supernatual "infusion" within the unregnerate before being spiritually baptized into Christ by the Holy Spirit is in my opinion non-existent.

"Supernatural infusion?" Not sure what you're talking about here.

 

[frumanchu]

You may object and that is your option. Personally, I find it objectionable when I see a term thrown out in a manner that implies the other person is a heretic. AND I see it often. Does it ever sway a person to a Reformed view if they are pointed out as a heretic in that manner?

So you're quite content then to issue broad generalizations about the motivations of others? That ought to lead to plenty of constructive discussion. Especially when you freely refer to "Calvinists" in a derogatory manner and imply they too are heretics.

Here's a generalization for you: it seems to me that the ones who object to labels the most are the ones who are afraid their actual beliefs will be brought under close scrutiny and exposed. (liberals come to mind...)

Not very constructive, is it?

And as I often see by those who are Reformed, you find a need to label me as "Arminian", or "semi-pelagian".... right?

A "need" to? No. It makes it easier for discussion's sake, but I feel no overwhelming compulsion.

Does an "Arminian" believe in eternal security, that one cannot their salvation? No. I believe we cannot lose our salvation.

Actually, the Remonstrants left the issue open to further investigation. Some Arminians believe in eternal security, some do not.

And since I ALREADY stated in an earlir post that God does the work of salvation.....that He draws, grants, gives, cleanses, spiritually circumcizes, makes new and alive, seals us with the Holy Spirit...tell me how that works into the 'semi-pelagian view.

I don't recall ever saying you were a semi-pelagian.

It is usually Calvinists who classify people as either Calvinists or Arminians (then throw the tag of semi-pelagian at Arminianists). Believe it or not, there are nonCalvinist nonArminianist Christians.

Of course I know this. You could be Wesleyan, Amyrauldan, or many other variations. I cannot speak for others with whom you've discussed these doctrines, but my purpose is not to assign you a label and then force you into fitting it. As much as possible I will deal with what you actually believe versus what "Arminians" or "semi-pelagians" in general believe.

What I have never see proof of in scripture is that we can be regenerated without responding to the God's 'drawing' with belief. For regeneration is salvation the cleansing, making new...

Tts 3:4 But when the kindness of God our Savior and {His} love for mankind appeared,

Tts 3:5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

Tts 3:6 whom He poured out upon us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior,

Tts 3:7 so that being justified by His grace we would be made heirs according to {the} hope of eternal life.

Regeneration - Greek word paliggenesia - means recovery, a new birth (like born again), renovation. From palin - again, and ginomai - to become.

"washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit" ...... that is when we are cleansind of our sin, forgiven, made new creatures, spiritually circumcized - salvation.

Saved before believing? unscriptural. Oh - I know all the Reformed responses to this...but they never convinced me. THAT is when the label semi-pelagian tends to get thrown out at me, even though I believe that GOD does the work of salvation, and I can do NOTHING to earn it or get it by myself.

Time willing, I will discuss this passage with you. Can't right now...too much work.

 

[FreeinChrist]

So you're quite content then to issue broad generalizations about the motivations of others? That ought to lead to plenty of constructive discussion. Especially when you freely refer to "Calvinists" in a derogatory manner and imply they too are heretics.

Where? Tell me one spot where I have made an issue that Calvin is a heretic and those that follow him are heretics. I REALLY dislike the term heresy and heretic.

Yet this forum has a large amount of posts that refer to nonCalvinists are semi-pelagians and point out that semi-pelagianism is a heresy according to past councils. And the term 'semi-pelagian" is VERY loosely thrown at nonCalvinists in this forum.

Now that may not be your intent, and you are trying to be nice about it.....but putting that label on a person and pointing out that a Council declared it a heresy is the same as calling the person a heretic. IF that is done, the accusers should be REAL CAREFUL about throwing that tag around!

Here's a generalization for you: it seems to me that the ones who object to labels the most are the ones who are afraid their actual beliefs will be brought under close scrutiny and exposed. (liberals come to mind...)

Not very constructive, is it?

Point? Are you trying to support my view?

A "need" to? No. It makes it easier for discussion's sake, but I feel no overwhelming compulsion.

Yet, it is done by those who ae Calvinist (Reformed) in every thread that I have read in this forum in the last year that dealt with Calvinism versus ...about any opposing view.

I, for one, follow Christ. I prefer to be called a Christian. I note that Reformed (Calvinist) believers like to be known as Reformed (Calvinist).


I do not follow Arminius. I think he is weak on eternal securty, though strong in other areas. In reading the works of Arminius and Calvin, however, I found that Arminius showed a far more humble Christ-like attitude in his writing than Calvin. And in reading the history of the Synod of Dort and Calvin and the Remonstrants, I believe the Remonstrants show a more humble Christlike attitude. However, I prefer studying scripture itself for doctrine and looking up the Hebrew and Greek.

I don't recall ever saying you were a semi-pelagian.

I didn't say that you personally have, but that I have been called that in this forum numerous times by those who are Reformed(Calvinist) ...and quite inappropriately. I really am offended at being refered to as a heretic!
It has had the effect of making more hostile to the Reformed view (and reading the congregational forum for Reformed does not help!), though I know that many Reformed believers are wonderful Christian people.

 

[frumanchu]

Where? Tell me one spot where I have made an issue that Calvin is a heretic and those that follow him are heretics.

Never said you called Calvin a heretic. I said you

1. referred to them in a derogatory manner:

"It is a fall-back accusation that I have come to deeply disrespect. By "fall back accusation", I mean the idea of 'if you can't convince with ...accuse of heresy'."

2. Implied that they are also "heretics":

"So when the finger-pointing goes on about "heresy", what I see is that some chose to point fingers at one group and totally ignore that other anthema. Selective heresy-pointing???"

I REALLY dislike the term heresy and heretic.

Why?

Yet this forum has a large amount of posts that refer to nonCalvinists are semi-pelagians and point out that semi-pelagianism is a heresy according to past councils. And the term 'semi-pelagian" is VERY loosely thrown at nonCalvinists in this forum.

With all due respect, FiC, you just got done saying that Calvinists "accuse of heresy...if [they] can't convince with" their argument (broad-based presumption of motivation), reject as semi-pelagian any who believe the "rare concept that that one MUST BELIEVE in Jesus Christ to receive the gift of salvation, which is by grace through faith" (sola fide was at the heart of the Reformation), and that we believe one is "saved before believing" (again, sola fide).

Believe me, I understand what it's like to have false claims made against you.

Now that may not be your intent, and you are trying to be nice about it.....but putting that label on a person and pointing out that a Council declared it a heresy is the same as calling the person a heretic. IF that is done, the accusers should be REAL CAREFUL about throwing that tag around!

I think the conclusion you are jumping to is that if I say what you believe is heresy, I therefore think that you are not saved. Let me assure you that is not at all the case.

heretic: An opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs, A controversial or unorthodox opinion or doctrine.

We are heretics all, my friend. I would wager none of us here is 100% correct about all of our doctrine. Not to worry...there will be no burnings

Yet, it is done by those who ae Calvinist (Reformed) in every thread that I have read in this forum in the last year that dealt with Calvinism versus ...about any opposing view.

I, for one, follow Christ. I prefer to be called a Christian. I note that Reformed (Calvinist) believers like to be known as Reformed (Calvinist).

Only in the midst of discussions among Christians. If I am speaking to someone who I do not know to be a Christian, I don't call myself a "Calvinist." NEVER have I said here that someone with whom I disagree on matters of our faith is not a Christian.

I didn't say that you personally have, but that I have been called that in this forum numerous times by those who are Reformed(Calvinist) ...and quite inappropriately. I really am offended at being refered to as a heretic!
It has had the effect of making more hostile to the Reformed view (and reading the congregational forum for Reformed does not help!), though I know that many Reformed believers are wonderful Christian people.

There is a system in place for reporting such posts if you feel you the rules have been violated. Remember though that you are just as susceptible to mislabeling or misrepresenting others as they you. That's about all I can say.