David Waltz seems excited by a quotation from R.C. Sproul regarding labeling Roman Catholic doctrine.
Waltz writes: "The fact that the Catholic Church maintains that it is impossible to accept the gospel without grace (gratia praeveniens), this separates Her teaching from “all forms of semi-Pelagianism”; instead, embracing “moderate-Augustinianism, or of what might be called Semi-Augustinianism, in distinction from Semi-Pelagianism.”" (first quotation is from Sproul, second quotation is from Schaff, and the emphasis was provided by Waltz) (source)
Waltz's exultation at being distinguished from "all forms of semi-Pelagianism," is a bit premature. You see, Sproul - like the others we've examined (link) (link) - is careful to distinguish between Augustine's correct position and Rome's incorrect position - although I do not think that Sproul was necessarily thinking of Rome in the discussion he was conducting.
What one wishes to call the position is the wrapper: Semi-Augustinian with Sproul or Schaff (in his narrowest sense, see here, for example); Semi-Semi-Pelagian with Warfield; or Semi-Pelagian with Schaff (in the broadest sense in which he uses the term). The content inside the wrapper is the problem: the erroneous position of Rome. It's not wrong because it disagrees with Augustine, of course. It's not wrong because it leans toward Peliagius, either. It's wrong because it disagrees with Scripture, as noted here (link).