Defining Semi-Pelagianism - The Alternatives Explained

The term "Semi-Pelagianism" or "Semi-Pelagian" was not given to Moses on Mt. Sinai.  It's not a Biblical term.  It's a theological term, apparently first developed in the 16th century (1500s).  Based on the work of Backus and Goudriaan (discussed here), we believe that the term was created - possibly independently - first by Theodore Beza (1556), then by Roman Catholic author Nicholas Sanders (1571), and finally by Lutherans in their Formula of Concord (1577).  The English word is simply a transliteration/Anglicization from the Latin original of Beza (or one of the others).

Like so many English words, the usage has not been rigidly fixed and has shifted over time.  As we saw in an article on usage from 1600-1900 (link to post), the usage has ranged from the polemical slur to the tidy theological label.  Moreover, as a theological label it has attached itself to a variety of doctrinal points.  

In a move that adds complexity to the consideration, the term "Semi-Pelagian" has been attached to one side of an historical controversy that existed (although some scholars even question this) in the Western church, during the 5th and 6th centuries (approximately from 420 to 529).  The geographic scope of the controversy involved folks as far away as Constantinople, but was primarily centered on what had been Roman Gaul, but which was becoming the Visigothic kingdom at the beginning of the controversy (if we pick the date of 420 as the start), and which was to be the beginnings of France under the Frankish king Clovis. The early defenders of Augustine were primarily associated with North Africa, whereas their early opponents tended to be centered around Marseille.  Using a modern-day map, one could visualize the Marseillais or Massilians, as they are sometimes called in what is now Southern France near Monaco, the North Africans in what is now Tunisia, and the Bishop of Rome in what is now Italy.  At that time, although the Roman empire was crumbling (the Visigoths sacked Rome August 24, 410, the Vandals looted Rome in 455, and the Ostrogoth ousted the last Western Emperor in 476), the Bishop of Rome still exerted a rule over the churches in the Western Mediterranean with what is probably best described as moral authority.  Ultimately, folks tend to agree that the assent of the then Bishop of Rome (Boniface II) to the canons of the Second Council of Orange (529) was the end of the controversy.

What, though, is the "right" definition of Semi-Pelagian / Semi-Pelagianism?  I propose that there are the following options, each with their pros and cons:

1. Beza's Usage (link to discussion)

The strongest argument for this position is that Beza seems to have been the first to coin the term.  The accusation that "Calvinists have been using this term incorrectly for hundreds of years" falls apart when it is acknowledged that it was a Calvinist who invented the word.  Beza was the successor to Calvin in Geneva and arguably one of the leading Calvinists of his generation.

Beza's usage seems to be best described as identifying errors that are less extreme than those of Pelagius, but that fall short of the correct Biblical doctrine.  Broadly speaking, one might identify these positions as compromise positions between Reformed orthodoxy and Pelagianism. Unlike the Roman Catholic usage of the term, Beza seems never to have focused on specific historical figures to define Semi-Pelagianism.

The pros of Beza's definition:

• The Pelagian errors are a relatively identifiable set of positions
• The Reformed orthodoxy to which they are being compared is similarly identifiable
• Categorization as falling in between the Pelagian errors and Reformed orthodoxy is therefore usually straightforward.
• The modifier "semi-" indicates a compromise position between Pelagianism and full Orthodoxy.

The cons of Beza's definition:

• Not all usage from 1600s to present is captured by Beza's definition.
• The term lacks a conciliar definition (in contrast to, for example, Pelagianism).
• Beza's definition, as such, is not the widely accepted academic definition of the term.
• For example, the widely made specific association between John Cassian of Marseilles and the term is omitted, although John Cassian's views presumably fall within Beza's definition.

2. Maximalist Usage (compare the data in this post)

The strongest argument for this position is that it captures all the usage of the term down through history.  While Beza may have coined the term, the English language is a bit anarchic -- it does its own thing.  Maximalist usage as the way for the defining the term suggests that as long as the term has a history of being used in a given way, the term is rightly used in that way.

The pros of Maximalist usage:

• Avoids a top-down approach to English, whereby certain elites decide the meanings of words and the plebes follow.
• Reflects actual usage of the word, with a variety of sub-definitions, typical of the definitions of most words in English.
• As long as there is precedent for usage, such usage is acceptable.

The cons of Maximalist usage:

• There is a certain post-modern feel to Maximalist usage, namely that it seems to suggest (at least to some degree) a lack of objective truth.
• The result is highly imprecise, while the value of labels is sometimes their ability to precisely and concisely identify.

3. Lutheran Usage (discussed here)

Lutherans used the word (apparently for the first time) in an attempt to distinguish Lutheran orthodoxy from Philippist Lutheran errors.  Although not calling them out by name, the authors of the Formula of Concord identified the target errors not as "gross Pelagianism" but as a lesser degree of error. 

The pros of Lutheran usage:

• The accused errors are a relatively identifiable set of positions
• The modifier "semi-" can be seen as a softener to the accusation of Pelagianism

The cons of Lutheran usage:

• The accused errors are not fully explained, leaving room for wiggling
• The accused errors are a relatively small subset of the errors traditionally associated with the label
• The accused errors are not the widely accepted academic definition of the term.
• For example, John Cassian may or may not be considered a Semi-Pelagian under the Lutheran usage.

4. Negative Anachronistic Historical Attachment

The Second Council of Orange appeared to end a controversy that had raged for nearly a century.  The canons of the Second Council of Orange may, therefore, appear to provide a condemnation of views that might be considered "semi-pelagian."  I refer to this approach as "Negative Historical Attachment" because we are attaching the meaning of the word to its negative connotation in the context of an historical controversy, long after the fact.

The pros of Negative Historical Attachment:

• The accused errors are a relatively identifiable set of positions
• The modifier "semi-" can be seen as a way to distinguish these errors from those of Pelagius in an analogous way to the errors of the Semi-Arians from the Arians.

The cons of Negative Historical Attachment:

• The accused errors are not exhaustively explained, leaving some room for misinterpretation
• The accused errors do not necessarily fit the widely accepted academic definition of the term.
• For example, John Cassian may or may not be considered a Semi-Pelagian under the Second Council of Orange's canon.

5. Positive Anachronistic Historical Attachment

The so-called "Semi-Pelagians" were a group of monks (and others), primarily associated with John Cassian of Marseilles and Faustus of Riez.  The canons of the Second Council of Orange do not name them, but they were perceived by the North Africans as standing Augustine's teaching.  I refer to this approach as "Positive Historical Attachment" because we are attaching the meaning of the word to the positive teachings of an historic person or group, long after the fact.

 The pros of Positive Historical Attachment:

• Cassian wrote a fair amount of material, and Faustus wrote a rather definitive work on the subject.
• The Roman Catholics who used the label to criticize Molina and his followers did seem to make the connection to Cassian.
• The most widespread academic definitions normally associate Semi-Pelagianism with Cassian.

The cons of Positive Historical Attachment:

• It becomes hard to limit the scope of "Semi-Pelagianism" to anything specific based solely on positive association with Cassian and/or Faustus.
• If the scope is limited to the points of disagreement with Augustine, there may still be blurry edges.
• Despite the works provided by Cassian, Faustus, and others, there is sometimes debate over their precise beliefs, particularly relative to Augustine and/or Pelagius.
• It starts to look odd to call folks who view Pelagius as a heretic "Semi-Pelagian," because of views that they hold in contradiction to Pelagius. 

6. Standard Dictionary Definitions (link to summary)

There are English-language dictionary definitions of the term, "Semi-Pelagian" and "Semi-Pelagianism."  These tend to track the "mainstream" usage of a word.  

 The pros of Standard Dictionary Definitions:

• These definitions strike a balance between elitism and full anarchy.  They reflect a curated distillation of common usage.
• These definitions seem less likely to be accused of theologically motivated bias.

The cons of Standard Dictionary Definitions:

• Quality of the definitions is limited to general usage.  In other words, these definitions were not designed to help resolve disputes, and consequently don't always provide clarifications that could be helpful.
• Further to the previous quality point, the precision of the definitions is likewise aimed at a general audience.
• When people don't like the definitions, they will likely respond by pointing out that the explanations provided are not from experts.
• In general, we don't give standard dictionaries precedence in defining theological terms of art.

7. Specialty Dictionaries and Encyclopedias (link to previous discussion)

There are a few theological dictionaries and theological encyclopedias that can be consulted in an effort to define "Semi-Pelagian" or "Semi-Pelagianism."

The pros of Specialty Dictionaries and Encyclopedias:

• These definitions tend to have the authority of expertise.
• Particularly as to encyclopedias, the entry can provide significant detail and clarification.

The cons of Specialty Dictionaries and Encyclopedias:

• Even though the dictionaries and encyclopedias may be specialized as to subject matter, they are not necessarily specialists in Semi-Pelagianism per se.
• The general editor's selection of the expert to provide the entry may bias the focus of the entry (for example, someone focused on early Lutheranism may favor the Formula of Concord views, a Beza historian may favor Beza, while a late patristic specialist may favor the positive or negative attachment approaches).

8. Works of Systematic Theology (link to previous survey of systematics)

The pros of Systematic Theology:

• These definitions tend to have the authority of expertise.
• These definitions also tend to have clarity and nuance, given the nature of the work.

The cons of Systematic Theology:

• As the term "Semi-Pelagian" is not (to my knowledge) adopted as a self-description by any group, it tends to have negative connotations.
• Accordingly, any systematic theology that uses it will tend either to use it in a potentially pejorative way, or to define it in a way that avoids the label's application to the author's position.

9. TurretinFan's Suggestion: a two-pronged Etymological Definition

My suggestion is that we adopt a definition of Semi-Pelagian that can be summarized thus:

1. Of People (as distinct from errors themselves): Holding to one or more errors of Pelagius, but not to all or substantially all of the errors of Pelagius.  Thus, for example, it is a Pelagian error to deny that all mankind except Christ became guilty for Adam's sin, but if one were only to side with Pelagius on this one point, one would be merely "Semi-Pelagian."  As to which errors of Pelagius are relevant, they are errors as to original sin, the need for grace prior to faith, and the need for grace to avoid loss of justification.  Thus, this is "Semi" Pelagianism because it only encompasses one or a couple of Pelagian errors, rather than a whole bundle.  
2. Of Errors (or the People who hold such errors): An error that is a compromise position between the correct doctrine and Pelagius' position.  For example, Pelagius taught that man's nature was not changed by the fall, but a Semi-Pelagian error would be that man's nature was changed for the worse for the fall, but that it is still capable enough to do good after the fall.  Thus, this is "Semi" Pelagianism because it errs in the direction of Pelagianism, but not to the extent that Pelagianism errs. 

The pros of TurretinFan's Suggestion

• The definition captures all legitimate uses of the term, while screening out the merely pejorative uses.
• The definition seems to follow at least the Lutheran and Calvinistic origins of the phrase.
• The definition distinguishes in an important way 

The cons of TurretinFan's Suggestion

• The definition assumes some standard of orthodoxy against which to compare Pelagianism, but that standard is not spelled out in TurretinFan's suggestion.
• While some of Pelagius' errors can be readily identified in a way that yields broad agreement, there is some question about the fuzzy borders of Pelagius' errors.
• While Cassian and Faustus may fall within the boundaries of the definition, and while the condemnations of the canons of Orange may condemn errors or people that could be identified with the definition, the effect may similarly condemn numerous others throughout church history, potentially even a broad swathe of the late medieval Roman Catholic church.

10. Refinements to TurretinFan's Suggestion

To further refine TurretinFan's suggestion, we may add a list of the Pelagian errors and/or the standards of orthodoxy.

1) Original Sin including

 - whether it leaves man "sick" rather than "dead"

 - whether it leaves man guilty even apart from voluntary sins

2) Grace

 - whether it is necessary for grace to come before faith (or other good human acts)

 - whether human beings can choose good apart from a special grace

3) Predestination

 - whether it is based on foreseen faith

 - whether based on man's use of his will

4) Atonement

 - whether any perish for whom Christ died

5) Man's Will

 - whether man's will is Libertarian Free

 - whether God requires a "middle knowledge" to know man's free choices beforehand

6) Merit in Salvation

 - the increase of justification and final justification depend on meritorious human cooperation

 - salvation can be merited congruently

 - merit serves as basis of election

7) Sanctification - Perfection

 - perfect obedience is possible in this life