Defining Semi-Pelagianism - the Lutheran Take

While Reformed Theodore Beza (1556) and Roman Catholic Nicholas Sanders (1571) may have been the first to use the label "Semi-Pelagianism," the first (and perhaps only) conciliar use of the term is in the Lutheran Epitome or Formula of Concord (1577).

"The Formula of Concord contains," according to Nicholas Hoppmann (link to article), "the most specific condemnations of Calvinism found in the Lutheran Confessions."  Hoppmann goes on to explain that after Luther's passing in 1546, the Lutheran churches began to be led by Phillip Melanchthon, but tension arose, and the Lutheran churches became divided amongst each other.  Some softened their position on the Lord's Supper to allow Calvinists or even adopted the Heidelberg Catechism, which is associated with Calvin.  The Calvinist Second Helvetic Confession of 1566 further unified Calvinist churches internationally.  

 Naturally, there was an effort to reunify Lutherans.  Hoppmann explains it thus:

As part of the German princes’ continuing attempt to unify the Lutheran Church, in 1576 Elector August of Saxony commissioned Jacob Andreae to organize a team of theologians from the Holy Roman Empire’s Lutheran principalities for the purpose of writing a confession that would bring an end to internal disagreements. The group led by Andreae had a very pro-Luther, anti-Calvinist, and anti-Melanchthonian point of view. It contained many of Melanchthon’s former students, but they had all distanced themselves from their master’s views on human potential and the toleration of Calvinism.

These six men met in Torgua in 1576. The group composed what would eventually become the Epitome of the Formula of Concord, which condemned many of the radical teachings of the opposing Lutheran parties and sharply attacked Calvinism. They then sent the Epitome to all the Lutheran principalities of the Holy Roman Empire to be examined by the various princes’ theologians and returned with suggestions. After the critiques returned, the authors explained the Epitome further, in 1577, by writing the Solid Declaration. They then sent it out for subscription in the various principalities.

The section on Free Will (section II of the Formula) is the part where we read of Semi-Pelagian error.  Naturally, the discussion appears under the "Negative Theses" of that section:

NEGATIVE THESES: Contrary False Doctrine.

[7] Accordingly, we reject and condemn all the following errors as contrary to the standard of God’s Word:

[8] 1. The delirium [insane dogma] of philosophers who are called Stoics, as also of the Manicheans, who taught that everything that happens must so happen, and cannot happen otherwise, and that everything that man does, even in outward things, he does by compulsion, and that he is coerced to evil works and deeds, as inchastity, robbery, murder, theft, and the like.

[9] 2. We reject also the error of the gross Pelagians, who taught that man by his own powers, without the grace of the Holy Ghost, can turn himself to God, believe the Gospel, be obedient from the heart to God’s Law, and thus merit the forgiveness of sins and eternal life.

[10] 3. We reject also the error of the Semi-Pelagians, who teach that man by his own powers can make a beginning of his conversion, but without the grace of the Holy Ghost cannot complete it.

[11] 4. Also, when it is taught that, although man by his free will before regeneration is too weak to make a beginning, and by his own powers to turn himself to God, and from the heart to be obedient to God, yet, if the Holy Ghost by the preaching of the Word has made a beginning, and therein offered His grace, then the will of man from its own natural powers can add something, though little and feebly, to this end, can help and cooperate, qualify and prepare itself for grace, and embrace and accept it, and believe the Gospel.

[12] 5. Also, that man, after he has been born again, can perfectly observe and completely fulfil God’s Law, and that this fulfilling is our righteousness before God, by which we merit eternal life.

[13] 6. Also, we reject and condemn the error of the Enthusiasts, who imagine that God without means, without the hearing of God’s Word, also without the use of the holy Sacraments, draws men to Himself, and enlightens, justifies, and saves them. (Enthusiasts we call those who expect the heavenly illumination of the Spirit [celestial revelations] without the preaching of God’s Word.)

[14] 7. Also, that in conversion and regeneration God entirely exterminates the substance and essence of the old Adam, and especially the rational soul, and in conversion and regeneration creates a new essence of the soul out of nothing.

[15] 8. Also, when the following expressions are employed without explanation, namely, that the will of man before, in, and after conversion resists the Holy Ghost, and that the Holy Ghost is given to those who resist Him intentionally and persistently; for, as Augustine says, in conversion God makes willing persons out of the unwilling and dwells in the willing.

[16] As to the expressions of ancient and modern teachers of the Church, when it is said: Deus trahit, sed volentem trahit, i. e., God draws, but He draws the willing; likewise, Hominis voluntas in conversione non est otiosa, sed agit aliquid, i. e., In conversion the will of man is not idle, but also effects something, we maintain that, inasmuch as these expressions have been introduced for confirming [the false opinion concerning] the powers of the natural free will in man’s conversion, against the doctrine of God’s grace, they do not conform to the form of sound doctrine, and therefore, when we speak of conversion to God, justly ought to be avoided.

[17] But, on the other hand, it is correctly said that in conversion God, through the drawing of the Holy Ghost, makes out of stubborn and unwilling men willing ones, and that after such conversion in the daily exercise of repentance the regenerate will of man is not idle, but also cooperates in all the works of the Holy Ghost, which He performs through us.

[18] 9. Also what Dr. Luther has written, namely, that man’s will in his conversion is pure passive, that is, that it does nothing whatever, is to be understood respectu divinae gratiae in accendendis novis motibus, that is, when God’s Spirit, through the Word heard or the use of the holy Sacraments, lays hold upon man’s will, and works [in man] the new birth and conversion. For when [after] the Holy Ghost has wrought and accomplished this, and man’s will has been changed and renewed by His divine power and working alone, then the new will of man is an instrument and organ of God the Holy Ghost, so that he not only accepts grace, but also cooperates with the Holy Ghost in the works which follow.

[19] Therefore, before the conversion of man there are only two efficient causes, namely, the Holy Ghost and the Word of God, as the instrument of the Holy Ghost, by which He works conversion. This Word man is [indeed] to hear; however, it is not by his own powers, but only through the grace and working of the Holy Ghost that he can yield faith to it and accept it.

(Source: https://bookofconcord.org/epitome/)(the Formula of Concord is also available in Latin, which is not the original, as German was the original, and English here)

If we follow the Lutheran usage from this specific document, we see three separate accusations of error:

1. man by his own powers can make a beginning of his conversion, but without the grace of the Holy Ghost cannot complete it.
2. although man by his free will before regeneration is too weak to make a beginning, and by his own powers to turn himself to God, and from the heart to be obedient to God, yet, if the Holy Ghost by the preaching of the Word has made a beginning, and therein offered His grace, then the will of man from its own natural powers can add something, though little and feebly, to this end, can help and cooperate, qualify and prepare itself for grace, and embrace and accept it, and believe the Gospel.
3. man, after he has been born again, can perfectly observe and completely fulfil God’s Law, and that this fulfilling is our righteousness before God, by which we merit eternal life.

The first error seems to be a fair characterization of the Soteriology101 position, but not a characterization that Leighton Flowers would accept.

The second error seems to be something that Leighton Flowers would likely accept.

The third error is something that I think Leighton Flowers would roundly condemn.

I note that according to Baukus and Goudriaan, (p. 29), ‘Semipelagians’ referred to here are synergist theologians such as Johann Pfeffinger and his followers who opposed the Gnesio-Lutherans by asserting that man’s free will was the primary agent in the act of conversion"."  More specifically, these were the followers of Philip Melanchthon, aka Philippist. 

Which of the Lutheran theologians coined the term.  B&G note: "Preus, who also thought that Semipelagianism was an ancient doctrine, attributed its appearance in the Epitome to Martin Chemnitz but it could equally well be attributed to Jakob Andreae, the main author of the text." (p. 29)

The key takeway of B&G's article on the historical connection of the term can be expressed in this way: "Evidence from Lutheran and Calvinist sources dating from the period subsequent to 1556 shows clearly that the term ‘Semipelagianism’ was not used initially to refer to fifth-century doctrinal configurations but rather to sixteenth-century teachings." (p. 40)