I read it - I just wasn't sure if that meant you also agreed with the definition offered: "On the other hand they acknowledge that Arminius clearly teaches that after the initial sovereign work of grace, those regenerated by grace can resist and reject it. They also acknowledge that a number of historians have called such a notion of the resistibility of grace semi-Pelagian"
If the resistibility of grace is semi-Pelagian, then those individuals and councils who condemned semi-Pelagianism in the initial controversies were semi-Pelagian, which should be a red flag the term is being redefined outside its historical/standard usage.
And that bare definition implies resistance of grace in progressive sanctification is therefore semi-Pelagian.
I'm sure Arminian, RC, and other non-Calvinist church historians would offer a different definition. Indeed, that he says the authors "acknowledge a number of historians", instead of "all historians" shows the difference. Job title alone does not give one a pass to have positions examined. Church history is a broad field with various specializations.
Job title can make one a presumptive expert witness. He's more qualified than I am to define the term. Moreover, he teaches ancient history as well as specializing in 16-17C Dutch Reformed theology, which is directly pertinent to the definition in question.
What does it accomplish for you to suggest that every theological tradition has a different definition of the term? In that case, you can't really criticize his usage. You've reduced the issue to different language games with different rules for each.
"He's more qualified than I am to define the term."
If I offered RC or Arminian exegesis (either for their position or against a position such as Calvinism) by specialists in the field, would you agree with them because of their presumptive expertise based on their job title? Or would you challenge their positions if you disagreed and feel not much compunction about it?
Each tradition does not all have a different definition of the term. But I am unaware of any historian who claims that semi-Pelagianism as understood in the times of Augustine and Orange reduced to "ability to resist grace". It may have morphed into that for polemical disputes during the Reformation (which Godfrey would be well aware of given his specialty). Just because a term becomes co-opted at some point in time in a certain context does not mean the original definition also must change.
"If I offered RC or Arminian exegesis (either for their position or against a position such as Calvinism) by specialists in the field, would you agree with them because of their presumptive expertise based on their job title? Or would you challenge their positions if you disagreed and feel not much compunction about it?"
Neither. I'm not invested in the term one way or the other. Theological terms are often terms of art. I'm more concerned about the truth or falsehood of theological concepts.
"If I offered RC or Arminian exegesis (either for their position or against a position such as Calvinism) by specialists in the field, would you agree with them because of their presumptive expertise based on their job title?"
Depends on whether or not it's obviously biased. For instance, a good Catholic historian will distinguish his personal beliefs from what he reports.
How do you define semi-pelagianism?
ReplyDeleteIf you read the review, you will see that the reviewer defines his terms.
DeleteI read it - I just wasn't sure if that meant you also agreed with the definition offered:
ReplyDelete"On the other hand they acknowledge that Arminius clearly teaches that after the initial sovereign work of grace, those regenerated by grace can resist and reject it. They also acknowledge that a number of historians have called such a notion of the resistibility of grace semi-Pelagian"
If the resistibility of grace is semi-Pelagian, then those individuals and councils who condemned semi-Pelagianism in the initial controversies were semi-Pelagian, which should be a red flag the term is being redefined outside its historical/standard usage.
And that bare definition implies resistance of grace in progressive sanctification is therefore semi-Pelagian.
Since the reviewer is a church historian, I doubt his definition is idiosyncratic.
DeleteI'm sure Arminian, RC, and other non-Calvinist church historians would offer a different definition. Indeed, that he says the authors "acknowledge a number of historians", instead of "all historians" shows the difference. Job title alone does not give one a pass to have positions examined. Church history is a broad field with various specializations.
ReplyDeleteJob title can make one a presumptive expert witness. He's more qualified than I am to define the term. Moreover, he teaches ancient history as well as specializing in 16-17C Dutch Reformed theology, which is directly pertinent to the definition in question.
DeleteWhat does it accomplish for you to suggest that every theological tradition has a different definition of the term? In that case, you can't really criticize his usage. You've reduced the issue to different language games with different rules for each.
"He's more qualified than I am to define the term."
ReplyDeleteIf I offered RC or Arminian exegesis (either for their position or against a position such as Calvinism) by specialists in the field, would you agree with them because of their presumptive expertise based on their job title? Or would you challenge their positions if you disagreed and feel not much compunction about it?
Each tradition does not all have a different definition of the term. But I am unaware of any historian who claims that semi-Pelagianism as understood in the times of Augustine and Orange reduced to "ability to resist grace". It may have morphed into that for polemical disputes during the Reformation (which Godfrey would be well aware of given his specialty). Just because a term becomes co-opted at some point in time in a certain context does not mean the original definition also must change.
Cletus Van Damme
Delete"If I offered RC or Arminian exegesis (either for their position or against a position such as Calvinism) by specialists in the field, would you agree with them because of their presumptive expertise based on their job title? Or would you challenge their positions if you disagreed and feel not much compunction about it?"
Neither. I'm not invested in the term one way or the other. Theological terms are often terms of art. I'm more concerned about the truth or falsehood of theological concepts.
Cletus Van Damme
Delete"If I offered RC or Arminian exegesis (either for their position or against a position such as Calvinism) by specialists in the field, would you agree with them because of their presumptive expertise based on their job title?"
Depends on whether or not it's obviously biased. For instance, a good Catholic historian will distinguish his personal beliefs from what he reports.