Semi-Pelagianism and Free Grace Theology: What's the Difference?

In an article on the Free Grace International website titled "Was Zane Hodges an Antinomian? Is Free Grace?" (published a year or two ago, although the exact date isn't given), the author Shawn Lazar makes the following statement which prompted me to write these thoughts in reply, and which I have now incorporated into this blog post. Lazar says: 

“The ‘semi-Pelagian’ label is just as unhelpful. I think that Calvinists call anyone who affirms free will, or who denies total inability, or who denies that regeneration precedes faith a ‘semi-Pelagian.’ I suppose Hodges qualifies, but it’s an unhelpful term, referring to a debate within early Roman Catholic thought that has nothing to do with Hodges.”

In reply I shared the following insights, which I trust will be a blessing especially to those who yearn to be freed from the bondage of legalism and from a works-based system of salvation (i.e. "back-loading" the gospel) and a works-based set of rules to living the Christian life, rather than simply being led by the Spirit of the Lord (2 Cor. 3:17; Gal. 5:16-18). Here's what I said:

Shawn,

This is an excellent response to the Reformed view, and it highlights how their charge that Free Grace Theology is antinomianism is actually self-refuting. You also do a good job in pointing out how the Reformed view inaccurately portrays and characterizes the Free Grace view. For example, even according to the Reformed definition of antinomianism and their explanation of it, Zane Hodges is not an antinomian! So their charge that Zane Hodges teaches antinomianism is [false and] self-refuting.

But I just want to push back on one statement you made in your article, when you said in regards to semi-Pelagianism, “I suppose Hodges qualifies [as a ‘semi-Pelagian’]”. If you are ONLY referring to the three particular points of agreement that you mentioned in your article, I would concur that in a limited sense there are some similarities. But to use an illustration, the DNA of monkeys is quite similar to that of humans, and we would hopefully not make the mistake of reasoning or concluding that the two species are therefore the same; they are not! My point is [simply] to say that overall, there is more to semi-Pelagianism than just the three tenets that you mentioned, and that is what I want to focus on here. 

I agree with you when you said that in general, to label Free Grace theology as semi-Pelagianism is “unhelpful”. I think that should be one of the key takeaways of this whole discussion. In the historic sense of what semi-Pelagianism taught or is defined as, neither Zane Hodges nor Free Grace theology teach semi-Pelagianism. Because in addition to the three tenets or beliefs that you mentioned in regards to it, semi-Pelagianism also taught that “People can make the first move toward God by seeking God.” (G. Michael Cocoris, “Calvinism: Simply Explained and Biblically Evaluated,” pg. 6.) That statement of semi-Pelagianism is false in light of what theologians refer to as God's “prevenient grace,” or God's grace to ALL mankind (not just the “elect” or a select few). One aspect of God's prevenient grace is the universal convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit (see John 16:8-9). In this passage, Jesus specifically says that the Holy Spirit will convict the whole “world” (Jn. 16:8; cf. Jn. 1:9, 12:31-32; 1 Jn. 2:2) because they don't believe in Him. In regards to this, Norman Geisler has correctly pointed out that “extreme Calvinism often mistakenly assumes that the exercise of faith as a condition for receiving the gift of salvation must mean they [i.e. the unsaved] can do this unaided by God's grace. As noted earlier, no one can believe unto salvation without the aid of God's grace.” (Geisler, Systematic Theology, emphasis his.) In other words, God is the one who initiates salvation and who first seeks the sinner and draws the sinner to Himself through the light of God's Word (Jn. 1:9), the universal convicting ministry of the Holy Spirit (Jn. 16:8-11), and even general revelation (Rom. 1:18-20). In an article titled “Is Ignorance Eternal Bliss?,” Bob Wilkin has well said: “God brings the explicit good news of Jesus Christ to all who respond to the light they have by seeking God. Romans 3:11b, ‘there is none who seeks after God,’ looks at people when left to their own initiative. Clearly since God takes the initiative, we are free to seek Him in response (Acts 17:27).” (Wilkin, “Is Ignorance Eternal Bliss?” Journal of the Grace Evangelical Society [Spring 2003], p. 12.) 

My point is simply to show that strictly speaking, Free Grace Theology cannot accurately be labeled “semi-Pelagianism”. Although Free Grace Theology would agree (as you pointed out) that man has a free will, that man is not totally unable to respond to God, and that regeneration does not precede faith in Christ – merely advocating those three doctrinal beliefs doesn't make Free Grace Theology “semi-Pelagian” because semi-Pelagianism is much more than that. (Refer back to my illustration of the comparison between the DNA of two different species. The point being that similarity does not equate to identity.) As I mentioned, semi-Pelagianism also taught that “People can make the first move toward God by seeking God.” (Cocoris, op. cited.) That is false, and Free Grace Theology teaches no such thing. Rather, Free Grace Theology teaches that GOD makes the “first move”! God first seeks the lost (cf. Luke 19:10). And sinners respond to God’s initiative by then seeking God, “God did this so that they would seek Him and perhaps reach out for Him and find Him, though He is not far from any one of us” (Acts 17:27).

And so my point is to say that just because two theological belief systems have some similarities, it would be wrong to conclude that they are therefore one and the same. When in fact that would be overlooking any differences between them. In other words, it would be wrong to mistake similarity for identity. If having points of agreement is the new requirement for equating two theological belief systems, then Reformed theology is Roman Catholicism because there are similarities! But obviously there's more to it than that, and merely looking at similarities doesn't factor in the differences. But when those differences are taken into consideration, it's obvious that the two belief systems are not identical; and in the same way, Free Grace Theology should not be equated with semi-Pelagianism.