Packer Semi-Pelagian Strawman

Here’s J. I. Packer’s misrepresentation of Arminianism. First, it should be observed that the “five points of Calvinism,” so-called, are simply the Calvinistic answer to a five-point manifesto (the Remonstrance) put out by certain “Belgic semi-Pelagians” in the early seventeenth century. The theology which it contained (known to history as Arminianism) stemmed from two philosophical principles: first, that divine sovereignty is not compatible with human freedom, nor therefore with human responsibility; second, that ability limits obligation. (The charge of semi-Pelagianism was thus fully justified.) From these principles, the Arminians drew two deductions: first that since the Bible regards faith as a free and responsible human act, it cannot be caused by God, but is exercised independently of Him; second, that since the Bible regards faith as obligatory on the part of all who hear the gospel, ability to believe must be universal. Hence, they maintained, Scripture must be interpreted as teaching the following positions: (1.) Man is never so completely corrupted by sin that he cannot savingly believe the gospel when it is put before him, nor (2.) is he ever so completely controlled by God that he cannot reject it. (3.) God’s election of those who shall be saved is prompted by His foreseeing that they will of their own accord believe. (4.) Christ’s death did not ensure the salvation of anyone, for it did not secure the gift of faith to anyone (there is no such gift); what it did was rather to create a possibility of salvation for everyone if they believe. (5.) It rests with believers to keep themselves in a state of grace by keeping up their faith; those who fail here fall away and are lost. Thus, Arminianism made man’s salvation depend ultimately on man himself, saving faith being viewed throughout as man’s own work and, because his own, not God’s in him. http://www.all-of-grace.org/pub/others/deathofdeath.html Packer represents Arminianism in 2 philosophical principles, which he calls semi-Pelagian and 5 theological points. Of the 5 theological points, only the 2nd actually represents Arminian thought. Points 1, 3, 4 & 5 are not only not taught by Arminius, but he also specifically denied them. Point 2 (man is never so completely controlled by God that he cannot reject the gospel) does represent the Arminian viewpoint. But it involves the operation of God’s grace and cannot be seen as a Pelagian or semi-Pelagian denial of God’s grace. Of Packer’s 2 philosophical principles, the first (that divine sovereignty is not compatible with human freedom) is denied by Arminians as well. God’s sovereignty is completely compatible with human freedom. Perhaps Packer has a special definition of God’s sovereignty in mind. Perhaps he means God causally predetermines all things. But why is Packer’s definition preferable? Isn’t sovereignty about rights and authority, not causal predetermination? What we reject is the notion that God’s causal predetermination of an action is compatible with freedom. Why? Because then the event would not be free from God’s causal predetermination. But affirming this obvious truth isn’t semi-Pelagianism. Semi-Pelagianism denies the necessity of grace for the commencement of conversion. Semi-Pelagianism and incompatiblism are altogether different subjects. Let’s pretend for a second that semi-Pelagianism could be deduced from this first philosophical principle. (it can’t but let’s pretend) Would that make Arminians semi-Pelagians? No. It might make them logically inconsistent, but it wouldn’t make them semi-Pelagians. The fact is Arminius taught the opposite of semi-Pelagian views, whether or not he was consistent in doing so. But semi-Pelagianism doesn’t follow from incompatiblism. Arminius taught that prior to grace, man can be free to choose between evil options, but is unable to choose good. Thus, the man isn’t predetermined to one and only one thing (i.e. incompatiblism), yet he is still unable to do good(i.e. contra semi-Pelagianism). Packer’s second philosophical point (that ability limits obligation) isn’t essential for Arminians, although some Arminians do hold to it. For more on this subject, please see this post here. As for Packer's point, no Arminian says man is able to do good, without God's grace. So this point is not semi-Pelagian.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Responsibility - Evaluation of Arminian Grounds for LFW

Outline of Edwards Arguments in part V.I Arminians say if something causally predetermines our choices, we are not responsible. But responsibility is not the cause of choices, it’s in the nature of choices If responsibility is in the cause of choices, we search through an infinite regression of causes, and nothing is ever responsible. My Response Point 1 is close, but not quite accurate. While our actions can be predetermined, our choices cannot be. Choice cannot be predetermined, else it’s not choice. Predeterminism leave us with only one possible action, but choice requires alternatives (i.e. more than one). A “predetermined choice” is self-contradictory, implying we can choose something we can’t choose. So we think Calvinists are inconsistent for saying we can choose. Also, Arminians agree that we are responsible for our choices. Even though we deny we are responsible for things we are causally predetermined to do, we are not saying responsibility lies in the cause of choices,
Read more

Hodge on Ephesians 1:17-19

Hodge argues for effectual calling based on Ephesians 1:17-19. He claims that the passage teaches the regeneration is monergistic , so it proves God's call is effectual. Here's the passage: Ephesians 1:17-19 17 that the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give to you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him, 18 the eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, 19 and what is the exceeding greatness of His power toward us who believe, according to the working of His mighty power. Hodge has several problems. First, the passage teaches sanctification, not regeneration. It's dealing with living the Christian life and growing in grace, not conversion. Second, even if the passage were teaching that regeneration is monergistic , this wouldn't prove that God's call is effectual. I agree regeneration, strictly defi
Read more

Calvinism’s problems with Total Depravity

This post will be an attempt to add some detail to earlier comments about problems reconciling Calvinism and total depravity, using John Hendryx post as an example ( here ). To my knowledge, it’s a new argument against Calvinism. Most Arminians are quick to agree with Calvinists on total depravity to avoid being called semi-Pelagian. However, this in my opinion is a mistake, not because Arminians disagree with total depravity, but because Calvinists have some definitional and consistency problems with affirming total depravity. Here's the basic argument: Premise 1: Per Calvinists, total depravity is a problem with man’s desires, it is a moral and spiritual problem. However, the depraved person is not physically or mentally handicapped or under coercion. The depraved still choose, they just always choose wrong when it comes to faith in Christ and pleasing God. Premise 2: Calvinists are compatible determinists. God’s decrees determines all things but we remain free in some sens
Read more