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.