Packer on Calvinist Evangelism | robfaircloth.com by Peter Lumpkins

J.I. Packer assesses the Calvinist mindset:

via robfaircloth.com

Rob Faircloth is pastor of the Covenant Grace Baptist Church in Troy, Alabama. Quoting from a piece James Packer wrote in the sixties, Faircloth concludes:

It is difficult to find a more pithy statement of the issues appropriate to the Calvinist-Arminian divide today...Forty-six years ago Packer saw the caricature of Calvinism as anti-evangelistic, and sought to correct the error in part...by citing men who were ardently evangelistic because they were Calvinists (italics original)

First, I personally appreciate Packer's contribution to conservative Christianity. His Knowing God and Fundamentalism and the Word of God remain modern classics so to speak. I use to read Knowing God at least once every year, and consequently was immensely blessed by it. In addition, Packer's contribution to the inerrancy debate during the Conservative Resurgence in the Southern Baptist Convention can hardly be overestimated.

On the other hand, Packer is not without his theological warts. In fact, while Faircloth gives Packer credit for perceiving non-Calvinists' "caricature of Calvinism as anti-evangelistic," Packer was busy chiseling out his own miserable caricature of non-Calvinism.

For example, in his popular introductory essay to John Owen's Death of Death in the Death of Christ (penned during the approximate era as the quote Faircloth employs), Packer sums up the non-Calvinist idea of redemption this way (all emphasis added):

...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"¹ in the early seventeenth century...(p.3)

...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 (ibid)

God's election of those who shall be saved is prompted by His foreseeing that they will of their own accord believe (pp.3-4)

It rests with believers to keep themselves in a state of grace by keeping up their faith...Thus, Arminianism made man's salvation depend ultimately upon man himself, saving faith being viewed throughout as man's own work and, because his own, not God's in him (p.4)

Now, here are two coherent interpretations of the biblical gospel, which stand in evident opposition to each other[--Calvinism and Arminianism]. The difference between them is not primarily out of emphasis, but of content. One proclaims a God who saves; the other speaks of a God Who enables man to save himself. One view presents the three great acts of the Holy Trinity for the recovering of lost mankind--election by the Father, redemption by the Son, calling by the Holy Spirit--as directed towards the same persons, and as securing their salvation infallibly. The other view...denies that any of man's salvation is secured by any of them. The two theologies thus conceive the plan of salvation in quite different terms. One makes salvation depend on the work of God, the other on the work of man; one regards faith as part of God's gift of salvation, the other as man's own contribution to salvation; one gives all the glory to saving believers to God, the other divides the praise between God...and man, who by believing, operated it (p.4)

Calvinism is what the Christian church has always held and taught when its mind has not been distracted by controversy and false traditions from attending to what Scripture actually says...So that it is most misleading to call this soteriology "Calvinism" at all, for it is not a peculiarity of John Calvin and the divines of Dort, but a part of the revealed truth of God and the catholic Christian faith. "Calvinism" is one of the "odious names" by which down the centuries prejudice has been raised against it. But the thing itself is just the biblical gospel (p.10)

For my part, I hardly imagine a more reprehensible, offensive summary of my personal faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord than what Packer has composed. His description of non-Calvinism is so fundamentally warped it's difficult to accept it as written by the hand of a man of his stature. Indeed to accept Packer's view of those of us who are non-Calvinist, we would not even qualify as synergists but instead as outright humanists!

Even so, his monstrous description of the faith of 90%+ of all Southern Baptists should cause us pause before we lift him up as one who is deeply perceptive and perhaps consequently helpful in contributing toward the debate between Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the Southern Baptist Convention. If anything, Packer's position pours gasoline on an open flame.²

In short, men like Packer remain the reason for division not the remedy to it.   

With that, I am...

Peter 

¹the footnote is original in Packer as he cites Owen's work; hence, Packer is employing and agreeing with John Owen's analysis of the Synod of Dort

²it may be that Packer has softened his position somewhat since 1959 when Banner of Truth Trust published his essay as an introduction to Owen's work. However, if Packer has become more amicable toward non-Calvinism, not to mention corrected his grossly misinformed errors of Classic Arminianism, the revised essay is yet to be published

Comments

[Colvin]

I don't follow the logic of your argument. Just because Packer, in your opinion, caricatures Arminians in one essay does not mean that he is not deeply perceptive and helpful in another.

[peter lumpkins]

Colvin,

Perhaps you do not "follow the logic" because I did not intend to offer an argument per se. Instead it was more an observation of the undeniable irony on display in Faircloth's assessment of Packer's perception of non-Calvinists' "caricature of Calvinism" when Packer himself so fundamentally warped the Arminian position, it remains barely recognizable if recognizable at all. Granted perhaps you do not appreciate irony. On the other hand, I find much literary delight from its presence.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Colvin]

A person does not have to compose a syllogism to make an argument. I am a history student. One of my favorite things about writing history is the opportunity that it presents me to couch my arguments in narrative. You make an argument through your display of the irony that you intended to show. In fact, you do not even try to hide what that argument is, but spell it out in your conclusions. The argument is that, because Packer caricatures Arminians in one essay, we should pause before we lift him up as perceptive and helpful, realize that he is not helpful but is the opposite, and consider him the reason for the divide in the SBC and not a solution to it. Moreover, the way that you juxtapose the Owen introduction with the blog post that you quote at the beginning suggests that the point of that blog post is invalid. In response, I am not sure that all of this follows, because it is possible for Packer to have one unhelpful writing and another one helpful. The unhelpfulness of the one does not discount the helpfulness of the other. We are not to discount or question the valid points that he makes in Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God because of the supposed invalid arguments that he makes in his introductory essay in Owen's The Death of Death.

[peter lumpkins]

Colvin,

Thanks. But I'm hardly interested in exchanging on whether you think I actually made an argument rather than offer an observation nor, assuming the latter, that it makes for an argument contrary to my claim.

More significant to me is your strange silence concerning Packer's unconscionable assessment of non-Calvinism, which, contextually, was penned about the same time as Faircloth's quote (btw, Faircloth apparently was not quoting Evangelism & the Sovereignty of God as you see to imply). Leaving aside the irony of Packer's words, I will repeat what I wrote in the OP:

For my part, I hardly imagine a more reprehensible, offensive summary of my personal faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord than what Packer has composed. His description of non-Calvinism is so fundamentally warped it's difficult to accept it as written by the hand of a man of his stature. Indeed to accept Packer's view of those of us who are non-Calvinist, we would not even qualify as synergists but instead as outright humanists!

Now, if you'd like to query whether men like Packer remain the reason for division amongst Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the SBC definitively not the remedy to it, I may be interested. Otherwise, have a great afternoon.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Doug]

But technically you're not an Arminian, sir. "Non-Calvinist",yes, but Arminian is a very specific term - unless you believe in the ability of the saved to be lost or that all men possess the necessary faith in themselves to come to God of their own accord. His use of the term "belgic Semi-Pelagians" is key here - he's talking about the original Arminians...

[PBrooks]

Peter,
I think if you check out Packer's "Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God," you will find a softer, but still Calvinistic view of his soteriology. His view in that book would be comparable to DA Carson's divine antinomy position regarding the issue.

Hope that helps.
Page Brooks

[Philip Miller]

I mostly see irony that you apparently see a connect between your non-calvinist position and the classic arminianism that Packer describes. Mostly I've observed Baptist non-calvinists emphasis that they are not arminians, even considering it a pejorative term. Is it possible that there is a more unavoidable connection than many non-calvinist want to acknowledge?

[peter lumpkins]

Doug,

A couple of things in response. First, you are correct; I do not wear Arminian slippers. One must remember, however, that for Packer, to be a non-Calvinist is to be Arminian. His words make this perfectly clear--

Now, here are two coherent interpretations of the biblical gospel, which stand in evident opposition to each other[--Calvinism and Arminianism]

Hence, not embracing Calvinism necessarily pushes me toward Arminianism--at least given Packer's theological polarities. Therefore, I think it is a point well-taken to assume Packer's words concerning Arminianism also concerns other non-Calvinists like myself.

Second, you are also correct in recognizing the term "belgic Semi-Pelagians" as being "key here" which is precisely why I added the italics/embolden to the phrase in the first quote. The problem is, however, Packer unfortunately follows John Owen's summation of Arminianism who was not only dead wrong about the "original Arminians" as you call them, but also wrong about developed Arminianism in its classical, evangelical sense.

Mark Ellis writes in the introductory essay to his original translation of The Arminian Confession of 1621 (Pickwick Publications, Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2005) these revealing words about the "original Arminians":

If not Pelagians, were they semi-Pelagian?...Again, if one allows history to define labels, neither Arminius nor the Remonstrants were semi-Pelagian. They made this plain in the original Remonstrance of 1610, and repeated the same in the Confession [1621]" (vi.)

Hence, to accuse either "original Arminians" or classical evangelical Arminians of semi-Pelagianism remains theologically-historically suspect.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Page,

Thanks for the recommendation. I've used profitably Packer's little book for 20 years or so though admittedly I haven't picked it up lately. But if I recall correctly, Packer is concerned with how unconditional election squares with the Great Commission, a dilemma Calvinists must continually "reanswer" every generation or so. In addition, if I recall correctly, his use of "antimony" was hardly settling among many Reformed men, including R.C. Sproul who publicly critiqued Packer for using the provocative term.

Even so, nothing in Packer's little book corrected his confusing, unschooled diatribe in Death of Death against Arminianism--at least nothing I can recall. And, with this in mind, Packer remains a broken reed when it comes to helping SBs in their debate over Calvinism.

Thanks again, Page.

With that, I am...
Peter

[peter lumpkins]

Phillip,

Thanks. I think I answered the concern you raised in my response to Doug.

With that, I am...
Peter

[Deakon]

Peter, I think of non-Calvinists as Packer describes them primarily because that is what was taught to me as an "Arminian" SBCer growing up...I certainly don't like it when "Calvinism" is misrepresented and can understand why you would feel the same way about your Soteriological beliefs as a non-Calvinist so I'm curious as to what, in your opinion, is the third way? Like what about the emboldened portions of the quotes is contrary to "majority SBC" beliefs?

[peter lumpkins]

Deakon,

I think the "third way" as you call it is to focus less on formal systematic theology and more on biblical theology. Or, put another way, to regain the hermeneutical art of allowing textual exegesis to precede and be the foundation for theology rather than theology driving exegesis which is, in my view, why "systems" fail us.

As for each of the emphasized portions in the various quotes I logged, I won't take time to go through them all but will make a comment on the most significant ones. Already I've mentioned the historically inaccurate assertion made by many Calvinists, some of whom ought to know better (e.g. Packer), is that Arminius and his followers were semi-pelagians--heretics, if you will. With Mark Ellis, whom I quoted above, "one wonders why those who look to Geneva would need to resort to fabricating or extrapolating their differences with the Remonstrants" (vi).

Second, over and again Packer and others following him suggest that Arminians (and other non-Calvinists) express faith independently of God. This is grossly irresponsible rhetoric having no basis in the reality of non-Calvinist faith. Classic Arminians believe in Total Depravity in precisely the same way as Classic Calvinists. Indeed non-Calvinists embrace fully with Calvinists the divine necessity of the Spirit initiating applied redemption. The main difference is found not in the necessity of initiating grace but in the resistibility of initiating grace.

Nor did Arminius himself embrace falling from grace and denied he ever taught such. Yet routinely Calvinists project falling from grace as inherent in the Arminian system. It's true many Arminians and non-Calvinists developed the doctrine (e.g. General Baptists, Free Will Baptists, and Pentecostals among others). Others, however, continued to embrace perseverance.

Hence, my chief complaint with Packer & Co. is their unfounded assertion that non-Calvinists embrace a form of self-salvation.

Understand: as long as there is offensive rhetoric like this, we might as well divide up the booty because no peace will ever take place between Calvinists and non-Calvinists in the SBC.

With that, I am...
Peter

p.s. if you have a specific "emboldened phrase" you'd like me to address, let me know...

[Deakon]

that was good - thanks Peter!

[lmalone]

" think the "third way" as you call it is to focus less on formal systematic theology and more on biblical theology. Or, put another way, to regain the hermeneutical art of allowing textual exegesis to precede and be the foundation for theology rather than theology driving exegesis which is, in my view, why "systems" fail us"

A hearty Amen. But I would call it "The Way".

[Max]

" ... theology driving exegesis ... "

Therein lies the heart of the problem. Eisegesis driven by human intellect has replaced Spirit-led exegesis of Biblical text for much of the debate between Calvinists and non-Calvinists. One is treading on dangerous ground to formulate a Scriptural interpretation that expresses the interpreter's own ideas and bias to make it fit "the system", rather than the true meaning of the text, which comes by revelation not by education.

Packer's position that "Calvinism is what the Christian church has always held and taught when its mind has not been distracted by controversy and false traditions from attending to what Scripture actually says" is not only offensive to majority Southern Baptists, but is to stand arrogantly in defense of a man-made system whose every point can be debated.