J.I. Packer Calls Arminianism “an intellectual sin of infirmity”

In other words, Arminians are just stupid Christians who refuse to mature intellectually.  Here is the quote:

Calvinism is the natural theology written on the heart of the new man in Christ, whereas Arminianism is an intellectual sin of infirmity, natural only in the sense in which all such sins are natural, even to the regenerate. Calvinistic thinking is the Christian being himself on the intellectual level; Arminian thinking is the Christian failing to be himself through the weakness of the flesh. 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. (taken from: J.I. Packer and Arminianism)

Roger Olson rightly concludes, “So, to him, Arminianism is sin.”  And we are told that Calvinism is supposed to promote humility in its adherents!?  However, it seems to me, again and again, that Calvinism’s “natural” effect is to promote pride and smugness in those who come to embrace it.  And of course, Packer’s last sentence is demonstrably Historically false (see here for several posts on the subject).  What is truly sad and alarming is that this comes not from misguided internet Neo-Reformed types, but from a mainstream Calvinist scholar.

Baffling Comment

Someone named JW ignored the stated purpose of the X-Calvinist Corner page and wrote the following:

Congratulations to all ex-Calvinists. Now you have the right to go to hell. It’s a precious right so guard it with all of your hearts.

I am not sure what to make of it.  Is this person suggesting that leaving Calvinism sends someone to hell?  Does the comment suggest that only Calvinists are saved?  If so, this is another disturbing example of the pride and intolerance of certain Calvinists towards any theology that wasn’t invented by John Calvin.  It really turns sola fide into sola Calvinism.  I wish I could say this is the minority view among Calvinists today, but I am really starting to wonder.  It seems to typify where the Neo-Reformed movement has been heading for quite some time.  Perhaps I have misunderstood.  If so, I invite the author of this comment to explain.

Another Calvinist Who Isn’t Afraid to Tell it Like it Is

In my previous post I drew attention to a person who called Jesus the Calvinist Messiah.  As it turned out, this person was really just making fun of the way that some Calvinists tend towards elitist attitudes and equate their system of theology with the gospel itself.

But here is a guy who is quite for real.  In the following post he essentially equates anyone who believes that God has endowed His creatures with a measure of free will with demon possessed swine:

The End of Two-Thousand Arminians

That’s right, according to this guy if you do not hold to strict Calvinistic determinism then you are no better than a demon possessed pig!  Thankfully, most Calvinists would never say (and hopefully never think) such things.  Most Calvinists would consider this guy a hyper-Calvinist.  Unfortunately, it seems that more and more Calvinists (especially on the internet) are moving towards this sort of elitist and militant attitude towards all those who disagree with them.  I can’t count the times that Calvinists I have discussed my differences with have essentially questioned my salvation because I rejected their strange definition of sovereignty (exhaustive determinism).  Hopefully, more and more Calvinists will take a stand against such ungodly attitudes.  I fear that if they do not they will eventually be swept up in this same sort of thinking. 

Maybe this will eventually lead to the end of the Calvinist “resurgence”.  It has been said that Calvinist resurgences are almost always plagued with a move towards hyper-Calvinism that eventually kills the movement.  Could it be because hyper-Calvinism is the logical and consistent conclusion of exhaustive determinism?  I think so, but I am glad that so many Calvinists are willing to live with inconsistencies rather than pursue that route.  However, it seems that more and more Calvinists, in an effort to be consistent, are tending towards hyper-Calvinism.  If this leads to the demise of the movement, I can’t say that I will be overly disappointed (as much as I like being called a demon possessed pig and all).

Roger E. Olson on Scot McKnight’s “Neo-Reformed”

I appreciate and agree with everything Scot McKnight has written in his  blog postings “Who are the NeoReformed?”  (See his blog The Jesus Creed.)  He was very judicious about naming names.  Namely, naming names would only inflame the controversy and make things worse.  ”If the shoe fits [someone]….”

I would like to add that many contemporary Calvinists who are feeding the “young, restless and Reformed” the fuel with which they go out and cause trouble (one of them told me I’m not even saved because I’m an Arminian!) totally misrepresent Arminianism (to say nothing of other
traditions).

Here is a quote from one Calvinist pastor’s sermon on limited atonement: “The Arminian limits the nature and value and effectiveness of the atonement so that he can say that it was accomplished even for those who die in unbelief and are condemned.  In order to say that Christ died for all men in the same way, the Arminian must limit the atonement to a powerless opportunity for men to save themselves from their terrible plight of depravity.”

Now, either this well-educated pastor knows little about classical Arminian theology or he is intentionally mispresenting it.  But in the former case he should have read at least my book Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities.  Because his statement is simply false.  It completely ignores the Arminian emphasis on prevenient grace.

One thing I find appalling but often practiced by the people Scot calls “NeoReformed” is attributing to others beliefs the others not only do not hold but explicitly deny.  When confronted the NeoReformed say “But that’s the good and necessary consequence of what they do believe.” Then they should say that and also say “But they don’t actually believe
that.”

So the followers of these highly educated leaders of the NeoReformed hear them or read them and go out thinking and saying “Arminians believe people save themselves.”  That’s poppycock and the leaders of the NeoReformed movement know it.

There’s a lot of dishonesty going on in this “Village Green” we call evangelicalism.  And frankly, as I see it, most of it is the result of NeoReformed people blatantly misrepresenting Arminianism and by that trying to marginalize Arminians (and Anabapts who basically hold the same theology).  How?  By convincing the movers and shakers of the evangelical movement that Arminianism is dangerously close to heresy.

I cannot read their hearts or minds, so I do not know whether they are misrepresenting Arminianism intentionally or not.  But I am sure they are educated enough to have checked out their representations of Arminianism to see if they are correct.  Either they haven’t done that or they are intentionally misrepresenting Arminian theology (even if only by saying only what they think Arminian theology leads to and neglecting to make clear that is not what Arminians themselves believe).

I’ve been fighting this battle, to clear the good name of Arminian theology (by showing how it different from Semi-Pelagianism) for years now with very limited success.  I find that most of the people doing the misrepresenting of Arminianism and aggressively asserting the sole theological correctness of Reformed theology (their version of it) have little or no interest in being educated about real Arminian theology. Their minds are already made up; don’t confuse them with the facts.

Every year I have a group of Calvinist pastors from a local Reformed church come to my class and speak.  One of them started out by saying “Arminianism is just Pelagianism.”  After several such unfortunate encounters I gave them copies of Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities
on the condition they read it.  To the best of my knowledge they never have.

I have received e-mails and letters from scores of “young, restless and Reformed” evangelicals thanking me for clearing up their misconceptions (which they all say they were taught by leading Reformed evangelicals) about Arminianism.  But I have not heard from a single evangelical Reformed leader saying that anything I wrote there made any difference in the way they think or speak or write about Arminian theology.

Without any doubt in my mind, the “Village Green” metaphor for evangelicalism is not a good one.  After all, the Village Green in England and then New England was simply a place where all the citizens could come together and talk about the weather or politics or business.  Evangelicalism is a loose coalition of like-minded Christians who acknowledge their differences.  It’s motto has always been “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.” (See the National Association of Evangelicals web site.)  The multi-denominational tent revival is a much better metaphor for evangelicalism.

Lately, however, there’s been trouble under the revival tent.  Some folks are trying to convince the organizers and sponsors of the revival and newcomers as well that their particular theology is an essential and not a non-essential.  They are very careful how they choose their words; they usually strictly avoid the lable “heresy” for other views such as Arminianism and even open theism.  But their rhetoric is the rhetoric of exclusion: “Arminianism is profoundly mistaken” and “Arminianism is on the precipice of heresy” and “all Arminians are on their way to open theism,” etc., etc.

It’s time for evangelicalism’s leaders to stand up and say no–not to Calvinism but to those evangelical Calvinists who are causing trouble in the evangelical camp by blatantly misrepresenting other evangelicals’ beliefs and by implying, if not asserting, that their theology is the only authentic evangelical theology.

Roger E. Olson

Taken from here.

I recently had an unpleasant encounter with just such a Neo-Reformed type who was happy to call me a false teacher and question my salvation because I reject limited atonement and inevitable perseverance.  He was also happy to call me a Pelagian and impute beliefs to me that I do not hold (he said I believed in “self-sanctification” and deny the resurrection).  You can read the conversation yourself here.  This is becoming more and more of a problem on the Internet and it would be helpful if those Calvinists who know better would stand against these Neo-Reformed, lest they are content to soon find these Neo-Reformed representing the true face of (intolerant-elitist) Calvinism to the world.