Death of Death 2: more thoughts on J. I. Packer’s introduction

ji-packer=john-owenContinued from this post.

Frankly, if I write everything that I think is worth mentioning in Packer’s introduction, I am afraid I’ll never get to John Owen’s actual text. So I’m not sure how many more of these I will be posting before I jump into the book.

By the way, you can find Packer’s essay here (with one important difference I’ve noticed; see below).

Re-reading further, I am wondering how I could be so lacking in basic critical thinking or discernment.

Here is the point where I gave in to such an unholy thought:

The Spirit’s gift of internal grace was defined by the Arminians as “moral suasion,” the bare bestowal of an understanding of God’s truth. This, they granted—indeed, insisted—does not of itself ensure that anyone will ever make the response of faith. But Calvinists define this gift as not merely an enlightening, but also a regenerating work of God in men, “taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by His almighty power determining them to that which is good; and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace.” Grace proves irresistible just because it destroys the disposition to resist. Where the Arminian, therefore, will be content to say: “I decided for Christ,” “I made up my mind to be a Christian,” the Calvinist will wish to speak of his conversion in more theological fashion, to make plain whose work it really was:

“Long my imprisoned spirit lay
Fast bound in sin and nature’s night:
Thine eye diffused a quickening ray;
I woke; the dungeon flamed with light;
My chains fell off: my heart was free:
I rose, went forth, and followed thee.

Clearly, these two notions of internal grace are sharply opposed to each other.

Packer sets up a basic theological contrast that I believe is correct. Because he is speaking at as a “Calvinist,” an Arminian might object. I haven’t kept up with Arminian responses lately, so you should bear that in mine. Nevertheless, from what I (think I) know, Packer isn’t saying anything too controversial.

But at the point where I inserted some boldface in the above quotation, his argument takes a surreal turn.

His argument can be summarized:

  • Arminians will say X
  • Calvinists will say Y
  • Those who say X rather than Y and vice versa are holding opposed theological convictions.

But Packer’s choice of Y is incredible. The hymn he quotes is from a notorious anti-calvinist and Arminian: Charles Wesley.

The web page of Packer’s essay unhappily leaves out the footnote wherein Packer acknowledges to the reader that he is quoting an Arminian. Here it is:

Granted, it was Charles Wesley who wrote this; but it is one of the many passages in his hymns which makes one ask, with “Rabbi” Duncan, “Where is your Arminianism now, friend?”

So then, with the footnote, here is the argument in all his glory:

  • Arminians will say X
  • Calvinists will say Y
  • And Y was said by a notorious and self-conscioius Arminian
  • But that just proves that he tended to speak like a Calvinist many times.

Hello?

What Packer has just shown us is that at least one firm Arminian is not only prone (not just once but in “many passages”) to give glory to God in a way that Packer not only approves, but holds forth a a great example of the piety which he wishes us all to emulate.

And yet he continues on as if he has demonstrated a point in his case.

And when I read this as a recent convert to Calvinism I extolled this essay as pure gold that every Arminian should read to see how wrong they are.

Did I not know how to read?

I may have some ideas about how Calvinists and Arminians find it difficult to talk to one another, but this will do for now.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *