Sovereignty/Responsibility and the original Arminians

[whatever]

From J. I. Packer, as quoted here:

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.

Most every modern American (Christian or not) will argue for the idea that ability limits obligation, or to put it another way, that I cannot be held accountable for not doing that which I am unable to do. I doubt that any of them could prove it though. But, that is not what I find most interesting about this statement.

The first principle that Packer mentions, the idea that God's sovereignty is incompatible with human freedom, is what I find most interesting. The reason is that today's non-Calvinists regularly accuse Calvinists of holding to a similar position. I, for one Calvinist, hold to an opposite position. I affirm the absolute sovereignty of God in all events and over all creatures for all time, and I also affirm the absolute freedom given to every person to do exactly what he wants at any given time.

The reason that I find this so interesting is that the original Arminians did not try to redefine sovereignty in order to justify their beliefs. They recognized that to give up control is to give up sovereignty. I respect them for at least being up front about what they believed.

 

[Calvibaptist]

Originally posted by whatever:
From J. I. Packer, as quoted here: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.

Most every modern American (Christian or not) will argue for the idea that ability limits obligation, or to put it another way, that I cannot be held accountable for not doing that which I am unable to do. I doubt that any of them could prove it though. But, that is not what I find most interesting about this statement.

The first principle that Packer mentions, the idea that God's sovereignty is incompatible with human freedom, is what I find most interesting. The reason is that today's non-Calvinists regularly accuse Calvinists of holding to a similar position. I, for one Calvinist, hold to an opposite position. I affirm the absolute sovereignty of God in all events and over all creatures for all time, and I also affirm the absolute freedom given to every person to do exactly what he wants at any given time.

The reason that I find this so interesting is that the original Arminians did not try to redefine sovereignty in order to justify their beliefs. They recognized that to give up control is to give up sovereignty. I respect them for at least being up front about what they believed. </font>[/QUOTE]I respect a lot of the original Arminians for being intellectually honest with their position. I think they are wrong, biblically, but at least they were honest.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by Calvibaptist:
I respect a lot of the original Arminians for being intellectually honest with their position. I think they are wrong, biblically, but at least they were honest.

I agree. They also seemed to have a better grasp of the issues than today's Arminians. As I've pointed out elsewhere, even Arminius believed in total depravity. Yet today's "Arminians" deny it with passion.

What I can't understand is why the Arminians assumed that (in)ability limits obligation. The Bible is pretty clear on this point:

19 One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?"

This is precisely the question. If we do not have the ability to resist God's will, then why does God still blame us for our sin? Paul answers this question in a way that the Arminian cannot accept. In fact, Arminians have to ignore this whole passage if they want to insist that (in)ability limits obligation.

 

[Timtoolman]

Originally posted by whatever:
From J. I. Packer, as quoted here: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />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.

Most every modern American (Christian or not) will argue for the idea that ability limits obligation, or to put it another way, that I cannot be held accountable for not doing that which I am unable to do. I doubt that any of them could prove it though. But, that is not what I find most interesting about this statement.

The first principle that Packer mentions, the idea that God's sovereignty is incompatible with human freedom, is what I find most interesting. The reason is that today's non-Calvinists regularly accuse Calvinists of holding to a similar position. I, for one Calvinist, hold to an opposite position. I affirm the absolute sovereignty of God in all events and over all creatures for all time, and I also affirm the absolute freedom given to every person to do exactly what he wants at any given time.

The reason that I find this so interesting is that the original Arminians did not try to redefine sovereignty in order to justify their beliefs. They recognized that to give up control is to give up sovereignty. I respect them for at least being up front about what they believed. </font>[/QUOTE]Like I respect Johnp for his honesty in the ultimate end of calvinism. That being that God is the author of sin and we are to hate everyone except God. And that men are but robots, told to not sin but made to sin by god. Told to repent but kept from repenting by their god. Told to call, but not really etc etc etc.......