<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Your imputation of Pilgrim's remark does not at all apply to my own comments since I never said that Packer had "abdicated" Calvinism. In fact, my comments are in agreement with Pilgrim's view since I had specifically said that Packer was still a Calvinist. So there is nothing "nonsensical" about my remarks. Packer is indeed "inconsistent" with his calvinism</font><hr></blockquote><p> You said, "[color:blue]As for Calvinism, Packer [color:red]<span style="background-color:yellow;">may still</font color=red></span> hold to it in theory</font color=blue>," and not that he <span style="background-color:yellow;">still was</span> a Calvinist. But, I do agree with you that Packer is inconsistent in practice with much of what he wrote formerly in his Concise Theology. But, the point of the posts was for Tom to go back to the "Horses Mouth" himself and see what he NOW says about Calvinism. I would be interested in Packer's personal response, though he could not justify biblically "to me" why he has embraced ECT and/or various other "questionable" philosophies. I have heard nowhere, except here, that he has "abdicated" Calvinism and as you pointed out Paul Helm is on staff at Regent also and I think the issue may have come up.....<br><br>You still failed to address the <span style="background-color:yellow;"> Theonomy versus Westminster</span> question??

Reformed and Always Reforming,