<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]You said, "As for Calvinism, Packer may still hold to it in theory," and not that he still was a Calvinist</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Of course, I qualified my remark with "may" because I don't know for sure what he believes about Calvinism
recently. My assumption is that his commitment to Calvinism has not changed. Thus, he "may still hold to it". But he sure likes to rub shoulders with those who don't hold to it.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]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</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Very true, but even if Packer is still a die hard "Five Pointer", it doesn't excuse him at all for his betrayal of historic reformation protestantism with ECT, et al. Still its good to know that he hasn't abdicated his previous writings such as his
Historical Introduction to Luther's
Bondage of the Will book or his classic
Introductory Essay to John Owen's book.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]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.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>You should try to get a hold of an old copy of
Christianity Today magazine from 1995 where Packer attempted to justify his actions. Its quite a feat of rationalizations and pragmatism. The article is entitled, "Why I Signed the ECT Document". But I forget the exact date of the
CT article.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]You still failed to address the Theonomy versus Westminster question??</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Sure, just as soon as you or Pilgrim address the
Highway Staff verses the Westminster Confession issue on Chapter XXIII:3. Pilgrim had previously stated that the WCF is "erroneous" on that particular section which calls for the civil magistrate to "suppress all heresies and blasphemies".<br><br>And of course, "Timmopussycat" who is a deacon in a Baptist church, has not addressed the
Timmopussycat verses the Westminster Confession issue on the topic of Infant Baptism. The WCF says that it is a
great sin to neglect infant baptism. Thus, every baptist parent is sinning according to the Bible and the WCF. <br><br>So if neither Timmo or the Highway Staff are in full agreement with the WCF, then they have no right to judge Theonomists by a creedal standard that even they themselves do not hold to on all points. <br><br>And since I do not believe that Theonomy is in opposition to the WCF, then there's no point in me addressing a Thread whose very title falsely claims that Theonomy contradicts the WCF. And the thread title was composed by someone who personally contradicts the WCF on the issue of Infant Baptism as I said earlier.<br><br>Besides, I have previously discussed Theonomy with Timmo, and I found that further interaction with him on it is redundant. Until someone with sufficient scholarly reformed credentials equal to Greg Bahnsen publishes a full rebuttal to Bahnsen's
Theonomy in Christian Ethics (still waiting after 25 years), then the onus remains on the critics to justify their opposition. Theonomy needs no justification because it has answered almost all their critics. And Timmopussycat is no where near a scholarly critic of Bahnsen's Theonomy position. <br><br>However, J. Ligon Duncan
is someone close to Bahnsen's level of Christian scholarship. Therefore, I have been busy composing a reply to his article on Reconstructionism which is posted on the Highway forum. Duncan's article is a bit difficult to answer only because of the lack of footnotes which presumably has the supporting evidence for his numerous assertions. So I've been making my own footnotes for it, such as for his citations of DeMar and Bahnsen.<br><br>I will post my reply to Duncan's article soon. Perhaps at the "Ligon Duncan" Thread.<br><br>Colin
