Your response to my comments on Mr. Packers actions with respect to embracing the ecumenical movement indicate that you misinterpret both the scope and the intent of them.
As to the scope, when I suggest that Mr Packer's actions in this regard are due to worldly motives, I in no way imply that his whole life is worldly, or characterized by worldliness, for I do not believe this to be the case at all. Rather, just as you or I might lead a godly life and err in a given area, I believe that Mr Packer is subject to the same temptations, and, due to his position as a leader, I would suspect that misguided motives, not to mention countless other pressures, might make him even more suseptable.
Nor do I believe it is judgemental of me to offer these observations, as they are offered in the spirit of christian love, based on the scriptures, and wholely in keeping with the commands of scripture to alert our brothers in Christ when we believe they are in error.
As to Mr. Packers standing in the Reformed Christian community, I am fully aware of his long standing support of the Doctrines of Grace and his "wide swath" so to speak. It is because I have a great deal of respect for him, and his standing, that his actions bring such great grief to many who love the cause of Christ, of which I am one.
With respect to the validity of my observations on the nature of his actions in lending his considerable support to the ecumenical movement, I have no problem stating that regardless of the reasons stated for his actions, they speak to me, on their face, of pragmatism, a disease that infects the whole of Christianity today, and I am saddened to see you pass it off as other than what it is. I can not imagine, Calvin, Luther, Edwards, Owen, Bunyan, Toplady, Romaine, etc, etc, sitting down with representatives of the Roman church, in their latter, mature, Christian years, for the purpose of "deliberations with the Roman Catholics in the matter of "Sola Fide"", as you put it. Can you?
I thought your earlier synopsis in this thread of the decline in the historical church's defense of true christianity, in the following statements was much more faithful:
" how should the Canons of Dordt be interpreted in light of the evangelical church scene as a whole? I believe that the findings of the Synod of Dordt are true and should be accepted as a subordinate authority in matters of doctrine within the entire Christian Church. Let's keep the historical situation in mind when we consider the Synodical decision. At that time, most all the Protestant Churches embraced what was later to be nicknamed, (an unfortunate reality), Calvinism; the [color:red]Protestant Church in contradistinction to the Roman State Church embraced monergism which was summarized in the Five Solas of the Protestant Reformation. Thus, this gathering of men from various denominations who met at Dordtrect, represented the vast majority of Protestants and [color:red]therefore can be seen as being a united voice which spoke for all who held to the biblical doctrines of salvation. The fact that the evan-jelly-cal churches of today have forsaken their roots and have adopted the doctrines of Arminius and even Pelagius doesn't diminish the findings and judgment of Dordt. Can a church teach some heresy, but not be filled with heretics? Yes, this is possible but not likely, IMHO. [color:red]Because of the nature of Arminianism, in that it teaches that man's decision to alleged historical facts, e.g., the deity of Christ, salvation by faith in Him, etc., results in salvation (Sandemanianism, aka: Easy Believism) [color:red]is contrary to the biblical doctrine of Christ, the essence of saving faith, the necessity of sanctification, the preservation/perseverance of the saints, and other fundamental doctrines. Yet, God has called some to Christ from within such churches and eventually [color:red]leads them out when the doctrines of grace are made known to them. Consider Martin Luther! Isn't heresy, well, such a significant departure from the faith as to make the religious system something other than Christianity, such as modern liberalism? [color:red]I think the problem here is that often people begin to use that which is extreme as the standard by which they judge other heretical doctrines and thus conclude that something less heretical/offensive than the "standard" should be tolerated or viewed with less strictness. Such, IMHO, had happened since the time when German Liberalism and Existentialism (Neo-orthodoxy) came into popularity in the mid to late 1800's. Up until that time, Arminianism was not "tolerated" and deemed heretical. But when Liberalism came onto the scene, Arminianism had the appearance of being almost acceptable in comparison. [color:red]This backing off, or turning a blind eye, to Arminianism has become like an infectious disease at this time in that many consider Arminianism to be nothing more than biblical Christianity which only has a few "flaws" added to it."
