Hi<br>Someone (who is Reformed) recently told me that when he was in Dublin about 4 years ago, he heard JI Packer recant Calvinism and affirm Arminianism.<br>I am well aware of Packer's ecumenicalism, but what this person told me stands in contrast of the information I have on Packer. In fact I used to have a friend who was a student under Packer about 4 years ago and he told me the opposite. <br><br>Anyone have any knowledge of Packer on this issue?<br><br>Tom<br>
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Someone (who is Reformed) recently told me that when he was in Dublin about 4 years ago, he heard JI Packer recant Calvinism and affirm Arminianism.</font><hr></blockquote><p>Tom,<br><br>Did you actually READ those two articles? They are dealing with "old news", re: ECT. Nowhere is there anything to be found in either article that quotes Dr. Packer as renouncing Calvinism and embracing Arminianism. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/igiveup.gif" alt="igiveup" title="igiveup[/img] Most of us are well aware of Packer's surprised and embarrassing signing of ECT. However, most of us do not equate that, nor can we to be a denying of biblical Calvinism and an adhering to Arminianism. How Packer can justify his signing of that document is a mystery to be sure. But it is sheer nonsense to equate a serious inconsistency with abdication. <br><br>In His Grace,
Pilgrim<br>I agree with you, I don't see any indication from those articles either of Packer renouncing Calvinism.<br>The last article said that Packer is a Catholic convert, but it doesn't show any proof.<br><br>The person that told me this information, though he told me not to take his word for it, did say he heard Packer personally recant Calvinism.<br>He also said during the event Packer participated in a Catholic event (told me what it was, but I forget what it was).<br><br>I personally don't know this person enough to know if he is making this up, misunderstanding Packer, or in fact it is true. That is why I brought this to the Highway. I would like to find out from the horse's mouth, but I don't know how to do that.<br>It does seem a little fishy that more Reformed folks in the know haven’t revealed this. If it was true, I think they would broadcast Packer’s recant louder than his ecumenicalism.<br><br>Tom<br>
Is this the place to ask what the ECT is all about?<br><br>I am surprised to hear any of this about him, bu then again, the only Hero in this world is Jesus.
Thanks Joe<br>I will say that years ago I tried to contact Packer through Regent College via e-mail, but didn't get a response.<br>So I wonder if I will get a response via snail mail. But if I don't try I won't find out.<br>
In 1994, I sent a copy of [u]Dr. Greg Bahnsen's response to ECT and J.I. Packer[/u] to Regent College. But Packer did not reply. Packer no longer teaches at Regent College since he is retired now.<br><br>Packer's response to his various critics is found in a Christianity Today magazine article from 1995 where he attempted to justify his support of ECT.<br><br>John Armstrong's 1994 book, Roman Catholicism: Evangelical Protestants Analyze What Divides<br>and Unites Us is an excellent rebuttal to ECT.<br><br>Martyn Lloyd-Jones personally opposed J.I. Packer and separated from him back in 1970. This was due to Packer's ecumenical activities in the Church of England. Packer was no longer welcome at the annual "Puritan Conferences" that held back then.<br><br>Recently, Packer made a bold stand against the issue of blessing same-sex marriages in the Anglican Church of Canada. But I don't know of he has yet separated from that apostate communion yet. <br><br>As for Calvinism, Packer may still hold to it in theory, but his pro-ECT practice betrays it. <br><br>Colin
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Packer no longer teaches at Regent College since he is retired now.</font><hr></blockquote><p> Not to beat a dead horse, but J.I. Packer still teaches at Regent, just like Kistemaker teaches at RTS--though both are retired. He is still listed as Full-Time faculty at the Regent Web-Site. In 1979, after teaching and preaching for 27 years in England, he became Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at Regent College, and in 1989 he was installed as the first Sangwoo Youtong Chee Professor of Theology. In 1996 he became Board of Governors’ Professor of Theology. Additionally, J.I. Packer just finished teaching a class entitled "Old & New Testament Wisdom" at the Pastors' Institute, on May 17, 2003, at Regent College, with Gordon Fee. <br><br>As to the rest of CT292's post I must agree with Pilgrim, "But it is sheer nonsense to equate a serious inconsistency with abdication." M.L. Jones was not always correct either: i.e. his embracing some views of the Holy Spirit, et. al. (but, I still own a good number of his books).<br><br>CT when are you finally going to answer the post: Theonomy versus Westminster. It has been posted since 06/17/03 and you have yet to respond???
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Not to beat a dead horse, but J.I. Packer still teaches at Regent....He is still listed as Full-Time faculty at the Regent Web-Site.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I stand corrected on Packer's employment. I am quite surprised that he is still listed as on the "full time faculty", rather than as "Professor-Emeritus".<br><br>Also, it was good to see Paul Helm on the faculty. His book Calvin and the Calvinists is very good.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]As to the rest of CT292's post I must agree with Pilgrim, "But it is sheer nonsense to equate a serious inconsistency with abdication"</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>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.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]M.L. Jones was not always correct either</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Lloyd-Jones was far more consistent with his puritan-calvinism by separating himself from Packer in 1970. But of course he was "not always correct". Who ever suggested that he was?<br><br>Colin
<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??
<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
<blockquote>[III. The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the Word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he has authority, and it is his duty, to take order that unity and peace be preserved in the Church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented or reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administrated, and observed. For the better effecting whereof, he hath power to call synods, to be present at them, and to provide that whatsoever is transacted in them be according to the mind of God]</blockquote>Colin,<br><br>Do you give full assent to this article of the WCF, Chapter XXIII, article III?<br><br>
To begin with a parenthesis<br><br>Colin noted<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] 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.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>Tp-No need to compile the footnotes. The article is posted on the web http://capo.org/premise/95/may/ssha2.html and Duncan's email address is given with a note saying that footnotes can be obtained from him at J. Ligon Duncan, III, E-mail: 74604.1331@compuserve.com. Another address that reached him recently is at http://jld3@compuserve.com <br><br>And now, to begin the main theme.<br><br>Some years ago, in response to writings against Theonomy and actions taken by anti - theonomists, Gary North issued the following challenge which is worth taking very seriously indeed by anybody participating in the theoonomy debate. He wrote<br><br>[color:red] It is time for the critics of Bahnsen’s theological position to explain in detail<br>just what it is that they are offering in its place as a biblical ideal.<br>It is time for them to fight something very specific with something<br>equally specific and equally biblical. …<br>They need to show why Bahnsen’s replies to all of them, one by one, are inaccurate. <br>Then they need to tell us what is correct biblically. If they refuse, they are admitting by<br>their silence that they have no biblical answers to his position, and have had none since 1977.<br>Gentlemen, if any of you believe that I have overstated the<br>case, you can prove me wrong. Just get a book out in reply. Then<br>Dr. Bahnsen will have another opportunity to clarify his position<br>in a book aimed specifically at yours. What will it be: Your<br>prudent but deafening silence or the next phase of the theonomy<br>debate? It is now your decision. A lot of people are waiting to<br>hear from you. Please, no more hit-and-run attacks.<br>(Gary North, Publishers Preface, No Other Standard, pp. xiv, xv) </font color=red><br><br>One might think that theonomists would welcome articles such as my "Theonomy versus Westminster" or my online critique of certain aspects of Bahnsen's exegesis of Matt. 5:17 found at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theexperiencemeeting/messages (See messages 78-108) because they are attempts to meet North's challenge on his terms. Then, one might expect that Theonomists would attempt to demonstrate why these articles are inaccurate, since this is the challenge North set for his critics. This is not, however, what Colin has done. What he has done is given in blue:<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] 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. </font><hr></blockquote><p>Tp - Unfortuately Colin, if you think that only those who agree at all points with a standard can measure conformance with that standard, then you are engaging in ad hominem arguement. You are claiming that my thoughts are tainted at the source by an antecedent prejudice and therefore must be considered incorrect. However the counterargument can be equally made that the thoughts of a theonomist are also tainted at their source by the theonomists antecedent commitment to theonomy. The question now becomes whose thoughts are tainted and why. The possibilities are neither, one thinker, the other thinker or both. But one cannot merely claim that another's thoughts are tainted at the source. It is insufficient to try to explain why a critic is wrong before showing where and how he is wrong. One must first demonstrate that there are errors of logic or fact in the opposing arguments, something you have to date failed to do.<br><br>And here is a major error of fact that you have made. In asserting that my arguments need no reply because a Baptist made them, you are either forgetting, carelessly overlooking or concealing the fact that the vast majority of the arguments I cite in "T v. W" were originally made by either Ferguson, Wallace, Duncan, and Logan all of whom are Calviinists and WCF subscribers. So your answer is plainly insufficient: if you don't want to answer me because I am a Baptist you must answer them because they are reformed. <blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] 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. </font><hr></blockquote><p>Tp - The only way you can prove the title false to fact is to refute the arguments.<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] Besides, I have previously discussed Theonomy with Timmo, and I found that further interaction with him on it is redundant.[/quote ]Tp - Because you have yet to win a point, you try to dodge the argument. Shall I post the relevant sites so readers can judge for themselves?[quote]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. </font><hr></blockquote><p>Tp - If the thread title is a false claim prove me wrong. And if you can demonstrate a single error of fact or logic in my writings about theonomy why not tell everyone? I notice that you have not even attempted to reply to my online critique of some of Bahnsen's exegetical errors, (and those are only a fraction of the mistakes Bahnsen made) nor my answer to the theonomist who did - cf. a debate found at "my online essay" here: 'The Failure of No Other Standard'.<br><br>And no theonomist, to my knowledge, has interacted with, let alone answered the cases against theonomy presented by the review of Bahnsen's exegesis of Matt 5:17 given in Steven Hodge's Master's Thesis "An Exegetical Response to Greg Bahnsen's use of Matt. 5:17-20 in Theonomy in Christian Ethics", the main chapters of Greg Durand's "Judicial Warfare: The Christian Reconstruction Movement and its Blueprints For Dominion" found online at http://www.crownrights.com/reconstruction. Until these are answered, you cannot truthfully claim that Theonomy needs no justification because it has answered almost all [the] critics.<br><br>In fact all of your arguments here only echo an unsound form of argumentation that some anti theonomists stupidly tried to use to discredit theonomy in its early days. Now you are trying to use it to avoid coming to grips with anti theonomic issues presented to you.<br><br>Until you change your ways, you will be only discrediting theonomy by following the example of the incompetent anti theonomic critics whom Gary North has correctly castigated. Notice how well the shoe fits when it is applied to you.<br><br>But [instead of name calling, Colin] now … need[s] to respond to the Westminster vs. Theonomy and the series "The Failure of No Other Standard." He need[s] to show why [Cunningham's points] all of them, one by one, are inaccurate….. If [he refuses, he is] admitting by [his] silence that [he has] no biblical answers to [Cunningham's] position, and [has] had none [for almost a year.]<br><br>Gentlemen, if any of you believe that I have overstated the case, you can prove me wrong. Just get a book out in reply. Then I will have another opportunity to clarify [my] position in a book aimed specifically at yours. What will it be: Your prudent but deafening silence or the next phase of the theonomy debate? It is now your decision. A lot of people are waiting to hear from you. Please, no more hit-and-run attacks.<br>(Gary North, Publishers Preface, No Other Standard, pp. xiv, xv)<br><br>I, for one, will be very grateful if theonomists would stop acting as if they have a double standard. One for their critics and a lesser one for themselves. <br><br><br>Edited: Finally fixed all the bad tags for the links provided. - Pilgrim<br>
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/rolleyes2.gif)
<br><br>In His Grace,![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
