There have been a lot comments made over Dr. James I. Packer's evangelical dialogue with the Roman Catholic chuch in the thread entitled Hank Hanegraff on Calvinism. I thought I'd open this new thread so those interested in this topic could comment here.<br><br>Resolutions for Roman Catholic and Evangelical Dialogue Drafted by Michael Horton; revised by J. I. Packer.<br><br>What do you think about these discussions?<br><br>In that other thread Dr. Packer was accused of being a "friend of the world". Do you think he has compromised the doctrine of Sola Fide? In a recent interview with Dr. J. I. Packer he seems to dispute this.<br><br>Any thoughts? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/scratch.gif" alt="scratch" title="scratch[/img]<br><br><br>Wes<br>
When I survey the wondrous cross on which the Prince of Glory died, my richest gain I count but loss and pour contempt on all my pride. - Isaac Watts
Wes<br><br>After reading those articles I am more confused than ever regarding Packer's involvement in ECT.<br>Perhaps my problem is that I am tired at the moment, but the article and interview seem to me to be in direct conflict with the mission of ECT. I will have to read them again at another time.<br>It is for that reason that I would ask others to comment on them. Hopefully they will be able to flush out something I did not see.<br><br>Tom<br>
In section 4 it reads :- Roman catholics and Evangelicals have every reason to join minds , hearts and hands when Christian values and behavioral patterns are at stake........<br><br> HOGWASH !<br><br>Sounds like the beginings of a very, very, very slippery path Romeward.<br><br>howard
Howard,<br><br>Would I be correct in concluding that if there was an effort to hand out Pro-life literature in a target community close by, you would refuse to take part if there was a Roman Catholic individual involved? If you would take part, would you refuse to be paired up with a Roman Catholic going door-to-door?<br><br>In His Grace,
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"] HOGWASH !<br><br>Sounds like the beginings of a very, very, very slippery path Romeward. </font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>I don't agree, I think the document is thoroughly Reformed in character. It in fact underscores differences with the Roman church, but seeks to find common ground for specific purposes. I think it is similar to J. Gresham Machen's observation in Christianity and Liberalism(I had wanted to use this quote in the previous thread on Arminianism, but everybody moved on before I got around to it--Machen, who died in the 1930's, writes of the rise of modern liberalism within his own American Presbyterian denomination. He helped found Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia after Princeton went south theologically, and he also helped form the Orthodox Presbyterian Church, a little gem of a denomination):<br><br>[color:red] p. 51 Still another difference of opinion concerns the nature and prerogatives of the Christian ministry. According to Anglican doctrine, the bishops are in possession of an authority which has been handed down to them, by successive ordination, from the Apostles of the Lord, and without such ordination there is no valid priesthood. Other churches deny this doctrine of "apostolic succession," and hold a different view of the ministry. Here again, the difference is no trifle, and we have little sympathy with those who in the mere interests of Church efficiency try to induce Anglicans to let down the barrier which their principles have led them to erect. But despite the importance of this difference, it does not descend to the very roots. Even to the conscientous Anglican himself, though he regards the members of other bodies as in schism, Christian fellowship with individuals in those other bodies is still possible; and certainly those who reject the Anglican view of the ministry can regard the Anglican Church as a genuine and very noble member in the body of Christ. <br><br>Another difference of opinion is that between the Calvinistic or Reformed theology and the Arminianism which appears in the Methodist Church. It is difficult to see how any one who has really studied the question can regard that difference as an unimportant matter. On the contrary, it touches very closely some of the profoundest things of the Christian faith. A Calvinist is constrained to regard the Arminian theology as a serious impoverishment of the Scripture doctrine of divine grace; and equally serious is the view which the Arminian must hold as to the doctrine of the Reformed Churches. Yet here again, true evangelical fellowship is possible between those who hold, with regard to some exceedingly important matters, sharply opposing views. <br><br>Far more serious still is the division between the Church of Rome and evangelical Protestantism in all its forms. Yet how great is the common heritage which unites the Roman Catholic Church, with its acceptance of the great early creeds, to devout Protestants today! We would not indeed obscure the difference which divides us from Rome. The gulf is indeed profound. But profound as it is, it seems almost trifling compared to the abyss which stands between us and many ministers of our own Church. The Church of Rome may represent a perversion of the Christian religion; but naturalistic liberalism is not Christianity at all. </font color=red>
I am of course pro-life but I would not need the help of a papist if I ever campaigned for the cause.<br><br>When I meet R Cs I give them the gospel message which is my only duty as a christian. <br><br>The situation Pilgrim has described would never happen.<br><br>Ask yourselves this : How many of the Westminster divines would have signed that document ?<br><br>I believe the answer to be NONE. Perhaps I am wrong again.<br><br>The monster that is Papal Rome is treated too gently by 'reformed' folk in North America . I believe arminianism has clouded the issue somewhat.<br><br>howard <br><br>
But what if the particular RC person who was helping with pro-life stuff was in all actuality a born again believer? <br><br>(and I agree with you, but I am playing the other side for discussion purposes [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/wink.gif" alt="wink" title="wink[/img])
Last edited by Kalled2Preach; Wed Sep 03, 20036:53 AM.
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]The situation Pilgrim has described would never happen.</font><hr></blockquote><p>What do you mean, "would never happen"? I'm not exactly clear on what you are saying. And since you chose not to reply to my question directly, even though you obviously read it, I'm still wanting to know whether you would walk and work with a typical, everyday Roman Catholic in such things as promoting Pro-life?<br><br>I'm also curious if you have ever have been or long to be personally involved in that "Orangemen Parade" or whatever it's called where the Irish "Protestants" (so-called) march down the streets of the well-known Roman Catholic sections of town(s)?<br>
In reply to:[color:"blue"]When I meet R Cs I give them the gospel message which is my only duty as a christian.
Taking you literally, as you seem to like to be taken, does this imply that you would refuse to extend any of the following to a Roman Catholic: courtesy? respect? humility? a cup of water? emergency medical assistance?
If the RC was actually a born again believer, then I would show him/her Revelation chapter 18 in which God commands His people to leave Satans Popery.<br><br>Have done so several times in fact - though I dont know the outcome. But He does.<br><br>howard
I have worked with many RC's in secular work. Spiritually speaking , the best thing a RC can do is to engage in secular humanism. <br><br>I reject R C's as heretics after about 10 minutes in their company so I would never find myself in a position to do anything GOOD with them.<br><br>I would love to attend an Orange Parade - so much history ! <br><br>To hear Paisley preach in a packed church would be a great experience for me.<br><br>howard
That goes without saying Paul. Even though a cup of water is no good to them without the Bread of Life.<br><br>If you know someone to be a RC , do you give them the gospel lest you never see them again ?<br><br>howard
Howard,<br><br>I am saddened that you feel the way you do about working with people who are of a different doctrine or religion for common causes. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/sad.gif" alt="sad" title="sad[/img]<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]To hear Paisley preach in a packed church would be a great experience for me.</font><hr></blockquote><p>I have had the experience of hearing Paisley preach, having attended one of the churches in "his" denomination for 8 months. I walked out of the church just before he finished screaming and literally pounding the pulpit. His sermon was anything but expository or edifying. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/drop.gif" alt="drop" title="drop[/img]<br><br>In His Grace,
Pilgrim , I would not engage in 'religious' matters with R C's , moslems jw's etc, etc.<br><br>However , I treat all Antichristians in the same manner - and some - as I expect you do the same , as they would treat you - with respect. It's their world after all - we are just passing through by His Grace are we not ?<br><br>Sorry you felt that way about Paisleys sermons . Lets hope the odd soul or two went home convicted as is often the case. <br><br>howard
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
