This is hardly the case, brother! You assumed something which you concluded from nothing more than your own imagination, since you haven't talked to the man nor have you read his publicly printed reply to the question posed to him concerning his involvement with ECT, etc. Thus your basis for making your conclusions isn't based upon FACT, it is therefore unacceptable. And since I have talked to the man and read his answer, I can tell you, which I have already but will do so again, it is clearly NOT "pragmatism", nor most definitely because he has become "a friend to the world". Rather than me telling you what he said and/or wrote, which I doubt would hold much weight in your eyes, I will therefore suggest once again that you at least read his published answer [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/readit.gif" alt="readit" title="readit[/img]. Then, upon the man's own words, you will thereby be able to make a more informative judgment based upon FACTS, unless of course, you would judge what he wrote to be ingenuous?
In reply to:and you have told us yourself that you don't understand them.
Sorry, but I have never said that I didn't "understand them", but rather I found his reason for his actions, "wanting". And so you don't misconstrue what I mean by "wanting", I will lay it out for you clearly. I fully understood his reasons, but I didn't think that they were justifiable. However, I am not the man's Judge. I found nothing spurious or wanting with his motives however, e.g., as being "worldly".
In reply to:Are you suggesting that Mr. Packer is above misguided motives?
As far as directing you to Dr. Packer's written statement concerning his involvement with ECT, the best I can do for you at this particular time is to tell you that it appeared in one of the back issues of the Reformation and Revival Journal. You might consider contacting Reformation and Revival Online and ask if they still have copies of the back issue or even a printed copy of Dr. Packer's article. [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/grin.gif" alt="grin" title="grin[/img]
Thanks for the response and the answer with respect to your evaluation of Mr. Packers reasons for his involvement with ECT.
I must say that you seem to be rather beside your self about this matter and while repeatedly claiming to be one who doesn't "judge" others motives, you evidence a perfect willingness to judge mine.
As I clearly said, before, I will state again that it "appears" to be pragmatism on it's face. I don't think that is a rediculous conclusion or totally unwarranted as you seem to, and perhaps some such similar concern prompted your call to Mr. Packer about this issue?. Nor do I think I am alone in thinking it appears to be a questionable action. Therefore, I would have to disagree with your assesment that my postion wasn't reasoned from scripture or the facts. The facts are that Mr. Packer is/was working with the Roman Catholic church and has taken a controversial position in doing so. The facts are that this does appear to be a pragmatic step to take, not just to me but to others. It may be true that Mr. Packers stated reasons may be totally other than pragmatic, but that doesn't change the appearance of the situation.
I'm perfectly willing to revise that assesment if I am appraised of facts to the contrary, but actions do speak louder than words in spiritual as well as natural things. So if the situation is other than it appears, and as I recall we are taught to "avoid even the appearance of evil", I am glad to hear of it.
If you believe his reasons are other than pragmatism as they appear, at least to me, to be, than I am willing to accept that, brother.
By the way, in what way, specifically, did you find his reasons not "justifiable"?.
In reply to:[color:"blue"]By the way, in what way, specifically, did you find his reasons not "justifiable"?.
Read his article and come to your own conclusions. I prefer to keep my assessment to myself as it is a personal matter and not one which care to be made public, especially since I know the man.
And what does this have to do with Hank Hanegraff, anyway?
InChrist<br>Unless you can show us specifically how we are misusing Scripture. Though I don't know you personally, I would have to conclude that the actual reason you don't agree with us is not because Calvinism isn't biblical, it is because it insults your pride.<br><br>Tom
I was quite keen on Packer until he embraced Satans ecumaniacism.<br><br>He has little respect among reformed folk that I know here in the U K.<br><br>Perhaps he was ill at this time because NO CALVINIST WILL HAVE TRUCK WITH ANTICHRIST.<br><br>Revelation 18:4 kjv<br><br>howard
True, Scripture can be misused but don't you think it needs to be USED first? One form of Scriptural misuse is to present opinions and exalt them to the level of Holy Scripture by refusing to use Scripture to support or defend one's view. Wouldn't you agree?
Does God have the right to 'stack' the deck if He so desired or not and what Scripture would you use to support your answer?
Well, I just jumped in here on the end. You chaps certainly have ruined it for me. No more Dr. Lloyd-Jones (What is an Evangelical), no more Newton, who in pastoral letters counseled a young minister to be tolerant of Arminians and reminded him that, but for God, he could have been far worse than an Arminian, and, worst of all, no more Calvin, who counseled, "For not all the articles of true doctrine are of the same sort..."etc., etc.
On the plus, however, I do see that you are for the most adhering straight to the Dogma of the Council of Trent which insists, among its parts, that "the intention of the minister must be pure before God or the ministry is of none effect..." and "anathema" etc.
I may be missing something here and await your collective correction, wrath or whatever - banishment?
You know, brother Charles begged brother John not to depart the 39 Articles, as did brother George, but I think their love for him diminished not one whit. Should have at least flogged him! Why did that German guy tell him to continue preaching it till he had it anyway? That guy will pay dearly for that. What nerve!
I am not completely sure what your purpose was for posting that. Dr. Lloyd-Jones is save his view on the spiritual gifts thought of very highly by most of the posters on the Highway. I think you will also find that although there are exceptions people like John Wesley were considered Christians. If I remember correctly, I think (correct me if I am wrong Pilgrim) Pilgrim has said that more than once on this forum.
In reply to:people like John Wesley were considered Christians. If I remember correctly, I think (correct me if I am wrong Pilgrim) Pilgrim has said that more than once on this forum.
You are so right, Tom! Each INDIVIDUAL must be judged on his/her on merits or demerits, both theologically and by one's practice. (by their fruits you shall know them) Another consideration which many today fail to take into account, is that the Arminianism of John and Charles Wesley was decidedly different than that being promoted today. Actually, there are few real "Arminians" around. The majority of those who are antagonists toward historic Protestantism; i.e., the doctrines which distinguished Protestants from Roman Catholics during the Reformation, are semi-Pelagian. All one need do is read some of Wesley's sermons where he describes the condition of man after the Fall and if you didn't know that he had written it, you would swear that perhaps it was Edwards, Owen, or even John Calvin.
Also, as I have in myriad places written, there is sometimes a wide gulf that separates the theology of a man and what he truly believes in his heart. I do believe, as did Whitefield, that John Wesley was one of them. Show a person graphically what his/her theology looks like, e.g., by using a technique such I have done here: Do You REALLY Believe That Salvation is by Grace, ALONE?, and you will find that some will be smitten when they realize that what they profess to believe is actually akin to the soteriology of Roman Catholicism; i.e., synergism and that it denies Sola Gratia (by grace alone). I have had wonderful followup meetings with some in which the Word of God pierced their hearts afterward.
There are millions of christians who also believe arminianism is not christian doctrine .<br><br>How can a false gospel be thought of as true by so-called Calvinists is utterly beyond me.<br><br>howard
In reply to:How can a false gospel be thought of as true by so-called Calvinists is utterly beyond me.
You won't find much disagreement here as to this statement. But please tell me, have you met many "so-called Calvinists" who believe that the Arminian gospel is "true"? Are there many who would, for example, give assent to the CCC's "Four Spiritual Laws"? I will unabashedly admit that I have met some who would profess to be Calvinists and consider Arminianism as simply a different perspective or focus and acceptable and have no qualms about using such things as the "Four Spiritual Laws". In fact, there are some members of this Board who once expressed this view. But I would hope that there would not be many who would be so naíve or inconsistent with their profession to holding to the doctrines of sovereign free grace.
This will be my last post to you on this issue. Why? Because you have failed or rejected some fundamental truths concerning the discontinuity that may exist between what a man may profess, teach, preach and that which he firmly believes in his heart. The issue is NOT whether Arminianism is heresy! That has been clearly established historically by Church councils, Synods and in various Confessions. And, it has been openly said by myself, that I wholly concur that Arminianism is damnable heresy..... as a theological system. However, one may hold intellectually to Arminianism yet NOT truly embrace it in the heart. The point is that INDIVIDUALS must be judged as such. Blanket condemnations upon PERSONS is not warranted and woefully lacking in verity. In essence, you are advocating a "faith+Calvinism=salvation", which is no less fallacious than the Arminianism you reject. If one were to apply your view to those professing Christians in Galatia, whom Paul wrote, we would be forced to conclude that none of them were saved and would not be saved until they embraced Calvinism.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.emotipad.com/newemoticons/Off-Topic2.gif)
Each INDIVIDUAL must be judged on his/her on merits or demerits, both theologically and by one's practice. (by their fruits you shall know them) Another consideration which many today fail to take into account, is that the Arminianism of John and Charles Wesley was decidedly different than that being promoted today. Actually, there are few real "Arminians" around. The majority of those who are antagonists toward historic Protestantism; i.e., the doctrines which distinguished Protestants from Roman Catholics during the Reformation, are semi-Pelagian. All one need do is read some of Wesley's sermons where he describes the condition of man after the Fall and if you didn't know that he had written it, you would swear that perhaps it was Edwards, Owen, or even John Calvin. 
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/BigThumbUp.gif)
In fact, there are some members of this Board who once expressed this view. But I would hope that there would not be 
