Yes, Packer has sold out to the Anglo-Catholics for the sake of a false unity in the ACNA. I nailed him on that in person at a lecture he gave at RTS last February. I asked him how we can walk together with Anglo-Catholics when they deny the plain teaching of the 39 Articles?
His response was that is a secondary issue.
Go figger.
Charlie
Packer endorses the Lambeth Quadrilateral:
This one is particularly interesting:
In the question and answer session after lunch on Friday, February 13, 2009 I was able to ask Dr. Packer the following question and you can judge for yourself from his answer:
Moderator: Charlie, you had a question?
Charlie: Ummm... Well, I'm a little bit on the low church side of things and so I hope you'll forgive me for asking a blunt question. But what is your view of the Thirty-nine Articles as a confession of faith? And as you know the Anglo-Catholic and the low church side disagree sometimes on how to interpret the Thirty-nine Articles and I'm wondering how we can walk in unity and yet disagree on some of the interpretation of the Articles? If you would so kind as to comment?
James Packer: Well, I will comment but I will comment briefly because I've been asked to do that. If was going to give an answer which was—how shall I say it?--safeguarded on both sides I would want to come back to them and say, "Specifics please?" Which Articles have you in mind when you say that? And I would grill you about that. However, the short answer is that on the primary matters during dissension between—I've said this before—what's primary and what's secondary. On the primary matters I maintain that there is consensus. It is only on secondary matters that there is disagreement on the exegesis perhaps of certain stratas of sacramental teaching and if you are agreed on what's primary you can think and let think, to use John Wesley's phrase, on what is secondary. End of our answer. Next question please?
I typed that up verbatim from an audio file I took of the discussion. I still have it somewhere on my computer. It's a bit hard to hear certain parts of it. As you can tell, he did not want to be faced with that difficult question and quickly moved on. He gave a politian's answer or non-answer. What is primary is justification by faith alone, which is primary. I should have asked him about that but I got a little bit nervous under the pressure.
I'm obviously not afraid to ask tough questions if I get the chance. I tried to be graceful since I was surrounded by the enemy: i.e. the majority of those there were Anglo-Catholics. My pastor was there as well (David Knox).
And oddly enough, Mark Driscoll, pastor of Mars Hill was there, although I didn't know who he was until it later registered in my tiny brain. I even shook hands with the idiot.
Charlie
----- Original Message -----From: Hugh McCannTo: Charlie RaySent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 7:58 PMSubject: RE: Is the Reformation Over? Sproul Points Out Packer's Weakening Position on JustificationYes, and he also kisses Romish ass in bowing before their "Bible" and atonement doctrine.
Hugh
For the grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present world, looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ; gave himself for us, that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works. These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority. Let no man despise thee. St Paul to Bishop Titus of Crete
From: cranmer1959@gmail.com
To: ;
Subject: Is the Reformation Over? Sproul Points Out Packer's Weakening Position on Justification
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 2009 19:49:54 -0400The Thirteenth Sunday after Trinity.
The Collect.
ALMIGHTY and merciful God, of whose only gift it cometh that thy faithful people do unto thee true and laudable service; Grant, we beseech thee, that we may so faithfully serve thee in this life, that we fail not finally to attain thy heavenly promises; through the merits of Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
Windows Live: Make it easier for your friends to see what you're up to on Facebook. Find out more.
Posts
2 comments:
So you asked an insufficiently detailed question, got an answer you didn't like, but somehow it's Packer's fault because "he did not want to be faced with that difficult question." That doesn't qualify as reasonable.
Nathan,
At least have the courage to show your face.
The answer is no. First off, even R.C. Sproul has noted that Packer has weakened his position by saying that justification by faith alone is in the "fine print" of the Gospel. This is considerably weaker than either Luther, who said this is the doctrine by which the church stands or falls, or Calvin, who said that it is the hinge on which all else turns.
Clearly, the 39 Articles of Religion teach the doctrine of justification by faith alone. This is not a doctrine up for review or revision based on "history" which shows not everyone is faithful to the plain teaching of the Articles.
But I suppose I should not be surprised that there are those who care more about their own agendas than about scriptural truth and a binding confessional statement of the scriptural truths which are considered to be non-negotiable by the English Reformers.
May God grant you the grace to believe the doctrines in the Articles as they were intended to be understood and believed...
BTW, I never post anonymously ANYWHERE. I stand up front without fear, so help me God. I care not whether it is James Packer or Jason Loh. It is the Gospel which will endure forever, not those who compromise it.
Post a Comment