J. I. Packer threatened with suspension

[JTDyck]

The Anglican Church really takes themselves seriously:
LambethConference.Net/Canada - O, what a beautiful city… » Blog Archive » BREAKING: JI Packer threatened with suspension

Don't rebel against the machine!

 

[AV1611]

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Well it is about time someone in the Anglican Church revealed their hate for biblical Christianity by attacking the good Doctor. There is an honest unbiblical Anglican Bishop in the fray. Kudo's to Bishop Michael Ingham. Now let the truth be known.

Thank You Dr. Packer for your wonderful stand for Truth. But I am scared of the Catholics and Evangelicals thingy.

Added note.....

The article really does leave us in the dark as to why Dr. Packer's church wishes to move diocese. That would be interesting. I just assumed it was based upon biblical principles.

 

[DMcFadden]

Does anyone know any other living Anglican who has been such a staunch defender of Calvinist soteriology? What a Godly man! And, in the circles he travels in, he has stood tall for truth against some of the most silly and nutso elements of evangelicalism.

 

[danmpem]

I'm confused. If his church is breaking away from the diocese, then he's not under the bishop's authority anymore, thus he can't be suspended. Or maybe I just don't know enough about how the Church of England works.

 

[DMcFadden]

His bishop, The Right Reverend Michael Ingham, is famous for approving same-sex unions, "sailing, golf and Oriental cooking."

 

[JTDyck]

I'm confused. If his church is breaking away from the diocese, then he's not under the bishop's authority anymore, thus he can't be suspended. Or maybe I just don't know enough about how the Church of England works.

I'm not sure of all the inner workings, either, but one of the issues in Canada is whether the departing churches can retain their buildings. Some of the current details can be found in this report on the CTV website. The whole thing is going to court, which is a direct violation of the Lord's command in 1 Cor. 6. There is an interesting ruling reported in the National Post.

Around 1937 many Bible Presbyterians (as well as Orthodox Presbyterians) had to walk away from churches that they had built up over many years at great personal sacrifice and start all over again from scratch. It was difficult, but the Lord did not fail to bless.

 

[greenbaggins]

Does anyone know any other living Anglican who has been such a staunch defender of Calvinist soteriology? What a Godly man! And, in the circles he travels in, he has stood tall for truth against some of the most silly and nutso elements of evangelicalism.

Isn't Stott also Anglican? I know that there are more evangelical Anglicans in Great Britain today. May God raise up future Ryles and Packers (not the Green Bay variety), and Gurnalls! Actually they are happening: it's called Africa.

 

[AV1611]

Does anyone know any other living Anglican who has been such a staunch defender of Calvinist soteriology? What a Godly man! And, in the circles he travels in, he has stood tall for truth against some of the most silly and nutso elements of evangelicalism.

Stott (in his early years definitely) and countless nameless ministers.

 

[timmopussycat]

Does anyone know any other living Anglican who has been such a staunch defender of Calvinist soteriology? What a Godly man! And, in the circles he travels in, he has stood tall for truth against some of the most silly and nutso elements of evangelicalism.

As a former student of JIP's and an admirer of his godliness, I regret having to take qualified issue with the other statements above especially since his "Knowing God" was the means God used to bring me through a very hard time.

While Dr. P has been a great defender of Calvinist soteriology in his earlier years, more recently he has almost abandoned the field. Some of his recent statements WRT Roman Catholicism are disinegenious at best.
And although he has stood tall for truth against some silly and nutso elements of modern charismania, he has sometimes not anchored his attack on Scripture and what we know from Scripture. The result is that his critiques are almost totally uninfluential within Charismatic circles, as he himself once admitted to me fifteen years ago, and his qualified acceptance of Charismatic distinctives is not widely found within non Charismatic circles.

 

[Pilgrim]

Does anyone know any other living Anglican who has been such a staunch defender of Calvinist soteriology? What a Godly man! And, in the circles he travels in, he has stood tall for truth against some of the most silly and nutso elements of evangelicalism.

As a former student of JIP's and an admirer of his godliness, I regret having to take qualified issue with the other statements above especially since his "Knowing God" was the means God used to bring me through a very hard time.

While Dr. P has been a great defender of Calvinist soteriology in his earlier years, more recently he has almost abandoned the field. Some of his recent statements WRT Roman Catholicism are disinegenious at best.
And although he has stood tall for truth against some silly and nutso elements of modern charismania, he has sometimes not anchored his attack on Scripture and what we know from Scripture. The result is that his critiques are almost totally uninfluential within Charismatic circles, as he himself once admitted to me fifteen years ago, and his qualified acceptance of Charismatic distinctives is not widely found within non Charismatic circles.

I am not a Packer expert, but I tend to agree with this assessment. There is his Concise Theology which consists of the 66 articles (I believe that's the number) that were written for the New Geneva Study Bible (now called the Reformation Study Bible. But that was published about 15 years ago.

Do you have Keep in Step with the Spirit in mind regarding qualified acceptance of Charismatic distinctives?

 

[JAW]

I'm with Richard:

The diocese does indeed own the property and the local congregation holds it only in trust. In the Church of England the property is ultimately government property, but I imagine the situation is different in Canada. Either way, the phrase tends to be: they get the building but you get the blessing.

I believe Packer can be suspended because he has made moves to shift to South America, but has not yet done so.

At least we Anglicans still have Packer and Stott. There is a new group called the Charles Pettit McIlvaine Society that represents parish ministers working to put reformed theology and worship into place. Bishop McIlvaine was very much the American J. C. Ryle. One of his longer tracts was on his refusal to consecrate churches that have altars rather than tables. Some of his works are here.

HTH,
Jason

 

[Pilgrim]

I'm confused. If his church is breaking away from the diocese, then he's not under the bishop's authority anymore, thus he can't be suspended. Or maybe I just don't know enough about how the Church of England works.

I'm not sure of all the inner workings, either, but one of the issues in Canada is whether the departing churches can retain their buildings. Some of the current details can be found in this report on the CTV website. The whole thing is going to court, which is a direct violation of the Lord's command in 1 Cor. 6. There is an interesting ruling reported in the National Post.

Around 1937 many Bible Presbyterians (as well as Orthodox Presbyterians) had to walk away from churches that they had built up over many years at great personal sacrifice and start all over again from scratch. It was difficult, but the Lord did not fail to bless.

As was seen in the 30's with the actions against Machen, McIntire et. al. and today we see that the liberals only impose church discipline upon the orthodox. Any other time the cry is for liberty. But as Milton wrote, license they mean when they cry liberty.

 

[DMcFadden]

While Dr. P has been a great defender of Calvinist soteriology in his earlier years, more recently he has almost abandoned the field. Some of his recent statements WRT Roman Catholicism are disinegenious at best.
And although he has stood tall for truth against some silly and nutso elements of modern charismania, he has sometimes not anchored his attack on Scripture and what we know from Scripture. The result is that his critiques are almost totally uninfluential within Charismatic circles, as he himself once admitted to me fifteen years ago, and his qualified acceptance of Charismatic distinctives is not widely found within non Charismatic circles.

I am quite saddened to hear these first hand reports. My knowledge of Packer comes from his introduction to Owen's The Death of Death, one of the most powerfull and concise overview's of Calvinism and his fine course at RTS on the Puritans. I knew he had grown squishy on the ECT issue, but had hoped that he was still the man I so admire.

 

[Pilgrim]

While Dr. P has been a great defender of Calvinist soteriology in his earlier years, more recently he has almost abandoned the field. Some of his recent statements WRT Roman Catholicism are disinegenious at best.
And although he has stood tall for truth against some silly and nutso elements of modern charismania, he has sometimes not anchored his attack on Scripture and what we know from Scripture. The result is that his critiques are almost totally uninfluential within Charismatic circles, as he himself once admitted to me fifteen years ago, and his qualified acceptance of Charismatic distinctives is not widely found within non Charismatic circles.

I am quite saddened to hear these first hand reports. My knowledge of Packer comes from his introduction to Owen's The Death of Death, one of the most powerfull and concise overview's of Calvinism and his fine course at RTS on the Puritans. I knew he had grown squishy on the ECT issue, but had hoped that he was still the man I so admire.

I think that preface as well as the one to the version of Bondage of the Will that he edited both date to the 1950's and Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God is from the early 1960's. Some would say he went squishy ecclesiologically when he broke with Lloyd-Jones and remained in the Anglican church in the late 1960's even though it was becoming overrun by liberals and pursuing a policy of ecumenism at the expense of the truth. ECT more than 25 years after that is not so surprising when seen in that light.

 

[timmopussycat]

Do you have Keep in Step with the Spirit in mind regarding qualified acceptance of Charismatic distinctives?

That and other comments, articles and actions known to me.

 

[Eoghan]

Does anyone know any other living Anglican who has been such a staunch defender of Calvinist soteriology? What a Godly man! And, in the circles he travels in, he has stood tall for truth against some of the most silly and nutso elements of evangelicalism.

What about Jay Adams? I very much doubt that he is truly representative of Anglican churches but as far as Biblical theology goes he is a beacon in the darkness!

 

[Kaalvenist]

Does anyone know any other living Anglican who has been such a staunch defender of Calvinist soteriology? What a Godly man! And, in the circles he travels in, he has stood tall for truth against some of the most silly and nutso elements of evangelicalism.

What about Jay Adams? I very much doubt that he is truly representative of Anglican churches but as far as Biblical theology goes he is a beacon in the darkness!

Last I had heard, Dr. Adams is a minister in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church.

 

[holyfool33]

That sounds bad but I dont get it why would they try and suspend him?

 

[timmopussycat]

That sounds bad but I dont get it why would they try and suspend him?

It's just Ingram letting Packer know the following: if St. John S. leaves NW diocese then Packer automatically thereby loses NW diocese's stamp of approval and can no longer minister in any diocesan church without the diocese objecting. It will be interesting to see if he transfers his membership to any church remaining within the pale, something he will almost certainly not do.

Watching this is sadly ironic for me. Fourteen years ago, I tried to tell Dr. P. that this was inevitable. At that time, I was a member of another Evangelical Anglican parish in the same diocese. When I saw this freight train approaching yet could not see any way the local Anglican evangelicals would be able to stop it, I met with him to see if he could see any way of averting what was coming. He couldn't.

The basic problem for Canadian Anglicans is their doctrine of the church. Their history of doctrinal development and view of Christian fellowship is such that there is no way that church discipline will ever be applied to those holding heterodox or heretical views of cardinal Christian doctrines. When I pointed out to Dr. P. that he could very easily find himself, as honorary assistant at St. JS, serving communion some Sunday morning to a visiting Anglican "professor of theology" i.e. undenounced heretic, he agreed that my scenario was real and that would be in no position to withold the elements from that individual.

Evangelicals like Packer, who remain ecclesiastically united with those with whom they share secondary distinctives while lacking true union in the essentials of the gospel yet divide from other Evangelicals, with whom they share the essentials of the gospel over secondary matters, are in an impossible position. Sooner or later their position becomes untenable as it has now for Evangelical Anglicans in New Westminster diocese.

 

[Pilgrim]

Does anyone know any other living Anglican who has been such a staunch defender of Calvinist soteriology? What a Godly man! And, in the circles he travels in, he has stood tall for truth against some of the most silly and nutso elements of evangelicalism.

What about Jay Adams? I very much doubt that he is truly representative of Anglican churches but as far as Biblical theology goes he is a beacon in the darkness!

As far as I know Jay Adams has always been a Presbyterian and has taught at Westminster Theological Seminary, Greenville Seminary and elsewhere.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

The Conventicle: Dr Packer Served 60 Days Notice