Friday, March 28, 2008

More Packer Palabber


J. I. Packer is not only a proponent of the post-17th century phantasmagoria about "pre-faith regeneration," "covenant children" inheriting regeneration, anti-immersionism, and the baptism of infants, he is also heterodox on what constitutes regeneration itself.

Notice the following misleading definition given by Packer in his article on the "Monergism" website:

Regeneration is the spiritual change wrought in the heart of man by the Holy Spirit in which his/her inherently sinful nature is changed so that he/she can respond to God in Faith, and live in accordance with His Will (Matt. 19:28; John 3:3,5,7; Titus 3:5). It extends to the whole nature of man, altering his governing disposition, illuminating his mind, freeing his will, and renewing his nature.

Regeneration, or new birth, is an inner re-creating of fallen human nature by the gracious sovereign action of the Holy Spirit (John 3:5-8).

I do not find any such nonsense as that in Scripture, nor in the Westminster Confesssion of Faith, nor in the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Church of England. If this is the case, then Packer's nonsense is heterodoxy when measured by these standards.

Rather, we understand that "human nature" is neither "changed," "renewed," nor "re-created" by regeneration or the new birth. It remains in its "original corruption," according to Articles VI and IX of the Westminster Confession.

Paul describes the conflict between original human nature and the "inward man" in Romans 7 as well as in Galatians 5:17-26. Paul refers to the "new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness"
(Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10), and to the "new creature" (2 Corinthians 5:17, Galatians 6:15).

The "old man," or old nature, is to be reckoned by the believer as having been crucified with Christ (Romans 6:6), not changed, renewed, or re-created.

For a man to be held in such high esteem by some in the "Reformed" camp, Packer appears to be as far from the truth on regeneration as one could get.


At Saturday, April 19, 2008 11:50:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Have you studied the WCF? You obviously have never studied it nor been taught the explicit and implicit meanings of it. I would strongly recommend that for you to avoid embarrassing yourself by misapplying WCF to first consult it from the very persons who endorse it in their doctrinal belief and practice: the Presbyterians.


Post a Comment

<< Home