Packer's pedo package
WHY DO "REFORMED" BAPTISTSPROMOTE J. I. PACKER?
I have been trying to get "rev." (who is chaplain James Gaylon) to consider what I believe to be his double-standard. He insists that a true believer must leave the Mormons, otherwise James does not regard that person as possibly being a true believer. However, he obviously gives a "pass" to professing believers in pedobaptist groups which teach (1) the Reformed doctrine of "covenant children" inheriting regeneration, (2) plus the Reformed denials of Baptist views that baptism is only by immersion and only for persons who have faith in Christ.
The Pedos, of course, teach that their views were taught by either Jesus or the Apostles (inspired by the Holy Spirit). As I understand James, he does not believe that these views were taught by Jesus and Apostles. In accordance with the thinking of James, this would mean that these Pedos have a false "Jesus," for the Pedos are attributing false teachings to him. And that would make the Pedo "Jesus" less than sinless, according the James' thinking, and therefore not the true Jesus.
If a professing believer who is in the Mormon church must leave it to validate his profession, why isn't the same true of the professing believer who is in the Pedo church? How can a true believer remain in a Pedo church if it is representing Jesus to teach what James believes is false doctrine? I suspect we may have the explanation for James' vacillation below. He is obviously under the dominant influence of Pedobaptist "theologians."
For example, on his website, James is embellishing J. I. Packer, an Anglo-Catholic of the Church of England, who teaches (1) the "born again before faith" heresy, (2) the "covenant children" heresy, and (3) the usual Reformed repudiation of Baptist views on immersion and the baptism of believers only.
James, along with the Flounders and others who are under the influence of the post 17th century Reformed version of "Calvinism" -- which is Hybrid Calvinism -- may be infatuated with J. I. Packer as a great theologian, but the fact is, he does not qualify to teach a Sunday School Class in a Baptist church worthy of the name Baptist.
C. H. Spurgeon preached two great sermons in 1864, exposing the heresies of Packer's church. James might be profited by reading them:
Baptismal Regeneration
Children Brought to Christ, and Not to the Font
posted by Bob L. Ross @ 11:42 AM
3 Comments:
PACKER IDENTIFIES
HYBRID CALVINISM
We have contended that the modern "Reformed" theory on "pre-faith regeneration" is a hybrid -- an idea which was hatched later than the earliest Calvinist Confessions of Faith and the 17th century Puritans.
J. I. Packer confirms our understanding of this fact, as follows:
>>
Many seventeenth century Reformed theologians equated regeneration with effectual calling and conversion with regeneration . . . LATER REFORMED THEOLOGY has defined regeneration more narrowly, as the implanting of the "seed" from which faith and repentance spring (I John 3:9) in the course of effectual calling.
>> http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/packer_regen.html
It is from this "LATER REFORMED THEOLOGY" that the "born again before faith" heresy has derived. It was not taught by Calvin, nor by the Confessions, nor by the Puritans. It is a HYBRID view, concocted as the "ORDO SALUTIS" phantasmagoria, passed off by the likes of Shedd, Berkhof, Frame, Packer, Sproul, Iain Murray and other pedos, and swallowed hook-line-and-sinker by some "Reformed Baptists" such as James White, Tom Nettles, Ernest Reisinger, the Flounders, etc.
I think this topic needs to be constantly revisited not soley from the standpoint of Calvinists having an issue with Mormons but that they have an issue with everybody. The more that people can bring attention to the fact that Calvinists are really not required to slam another movement's doctrine in order to feel content in the world today they better off they'll be. It just makes Calvinist's look stupid when they point the finger at everyone else but aren't willing to look in the mirror and see their own fallacies.
rev.'s "catholic" spirit?
Here are remarks by the "rev." from his web site on March 29, 2008:
>>
Genuine evangelical Christianity never fosters an exclusive spirit, but a catholic one. Those who claim to be advocates of truth, yet consistently lack grace, mercy and love in their attitudes towards other believers - referring to them constantly with such labels as “heretics” and denouncing them incessantly in mocking tones - have strayed from Scripture (1 John 4:7-21).
>>
But the fact is, on the Flyswatter "rev." has demonstrated an "exclusive spirit" in regard to Mitt Romney, a Mormon, who professes to believe on Christ as Savior.
Our brother's "catholic spirit" seems to extend to Pedobaptists who claim they were "regenerated" in infancy, but not to another professor who is in a religious affiliation with which "rev." differs on certain issues. Evidently, the Pedobaptist doctrine that "covenant children" inherit regeneration is not "heresy" in "rev.'s" book, so those who believe this yet say they "believe on Christ as Savior" is within what "rev." calls "genuine evangelical Christianity."
Despite "rev's" categorization, we still say that one who believes on Christ as Savior is in the category of John 3:14-18, regardless of his religious affiliation or lack of any religious affiliation. We simply do not believe that a religious affiliation takes priority over John 3:14-18.
Post a Comment
<< Home