Dr. Packer On Anglicanism…

You may also like...

69 Responses

  1. Duane Arnold says:

    Michael

    I still smile when I remember that Packer was “the younger colleague” of James Atkinson and F.F. Bruce!

  2. Michael says:

    He has been and is a model of the Anglican ethos…I thank God for him.

  3. Duane Arnold says:

    You know, it’s fun to think about Michael Ramsey supervising James on his M.Phil., FF Bruce just took up his first teaching post, Packer was finishing his research degree while Henry and Owen Chadwick just started posts at Oxford and Cambridge… They all knew each other – high church, low church, catholic, evangelical and all Anglicans…

  4. Em says:

    It seems to me that dear Packer might be speaking to clergy, not laity?
    What is described might be dangerous for an immature saint… One could end up a JW or, ahem, “Latter Day Saint,” a 7 th Day Adventist even .. ? … 🙍

  5. Jean says:

    The Apostle Paul would have made a terrible Anglican.

  6. Duane Arnold says:

    Em

    I think he is speaking to laity as well. Think for instance of CS Lewis who would have felt very comfortable with this… As to the immature saint, that is the purpose of catechesis (or teaching).

  7. Duane Arnold says:

    Jean

    I’m sure that Paul was a Lutheran… LCMS or Wisconsin only 😁!

  8. Jean says:

    Not saying that, Duane, but he clearly is not a cafeteria (or department store) Christian.

    He had no problem writing stuff like:

    “But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach to you a gospel contrary to the one we preached to you, let him be accursed.”

  9. Babylon's Dread says:

    I have always admired the Anglican communion for great souls like Packer and Stott

    I went to hear John Stott speak and then had him speak to me privately over a question about missions in which his words cut like a welder’s torch as he suggested that western missionaries might lack moral authority to do missions where our repentance had not been fulfilled concerning race.

    I heard David Pytches the bishop who hosted John Wimber during the explosive days of Wimber’s ministry in England and marveled that he wrote a book on the gifts in which he dared to write a chapter about raising the dead. I believe Pytches still lives.

    Packer’s book on the Sovereignty of God and Evangelism was one of my first theological reads and introduced me to the diversity of thought in the church of England.

    And

    At my right hand is my signed copy of Jesus and the Victory of God handed to me in NC by Bishop Wright in 96 when the American edition was released.

    My shelves are filled with these and other Anglican expositors and bishops.

  10. Michael says:

    I’m over the top angry.
    OVER THE TOP
    Lutheran Hour is coming to a crashing halt on this blog.

  11. Duane Arnold says:

    BD

    Yes, he is still alive (retired) and his son-in-law is a bishop in the UK!

  12. Steve says:

    Questions about Anglicanism. Do you they believe in apostolic succession of bishops? The episcopal polity seems similar to what I experienced at CC and with that in mind, I’m curious if the debate of congregational rule is one that is ever entertained seriously in Anglican circles. Finally, I’m curious if multiculturalism is an ideal or vision in the communion to any degree?

  13. Michael says:

    Both as a Reformed person and now as an Anglican I have posted Lutheran works and linked to Lutheran resources…doing so in the spirit of what I learned from Dr. Packer.

    I do not agree with either the Lutheran doctrine or it’s ethos, but in the spirit of ecumenism and in the hope that some would find value in the teachings, I gave them a platform.

    My thanks for doing so is the insult above to one of my dearest mentors and one of the greatest theological minds of the last hundred years, as well as to my communion.

    It will not happen again.

    Were I not consumed with caring for my cat I would go on…

  14. Babylon's Dread says:

    Thanks Duane

  15. Jean says:

    Apparently one saying he wants discussion is harder than actually discussing. If you’re your proud of your mentor’s analogy, why not defend with Scripture instead of getting offended?

  16. Michael says:

    Jean,

    We do not lead with insults.
    I will deal with this when I can and when and if my rage abates.

  17. Duane Arnold says:

    Steve

    As Michael is occupied, yes there is the concept of Apostolic succession, but in reality it is really succession in office. Bishop have a diocesan wide governing council made up of clergy and lay members to whom they are accountable. In the parish, there is a parish council or vestry elected by the congregation. The senior warden is considered the lay head of the congregation. To your last point, multiculturalism is somewhat thrust upon Anglicans as the majority of adherents now live in Africa, Asia and the Indian subcontinent!

  18. Duane Arnold says:

    Addendum –

    Steve, as an example of multiculturalism, something I experienced in Detroit, NYC and the UK – when Indian Anglicans approach the altar at communion, they remove their shoes because in their culture they are treading upon “holy ground” – I always thought it rather wonderful…

  19. Em says:

    The Apostle Paul a terrible Anglican? He would not have been Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, Lutheran, etc. ! ! ! His doctrine was spot on and flawless. Jesus Christ was his teacher, was He not?
    Hope Miss Kitty is coming along on her recovery. Wasn’t Michael’s hand scheduled for today? A full plate, indeed.

    The fires of last summer have brought hungry cougars down into our neighborhood! A mile down the road a neighbor just lost a goat. My daughter goes out in the early morning darkness to take care of her horse. My faith is being tested… Prayer much appreciated 😔

  20. Duane Arnold says:

    Em,

    Always in our prayers…

  21. bob1 says:

    Cheap shot, Jean. Sure, congratulate for being clever, perhaps. In the meantime, you’ve alienated the good folks on here with your bombastic style.

    Isn’t there a Lutheran blogsite you can populate?

  22. Em says:

    Thank you, Dr. Duane… No predatory animal scares me more than the cougar….

  23. Jean says:

    bob1, the cheap shot was in the quotation in the article saying that people who don’t see things like the author are immature. This is the same author who accused Christians of quasi magic who believe in the real presence of Christ in the Supper.

    Alienation? The Gospel has been alienating people for 2,000 years. It’s a scandal to the Jews and foolishness to the Greeks.

  24. victorious says:

    Jean, the actual words of Packer:

    “Theological reflection is discouraged rather than helped on its way. That makes, I believe, for real immaturity. ”

    Packer was pointing out that he found that Anglicanism promoted the welcoming of questions that prompted theological reflection and discussion that in his mind helped overcome immaturity as a whole. Dude we all need to constantly mature. Why not allow for a conversational ethic that is practiced in community that allows for just that? Consider the ethical goals of Paul who desired for every person to overcome and attain to full maturity.

  25. Michael says:

    Em,

    Miss Kitty is struggling badly and we’re headed back to the emergency room.
    You’re in our prayers and caution with cougars is wise…

  26. Duane Arnold says:

    victorious

    Well said…

  27. Michael says:

    She just starting eating…God bless those who pray for an old mans cat…

  28. Michael says:

    She ate and now she’s grooming…we’ll get to tomorrow and the regular vet.

  29. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Hmmm, I have been traveling all day and just read the article and comments. Why the hit on Lutherans? Jean made no comment or comparison to Lutherans.
    The only mention of Lutheran was the snark by Duane and bob 1.
    I find it odd.

  30. Michael says:

    MLD,

    We all know that Jean is writing from a Lutheran viewpoint, just like we knew you were.
    What’s obvious is that discussion with the LCMS is impossible unless one wants to believe that they and they alone are the one true church and they only have the Gospel.
    I don’t believe that.
    Further, I’m done trying and I think you’ll both be better served on Ryan’s site where insulting a wonderful man of God like Dr. Packer may be met with more approval than I will allow.

  31. Xenia says:

    when Indian Anglicans approach the altar at communion, they remove their shoes because in their culture they are treading upon “holy ground” – I always thought it rather wonderful…<<<

    There are several Orthodox groups of African ethnicity who take off their shoes before entering Church. I would do the same except I don't want to draw attention to myself.

    May the Lord bless dear Miss Kitty and protect those up in Em's neck of the world from dangerous beasts.

    Everyone knows the Apostle Paul was Orthodox.

  32. Xenia says:

    (I am not saying the African Orthodox people are trying to draw attention to themselves! )

  33. Jerod says:

    Ecumenism – It must leave one hungry picking all the bones out of so little meat. On what grounds do we stop collaborating – what terms and conditions constitute “a different gospel”?

    Dr Packer was not the first to use the textile example regarding ecumenism:

    Dueteronomy Something – “You shall not wear a material mixed of wool and linen together.”

    “Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

    12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

    13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

    14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;

    15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;

    16 Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.

    17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:

    18 Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;

    19 And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel…”

    Paul was dressing us for war while Dr. Packer what was dressing us for brunch!

    If not military attire than maybe we’re better off in matching rags which cover completely than a mixture of dept store clothes ill fitted. The real wardrobe is given at the wedding feast.

    “For our exhortation does not come from error or impurity or by way of deceit; but just as we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel, so we speak, not as pleasing men, but God who examines our hearts.”

    “Your boasting is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? Clean out the old leaven so that you may be a new lump, just as you are in fact unleavened. For Christ our Passover also has been sacrificed.”

    Finally, regarding Jean,

    shouldnt the Anglican’s in the room be encouraging theological discussion and tough questions?

  34. Jerod says:

    Sorry for the lack of verse references but I figured everyone would know them quite well.

  35. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    Michael, you write from a strict Anglican point of view, Xenia from EO, Josh from SBC – none of us offended.
    You on the other hand, and I pointed this out to you earlier in the week seem to have developed a thin skin type of sensitivity. Are you actually expecting people to avoid writing from their beliefs and practice?
    So if one disagrees with Packer that is considered an insult?
    btw, I have only commented on Ryan’s page one time – so I don’t know what that is about – he is not a Lutheran.
    But I will hush and let you care for your cat.

  36. Jerod says:

    bob1

    I disagree about Jean. As I have obviated mytheological ignorance all over this website, Gene has been gracious well folks such as yourself Michael and MLD have been very bombastic, caustic and snarky. I think you’d agree.

  37. Jerod says:

    Jean, as in Dragon,
    Not Gene, as in Hackman.

  38. Michael says:

    Jerod,

    If you believe that your sect and your sect alone are the one true people of God and you alone have the true gospel…then you shouldn’t be ecumenical.
    I look at 33,000 Protestant denominations, plus the Roman Catholics, the Orthoidox, and the Lutherans.

    Many of them have a deep regard for scripture and tradition…yet they disagree.

    As an Anglican I can learn from all of them without adopting all their doctrine and practice…which to me is proper as they all bring something to the table.

    There are Anglicans who are almost RC, some who are close to Orthodoxy, some evangelical, some Reformed.
    We’re more concerned with worship than nailing down every doctrinal point.

    I can appreciate all without agreeing with them at every turn.

    If that’s odious to you, you’re in the wrong place…because I intend on making much of all the flavors here that will play nice in the sandbox.

  39. Michael says:

    MLD,

    There is no strictly Anglican point of view.
    If you were to ask my dear friend and mentor Duane for a list of his top 100 favorite theologians, Packer wouldn’t be on the list.
    He’d be close to the top of mine.

    Still, he speaks of him with the respect due a man who’s given his life to the church.

    Most of us here come with a heart to share, not to correct or fight.
    I’ve learned much from Xenia…even from you.

    I’m tired, however, of brawling with Lutherans.
    You guys are certain you’re right.
    You might be…but this isn’t working.

  40. Duane Arnold says:

    Michael

    We all only “know in part”… you cannot hope to move those that believe they “know it all…”

  41. Jean says:

    Michael,

    You say you are tired of brawling with Lutherans, but it’s the Word of God you’re brawling with. It just so happens that you have a couple Lutheran friends left here with the tenacity to defend the Word here. I imagine there are some others here who don’t care enough about you to question you here. Hopefully, there are a few left who will step up and defend the clarity and sufficiency of Scripture.

    Your and Duane’s comments on my article laughably discount the validity of the Reformation. Is there anything you’re willing to believe besides a partisan identity?

    Packer wrote:

    “They have a vision of Christendom as a fragmented reality with flashes of truth and wisdom scattered all across the board.”

    That’s about the weakest trust in the Word of God imaginable. Why is your vision fragmented? Why haven’t you obtained the truths in the Scriptures? Is the Word of God a puzzle or enigma or obscure to you?

    How can you assure anyone of anything? I appeal to you to step back from the ditch of agnosticism.

  42. Michael says:

    “You say you are tired of brawling with Lutherans, but it’s the Word of God you’re brawling with. ”

    That is the kind of rank arrogance that I’m talking about.
    Somehow, God blessed your sect alone with the Gospel and the correct interpretation of Scripture.

    You’re not “defending the Word”, you’re defending your narrow interpretation of it.

    I’m nowhere near agnosticism…and I consider that an insult to me and the God whose kept me through things you have no notion of.

    My faith is in Christ alone, not a set of doctrinal points.

    You need to move on in peace…as this has huge potential to become very contentious.

  43. Michael says:

    You may also want to actually read Packer on Scripture…he did write the Chicago Statement on inerrancy.
    He’s published many scholarly volumes defending the historicity and inerrancy of Scripture…

  44. Jean says:

    I interacted with the attached article. The quotation is what Duane chose to give us.

  45. Xenia says:

    but it’s the Word of God you’re brawling with. <<<

    Oh good grief.

  46. Captain Kevin says:

    “We’re more concerned with worship than nailing down every doctrinal point.”

    If only that were the concern of every follower of Christ.

  47. A Believer says:

    In 1 Corinthians 8:2, Paul says if anyone thinks that he knows something, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know it.

    It seems to me that he is calling for tremendous humility in our handling of the truth.

  48. bob1 says:

    but it’s the Word of God you’re brawling with.

    Horse puckey

  49. Michael says:

    The unifying feature of Anglicanism is our worship from the Book of Common Prayer…which is based on Scripture and the catholic (universal) traditions of the church.

    Theologically, I can learn from Packer (who is thoroughly Reformed), Xenia, (Anglicans love Orthodoxy) Roman Catholic scholars, my friends in Calvary Chapel, Josh the Baptist, and the Lutherans I’ve hosted for years.

    The tradition has a host of theological giants of it’s own…for the last couple of years I’ve drank deeply from Anglo-Catholic divines.

    I’m free to read, discuss, ponder, accept, reject or just think about “the whole store” as Packer would put it.

    That makes it a home for me…if you’ve found your home in other places I’m glad for you…and affirm your place in the family of God.

  50. victorious says:

    John Wesley affirmed the doctrinal content of the Anglican catechism, the devotional/ developmental quality of the book of prayer and the social unity of the faith by requiring all Methodists to participate in tbe Anglican communion.

  51. Em says:

    As i read the Lutes who post here, i’m sure that they are doing their level best to be honest, i feel that they are focused on Lutheran dogma and calling it the true interpretation of Scripture… well, sometimes it is and i pray they stay confident in our Canon as being the best we’ve got, but nevertheless there is something dangerously arrogant in asserting that yours is the absolute and final interpretation of God’s Word…
    enjoy every Truth, every nugget that the Holy Spirit reveals, but always “as a little child,” humbly, knowing that the depths of the Truths are a lifetime of food for the soul… no new thing under the sun? yes, but we will live our whole lives without discovering everything… even under the sun 🙂

  52. Jean says:

    A theologian doesn’t pan for golden doctrine nor shop for it in a department store. The Christian doctrine has been developed and delivered by the evangelists and apostles. It does not evolve.

    “For an overseer, as God’s steward, must be above reproach…. He must hold firm to the trustworthy word as taught, so that he may be able to give instruction in sound doctrine and also to rebuke those who contradict it.”

    Paul thought Titus and those he appointed had the sound doctrine.
    Progressivism, by contrast, teaches that truth (or theories of truth) and wisdom evolve with the progress of man. That’s a dangerous lie if applied to theology.

    There is truth to such thinking only in matters below us. For example, man builds more advanced technology.

    But in matters above us, that is, between us and God, there is no progress. There is only man the sinner, and God who justifies man the sinner by grace through faith in Jesus Christ our Redeemer. There is no progress because doctrine is a matter of faith, not empirical inquiry. Faith is a gift.

    God’s Word is the only place where grace unto salvation is taught. Christ is the only Savior for sinners before God. His Word does not change; it endures forever. The doctrine of salvation is clearly taught in Scripture. The doctrine doesn’t change.

  53. Jerod says:

    Michael

    Whose sect, friend?

    What is the argument here?
    Seems like both sides have points,

    And some just want to score.

    Concerning ecumenism
    I said we all get the real outfits at the wedding feast. Therefore I don’t understand how you guys get your panties in such a twist over things that you admit you don’t understand. That’s the crap I used to pull and you and a few others made me wear my ass for a hat – probably rightfully so. It taught me two things:
    What Peter saw in his vision of the unclean animals applies to all who claim “Jesus is Lord!” I certainly cannot say who is saved nor who is living in the kingdom even though they believe in magic in the eucharistic and what not. There is much to learn from other thinkers and believers.

    Further, what you (and I and others) have tried somewhat to avoid here but seem to let get the better of you/us is the third part of being given up in Romans 1, the “final straw”, as it were. Think about it for a minute:

    “:21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened…

    … :28 And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil;

    full of envy,
    murder,
    strife,
    deceit,
    malice; 
    they are gossips, 
    slanderers,
    haters of God,
    insolent,
    arrogant,
    boastful,

    [Remember what Jesus said?]

    inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 
    without understanding,
    untrustworthy,
    unloving,
    unmerciful; 

    and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.”

    I used to think it was talking about homosexuality and the gay agenda, and trans issues and supreme courts.

    Now I know it’s talking about that but more to the Christian individual at work, marriage, church,

    Facebook, Twitter, Google,

    michaelnewnham.c om, patheos, lighthousetrails (yep, went there), etc, etc.

    We encourage and support the very worst in ourselves over really dumb stuff. Stuff that prayer for one another will help us grow into and out of. Stuff that a phone call would fix. Or coffee, or beer, if that’s not too taboo.

    I feel like you know this and that’s why this site exists. To get over dumb crap and unify in love for one another and the truths we have in common,

    Jesus is Lord, We’ve been redeemed, He’s coming again, Every knee will bow

    That’s an ecumenism I can support. But there is no meat in picking apart Packer by fielding

    your sects

    against one another, friends.

    I love you guys, so stop! Take a minute to thank Jesus and take a breath.

    You have a few here who poison the well on the Anglican side and the Lutheran side. A few others who just like to grab a stick and beat on whomever is lying on the ground bleeding.

    I have witnessed some friends of yours part recently over the bitter water that has stagnated under a particular haughty air. It’s contagious.

    Might be worth looking into some kind of aggragate and ferreting it out.

    This may not be a church but it is, or should be, the kingdom. A higher calling … !

    Thanks for your patience with me, friend, and the wonderful reply (though I think “odious” is not the correct term).

    Preaching to myself, as always.
    Warmest greetings 🙂

  54. Steve says:

    Michael and Duane,

    Both of you guys do a great job explaining, advocating and representing Anglicism. I might check one out. Not sure if there is a good Anglican church in my area but at least its on my radar now because of you.

  55. Steve says:

    Jean,

    Although I agree with you that Doctrine doesn’t change, I do wonder why any of us listen to our own favorite theologians. I suppose we can just study the bible and nothing else but even when CC claims to do that, what they end up doing is quoting Chuck Smith and there favorite commentary of the Bible.

  56. Duane Arnold says:

    Steve,

    Many thanks. As always, I recommend the book, “The Gospel and the Catholic Church” by Michael Ramsey. I does not provide all the answers, but it does give food for thought…

  57. Em says:

    Jean @ 11:15: “A theologian doesn’t pan for golden doctrine nor shop for it in a department store. The Christian doctrine has been developed and delivered by the evangelists and apostles. It does not evolve.
    …..But in matters above us, that is, between us and God, there is no progress…….”

    Ahh, but there is progress in our understanding of absolute truth… these are the nuggets, the building blocks of an individual’s Faith… has nothing to do with panning for gold among the gravel bed in a cold stream 🙂

  58. Jean says:

    Steve,

    “Although I agree with you that Doctrine doesn’t change, I do wonder why any of us listen to our own favorite theologians.”

    That’s a good question. First let me say that Scripture is sufficiently clear and simple in the doctrine of faith, that one can hear or read the Bible and be brought to faith without any interpretive gloss whatsoever. Take the Apostle’s Creed, for example. All of the doctrine in the Creed is laid out crystal clear in the Bible.

    Beyond the doctrine of faith, I can’t speak for everyone. For me, I read other theologians for a few reasons: (1) I am not fluent in the original languages, so I appreciate the work scholars provide to help people like me understand the text better in places where various Bible translations take different approaches. (2) I am interested in the history of the Church’s reception of a text. For example, in the Lord’s Prayer, “give us this day our daily bread,” historically, has the Church read that as referring to the Eucharist or ordinary bread? I give weight (not inerrancy ) to how the ancient Church interpreted the Scriptures. (3) I use other theologians as a check against a bad or biased reading by me. I personally am fallible and come to the text with presuppositions just as much as the next guy. (4) I haven’t spent a lifetime studying the Scriptures, so the great theologians of history are an excellent resource for seeing how the Old and New Testaments fit into one grand narrative and for showing other nuances in a text. We should be finding Christ everywhere in the Bible, not just in the New Testament.

    The biggest concern I have with over reliance on a theologian (other than the original writers of the Scriptures) is that they become for us like infallible or inerrant writers; they’re not. From there we become thin skinned and partisan if anyone disagrees with our inerrant and infallible theological resource.

    Traditions are not like countries or sporting teams. We don’t cheer for them against our opponents. We don’t side with them just because we like them. If they are good, they should be pointing only one direction; not to their self, but to Jesus Christ. Our only concern should be not out own reputation, comfort or glory, but that Christ may be glorified in our doctrine.

    Paul actually writes that God desires us to justify Him. How is that? He desires that we justify Him in His Word, not in our pets or the rustling leaves of a tree or in some other religion full of really nice people, but in His Word, which teaches that Jesus Christ is the image of God and the Savior of the Word; the only Gate to heaven.

    So, theologians are fine, but over-reliance or misuse of theological writings (not speaking here of the Bible) is not okay. As Isaiah fifty-five says that God does not send out His Word in vain; it doesn’t come back empty; it does that for which He purposes it. It is effective all by itself to convert a sinner to a saint.

    When churches, any churches, lose the doctrine of Scripture, that it is the effective Word, which works salvation, and lower its status to that of a text book (even the greatest text book ever written), they have fiddled with the means of grace. From there it is a short walk to the next error: churches may lose the doctrine of the Sacraments. What’s left? Man has to figure stuff out for himself, exercise his free will, and make the right decisions to be saved.

    For that you need a guru. After all, who would trust their self with such an important decision? So you can find yourself with a celebrity pastor or theologian elevated to a Moses like figure. How do you judge this guru to make sure you have the right one? How many books has he sold? How many members does he have? How many programs and satellite campuses does he have? Is he a great speaker? Does he tell good jokes and make you laugh? Are there compelling testimonies from his followers? What about the worship experience? is it spirit filled with hypnotic music, etc.

  59. Duane Arnold says:

    “The biggest concern I have with over reliance on a theologian (other than the original writers of the Scriptures) is that they become for us like infallible or inerrant writers; they’re not.”

    I would include Luther in that assessment…

  60. Jean says:

    I agree with you Duane.

  61. Martin Luther's Disciple says:

    I will check back later I’m on my way to my Friday morning men’s group Bible opinion study. 😉

  62. Michael says:

    For crying out loud…
    The church has always, generation to generation, built on the work of theologians who went before.
    Calvin and Luther leaned heavily on Augustine, Bernard, Chrysostym, and the church fathers.
    Calvin actually memorized the fathers…
    Theologians since have built on their work and that of those who came after them.
    We stand on their shoulders today and glean from the theologians of our own generation.
    Their works are not infallible,but they sure are helpful.
    The work wasn’t finished in the 16th century…

  63. Josh The Baptist says:

    If we’re all honest, God will have to overlook a ton of bad theology, incorrect doctrine, and faulty beliefs if he doesn’t want to be alone for eternity.

  64. Michael says:

    Josh,

    Exactly!

  65. ( |o )====::: says:

    “Friday morning men’s group Bible opinion study”
    LOL!

  66. bob1 says:

    “Friday morning men’s group Bible opinion study”

    Protestants…

  67. Em says:

    bob1 @ 11:55
    I take umbrage at that comment. 😾 ☺ ….e

  68. Michael says:

    I want to go back to why I posted this piece in the first place.
    It was celebratory for me…and an invitation to all the different sects represented here that we can fellowship together without compromising our convictions,but in an attitude of grace and humility.
    It didn’t work out that way…but we can keep trying.

  69. Duane Arnold says:

    Michael

    The attempt to be gracious is never a wasted effort, as Dr. Packer himself has taught and modeled…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.