Reflections on Art and Spirituality by an Artist and Anglican Priest
Let me make sure I understand you, Father Anderson: you really didn't like that letter from Packer - right?Fr. Glenn
Man! I thought the very same thing when I read that. Shame on Mr. Virtue for publishing such a load of garbage!Mr. Packer is a LatCon in the worst sense. To him the Prayerbook is a proof text subject to his own scholarly authority whatever that may be. In an article concerning regeneration Mr. Packer had this to say, "The Fathers did not formulate the concept of regeneration precisely. They equated it, broadly speaking, with baptismal grace...The Fathers lost the Biblical understanding of the sacraments as signs to sir up faith and seals to confirm believers in possession of the blessings signified, and so came to regard baptism as conveying the regeneration which it signified (Titus 3:5) ex opere operato to those who did not obstruct its working."We should shake of the dust off our feet when dealing with this man and those that associate with his teaching.
I like much of Packer's devotional writings. "Knowing God" is a pretty good book, and he has a lively writing style. But I do not agree with his Calvinistic soteriology, nor do I see how it can be reconciled with with BCP (though I am willing to be persuaded).In general, I agree with DH... shake the dust off our feet and go about our own business!
David Virtue will publish anything as long as it meets two simply requirements. It must be1. sensational, and2. either partially or completely falseThe man needs to go away.
Thank you, Father. You have given me some words for expressing my general discontent with the writings of Packer (discontent since way back in my own youth, when our evangelical Bible church set was enamored of "Knowing God"). This has helped me.And your new blog's approach to the Faith and the world in which we live it looks like a good endeavor. I will check back often!
Along with you and the other commentators,I do not agree with everything that J.I.Packer writes. However,that being said,I believe he makes many good points in his various books and commentaries. He,like all humans,is flawed and makes mistakes. At best, I believe you and some of the other commentators misrepresented his position, and were not necessarily charitable.I am a traditional Anglican, but not an Anglo-Catholic even though for a period of time I did attend a church which, for lack of a better term, was quasi Anglo-Catholic. I found many sincere and genuine Christians there; however, I also encountered some Anglo-Catholics which seemed to be more interested in "form" than "substance", and were very condescending towards Anglicans that were not Anglo-Catholics.It is my opinion that many Anglo-Catholics can dish out criticism on others, but call for charity and can not take it when it is directed at them.
This was not written by Dr. Packer. You may disagree with Packer on many things, esp women's ordination (where he is wrong)--but this was not written by him, so do not smear him by using this rant that others posted in his name.
Strangely, today when I tried to pull up the article "Anglicanism: Protestant or Catholic" by James I. Packer by clicking on the reference to it in Gordon Anderson's article "J.I.Packer's Remarks Regarding Anglo-Catholicism" dated 8/20/07, I got a message that the article did not exist. However, I have a copy of this article which was posted by David Virtue on the VIRTUEONLINE website on 8/17/07. The website attributed the article to James I. Packer, written 8/15/07. It is no longer on the VIRTUEONLINE website.Apparently, Dr. Packer was not the author and it was removed from the website. Does anyone know who actually wrote the article and why this mixup (or deliberate deception) about the author happened?
Anonymous, my experience regarding AC's supposed elevation of form over substance has been the exact opposite.
Below is the website to go to if anyone is still interested in or does not know the origin of the article "Anglicanism:Protestant or Catholic" which had earlier been attributed to J.I. Packer.This is the website of The Protestant Alliance where this article can be found under "Traditional Anglicanism".www.reformer.org
I only saw this now, but remembering the article from back in the summer, I am very much relieved to know that Packer did not write it. I don't remember whether I posted a response to it anywhere or not, but if I did, I devoutly hope that it was charitable. If not, I should post somewhere (here will do) that I'm sorry.
Post a Comment