J.I. (Calvinist) Packer's "Knowing God"

SP , You Are Still Out On Your Weak Limb

Your attitude toward others here who have had much more patience than I could ever muster is disgraceful . Change you tude' & tune .

BTW , you need to periodically consult a dictionary for the spelling and meaning of words . To accuse TC-G of being salacious toward you is a bit on the ridiculous side of things Mr.SP .

 

Sorry for jumping to conclusions about your questions. I thought you were being sarcastic. Your questions here are good ones, and they get to the heart of the matter.

J. I. Packer is a Calvinist, and so we would expect he would use a more or less Calvinistist definition of regeneration, and, in fact, in the quote from Packer's theology given previously we can see that he does. Packer says that regeneration is

In other words, being regenerated is getting a new heart that desires new things, and those new desires express themselves in a positive response to the gospel.

Elsewhere in the quote, Packer equates regeneration with the new birth, effectual calling, and illumination as to the truth and the significance of the gospel.

So, given that Packer defines regeneration as God renovating the heart, I think it's fair to say that when he talks about God "renewing the blinded heart", he is talking about regeneration. That's why I put regeneration as the explanation of renewing the blinded heart in the original Packer quote from the opening post.

He also says that regeneration expresses itself as a positive response to the gospel, and he also equates it with "the effectual call" (the call that always elicits a positive response), so I think it's fair to equate the phrase "convince men's consciences of the truth of the gospel" with regeneration, too.

That regeneration is monergistic, according to Packer, means that it is "entirely the work of God the Holy Spirit." That's why I explained, in my first post, that when Packer says "The Holy Spirit, by his own work," he is talking about monergism.

No, he doesn't, and he doesn't mean it in the same way Packer does either. Skypair, of couse, would probably say that regeneration is getting a new heart, but he believes it comes as a result of someone believing the gospel. Packer, on the other hand, says regeneration is the cause of someone believing the gospel. Skypair's definition is called synergism: both the person being regenerated and the Holy Spirit are involved in bringing about regeneration. The person believes, and so the Holy Spirit regenerates.

Packer's definition is called monergism: The Spirit alone is invoved in bringing about regeneration. The Spirit regenerates (It's a divine prerogative, to us Packer's phrase), and as a result of that work of the Spirit, the person believes the gospel.

But when you interpret someone's writings, you have to use their own definitions. Using Packer's own definitions, Packer's post doesn't say what Skypair says it does in his opening post.

He means proving. Notice that the convincing done by the Spirit makes it so that "the gospel cannot but sweep him off his feet." The person being regenerated knows is bowled over, by the beauty of the gospel.

I hope that helps explain things a bit for you.

 

I'm not trying to derail this thread. I was just curious as to who said this? This is how I've interpreted this passage as well and you are the first one I've found who believed the same thing.

 

Easy. Just make the point and don't support it. I have, however, supported in way too many posts previously as we have discussed this same thing.

I didn't.

No.

Absurd question. Calvinism does make sense and is clearly taught in Scripture.

Will you listen this time? The thousands of previous explanations have fallen on deaf ears. Why should I explain it again when the previous ones didn't do any good?

Yes, I think most would agree with this.

Regeneration always works in conjunction with the gospel. The only people who disagree with this, to my knowledge, arer hyper Calvinists such as the Primitive Baptists. The Bible is pretty clear that they are wrong.

You do misunderstand conversion. Conversion is not understanding. Conversion is faith and repentance.

Regeneration is the sovereign, unilateral work of the HOly Spirit in which he gives spiritual life to the spiritually dead in conjunction with the communication of the word about Christ.

 

We are not hyper-Calvinists, because we are not Calvinists.
Our understanding of the Doctrine of Grace differ from Calvinists, or hyper-Calvinists.

If you say we are hyper-Calvinists because we do not subscribe to missions, then you have a limited idea of what Primitive Baptists believe about missions.

If you say we are hyper-Calvinists because we do not believe in preaching the gospel to get people "saved", then you have a limited idea of what we believe about salvation, or the gospel.

So, please keep your "titling" to yourselves.

 

Relax, PB. You of all people should know that I usually include in my remarks that Primitive Baptists usually don't even claim to be Calvinists. The real difference in soteriology is that you deny that regeneration and salvation takes places in connection with the Word.

I don't believe you are hyperCalvinist becuase you dont' believe in missions. You are hyperCalvinist because you believe in the sovereignty of God in salvation but do not believe that one has to believe in order to be saved. That presents some insurmountable problems for your theology in terms of Scripture, but nonetheless, it is what you and others here have described yourselves as believing. You are very heavily dependent on John Gill, as I recall, who was a hyperCalvinist.

If I am incorrect on that, forgive me, but realize that everything I know about primitive Baptists has come from folks like you on the Baptist Board.

Forget the titles if you wish, but they are used because they describe something. It reminds me of people who are Pelagian or semi-Pelagian but don't want the title. It doesn't matter whether you accept it. It is how the term has historically been used.

 

PL , please do not continue to perpetuate the myth that John Gill was a hyper-Calvinist .

 

Most Calvinists I know believe that regeneration occurs in conjunction with the preaching of the gospel.

What you've said here is just the opposite of what Packer says in his quotes. Packer says the Holy Spirit changes the heart, and that convinces people of the truth of the gospel, which cannot but sweep him off his feet with wonder and joy. There is no responding or not responding, but only responding "with wonder and joy." That's what "cannot but" means: It is impossible to do otherwise than be swept of our feet (according to Packer) with wonder and joy at the truth and significance of the gospel.

Monergistic doesn't mean it's the first work of the Holy Spirit. It means it's the whole work of the Holy Spirit. Look it up.

I haven't read what TCGreek says, so I can't say what he told you.

Someone who is monergistic (and Packer says he is) believes that we are inactive in regeneration. We exercise faith in response to regeneration. And yes, faith is necessary for salvation, but our faith does not participate in our regeneration, it is a result of our regeneration.

Then you don't understand the quotes you quoted.

That the heart is changed results in an understanding of the significance and value of the gospel.

Normatively, at least, the Holy Spirit works regeneration in conjunction with the hearing of the gospel. Why is that curious?

In reverse from what you believe, yes. That's the whole point of what I wrote above.

Yes.

No. You are converted, therefore you understand the gospel. You are converted therefore you know God—knowing that is not just knowledge of facts about God, but the sort of knowing that trusts and loves God)

The cause is the work of the Holy Spirit. As Packer says in your OP quote, it is "His own almighty work of renewing the blinded heart. It is the sovereign prerogative of Christ's Spirit..."

And no, people can't discern it beforehand. They can, however, see the results of it. That's the whole point of what Jesus says in John 3 about the work of the Spirit in the new birth:

In the work of the new birth, the Spirit goes where he wishes, (or as Packer says, at his "prerogative", and we hear his sound. We see the results of his presence, but we don't call him down by what we do any more than we call down the wind by what we do.[

 

... Yes, some peoople don't like it when their heroes are pointed out for what they believe. Gill denied duty faith, which is one of the key mark of a hyperCalvinist. Nettles argues that Gill wan't a hyper Calvinist but was a precursor to them. That is a distinction without a difference however. Hyper Calvinism holds to a number of key beliefs, one of which is the denial of duty faith. It would be hard to look at the theology of Gill and deny that he is a hyperCalvinist.

 

PL , the so-called "modern question" was not raised in Gill's time . He did not participate in it . Nettles , who is very knowledgeable about Gill says that Gill has been unfairly categorized . I agree .

Please show me evidence that Doctor Gill denied the ramifications of Matthew 28:18-20 for instance . Give me evidence that he said that people should not repent and believe the Gospel .

 

From Gill's Mouth

Here is what Gill actually said.


"...Ver. 19. Go ye therefore, etc.] Into all the world; some into one place, and
some into another; since his power and authority, and so now the
commission he gave them, reached every where: before it was confined to
Judea, but now it is extended to all the nations of the world; (see
<401006>Matthew 10:6,7 <411615>Mark 16:15),
and teach all nations; Jews and Gentiles, first the one, and then the other,
the doctrines of the Gospel, and the ordinances of it; whatever they had
learned from Christ, or were ordered by him, or “disciple all nations”:
make them disciples by teaching them; or, as the Persic version, by way of
explanation, adds, “bring them to my religion and faith”: not that they were
able to do this of themselves, but they were to teach men externally, or
outwardly minister the word, whilst the Spirit of God internally applied it,
and taught, and made men true disciples of Christ: and they are such, who
have learned to know themselves, their sin, and lost estate by nature; to
deny themselves, both sinful and righteous self; who have learnt to know

Christ, and the way of righteousness, peace, pardon, life, and salvation by
him; and who are taught and enabled to part with all for Christ, and to bear
all for his sake, and to believe in him, and give up themselves to him, and
follow him whithersoever he goes:..."

 

That is not what I wrote. I said, "regeneration occurs in conjunction with the preaching of the gospel." I didn't say the facts of the gospel are used to regenerate.

Let me put it another way: Regeneration occurs concurrently with the true understanding of the significance and value of the gospel message, so normatively, it occurs in the presence of the proclaimed gospel. But the facts of the gospel do not work regeneration; but rather, regeneration causes the facts of the gospel to take on great value and significance to the one being regenerated.

Yes. Regeneration changes the thoughts of the one who is regenerated. What was previously not valued is now valued because the person has been regenerated. What was previously not loved is now loved, because the person has been regenerated. The regenerated person becomes a new creature with new thoughts, new loves, new values.

But Packer doesn't say the part I put in bold. You added that. He says the blinded heart is convinced of the gospel. He does not say that it is renewed by the truth. Prepositions are important. The meaning of the words hangs on the choice of prepostion.

It gives the renewed heart the reason to trust Christ.

Cut the snittiness, please, if you want me to continue to respond to you.

Where does Packer say that the person is convinced and then is regenerated? Where did you get that? Why have you added that?

Up until that bolded phrase that you've inserted, most Calvinists would agree with what you've written. They just think that being convinced by the Spirit comes from being regenerated by the Spirit: Regeneration convinces and so the person believes.

This statement is true, depending on what you mean by "having a part in." In the quote from TCGreek posted, Packer says that faith is the fruit of regeneration, and not it's cause:

So if by "having a part in" you mean "brings about" or "helps to cause" you have misunderstood Packer. If by "having a part in" you mean "is the fruit of" or "is a result of", then you are correct.

Conversion is a change of heart and mind. And yes, because of conversion, we believe something different than we used to. And who says someone believes before then have heard anything? Certainly not me! Normatively, conversion occurs by a sovereign act of the Holy Spirit in the presence of the gospel message. The gospel message gives the content of the faith. The conversion causes the faith in the gospel message.

 

Rippon,

My understanding of Gill is not that he said peopel should not repent and believe the gospel. My understanding is that it is not necessary. I don't think it is mere coincidence that people who deny duty faith quote Gill as an authority. But that isn't a major point so I won't continue it here.

Most would say that regeneration brings spiritual understanding (not grammatical or logical, but spiritual).

 

PL , I do not deny duty faith ( just as Gill did not deny it ) . It is the duty of all people to repent and believe . However , they can't do so under their own power . Unlike Pelagians I do say that the LORD commands what mere mortals can not perform . All people are accountable -- responsible before God for their sins .

 

you sure Gill did not deny duty faith? I have read several who say that he did. I am almost positive that primitives do.