J.I. Packer's Doublespeak about Evangelism, Calvinism, and the Question of Who Can Repent

In Reformed theology, God, in the eternal past, elected those who would be saved and for whom Christ died, and either actively or passively chose the reprobate (the supralapsarian vs. infralapsarian debate), those who Christ did not die for and will be lost in eternity. Furthermore, in Calvinism, while all men are commanded to repent, God will only give the ability to repent/the gift of repentance to the elect and the elect only. I have discussed this and other topics in my paper:

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology 

I bring this up as the following from a well-known Calvinist, J.I. Packer, addressing evangelism and the (Reformed understanding of the) doctrine of God’s sovereignty, Packer engages in doublespeak and often argues like an Arminian, not a Calvinist, vis-a-vis the question of who can truly repent and accept the Gospel:

The belief that God is sovereign in grace does not affect the genuineness of the gospel invitations, or the truth of the gospel promises. Whatever we may believe about election, and, for that matter, about the extent of the atonement, the fact remains that God in the gospel really does offer Christ and promise justification and life to ‘whosoever will’. ‘Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.’ As God commands all men everywhere to repent, so God invites all men everywhere to come to Christ and find mercy. The invitation is for sinners only, but for sinners universally; it is not for sinners for a certain type only, reformed sinners, or sinners whose hearts have been prepared by a fixed minimum sorry for sin; but for sinners as such, just as they are . . .The fact that the gospel invitation is free and unlimited—‘sinners Jesus will receive’—‘come and welcome to Jesus Christ’—is the glory of the gospel as a revelation of divine grace . . . ‘hear also what Saint John saith. ‘If any man sin, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the propitiation for our sins’ (1 Jn. ii.I).

Why are these words ‘comfortable’? Because they are God’s words, and they are all true. They are the essential gospel. They are the promises and assurance which Christians who approach the Lord’s Table should come trusting. They are the word which the sacrament confirms. Note them carefully. Note first their substance. The object of faith which they present is not mere orthodoxy, not mere truth about Christ’s atoning death. It is not less than that, but it is more than that. It is the living Christ Himself, the perfect Saviour of sinners, who carries in Himself all the virtue of His finished work on the cross. ‘Come unto me . . . He is the propitiation for our sins.’ These promises direct our trust, not to the crucifixion as such, but to Christ crucified; not to His work in the abstract, but to Him who wrought it. And note second the universality of these promises. They offer Christ to all who need him, all ‘that truly turn to him’, any man who has sinned. None are shut out from mercy save those who shut themselves out through impenitence and unbelief.

Some fear that a doctrine of eternal election and reprobation involves the possibility that Christ will not receive some of those who desire to receive Him, because they are not elect. The ‘comfortable words’ of the gospel promises, however, absolutely exclude this possibility. As our Lord elsewhere affirmed, in emphatic and categorical terms: ‘Him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out’ (Jn. vi. 37).

It is true that God has from all eternity chosen whom He will save. It is true that Christ came specifically to save those whom the Father had given Him. But it is also true that Christ offers Himself freely to all men as their Saviour, and guarantees to bring to glory everyone who trusts in Him as such . . . The belief that God is sovereign in grace does not affect the responsibility of the sinner for his reaction to the gospel. Whatever we may believe about election, the fact remains that a man who rejects Christ thereby becomes the cause of his own condemnation. Unbelief in the Bible is a guilty thing, and unbelievers cannot excuse themselves on the grounds that they were not elect. The unbeliever was really offered life in the gospel, and could have had it if he would; he, and no-one but he, is responsible for the fact that he rejected it, and must now endure the consequences of rejecting it. (J.I. Packer, Evangelism and the Sovereignty of God [London: Inter-Varsity Fellowship, 1961], 100, 101-2, 104-5, italics in original, emphasis in bold added)

Robert Roberts on the Dynamic Relationship of Human and Divine Will

19^th century theologian Robert Roberts (1839-1898), was the second pioneer of the Christadelphian movement, next to its founder John Thomas (1805-1871). While I strongly disagree with much of Christadelphian theology (see my Listing of Articles on Christadelphian Issues), the following from his 1881 The Ways of Providence, discussing how God’s will and human free-will work together, without one negating or overpowering the other, were rather spot-on. Commenting on God changing his mind as a result of Ahab’s free-will actions, Roberts wrote:

A case of providence being affected and diverted by human action was furnished in the life of Ahab before he came to [his] unhappy end . .. .He appears to have been deeply impressed with Elijah’s having denounced his appropriation of the vineyard of Naboth. It is written that “when Ahab heard these words, he rent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his flesh, and fasted, and lay in sackcloth, and went softly”. It is the result of this attitude on Ahab’s part that constitutes the case in question. “The word of the Lord came to Elijah the Tishbite, saying, Seest thou how Ahab humbleth himself before me? Because he humbleth himself before me, I WILL NOT BRING THE EVIL IN HIS DAYS: but in his son’s days will I bring the evil upon his house” (1 Kings 21:28). If the repentant and humble attitude of a man like Ahab warded off an intended visitation of providential evil, we may learn that wisdom of that emendation of evil ways which is the constant inculcation of the Spirit of God calling to the sons of men in the scripture. We should never despair, but, confessing our sins and forsaking them, seek that mercy at the Father’s hand which at the last moment may defer appointed punishment. (Robert Roberts, The Ways of Providence As Authentically Illustrated in Bible History [6th ed.; Birmingham: The Christadelphian, 1955], 168-69)

Commenting on the covenant made with David, its importance, and it being established as a result of David’s free-will, Roberts noted:

This covenant occupies a prominent and important place in the economy of the divine purpose. David referred to it, in his last words, as affording the groundwork of “all his salvation and all his desire” (2 Sam. 23:5). Jehovah places importance upon it by offering to extend it to every one who submits to Him, saying “I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure (or covenanted) mercies of David” (Isa. 55:3). He refers impressively to it thus: “My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Once have I sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me” (Psa. 89:34-36). Peter also refers to it in his address on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:29); and Paul indirectly alludes to it in speaking of “the covenants of promise” to which the Gentiles are by nature strangers (Eph. 2:12).

Now the striking fact in the case as illustrative of the ways of providence, is that this covenant with David—one of the chief pillars, as we may say, of the city having foundations—was brought about, so far as David was concerned, by David’s own natural spontaneous meditations and intentions concerning the work of God. We are told that the Lord having given David rest from his enemies, he began to grow uneasy by the fact that while he dwelt in a palace, the ark of God was under a tent. He mentioned his feelings to Nathan the prophet, as much as to intimate that he begrudged his own personal comforts and enjoyments while the things of God were less well-appointed; and that he would like to put up a substantial edifice for the divine service and honour. Nathan encouraged David in his view: “Go, do all that is in thine heart; for the Lord is with thee” (2 Sam. 7:3). But that night, a different light was put upon the subject by the message that came to Nathan. David was forbidden to build the contemplated temple, Having shed much blood, he was declared unsuitable, in the divine fitness of thing, for undertaking a work of worship and peace. He was commended for entertaining the idea: “Thou didst well that it was in thine heart to build an house to my name. Nevertheless, thou shalt not build the house” (1 Kings 8:18). “Also, the Lord telleth thee that he will make thee an house. And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thine own bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever . . . Thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee; thy throne shall be established for ever” (2 Sam. 7:11-16). This, doubtless, had reference to Solomon, in whom also it had a preliminary fulfilment: but we have the authority of the Spirit of God, both in the prophets and the apostles, for giving it a much remoter, larger, and more glorious application to the “greater than Solomon”, the Son, the Lord of David, the antitype and substance of all the allegories contained in the first covenant and its surroundings. What is worthy of special consideration is, that the important institute of the kingdom of God should have found the occasion of its introduction in David’s own faithfulness, working in quite a natural way.

There are several illustrations of the same thing. The glorious vision of Daniel 2—revealing the course of human affairs from the days of Babylon to the setting up of the kingdom of God in the latter days—was communicated in answer to Daniel’s faithful prayer for deliverance from impending peril. Who knows if such a revelation would ever have taken place if Daniel, instead of having earnestly “desired mercies of the God of heaven”, had supinely cowered in God-forgetting concealment? The appearance of John the Baptist, though a matter of God’s deliberate and prophetically-enunciated purpose, coincided in the same way with the entreaties of a man and woman who were “both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments of the Lord, blameless” (Luke 1:6). The angel, who announced John’s coming birth to Zacharias, gives us to understand this. “Fear not, Zacharias, for thy prayer is heard, and thy wife Elisabeth (who was ‘barren and well-stricken in years’) shall bear thee a son.” So also the call of the Gentiles began with a man to whom the angel could say, “Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God.” (Ibid., 141-43)

Such comments on the dynamic relationship between human free-will and God's will would be accepted by most outside a Reformed/Calvinistic persuasion, including Latter-day Saints.  For a thorough refutation of such a theology, see my paper:

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology

Proving New Testament Christianity to be a Cult Using the BITE Model

The following is a spoof piece I wrote up in just 10 minutes. It shows how applying the BITE model to the New Testament “proves” the early Christian movement is a cult. It should give some pause to those who apply it to the LDS Church.

Behaviour Control:

Paul commands the Christians at Corinth about the length of hair for males and females, and even shames men with long hair:

Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: her fair is given her for a covering (1 Cor 11:14-15)

This very same Paul also regulated the sexual and moral ethics of the Corinthians in 6:9-11:

Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

Information Control

While at Ephesus, Paul encouraged recent converts to destroy the magical and religious texts of their previous faiths:

And many that believed came, and confessed, and shewed their deeds. Many of them also which used curious arts brought their books together, and burned them before all men: and they counted the price of them, and found it fifty thousand pieces of silver. (Acts 19:18-19)

According to Jesus, the movement's founder, if one misspeaks, they are condemned:

For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. (Matt 12:37)

Thought Control

The New Testament clearly labels alternative belief systems as illegitimate, evil, or not useful:

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed. (Gal 1:6-9)

Emotional Control

Jesus clearly taught that the movement takes precedence over one’s own family.

And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. But he said, Yea rather, blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it. (Luke 11:27-28)

And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead. (Matt 8:21-22)

His followers threatened those that would either leave the movement or fail to donate to the movement the appropriate amount required with physical and/or spiritual death:

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses: Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? (Heb 10:26-29)

But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land? Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God. And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things. (Acts 5:1-5)

 Finally, the movement's very own founder, Jesus, stated that he is the only way to salvation!

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. (John 14:6)

Clearly, New Testament Christianity is a cult per the BITE Model.

Applying the BITE Model to UPS

While going through my notes, I found the following which I saved which was shared by a fellow Latter-day Saint. It is a funny critique of the application of the BITE model to UPS. I am reproducing it here as it is pretty spot-on with the problems of Hassan's model and how it is frankly bogus:

I just the other month applied for a job at U.P.S. guys, and I thought that it would be great! I would do work, earn money, and make a living. I went eagerly in the interview, when I was shocked find UPS is a CULT! The BITE model illuminated my path, and I was able to escape without taking the job. Now I'm unemployed, but I am free. Tell your friends! Let them know that the united postal service is a cult! Do you know any friends and family trapped in the UPS? Share the BITE model with them!

Behavior Control

1. Regulate individual’s physical reality - UPS workers must be located only where the UPS store is.

2. Dictate where, how, and with whom the member lives and associates or isolates - UPS workers must associate with UPS customers and coworkers (which reinforces the groupthink cult environment)

3. When, how and with whom the member has sex - You can't even have sex on the job! How totalitarian can you get!

4. Control types of clothing and hairstyles - UPS employees must wear UPS uniform. UPS members cannot even have facial hair or wear things that don't match UPS colors!

5. Regulate diet - food and drink, hunger and/or fasting -You can only eat at certain times. They give advice on what foods to use at work (sandwiches and sugar for energy) and everything!

6. Manipulation and deprivation of sleep - UPS employees can have to wake up very early in the morning.

7. Financial exploitation, manipulation or dependence - UPS employees are forced to rely on UPS for money.

8. Restrict leisure, entertainment, vacation time - UPS employees can only take scheduled breaks!

9. Major time spent with group indoctrination and rituals and/or self indoctrination including the Internet - UPS regularly gives "training" (indoctrination) courses to its employees

10. Permission required for major decisions - you have a manager over you, and that manager has a manager over then, and you have to report anomalies to them!

11. Thoughts, feelings, and activities (of self and others) reported to superiors - a log is kept of your day to day activities which you give to the manager over you.

12. Rewards and punishments used to modify behaviors, both positive and negative - A bonus is given for working every day of the week; the threat of being fired constantly looms.

13. Discourage individualism, encourage group-think - see everything above

14. Impose rigid rules and regulations - see everything above

15. Instill dependency and obedience - " "

16. Threaten harm to family and friends - the threat of unemployment. "Without us, who will feed your family?". Its all about control.

18. Instill dependency and obedience - " "

Information Control

1. Deception: -UPS employees kept in the dark about UPS' financial holdings

2. Minimize or discourage access to non-cult sources of information -You can't use a cell phone or computer on the job!

3. Compartmentalize information into Outsider vs. Insider doctrines -Managers are privileged with more access and information than peons

4. Encourage spying on other members - employees are encouraged to report other employees violating "the rules" and there are even rewards for doing so

5. Extensive use of cult-generated information and propaganda - There is all kinds of pro-UPS propaganda on the wall, designed to make you feel like you're a part of the UPS "family"

6. Unethical use of confession - they can withhold raises or punish you if you admit to doing things wrong, and they can use it against you in the future!

Thought Control

1. Require members to internalize the group’s doctrine as truth

2.Change person’s name and identity - You're a UPSer now!

3. Use of loaded language and clichés which constrict knowledge, stop critical thoughts and reduce complexities into platitudinous buzz words - all kinds of buzzwords and shortcuts are used in the propaganda and safety literature. "Never back, keep on track" for drivers, etc

4. Encourage only ‘good and proper’ thoughts - being depressed or performing poorly could lead to discipline!

5. Hypnotic techniques are used to alter mental states, undermine critical thinking and even to age regress the member -see propaganda

7. Teaching thought-stopping techniques which shut down reality testing by stopping negative thoughts and allowing only positive thoughts -I didn't see this, but I bet they do.

8. Rejection of rational analysis, critical thinking, constructive criticism -"we don't pay you to think!"

9. Forbid critical questions about leader, doctrine, or policy allowed - Check

10. Labeling alternative belief systems as illegitimate, evil, or not useful - Check

Emotional Control

1. Manipulate and narrow the range of feelings – some emotions and/or needs are deemed as evil, wrong or selfish - if you spend all day whining every day, you could be fired!

3. Make the person feel that problems are always their own fault, never the leader’s or the group’s fault - Check

5. Instill fear, such as fear of:

a. Thinking independently -Check

b. The outside world -evil dogs will bite you! Check

c. Enemies

d. Losing one’s salvation (job) - check

e. Leaving or being shunned by the group -check

f. Other’s disapproval -check

6. Extremes of emotional highs and lows – love bombing and praise one moment and then declaring you are horrible sinner -praises/promotions/discipline/firing

8. Phobia indoctrination: inculcating irrational fears about leaving the group or questioning the leader’s authority - the looming idea of a loss of income and natural peer groups is a surefire way to keep underlings inline

I now see the light! Mormonism is a cult, Christianity is a cult, the military is a cult, atheism is a cult, having a family is definitely a cult, school is a cult, don't even think about having a peer group, and my refrigerator is also a cult.

Thank goodness I'm free of all these influences now. It is difficult to give these things up, but at least now I KNOW I'm not being brainwashed!

G. Ernest Wright and Reginald H. Fuller on Baptism in the New Testament

The Sacraments. The Christian proclamation announces an event in history apprehended as the redemptive act of God. It is by drawing men and women into relation and contact with that event that they are drawn into the new life created by the event. This drawing of men and women into the event is itself a renewal of the event itself, and follows the pattern of the event in that it possesses a double character. On the one hand, the drawing of men and women into the event of a visible occurrence, and on the other hand it is the invisible act of God, apprehended by faith. The visible event takes the form of immersion in water and emergence therefrom. The invisible act of God, which is the renewal and application of the original redemptive act, is the translation of the candidate out of his old existence characterized by sin, which is separation from God, into the new existence which will be finally his, at the consummation, but which is already available to him in advance in the life of the Church from the moment of his initiation. This is the meaning of Paul’s exposition of baptism in Rom. 6:1-6. Baptism has the same two-sidedness of the original event of redemption: that one side visible, the other perceptible only to faith. Apart from faith, baptism is apprehended only as an external human action devoid of theological significance. Moreover, it needs to be constantly renewed in the decision in the rendering of concrete obedience:

So you must also consider yourselves unto sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus. Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies. Rom. 6:11-12

Notice how all the verbs in this passage are in the subjunctive and future tenses: this shows that for St. Paul the baptismal transaction was not, as in the mystery religions, magical and final, but dependent for its realization in constant moral endeavour and for its consummation only at the end. In 1 Cor. 1:17 Paul speaks with apparent depreciation about baptism:

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel . . .

This passage however must be read in its context. Paul is denying that there is a mystical power inherent in the minister, binding him to the initiates, as in the mystery religions. Rightly understood, baptism is the decisive moment in the Christian life, and Paul can appeal to it as such. (G. Ernest Wright and Reginald H. Fuller, The Book of the Acts of God: Christian Scholarship Interprets the Bible [London: Gerald Duckworth & Co. Ltd., 1957, 1960], 249-50)

E.M.B. Green on Baptism in Titus 3

What happens when we thus trustingly put our hand in the hand of God, and entrust ourselves to his saving mercy? The Holy Spirit of God comes into residence in the life of the believer, and he is then baptized. The two results are brought together in Tit. 3.5, 6. “He saved us through the water of rebirth and of renewal by the Holy Spirit.” Despite a certain ambiguity in the Greek expression it is clear that two things are in Paul’s mind, the rite of baptism and the gift of the Spirit to the believer. These two are juxtaposed equally naturally in Gal. 3.26, 27 where entry into Christ is said to be by faith and by baptism, and it identified, earlier in the chapter, with receiving the Spirit by faith (3.1-3). The New Testament saw no tension between salvation by faith and salvation by baptism; they are properly regarded as belonging together . . . (E.M.B. Green, The Meaning of Salvation [London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1965], 170)

E.M.B. Geen on Transformative Justification in Acts 4

Commenting on Peter’s speech in Acts 4, Protestant E.M.B. Green wrote the following where he is forced to recognize that justification is not a mere declaration:

The uniqueness of Jesus's salvation is nowhere more clearly emphasized than in Acts 4.12. It is, as the context shows, a salvation which concerns the whole man (sōzein is ambivalent in 4.9, 12, as it is so often in the Gospels). It is made possible through Jesus of Nazareth, crucified, risen and active in his disciples. He was “the stone set at nought by your builders”, says Peter courageously (as he uses the text from Ps. 118.22 which his Master had used before him, Mk. 12.10), and through God’s action he “is become the head of the corner”. This verse became an important one among the early Christians. It comes from a psalm sung at all the festivals, and Jewish Christians would never be able to forget its words, and the striking light they shed on the fate of Jesus. There are, in fact, many verbal links between this psalm and the whole incident of the healing of the lame man to which this speech is the sequel. “The gate of the Lord” which “the righteous enter” (Ps. 118.20) corresponds with “the gate of the temple” (Acts 3.2) which the restored cripple (now made “righteous”?) “enters” (3.8). “This is the Lord’s doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes” f the psalmist (118.23) is matched by Peter’s insistence that the healing is God’s doing (Acts 3.12, 16), and by the repeated statements that the crowd “marvelled” (3.10, 11, 12). (E.M.B. Green, The Meaning of Salvation [London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1965], 144, emphasis in bold added)

Elsewhere in his book, to try to salvage belief in the Protestant understand of justification, he follows Leon Morris’ misinformed comments about δικαιοω and –οω verbs:

Nowhere in Greek literature does δικαιοω means “to make righteous”. In common with other verbs in –οω denoting moral qualities, the causative element (often to be found in –οω verbs) is absent. Thus αξιοω means “to account worthy” not “to make worthy”; δικαιοω means “to account righteous” not “to make righteous”. (Ibid., 163 n. 3)

To see why Green (and Morris who he is getting this from) is dead-wrong, see:

Response to Leon Morris on -οω verbs and the meaning of δικαιοω