This is from J.I. Packers introductory Essay to John Owens “The Death of Death in the Death of Christ”
There is no doubt that Evangelicalism today is in a state of perplexity and unsettlement. In such matters as the practice of evangelism, the teaching of holiness, the building up of local church life, the pastor’s dealing with souls and the exercise of discipline, there is evidence of widespread dissatisfaction with things as they are and of equally widespread uncertainty as to the road ahead. This is a complex phenomenon, to which many factors have contributed; but, if we go to the root of the matter, we shall find that these perplexities are all ultimately due to our having lost our grip on the biblical gospel. Without realising it, we have during the past century bartered that gospel for a substitute product which, though it looks similar enough in points of detail, is as a whole a decidedly different thing. Hence our troubles; for the substitute product does not answer the ends for which the authentic gospel has in past days proved itself so mighty. The new gospel conspicuously fails to produce deep reverence, deep repentance, deep humility, a spirit of worship, a concern for the church. Why? We would suggest that the reason lies in its own character and content. It fails to make men God-centred in their thoughts and God-fearing in their hearts because this is not primarily what it is trying to do. One way of stating the difference between it and the old gospel is to say that it is too exclusively concerned to be “helpful” to man—to bring peace, comfort, happiness, satisfaction—and too little concerned to glorify God. The old gospel was “helpful,” too—more so, indeed, than is the new—but (so to speak) incidentally, for its first concern was always to give glory to God. It was always and essentially a proclamation of Divine sovereignty in mercy and judgment, a summons to bow down and worship the mighty Lord on whom man depends for all good, both in nature and in grace. Its centre of reference was unambiguously God. But in the new gospel the centre of reference is man. This is just to say that the old gospel was religious in a way that the new gospel is not. Whereas the chief aim of the old was to teach men to worship God, the concern of the new seems limited to making them feel better. The subject of the old gospel was God and His ways with men; the subject of the new is man and the help God gives him. There is a world of difference. The whole perspective and emphasis of gospel preaching has changed.
From this change of interest has sprung a change of content, for the new gospel has in effect reformulated the biblical message in the supposed interests of “helpfulness.” Accordingly, the themes of man’s natural inability to believe, of God’s free election being the ultimate cause of salvation, and of Christ dying specifically for His sheep, are not preached. These doctrines, it would be said, are not “helpful”; they would drive sinners to despair, by suggesting to them that it is not in their own power to be saved through Christ. (The possibility that such despair might be salutary is not considered; it is taken for granted that it cannot be, because it is so shattering to our self-esteem.) However this may be (and we shall say more about it later), the result of these omissions is that part of the biblical gospel is now preached as if it were the whole of that gospel; and a half-truth masquerading as the whole truth becomes a complete untruth. Thus, we appeal to men as if they all had the ability to receive Christ at any time; we speak of His redeeming work as if He had done no more by dying than make it possible for us to save ourselves by believing; we speak of God’s love as if it were no more than a general willingness to receive any who will turn and trust; and we depict the Father and the Son, not as sovereignly active in drawing sinners to themselves, but as waiting in quiet impotence “at the door of our hearts” for us to let them in. It is undeniable that this is how we preach; perhaps this is what we really believe. But it needs to be said with emphasis that this set of twisted half-truths is something other than the biblical gospel. The Bible is against us when we preach in this way; and the fact that such preaching has become almost standard practice among us only shows how urgent it is that we should review this matter. To recover the old, authentic, biblical gospel, and to bring our preaching and practice back into line with it, is perhaps our most pressing present need
They removed the Oldtime Gosple to appear to be update , hip, modern, relevent to the New Age teachings...
The problem of today... Let us not teach the truth of what the bible actually says about man and his rebellious nature and sin against God least we offend many or hurt feelings to where they won’t fill the pews and we lose money.
I say preach the truth of the bible and the Oldtime Gosple and God will send those of his sheep that need saving...
Those that reject the Gosple, Christ and God’s ONLY way of Salvation will have no excuse on Judgememt Day.
The Old Time Gosple preaching and Hellfire and Brimstone preaching will be making it’s way back.....but not in all churches....
Not all who say that they are part of the body of Christ belong to Christ.
I love Packer’s introduction. Of course I love Owen’s book, too. It’s a book every Christian should read until they understand it. In his essay, Packer said (and I’m paraphrasing) that those who’ve tasted the sweetness of the gospel of the sovereign grace of God in Christ will not desire the new gospel preached today. I heartily agree.
Packer is good and right about a lot of stuff, but I think he is wrong in a bunch of his points here.
For one thing, even those who believe in absolute election as he seems to, cannot state who will or will not be saved. So from our perspective, we MUST appeal to everyone as if they were going to be saved. We present. That is our job. We are not responsible for the results.
God's word DOES tell us that we are saved simply by believing.
MANY churches still teach that God actively draws men to Himself.
And I don't see that God choosing to not override man's will in where he wishes to spend eternity is weak or impotent nor does He "wait in quiet impotence". I look back at many instances in my life where the gospel was presented to me before I got saved. God was hardly "waiting in quiet impotence". He was actively engaging me throughout that entire time.
All the Scripture I have to post to support my position is on my computer at home.
I think he misunderstands and therefore misrepresents the non-Calvinist viewpoint.
That’s a really great post. I tried just skimming it, then realized I had to read it well. I agree with it completely. Thank you.