So I can’t go long without reading or quoting J. I. Packer…
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.

I like this quote! I agree.
Don’t tell me Packer is a hypo-Calvinist also, that would ruin my day! BTW a hypo is a 4p Calvinist, denying limited atonement.
Charles
If “Hypo” = denial of particular redemption, then no, Dr. Packer is not one (and neither am I). However, if “Hypo” = “free offer,” then yes, he is (and so am I).
Peace and goodwill brother. Packer never fails to get to the heart of the matter. I feel the same urgency towards reading Ravenhill.
“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. ”
A great truth that needs to ring throughout the church. We have gotten terribly flabby, tolerant, and unwilling to make the great sacrifice. God has become our buddy rather than our Lord so it remains to men like ourselves to set her back on the narrow path.
Sam Storms’ book, “Chosen for Life” p. 216-17
“‘hypothetical universalism’ is a reflection of the theology of of Moise Amyraut, a seventeenth century Reformed theologian.(Brian Armstrong, footnote) On this view, the redemptive sufferings of Christ are “unlimited” (Christ died for all people), thus making’hypothetically possible’ the salvation of all people. But, since no one wills to embrace the work of Christ by faith, God decrees the undeserved salvation of some and the just condemnation of others. This is the view of four point Calvinism.”
Charles, the human theological construct Calvinism cannot be reduced to less than its five component parts without destroying the whole.
James
When we discipline ourselves in meaningful, consistent, and in-depth exegesis are we hearing the voice of the Lord in His Word?
Are some people hearing a clearer voice than others? Is there anyone today hearing clearly the Word of the Lord?
Can anyone hear from the Lord without the benefit of discipline?
Charles
Packer
Perhaps the mess of the Church today is that we have accepted a theory (perhaps even a lie) as a fact. The theory is: “The N.T. prophet was not merely a preacher, but an inspired preacher, through whom, until the N.T. was written, new revelation suited to the new dispensation were given. (I Cor 14:29,30)” -guess the source
Maybe it is not a question of what we have a grip on but who has a grip on us! The early Church was under Holy Spirit possession and we are striving to possess the truth. Once we have a grip of the truth, inerrant Scriptures, we possess the Holy Spirit and He has to do our bidding, automatically because we believe that we are honoring God. If we honor the Word, God is obligated to honor our faith. (ever heard of Copeland) It don’t work that way!
Doulos Christou
Sorry to miss you comment. Agreed, “the human theological construct Calvinism cannot be reduced to less than its five component parts without destroying the whole.”
…so when I refer to a 4 point Calvinist, what do I mean? A non-existant being? a being by another name?
What is a person who only holds to eternal security of the believer?
Respectively, I call a 4,3,2,1 ‘Calvinist’ some variation of Arminian.