So writes Mark Dever in a new book based on a conference honoring J. I. Packer at Beeson Divinity School on September 25–27, 2006:
Timothy George, ed. J. I. Packer and the Evangelical Future: The Impact of His Life and Thought. Beeson Divinity Studies. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2009. [Amazon | WTS Books]
Sample pages as a PDF include the TOC, preface, and opening chapter by Alister McGrath.
Here’s the opening paragraph of Mark Dever’s chapter, entitled “J. I. Packer and Pastoral Wisdom from the Puritans”:
There are some people for whom it is an honor to be asked to honor, and J. I. Packer is certainly one of them. And this is a surprising honor, considering that I disagree with him on baptism, church, and the resources of and prospects for rapprochement between Protestants and Roman Catholics. After all, I am a fundamentalist, Calvinistic, separatist Baptist—I barely believe in rapprochement with Presbyterians! (p. 87)
In the final section of his essay, titled “Puritans on the Definition of Justification and Questions of Church Cooperation,” Dever respectfully disagrees with Packer on Evangelicals and Catholics Together (pp. 93–96).
In Packer’s response to this book’s essays, he playfully picks up a metaphor in which he is Robin Hood, Timothy George is “Little George,” etc. He writes,
I saw in my Baptist brother Mark Dever a latter-day Sheriff of Nottingham, giving me a passing grade on the doctrine of grace but a firm “F” in ecclesiology. (p. 172)
Related: Mark Dever interviewed J. I. Packer ten years ago.
From here in the Muslim world where pockets of believers don’t usually have the luxury of piling labels onto themselves in order to make hair-splitting distinctions and separations between themselves, it saddens me to hear Dever hold on tightly to a list of labels and joke (I assume) about barely being able to join with Presbyterians. In times like these, I think church leaders need to rally believers to unite on every bit of square ground we have, centered on Christ and the gospel, not propagate such divisions. And this is coming from someone who agrees more with Dever than Packer on issues like ecclesiology and baptism!
Funny, but the “F” is well-deserved. Read Iain Murray’s Evangelicalism Divided, and you never look at Packer (nor Stott nor Billy Graham) the same.
I sure thought I’d heard Packer had regretted his appalling error in signing ECT. But now he’s back for a second helping of the exact same with the Manhattan Declaration. Pity.
Dan:
Spot-on re: Murray’s analysis of Packer, Stott, and Graham.
I liken Packer to a skilled technician in the bowels of an aircraft carrier. An engineering type. Officer too. But one who will never command an aircraft carrier (I speak as one having served two tours aboard USS carriers.) Jim’s brilliant as a technician. The Navy has curious ways to detect these brilliant officers early on…steered in certain directions to use their good skills, but they never come to command. That’s how I see Jim.
As a statesman and warrior in Christ’s Church Militant, “F” in statesmanship is well-deserved.
And that “F” is no doctrinal island. As a Reformed Anglican, Jim has capitulated in other areas also, e.g. Anglo-Catholicism.
D. Philip Veitch
Camp Lejeune, NC
I resonate with the spirit of Scott Belsley’s comment, but I have to admit I love this line (funny because it’s too true historically, but thankfully *only* a joke with Dever):
“After all, I am a fundamentalist, Calvinistic, separatist Baptist—I barely believe in rapprochement with Presbyterians!”
Good point, D. Perhaps the problem is that Packer’s expertise in other areas has given him a position for which he’s in no way fit – for which I’m sure you have lots of anecdotes from the service!