MODEL BOOK REVIEW Review of J I Packer's Fundamentalism and the Word of God by P B Hartwig Brief Personal History of the Author James Innell Packer, an Anglican theologian was born in 1926 in Gloucester England. A near fatal accident as a child left him a quiet and solitary child who found his enjoyment in reading. He went to Oxford University at age 18 to read the classics, having earned a coveted scholarship. In October of 1944 he made a commitment to Christ at a St Aldate Church service arranged by an evangelical student organization (Oxford Inter-Collegiate Christian Union). He was appointment as Junior Librarian of the OICCU and was subsequently profoundly influenced by the writings of the Puritan John Owen. His discovery of other Puritan works marked a turning point in his life and theology. He received his BA degree in 1948, and also taught Latin and Greek at Oak Hill London, an Anglican training college. He then received a second BA, this time from the evangelical college in Oxford, Wycliffe Hall in 1950. In 1954 a doctorate was completed on Richard Baxter, and he married 'Kit' Mullet (and later adopted 3 children). He was ordained as a priest in the Church of England in 1953. Between 1955 and 1961 he served as lecturer in theology at the evangelical Anglican college Tyndale Hall in Bristol. It was whilst here that he wrote this book. Packer was very involved with IVF. In 1958 he wrote an article on 'Fundamentalism' for the year old American magazine Christianity Today. The book 'Fundamentalism' and the Word of God was a expansion of this initial article and also of a series of lectures first delivered to Christian students. Packer was 32 at the time of its composition. The book was immediately popular both in Britian and N America, and Packer soon became the leading theological spokesman for evangelicalism. He moved to Vancouver in 1979 to become Professor of Historical and Systematic Theology at Regent College. He remains one of the most influential figures in English-speaking evangelicalism. The Compositional Context In the 1950's Billy Graham visited England. One of the literary broadsides fired at those evangelical Anglicans who supported Graham's initiatives was a 1957 book by G Herbert 'Fundamentalism and the Church of God'. Herbert was an Anglican monk and an advocate of the Anglican liturgical movement. In the book he charged evangelicals in the Anglican communion with obscurantist and 'fundamentalist' tendencies, claiming that it was intellectually dishonest to believe in 'fundamentalist' Graham type of theology and its
dogmatic doctrine of verbal inspiration. Packer's book became representative of the Anglican evangelical stance toward such accusations. It was written during much theological tension in England and soon became representative of the wider Protestant evangelicalism responses to the liberal attacks against historical Christianity in the mid to late 1900's. A Skeleton Outline Chapter 1: 'Fundamentalists' Under Fire Chapter 2: What is 'Fundamentalism'? Chapter 3: Authority Chapter 4: Scripture Chapter 5: Faith Chapter 6: Reason Chapter 7: Liberalism Chapter 8: Conclusion Tracking the Author's Argument In chapter 1 Packer presents the caricatures that were thrown at those who were branded 'Fundamentalists'. They are accused of being obscurantists and authoritarian closedminded abusers of the bible. Amidst the cross-fire of theological expletives, Packer buttons down and clarifies the terms of the argument and discussion. He concludes that people have suffered under a false analysis of 'fundamentalism'. Packer cuts through the overgrowth back to a clear definition on the core issue of the principle of authority, believing that positive theological assertions are the stuff of genuine Christianity. He then states that his aim is to show that 'Fundamentalism', though not a good or totally innocent name, is at heart a synonym for historic Evangelicalism and a movement desiring to emphasise the fact biblical authority in the church. This authority issue is the heart of the book, and Packer aims to demonstrate the contention that the seat of authority for every Christian is located in the Word of God alone something which 'Fundamentalism' affirms and thus should be accepted. In chapter 2 Packer shows that Fundamentalism was a necessary American reaction to 'Liberalism'. The liberals attempted to square Christianity with anit-supernaturalistic and Enlightenment assumptions, reducing divine revelation to the level of human experience and reflection. Christianity was becoming a natural religion. He then advocates that we can
pass off the term 'Fundamentalism' (it has become a theological expletive following a American reactionary narrowing and obscurantist tendency with the movement) but must retain the core of what it stood for. 'Evangelicalism at best is richer than Fundamentalism'. That good core of Fundamentalism is unpacked in the rest of the book. In chapter 3 Packer states the problem relative to biblical authority. This is a most important matter since saving faith in the NT depends upon believing truth about God, as opposed to believing sincere notions. But where can we find the channel for the infallible 'given' authority from God? There are three options: 1. Evangelical - locating it solely in the Word of God. 2. Traditional - locating it in the church, and 3. Subjectivist - locating it in mind, will or feeling. Packer says that only the Evangelical claim ('what Scripture says God says') is acceptable in matters of faith. Packer then shows how the OT, NT, Christ, apostles and early church all believed similarly. Since the NT claims to be organically one with the OT, it implies claims a shared locus of authority with the Old Testament. As Israel's faith was based on the written word, so was the church's. Central for Packer is Jesus' submission to the authority of the OT ( thus as his followers we must be in keeping with him and submit to verbal written revelation as he did). Christ also asserted that his words were on par with the OT authority. The apostles argued from Scripture and the Early Church then recognised both the OT and NT as an inspired authoritative canon binding on their consciences. Packer forcefully writes that if we deny the authoritative place of Scripture we 'misconceive the nature of Christianity and in effect deny the Lordship of Christ'. Since the church is made up of sinners who err in either ignorance and error, we need an authoritative Word to tell us the truth and bring us back into line with that truth. This is the continual need of the church: to be in a continual process of reformation by means of obeying the written Word of God. God does this redeeming process not through the decisions of men (Catholicism) or the private ideas of individuals (Liberalism) but through His own words written in Scripture. Reformation thus follows Exposition. Packer concludes this chapter by showing that the critics of 'Fundamentalism' are themselves subjectivists in the matter of authority since they are grounding their statements within their own assumptions rather than God's Word. In chapter 4 Packer presents an evangelical view of Scripture. He touches on all the bases of the divine origin of Scripture: dictation theory, accommodation reality, providence, and the analogy of Christ. He counters the accusations of many by stating that
accommodation to the full humanity of each writer does not imply error or defect in the documents they produced. A good doctrine of God of His concursive work through human means affirms both the divine and human nature of Scripture. God's Spirit also ensures the verbal end product is sinless like the humanity of Christ. The nature of Scripture is of one unity (Old and New) with all parts inspired of God though not equally important. In the section on The Word of God Packer equates the entire written canon as a living and authoritative written utterance of God. Scripture is literally the word of God. He echoes here the work of the B B Warfield. He says we must insist that divine inspiration is verbal. He then upholds the logical corollary to this verbal divine inspiration, i.e.,that revelation is propositional and inerrant. Yet Packer does state that 'we must draw a distinction between the subjects about which Scripture speaks and the terms in which it speaks'. Lastly Packer here treats the matter of hermeneutics. He advocates for interpreting Scripture literally, that is, in keeping with the intended sense of what is written. He concludes that because the Bible is a divinely originated document it should not be read or interpreted like any other piece of literature. Scholarship is not enough; a reader submissive to God and in tune with His Spirit is most essential. The doctrine of human sin necessitates a reliance on the Holy Spirit In chapter 5 Packer looks at the role of faith in the Protestant doctrine of Scripture. Acknowledging that such a high view of Scripture is to be received by faith, he shows that faith is the organ that receives God's own verdict and word. Faith is thus 'assertive' and positive, and terminates on truth, not doubtful or negative ideas. Faith is not less than credence, fides. The basis for our credence and fuducia is the witness of God the Holy Spirit, not reason nor evidential demonstration. Reason is inadequate for the truths of our faith are mysteries that are beyond rational demonstration. 'Reason could at best suggest only probability but the nature of faith is to be certain'. So the ground of our faith is our closure and trust (fuducia) in the word of God. Such faith is a work of the Holy Spirit. Packer then concludes by showing that where such faith in Christ is there is also a faith in the bible as the Word of God. Both are organically a response to God's truth. Thus 'it is not optional for Christians to sit loose with what God has said and treat questions which He has closed as if they are still open'. In chapter 6 Packer deals with the role of reason, especially in the light of what was said in chapter 5. He counters the claim that evangelicals counsel blind submission to a book
with the counter claim that such accusers themselves are not doing what Christianity calls its followers to do: trust a book fully, even beyond the limits of reason. For Packer, the place of reason in faith is threefold: (1) to receive the teaching of God and consent to our blindness to the things of God. Reason must accept objects on their own terms, and this the evangelical does when he trusts Scripture for what it is. God's witness of Himself must be received in keeping with its own nature. 'The only biblical criticism which they can consistently regard as valid is that which takes as its starting point the Bible's own account of itself'; (2) to apply the teaching of God to life. We must apply every doctrine to life in God's world; (3) to communicate God's truth to others. Packer then shows that we must always correct current thinking and axioms of reason and practise in light of the logic of faith, not visa versa. If not, we will lapse into subjectivism. The conflict between reason and faith is mainly between sinful intellectual autonomy or mental repentance rendered to God. Such a godly mind will always have faith-full thinking, grounding its beliefs not directly on conformity to reason but in assent and trust to God's words. As we do this, we find ourselves most truly free, thinking no longer sinfully but biblically. In chapter 7 Packer defines what he means by 'Liberalism'. He distinguishes between 'old' Schleiermacherian liberalism of the 1800's and the 'new' liberalism of the 1900's. The old liberals were a necessary reaction to unhistorical and 'confessional' exegesis, but unfortunately they did this with the tools of evolutionary and antisupernaturalistic assumptions. The new liberals proffered a higher view of the bible and studied the biblicaltheology and thematic acts of God in Scripture. Yet whilst affirming much valuable truth about the works of God in Scriptural history they did not trust the bible implicitly. Critical methods to ascertain the integrity of the testimony of the text were seen as necessary and became ultimately determinative. They said we must first study the bible as unbelievers, then move on to faith in the light of affirmed scientific historical proof. People ended up believing their own interpretations of Scripture rather than Scripture itself. Such people are at bottom subjectivists for they are basing their beliefs on something other than the fact of God's own personal testimony to His word. In the final analysis, Liberalism discounts the authority of Christ and expresses an ungodly attitude of mental impenitence. In his conclusion Packer says the controversy presents us with a choice between historic Evangelicalism and modern Subjectivism. He asks us if we will carry our repentance through on the intellectual level. Will we look to the Spirit of truth or the shifting
speculations of historians? Our pride is at work in trying to do two things: (1) add meritorious works to grace, and (2) add our own ideas to qualify and revise divine revelation. The Reformers battled on the first front and affirmed grace alone, we must now battle on the other front and affirm that Christian faith must bow before God's written revelation without further ado. This is the point of departure of the Christian faith. As it is faith alone without works, so it must be the Scriptures alone without revision. We must finally ask have we lived under the authority of Scripture as conscientiously as we should have done? This is the most important question. Personal Assessment It is clear that in this book J I Packer is defending Evangelicals in general and Anglican Evangelicals in particular against the charge of their fellow Christians of being 'Fundamentalists'. He convincingly showed that all evangelicals are not sectarian nor obscurantists but only fundamentalists in the sense that they stand for the historic Christian position. His clarification of terms cleared the table for a focus on the right issue: biblical authority. Though this is an apologetic and occasional book, it is still of great relevance for us today. In one important sense evangelicals will always need to stand were he stood and defend our doctrine of Scripture. The terms of the discussion have not changed materially but only superficially: it so frequently comes back to the position one takes on the nature of authority. Promises: 1. On the whole, his argument was convincing. We must believe the fact of the divine witness to Scripture or supplant this divine testimony with our own shifting ideas. If we do not land here, then one is on some other foundation other than Christianity. 2. His chapter on Scripture is clear, sparkling with basic insights and very helpful. An excellent first-stop place for people learning about the nature of Scripture. 3. His strong 'foundationalist' position is determinative for the entire book. I think that his emphasis on the a priori witness of the Spirit is essential for the doctrine of Scripture. We cannot submit the Bible to unbelieving canons of criticism. If we do not listen to the Bible's own testimony, we cannot begin the discussion. Few have said it as well as Packer. 4. His strong moral and God-ward emphasis ensured that the book was evangelical and pastoral in tone. 5. His forceful rejection of all forms of liberalism was irrefutable and he profoundly put
the options before his readers: the Word of God or subjectivism; believe the word of God or the ideas of men. I think those are the only two options. I wondered if Packer would classify N T Wright as a 'new liberal'. 6. The call to advocate and stand for 'sola Scriptura' was done with winsome firmness, and he convincingly showed us that any other alternatives end up in the cul-de-sac of shifting subjectivism. Pitfalls: 1. Packer was not that clear on the essential identity of Evangelicalism. It is maybe a broader base than he believes it to be. 2. His distinction between the form and content of the bible was helpful yet it could be seen as the subtle entrance of the very modernism he rejects. Who determines the true 'forms' of the biblical content? 20 th century readers? 4 th century readers? Thus it appears he could well allow for the 'form' of theistic evolution to fit into 'content' of biblical faith. 3. He could have done more work on the fact that the original autographs have now perished and that our text is substantially constructed by a team of scholars. This is an important issue today. 4. Lastly, one does at times get the feel Packer always reduces matters down to two options and that the alternative view-point is always subjectivism. It seems that the 'evidentialist' approach to Christianity is totally discounted by Packer as a valid means to come to Protestant convictions. This needs some further discussion. Pertinence Packer's book was an important tract-for-the-times and it remains so. Part of the popularity of the book was its defence of a sound and creditable evangelical doctrine of Scripture that would hold its own against the attacks of certain 'liberals'. It did for his evangelical constituency what Warfield's book did for his. The value remains in its clear and solidly God-ward response to any downgrading of the doctrine of an inerrant and plenary inspired Bible. It is not overly technical but is within reach of any since inquirer on the issues of Scripture today. His response to 'new liberalism' is as relevant as ever, particularly in the light of the 'Quests for the historical Jesus'. I found it a very enriching read and a book relevant for the church to formulate and defend a contemporary doctrine of the authority of the Bible. Well done and thank you Dr Packer! Dr P B Hartwig (Words: 2801)