Coram Deo:
Regrettably, for some reason, the URL re. Dr. Trueman’s assessment from HB as well as Against Heresies blogspot won’t open.
I’ll accept the data that Laurence offers re: two specifics that are not at bar, failure to write a Systematics and Commentary on Romans. I can’t respond.
To your points.
1. This is an aside and not germane to the point at bar. Knowing God was not seminal for me at all. I’d read several ST’s before picking it up. It’ was a nice piece, but a tad too chatty for me. Nuff there. Same for the little handbook on The Word of God and Fundamentalism. And that it was, a little handbook. (1958? I believe.) Dr. Clark has spoken well of Knowing God. So be it. He’s been influential, undoubtedly. Just my aside on these two little popular works.
2. You raise the ECT with John Ankerberg and John MacArthur. Wish we had the full transcript. Wish we had JIP’s written rebuttals.
3. Again, I hope this discussion gets international engagement…here, also at Dr. Thompson’s blog (he’s an Australian Anglican and forget name of spot, but he’s the Principal, I believe, of Moore Theological College) and at Against Heresies. Trueman might be appreciative of JIP at the level of scholarship. My issue is the one related to the subject before this court, before this jury. “ECT didn’t just happen.” That is–repeat–that is the singular issue before this audience vis a vis the post. “ECT didn’t just happen.”
4. You offer a discussion between Ankerberg/MacArthur. MacArthur’s comment on “skubalov,” or rubbish and/or trash, re: works righteousness does not–let me repeat this–does not rise to JIP’s level of ability of discussion. JIP just doesn’t have it to see it that way in “terms of applying that to Rome.” He may be good on paper, but his ecclesiastical leadership with ECT was a disaster. Let me take a moment to contrast JIP with one English Reformer and Martyr, John Philpott for context. And this is just one among dozens of others.
Philpott, during trial 6 and 7 with bp. Bonner of London (1555), calls “the church” being defended by the Inquisitors a “false church and synagogue of Satan.”[1] Philpott, The Writings and Examinations of John Philpott (Parker Society series), 126. You’ll be able to accesss this through http://www.books.google.com. You’ll soon see Philpott worsting and besting Bonner on exegetical, theological and historical, e.g. patristics and more, grounds. This is not an exception, but Philpott is the rule for English Reformers.
As a corollary, you will rarely hear such a comment in public to this effect. “False Church,” “anti-Christ,” “false gospel.” MacArthur gets at it, to his credit. PACKER CAN’T. The question is: “ECT? It didn’t just happen…”
Confessional Lutheran Churchmen (LCMS, WELS, ELCE) will call him Anti-christ, to their great credit and in their faithful record keeping of the past. Whatever Packer offered in terms of scholarship and a DPhil at Oxford on Owen aggravates the question before the jury.
The question before this forum: “Whence ECT? What were the historical antecedents?”
Continuing with Philpott by way of courage. Courage and a Reformational insight to the Mass. Philpott was tossed into prison with several recalls and interviews. One one occasion, he’s asked if he’ll go to Mass. He told the Emissary to inform the Bishop: “My stomach is too raw to digest such raw meats of flesh, blood, and bone this morning” (reference to the transubstantiated body and blood). This goes to Philpott’s earlier responses that Rome Capernaitically masticated bones, hair, teeth, flesh and blood. He died for this.
On Philpott’s view, Rome once was an apostolic see; “otherwise it is now of no more force, than if the Turk at Antioch and at Jerusalem should boast of the apostolic sees, because the apostles once did abide there, and founded the church of Christ.”[2. op.cit, 128] This appears to be the standard fare that we’ve encountered with all Reformation writings: no hesitancy to call Rome an Anti-Christ.
During the discussion, Philpott affirms “My belief must not hang upon men’s sayings without the sure authority of God’s word, the which if any can shew me, I will be pliant to the same. Otherwise, I cannot go from my certain faith to that which is uncertain.”[3, op.cit., 135]
Here endeth but one brief illustration, although there are many more.
5. This stuff won’t be discussed much in Episcopal Seminaries. You won’t get this from Virtue with his puff pieces. This stuff will get “stuffed” by these new Manglicans in the USA. Packer came into Reformed territory, talked a good game, and found himself outside the circuit in terms of Reformed Conferences. ECT was and is–given his background–beyond comprehension. And Christianity Today will only puff ECT.
Why? Some solid clues are in Iain Murray’s Evangelicalism Divided, excellent clues. One of them was the agreement to bury the hatchet with Anglo-Catholics. Evangelical Anglicans had argued that their view of the C o E was the historic, Reformational, and Confessional one. That saw grew old–this is my profoundest suspicion–and that saw needed to be buried. I believe Stott was in this game. I believe Llloyd-Jones saw it and revealed it.
Again, lest we lose sight of this thread, as excellent question as raised by Dr. Clark, “Packer’s Involvement in ECT didn’t just happen…” Why? Where? When?
For the sake of Reformational Anglicanism and the desperate need to discuss its Reformational roots of Anglicanism (sorely lacking in centres of pufferies and windbaggeries), this must be explored.
Coram Deo, I hope this adds some illustrative power to your Ankerburg-MacArthur post. However, your post doesn’t deal with the deeper issues. Why and what was the history pre-ECT?
