J. I. Packer’s Theology of Justification—His Reception and Appropriation of a Classic Protestant Doctrine

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This feels more like an appeal than an investigation.

Author Response

Thank you for taking time to read my work. My article is an investigation - at least to a certain extent - because, as a dogmatician, I attempted to see how Packer understands the doctrine of justification in the light of his own reception and appropriation of the doctrine (with reference to the 16th and the 17th centuries). My article is NOT a thorough analysis of Packer's doctrine of justification; it is merely an attempt to demonstrate that his take on justification is in line with the theology of the Reformation(s). 

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

In section 2: How does justification in the present relate to the judgment seat of Christ? Is there a future justification that completes what Christians have in the present? The answer is not clear even though there are related comments (e.g., line 178).

 

In section 3: Does Packer have a theology of positional sanctification and a theology of progressive sanctification? 

 

In section 4: Is Christ's "perfect obedience" related to the cross or Jesus' works or both? Does this mean that Jesus provides "works" for the believer who is justified? You state that legal requirements are not important on line 277 and 283.

 

Remove references to Joshua Harris because it is a pastoral book for lay-people and not scholarship on the doctrine of justification. It weakens the paper. (Line 298)

 

In section 5: are you or Packer referring to a "covenant of grace" or a theological covenant versus the biblical covenants of the Abrahamic, Davidic, Mosaic, etc?

 

Line 343 uses author name "Thrasher" redundantly.

The article fails to engage with Packer's participation in ecumenical efforts with Roman Catholics on the topic of justification. Packer signed the "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" in 1994 and there is no mention of this. Why do some evangelicals/protestants find this problematic? 

This is a review paper that summarizes Packer's view and does not advance a clear thesis or argument. This paper might be re-worked to demonstrate how Packer was consistent or inconsistent with other Reformed doctrines of justification. Or, try reading Four Views of Justification and prove which of those views is closest to his. The argumentation must get sharper and the sources improved.

 

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Generally, the English is good, but needs to be edited one more time for typos.

Author Response

Thank you for your time and consideration of my work. I shall briefly respond to each of your comments below:

(1) In section 2: How does justification in the present relate to the judgment seat of Christ? Is there a future justification that completes what Christians have in the present? The answer is not clear even though there are related comments (e.g., line 178).

Packer does not discuss the issue, so I think it would be unfair if I included it in an analysis in the absence of Packer's willingness to approach it one way or another. 

(2) In section 3: Does Packer have a theology of positional sanctification and a theology of progressive sanctification? 

This issue I managed to address and also include in my paper (it is in blue).

(3) In section 4: Is Christ's "perfect obedience" related to the cross or Jesus' works or both? Does this mean that Jesus provides "works" for the believer who is justified? You state that legal requirements are not important on line 277 and 283.

Packer does not discuss these aspects either; debating these issues would be a step in a direction neither Packer, nor myself intended. 

(4) Remove references to Joshua Harris because it is a pastoral book for lay-people and not scholarship on the doctrine of justification. It weakens the paper. (Line 298)

I have recently developed an interest in Packer's spirituality and especially the practical (even pastoral) aspects of doctrine; this is why I specifically looked for an author like Joshua Harris, who focuses on such pastoral concerns for lay people.

(5) In section 5: are you or Packer referring to a "covenant of grace" or a theological covenant versus the biblical covenants of the Abrahamic, Davidic, Mosaic, etc?

Packer doesn't say; this is why I didn't take the matter further in this direction. What he means by the covenant of grace is simply God's decision to act benevolently towards the human being despite the latter's sinful condition. 

(6) Line 343 uses author name "Thrasher" redundantly.

If I erase my second mention of the name Thrasher one may wrongly conclude that the work between brackets is Packer's (not Thrasher's). 

(7) The article fails to engage with Packer's participation in ecumenical efforts with Roman Catholics on the topic of justification. Packer signed the "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" in 1994 and there is no mention of this. Why do some evangelicals/protestants find this problematic? 

This is not problematic for me as an Evangelical even if it is for some, more Reformed Evangelicals, like Sproul. However, since Packer did not care to mention the issue in his books, I didn't feel I should bring the matter to the fore. 

(8) This is a review paper that summarizes Packer's view and does not advance a clear thesis or argument. This paper might be re-worked to demonstrate how Packer was consistent or inconsistent with other Reformed doctrines of justification. Or, try reading Four Views of Justification and prove which of those views is closest to his. The argumentation must get sharper and the sources improved.

The categorizations I used in my paper are mine. That is my contribution: as a dogmatician, I create theologies - in this respect, I studied Packer's use of justification in various contexts, then having identified these contextual uses of justification, I came up with analytical approaches of each such use. Finally, I named each use of Packer's references to justification as part of his general perspective on the doctrine of justification, so I kind of put everything together in a system. Again, this is my contribution and I don't think there is a similar one on the market. Also, my main goal was to demonstrate Packer's reception and appropriation of justification as a classic doctrine - nothing more, not even a thorough analysis of his perspective on justification.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article presents a well-structured and thoroughly researched examination of the work of an intriguing evangelical theologian. The clarity and logical arrangement of the content are commendable, making a valuable contribution to the discourse.

However, there are four minor aspects that, if addressed, could significantly enhance the reader's engagement and comprehension.

Firstly, while the article navigates through the analysis with adept research, it lacks a clear articulation of the author's intent. Understanding the motivation behind delving into this topic and specifically investigating Packer's work is crucial. The absence of the 'why' leaves the reader somewhat adrift, depriving them of essential contextual information.

Additionally, some foundational background details about Packer, particularly for readers unfamiliar with his work, would be beneficial. Although Packer is a recognized figure, presuming universal familiarity, as with more prominent theologians like Barth, Bonhoeffer, or Schleiermacher, might leave readers feeling disconnected.

Moreover, the conclusion, while offering a comprehensive summary of the analysis, could be enriched by the author's personal positioning. A brief reflection aligning the analysis with the author's vested interest in the subject matter would provide a more impactful closure.

Finally, a subtle yet meaningful suggestion would be the inclusion of a closing statement in the last two sentences of the introduction. A brief assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of the author's selections would further guide the reader into the scope and limitations of the subsequent discussion.

Overall, the article demonstrates a robust foundation for further exploration and discourse. Addressing these suggested improvements will significantly enhance the reader's experience and better contextualize the importance of the study within the broader theological landscape.

 

Author Response

Thank you very much for your comments. I did my best to address each comment individually - you will find my additions in the text (in red). Each of your four comments were addressed and consequently I added four consistent paragraphs in the text of my article (again, these are easily identifiable since they were written in red). 

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper still does not address my initial concern: it does not address JI Packer's infamous signing of the "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" document in 1994. This is a critically important primary source that the author must address and explain in some manner. As it stands, this paper does not explain Packer's use of a classically Protestant doctrine of justification because it does not explain this vitally important historical event. Packer's act of signing this ECT document was a significant controversy in Evangelical Protestantism. It must be addressed and should have an entire section dedicated to explaining it if this paper is to be accepted. 

The author should consult the following source (among others) along with the original ECT document from 1994:

Leonardo De Chirico, "Christian Unity vis-à-vis Roman Catholicism: A Critique of the Evangelicals and Catholics Together Dialogue", Evangelical Review of Theology, 27:4 (2003) 337-352.

Author Response

Thank you again for your time as well as for your insistence that I should somehow engage Packer's decision to sign the 'Evangelicals and Catholics Together' document. What I decided in the end was to add a 340 word note at the every end of the article, in which I concluded that this specific issue does not fall within the scope of my academic enterprise. I did shed some light on the matter you raised - for which I am genuinely grateful - but I also pointed out that my focus was to hover over Packer's works with regard to his understanding of justification. His decision to sign the ECT document is therefore an issue which requires a different take and a new scholarly engagement which - as I mentioned before - is neither an aspect I came across during my research nor an issue that changes his perspective on the doctrine of justification (not in my opinion, anyway).

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Broadly speaking, surveys such as this are helpful for educational tools. This paper is more like a senior undergrad project. Your paper does not really advance scholarship per se and does not have a clear thesis that engages with contemporary models of justification or even the ECT controversy (beyond your new note). I want to encourage you to pursue further writing projects that have a clear thesis statement. Keep working at it and work hard!