J. I. Packer's Systematic Theology, at Last?

[bookslover]

Backstory:

About 30 years ago, Packer signed a contract with Tyndale Publishers to write a systematic theology. Trouble was, he could never figure out exactly how he wanted to tackle the book, how he wanted to approach the task of writing an ST.

Fast forward to 3 or 4 years ago. Packer finally hit upon the idea of writing his systematic theology in the form of a catechism. However, not long after this, Packer announced that he was beginning to lose his sight.

But, now, however, there's this:

To Be a Christian: An Anglican Catechism, edited by J. I. Packer and Joel Scandrett (Wheaton: Crossway, 2020), 160 pages. Due to be published in February, per Westminster Seminary's bookstore.

Was Packer able to accomplish his task after all, with some help with others? I hope that this is what this book is.

This will almost certainly be his last book, as he will be 94 on July 22.

Does anyone have any further information about this?

 

[Kinghezy]

I do not have any answers, but I do hope he ends it with a quote from Paul: Galatians 6:11 - See with what large letters I am writing to you with my own hand.

 

[Jack K]

It's a work of the Anglican Church in North America, which is an evangelical Anglican denomination. They've had it online for a little while now, and you can read it for yourself at this link.

I have not read every word, but from what I've seen I like the way it manages to cover a lot of important territory with brevity and simplicity. Children or those new to faith can understand it pretty easily. I think I will find it worth consulting as I consider what words and phrases to use when explaining certain truths. Smart and godly people have put good thought into it.

It's Anglican, though, so it will stop short of affirming certain Reformed distinctives and has a few Anglican emphases and phrases that will sound suspicious to Reformed ears. It also stops short of using the word "inerrant" when affirming scriptural authority or the words "hell" or "punishment" when speaking of eternal condemnation, although it hints at these truths and certainly does not deny them. So if you're looking for a refutation of classic liberalism through those particular shibboleths, you will be disappointed.

All in all, I expect to find it useful as a supplementary resource worth being aware of. How much Packer was actively involved is unclear, but perhaps it was not much, especially with this updated edition. An older version has been around for several years, and I would guess that perhaps Packer was more involved in the early stages. It may be saying too much, though, to call it Packer's systematic theology.

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

I am not overly disappointed that J. I. Packer has not written a systematic theology, as we are hardly in need of yet another one. While I have not read it yet, I suspect that Robert Letham's new work will be the gold standard of modern systematic theologies.

 

[bookslover]

I am not overly disappointed that J. I. Packer has not written a systematic theology, as we are hardly in need of yet another one. While I have not read it yet, I suspect that Robert Letham's new work will be the gold standard of modern systematic theologies.

I just finished reading Letham's new ST, and I have just launched out on Frame's.

 

[bookslover]

It's a work of the Anglican Church in North America, which is an evangelical Anglican denomination. They've had it online for a little while now, and you can read it for yourself at this link.

I have not read every word, but from what I've seen I like the way it manages to cover a lot of important territory with brevity and simplicity. Children or those new to faith can understand it pretty easily. I think I will find it worth consulting as I consider what words and phrases to use when explaining certain truths. Smart and godly people have put good thought into it.

It's Anglican, though, so it will stop short of affirming certain Reformed distinctives and has a few Anglican emphases and phrases that will sound suspicious to Reformed ears. It also stops short of using the word "inerrant" when affirming scriptural authority or the words "hell" or "punishment" when speaking of eternal condemnation, although it hints at these truths and certainly does not deny them. So if you're looking for a refutation of classic liberalism through those particular shibboleths, you will be disappointed.

All in all, I expect to find it useful as a supplementary resource worth being aware of. How much Packer was actively involved is unclear, but perhaps it was not much, especially with this updated edition. An older version has been around for several years, and I would guess that perhaps Packer was more involved in the early stages. It may be saying too much, though, to call it Packer's systematic theology.

Very interesting post. Thank you. So, since this is an updated version of an older work, then it still remains true that Packer was unable to write his ST. That's sad, but I suppose it was not God's will for him to do that.

 

[Jack K]

So, since this is an updated version of an older work, then it still remains true that Packer was unable to write his ST.

Well, the original work is not all that old. It come out maybe five years ago. And Packer is listed as the head guy on the project, so this catechism could be his last work. It isn't really comprehensive enough to be called a systematic theology, though. It's catechism length. Short and sweet.

 

[Reformed Quest]

I just finished reading Letham's new ST

Please share your observations & thoughts on Letham's ST.

 

[Polanus1561]

Letham was good, complements Berkhof as a quick reference. But it is just not detailed enough as compared to the other multi-volume STs (Compare it to Beeke's 4 volume work to be finished), and the classics.

But it is a wonderful confessional, WCF systematic that provides something different to those who don't like Reymond.

 

[bookslover]

Please share your observations & thoughts on Letham's ST.

I enjoyed it. I'd say it's comparable to Reymond. He covers all the bases, although I do think he assumes a certain amount of prior knowledge of his readers, even if they're still students. But I think it's useful.

 

[bookslover]

I enjoyed it. I'd say it's comparable to Reymond. He covers all the bases, although I do think he assumes a certain amount of prior knowledge of his readers, even if they're still students. But I think it's useful.

He makes an interesting statement (I don't have the book in front of me, so I can't cite page numbers). He states that the Covenant of Redemption is a theological opinion rather than a theological dogma because it includes only two Persons of the Trinity (the Father and the Son), thereby violating the doctrine that all three Persons are always agreed about everything they plan and do.

 

[bookslover]

He makes an interesting statement (I don't have the book in front of me, so I can't cite page numbers). He states that the Covenant of Redemption is a theological opinion rather than a theological dogma because it includes only two Persons of the Trinity (the Father and the Son), thereby violating the doctrine that all three Persons are always agreed about everything they plan and do.

Also, Letham quotes Herman Hoeksema's Reformed Dogmatics with approval in three or four places, which surprised me. I've never seen that in any other ST I'm aware of.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

He makes an interesting statement (I don't have the book in front of me, so I can't cite page numbers). He states that the Covenant of Redemption is a theological opinion rather than a theological dogma because it includes only two Persons of the Trinity (the Father and the Son), thereby violating the doctrine that all three Persons are always agreed about everything they plan and do.

If he read Carl Bogue's book on Jonathan Edwards covenant theology, Bogue argues that Edwards view of the Covenant of Redemption was Trinitarian. I do think Reformed Theologians could learn from Edwards here.

 

[timmopussycat]

A few years ago Dr. Packer wrote his Concise Theology. I'm only a few pages into it, but it does not appear to be a full ST in that it appears not to interact with less than biblical views.