John The Baptist
Puritan Board Sophomore
*I could not find the book review forum to post this in, didn't seem to be available. So, sorry in advance.*
Let me start by saying that Packer seems to have a way to write directly to the heart. This is the third work I have read from him (the other two being the introductions to Death of Death and Mortification of Sin) and each time it feels as though he wrote directly to me. Perhaps Keep in Step had more to do with the subject matter, but I digress.
This work can be easily broken up into three parts:
1. Ground work
Packer lays a large foundation, working through the reformed view of the work of the Spirit before he gets into any polemics. An important point he returns to again and again is that God is gracious in His dealings with us, even when our theological position is not particularly precise. "Where, indeed, would any of us be if God's blessing till all our notions were right"(31).
In chapter one, Packer narrows down the role/work of the Spirit in the lives of Christians by following a pattern of P's:
Power? Is the Holy Spirit's main job to give us the power to do the things we ought to do or avoid the things we ought not do? That is certainly part of it, but not the whole.
Performance? Is the Holy Spirit primarily concerned with the bestowal of Spiritual gifts, allowing us to perform our part in the Church? No.
Purity? Like power, but with a narrow focus. Does the Holy Spirit primarily work in us to bring about our personal holiness? This is certainly close, but still falls short.
Presentation? Is the Holy Spirit's primary work to bring us to understanding of spiritual truth? It is certainly something He does (John 16), but it is not the core of His mission.
Here is Packer's conclusion: "The distinctive, constant, basic ministry of the Holy Spirit under the new covenant is so to mediate Christ's presence to believers (63). I thought this was phenomenally presented in the chapter. I have heard of this idea, but not developed to this level. His analogy is that the Spirit's ministry is like a flood light, revealing the surrounding area. You do not look as a flood light, you look where the light points, in our case the work and person of Christ in the scriptures. This conclusion guides the majority of the book.
2. Holiness
Chapter 3 was worth the price of the book. I thought he did a phenomenal job giving some basic biblical principles regarding holiness. After these he moves to polemics, analyzing Augustinian, Wesleyan, and Keswick views of holiness.
I was raised (and converted, to God be the glory) in the Church of the Nazarene, which is an odd mix or Wesleyan and Pentecostal. Packer's critique of Wesleyan holiness was spot on, and vocalized some of the things that drew me away from 'Nazarenedom' almost immediately after my conversion. Many of my friends are still Wesleyan (even if they deny it, one going as far as to say he is 'baptizerene.' In reality, he has little idea what it means to be Nazarene, or Baptist, and is simply Wesleyan to the core). This book encouraged me, knowing that my issues with their mindset is not unreasonable. Packer does a great job dissecting the inadequacies and contradictions within Wesleyan holiness, the largest being that Wesleyans are quick to say they are not sinless (at least honest ones), but they say that original sin has been rooted out of their hearts by the Holy Spirit. If original sin is gone, so is actual sin. It is a direct consequence of their definition of sin: 'a willful violation of a known law of God.' I found myself nodding in agreement with much of what Packer wrote. Entire sanctification is an unbiblical unreality, a misinterpretation of either one's conversion or simply a momentary heightened sense of assurance. More on that later.
3. Charismatics
For the most part, Packer had great things to say on the Charismatic life. I will start with the positives.
He is fair, which is important. I think we often approach Charismatics with an automatic rejection of the entirety of the movement. Packer is fair in being biblical and thorough in his investigation of their experience. He is quick to affirm that a majority of charismatics are obviously truly converted, even if slightly convoluted in their theology. This was a much needed rebuke for me, as I do become wearied by hyper-charismatics and their lunacy. He pointed out the many positive aspects of the movement, like their generosity and joy (which is centered on Christ).
Packer is also frank in his rebukes of the charismatic life. He rightly calls it a largely immature movement, as shown by their lack of theological depth and neglect of the high holiness of God. His treatment of their view on Spirit baptism was superb. Basically, he argues that the experience of either Spirit baptism or Entire Sanctification is simply an experience of assurance for the believer. The Spirit experientially gives us what has already objectively been given us in Christ. And for those precious moments we ought to be thankful.
Why then does God give these experiences to those who are misinterpreting and misapplying the Bible, those who are focused more on their experience of the Spirit than what they have been given in Christ? Because He is gracious. Packer makes a valid point, that God is working in all of His people to bring them into alignment with the character of Christ. He is doing this as well for His children who are in charismatic circles. This is, as it is with us, by grace. It is not right for us to tell God how he may or may not bless those who are truly his. Of course some fake it, but some do not. Those that are not faking it, however, are misinterpreting the experience. This is due to the ecclesiastical situation in which they find themselves.
Now for some negatives:
I think Packer overestimates the Christ-centeredness of the movement. While they are certainly Christian people, they do focus more on the work of the Spirit in their own lives than they do on what Christ has already done. To use Packer's language, I do not think charismatics (or evangelicals in general) understand this floodlight ministry nearly as well as he seems to think. Most of my thinking on this comes from first had experience, both by my rearing in the Nazarene church and my parent's current membership at an Assemblies of God church. My parent's church is likely the least AG church in the country, acting more like a large non-denom, seeker sensitive type. No tongues or anything like that at their local level. And yet, even there, the Spirit's work for the Christian is emphasized much more that justification or any such thing.
Second, Packer's handling of glossolalia was confusing at best. He seemed to say that the idea of a private prayer language is unbiblical, and that Paul had nothing like that in mind in 1 Corinthians. And yet, he seems to say that God could somehow still use it for the benefit of a particular Christian. I had a hard time following his logic there. How could it then be a good practice? He says the biblical teaching on tongues is muddied for any to be extremely confident of its use in the worship service. He seemed to use a lot of ink on the topic, but not say all that much. Perhaps this was intentional, attempting to show his lack of confidence in any particular interpretation.
Conclusion
This is a great book, and I would highly recommend as an introduction for anyone trying to understand the Spirit's role in the life of a Christian. He had some sharp rebukes that I needed to hear, even things which I ought to learn from my charismatic brothers, even if they are theologically shallow and lacking. He likewise had some strong rebukes for Wesleyans, Keswicks, and charismatics, which sharpened my thinking further on the subject.
If you made it this far, thanks for reading. Please comment or question anything that comes up. I reckon Packer is more open to some of the charismatic experience than many people on this board, likely myself included.
Let me start by saying that Packer seems to have a way to write directly to the heart. This is the third work I have read from him (the other two being the introductions to Death of Death and Mortification of Sin) and each time it feels as though he wrote directly to me. Perhaps Keep in Step had more to do with the subject matter, but I digress.
This work can be easily broken up into three parts:
1. Ground work
Packer lays a large foundation, working through the reformed view of the work of the Spirit before he gets into any polemics. An important point he returns to again and again is that God is gracious in His dealings with us, even when our theological position is not particularly precise. "Where, indeed, would any of us be if God's blessing till all our notions were right"(31).
In chapter one, Packer narrows down the role/work of the Spirit in the lives of Christians by following a pattern of P's:
Power? Is the Holy Spirit's main job to give us the power to do the things we ought to do or avoid the things we ought not do? That is certainly part of it, but not the whole.
Performance? Is the Holy Spirit primarily concerned with the bestowal of Spiritual gifts, allowing us to perform our part in the Church? No.
Purity? Like power, but with a narrow focus. Does the Holy Spirit primarily work in us to bring about our personal holiness? This is certainly close, but still falls short.
Presentation? Is the Holy Spirit's primary work to bring us to understanding of spiritual truth? It is certainly something He does (John 16), but it is not the core of His mission.
Here is Packer's conclusion: "The distinctive, constant, basic ministry of the Holy Spirit under the new covenant is so to mediate Christ's presence to believers (63). I thought this was phenomenally presented in the chapter. I have heard of this idea, but not developed to this level. His analogy is that the Spirit's ministry is like a flood light, revealing the surrounding area. You do not look as a flood light, you look where the light points, in our case the work and person of Christ in the scriptures. This conclusion guides the majority of the book.
2. Holiness
Chapter 3 was worth the price of the book. I thought he did a phenomenal job giving some basic biblical principles regarding holiness. After these he moves to polemics, analyzing Augustinian, Wesleyan, and Keswick views of holiness.
I was raised (and converted, to God be the glory) in the Church of the Nazarene, which is an odd mix or Wesleyan and Pentecostal. Packer's critique of Wesleyan holiness was spot on, and vocalized some of the things that drew me away from 'Nazarenedom' almost immediately after my conversion. Many of my friends are still Wesleyan (even if they deny it, one going as far as to say he is 'baptizerene.' In reality, he has little idea what it means to be Nazarene, or Baptist, and is simply Wesleyan to the core). This book encouraged me, knowing that my issues with their mindset is not unreasonable. Packer does a great job dissecting the inadequacies and contradictions within Wesleyan holiness, the largest being that Wesleyans are quick to say they are not sinless (at least honest ones), but they say that original sin has been rooted out of their hearts by the Holy Spirit. If original sin is gone, so is actual sin. It is a direct consequence of their definition of sin: 'a willful violation of a known law of God.' I found myself nodding in agreement with much of what Packer wrote. Entire sanctification is an unbiblical unreality, a misinterpretation of either one's conversion or simply a momentary heightened sense of assurance. More on that later.
3. Charismatics
For the most part, Packer had great things to say on the Charismatic life. I will start with the positives.
He is fair, which is important. I think we often approach Charismatics with an automatic rejection of the entirety of the movement. Packer is fair in being biblical and thorough in his investigation of their experience. He is quick to affirm that a majority of charismatics are obviously truly converted, even if slightly convoluted in their theology. This was a much needed rebuke for me, as I do become wearied by hyper-charismatics and their lunacy. He pointed out the many positive aspects of the movement, like their generosity and joy (which is centered on Christ).
Packer is also frank in his rebukes of the charismatic life. He rightly calls it a largely immature movement, as shown by their lack of theological depth and neglect of the high holiness of God. His treatment of their view on Spirit baptism was superb. Basically, he argues that the experience of either Spirit baptism or Entire Sanctification is simply an experience of assurance for the believer. The Spirit experientially gives us what has already objectively been given us in Christ. And for those precious moments we ought to be thankful.
Why then does God give these experiences to those who are misinterpreting and misapplying the Bible, those who are focused more on their experience of the Spirit than what they have been given in Christ? Because He is gracious. Packer makes a valid point, that God is working in all of His people to bring them into alignment with the character of Christ. He is doing this as well for His children who are in charismatic circles. This is, as it is with us, by grace. It is not right for us to tell God how he may or may not bless those who are truly his. Of course some fake it, but some do not. Those that are not faking it, however, are misinterpreting the experience. This is due to the ecclesiastical situation in which they find themselves.
Now for some negatives:
I think Packer overestimates the Christ-centeredness of the movement. While they are certainly Christian people, they do focus more on the work of the Spirit in their own lives than they do on what Christ has already done. To use Packer's language, I do not think charismatics (or evangelicals in general) understand this floodlight ministry nearly as well as he seems to think. Most of my thinking on this comes from first had experience, both by my rearing in the Nazarene church and my parent's current membership at an Assemblies of God church. My parent's church is likely the least AG church in the country, acting more like a large non-denom, seeker sensitive type. No tongues or anything like that at their local level. And yet, even there, the Spirit's work for the Christian is emphasized much more that justification or any such thing.
Second, Packer's handling of glossolalia was confusing at best. He seemed to say that the idea of a private prayer language is unbiblical, and that Paul had nothing like that in mind in 1 Corinthians. And yet, he seems to say that God could somehow still use it for the benefit of a particular Christian. I had a hard time following his logic there. How could it then be a good practice? He says the biblical teaching on tongues is muddied for any to be extremely confident of its use in the worship service. He seemed to use a lot of ink on the topic, but not say all that much. Perhaps this was intentional, attempting to show his lack of confidence in any particular interpretation.
Conclusion
This is a great book, and I would highly recommend as an introduction for anyone trying to understand the Spirit's role in the life of a Christian. He had some sharp rebukes that I needed to hear, even things which I ought to learn from my charismatic brothers, even if they are theologically shallow and lacking. He likewise had some strong rebukes for Wesleyans, Keswicks, and charismatics, which sharpened my thinking further on the subject.
If you made it this far, thanks for reading. Please comment or question anything that comes up. I reckon Packer is more open to some of the charismatic experience than many people on this board, likely myself included.
