# What was J.I. Packer's motivation to be involved with the Ecumenical movement?



## tyndale (Feb 8, 2013)

Been listening to some good sermons lately on the Roman Catholic church and its usual pitfalls. Does anyone know why J.I. Packer who is such an important person in the Reformed field decided to throw his name in and sign all of these EC accords? I know it destroyed his friendship with Martyn Lloyd-Jones and was the primary reason why the Puritan conferences were no longer held (this is from Iain Murray's testimony).

Just strange to me why he would do it, especially since the Catholic would want to hunt down the *big names* in the Evangelical movement for their own uses and they were very successful catching Packer. 

It's a shame because it has removed the need in many eyes to evangelize to Catholics whether we realize it or not.


----------



## JohnGill (Feb 8, 2013)

> You might ask him. I don't think we have *heart intention goggles* that'll tell us.



Google has an app out for that. 

You could also try the online articles by him on this issue or the interviews with him.


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 8, 2013)

It is best to let Mr. Packer explain this for himself. There is obviously a lot of good fruit in his life, anyone can have blind spots or go off, but Mr. Packer has faithfully expounded God's truth broadly.

It's interesting he recently separated from the (Canada) Anglican communion (to 'southern cone') over the "first order" issue of ordaining professed sexually immoral as clergy. So it's not as if the esteemed theologian has not been willing to separate himself from false teaching and practice.


----------



## tyndale (Feb 8, 2013)

I have been influenced by "Knowing God", so I definitely like a lot of what Packer has to say.

I had heard that part of the motivation for the movement was to stop the intense and deadly persecution of Protestants (and the missionaries) in Latin America by the Catholics, and that was in part achieved. 

But the long term effect is still being seen from what was probably a short sighted decision by him and many others on the Protestant side. Since that movement has blurred so many lines between what a true Christian is in the eyes of many.


----------



## Don Kistler (Feb 8, 2013)

I asked him myself personally when all this first hit the fan, why he would sign a document declaring Roman Catholics and Evangelicals to be brothers in Christ. His reply was as follows:

"I was thinking of a group of Roman Catholics in northern Michigan with whom I have fellowshipped and who believe in
justification by faith alone. That's who I had in mind."

I replied that would have been good to explain that to the many who don't know about this group. His restated, "Well, that's
who I had in mind. Not the Roman Church at large."


----------



## py3ak (Feb 8, 2013)

Don Kistler said:


> I asked him myself personally when all this first hit the fan, why he would sign a document declaring Roman Catholics and Evangelicals to be brothers in Christ. His reply was as follows:
> 
> "I was thinking of a group of Roman Catholics in northern Michigan with whom I have fellowshipped and who believe in
> justification by faith alone. That's who I had in mind."
> ...



That ultimately seems to boil a public document down to a private interpretation, and to divorce what Dr. Packer had in mind from what it would communicate. It is not hard to see that if the meaning of a public document is a private matter, a confession of faith becomes little more than a collection of sounds.


----------



## Edward (Feb 8, 2013)

Scott1 said:


> separated from the Anglican communion (to 'southern cone')



The Southern Cone is part of the worldwide Anglican communion, and remains (at least for now) in communion with the CofE.


----------



## timmopussycat (Feb 9, 2013)

tyndale said:


> Been listening to some good sermons lately on the Roman Catholic church and its usual pitfalls. Does anyone know why J.I. Packer who is such an important person in the Reformed field decided to throw his name in and sign all of these EC accords? I know it destroyed his friendship with Martyn Lloyd-Jones and was the primary reason why the Puritan conferences were no longer held (this is from Iain Murray's testimony).
> 
> Just strange to me why he would do it, especially since the Catholic would want to hunt down the *big names* in the Evangelical movement for their own uses and they were very successful catching Packer.
> 
> It's a shame because it has removed the need in many eyes to evangelize to Catholics whether we realize it or not.



See Why I Signed It. Part 1 | Christianity Today


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 9, 2013)

Edward said:


> Scott1 said:
> 
> 
> > separated from the Anglican communion (to 'southern cone')
> ...



Yes,
thanks for the clarification.
While I'm not greatly familiar with Anglican polity,
it appears Mr. Packer separated from the Anglican communion Canada structure in order to
associate with the more biblical beliefs of another (third world?) Anglican communion, and another group of bishops there that hold to a more biblical view.


----------



## Edward (Feb 9, 2013)

Scott1 said:


> Mr. Packer separated from the Anglican communion Canada structure in order to
> associate with the more biblical beliefs of another (third world?) Anglican communion, and another group of bishops there that hold to a more biblical view.



Yes, Canada and the US have abandoned all pretext of orthodoxy (although there are some orthodox parishes left, and some Bishops trying to mark time to retirement) and the CofE is following that path as quickly as they can. Unfortunately, the CofE folks who can't tolerate female bishops and ordination of open, practicing homosexuals are generally tending toward Rome rather than toward orthodoxy. 

In the US (and a lesser degree Canada) congregations tended to affiliate with African, South American, or Asian bishops when they left the ECUSA (US) or the Canadian body. And those bodies were part of the worldwide Anglican communion (as was the ECUSA) making for a complex arrangement. Now a US governing body has been set up, and a realignment is underway, although personalities are making the process difficult (as is ordination of women to the priesthood, which splits the breakaways and the Africans). 

I anticipate an eventual break between the Africans (excluding South Africa, which is quite liberal) on one hand, and the CofE, ECUSA, and the Canadians on the other, with the other players breaking on one side or the other, with a few opting for splinter groups not in communion with either.


----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 9, 2013)

???

Packer is a Reformed scholar, versed in the theology of the Reformation. 
Packer claims to uphold the theology of the Reformation. 
"Every Reformer, without exception, spoke of the papacy as Antichrist" 

Packer partners with Roman Catholics, affirming that we agree _ it announces its composers' agreement on the Apostles' Creed and on the proposition that "we are justified by grace through faith because of Christ"; it affirms a commitment to seek more love, less misrepresentation and misunderstanding, and more clarity about continuing doctrinal differences between the two constituencies; then it declares war on anti-Christian statism and specifies social values that must be fought for; and it sketches out a purpose of nonproselytizing joint action for the conversion and nurture of outsiders. _

Hmmmmmm.

R.C. Sproul takes a lot of heat for insisting that Rome and Reformation theology are on separate tracks. Some have impugned his scholarship, his historiography, his awareness of post Vatican II developments, etc. I, for one, appreciate his steadfast insistence on sticking by Reformational principles!

When the Roman Catholic Church repudiates Trent (including its canons, decrees, AND anathemas), then I will be willing to believe that we both believe that "we are justified by grace through faith because of Christ."

A little dated, but still worth watching: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exs_vY9dFp8


----------

