Troubling Packer quote

[John The Baptist]

Just came across this quote in J.I Packer’s Knowing God:

“Part of the revealed mystery of the Godhead is that the three persons stand in a fixed relation to each other....It is the nature of the second person of the Trinity to acknowledge the authority and submit to the good pleasure of the first. That is why He declares Himself to be the Son, and the first person to be His Father. Though co-equal with the Father in eternity, power, and glory, it is natural to Him to play the Son's part, and find all His joy in doing His Father's will, just as it is natural to the first person of the Trinity to plan and initiate the works of the Godhead and natural to the third person to proceed from the Father and the Son to do their joint bidding. Thus the obedience of the God-man to the Father while He was on earth was not a new relationship occasioned by the incarnation, but the continuation in time of the eternal relationship between the Son and the Father in heaven." Knowing God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1973), 54-55.

Any way this is not promoting EFS? I know this is before it really erupted via Grudem and Ware, but this is very suspicious language. I would have thought Packer would not have fallen for this.

Does any one know of any comments by Packer on this quote or EFS in general?

Thanks

 

[bookslover]

Does the wider context of the particular chapter help to clarify it?

 

[Reformed Covenanter]

Yes, he was promoting EFS in that book. A lot of complementarians saw EFS as a way to combat evangelical feminism or egalitarianism. In effect, they chose to fight one serious error with another, confusing the ontological with the economic Trinity, though denying that is what they were doing.

 

[RamistThomist]

Yes, he said that and he was wrong. To his credit, he wasn't like other EFS guys who refuse to be corrected after more scholarly interaction. And Packer didn't make it the mainstay of his ministry, so I don't think it did any lasting harm on his part.

 

[Ulster Fry]

I find that a lot of evangelicals from that era completely misread Nicene Trinitarian theology. Moltmann in particular had a major influence on how the Trinity was understood in the latter half of the twentieth century, influencing both liberals and conservatives. The thing is, you won't find anything close to this language in any of the creeds or confessions.

 

[John The Baptist]

Does the wider context of the particular chapter help to clarify it?

Don’t know, I just saw the quote. I was looking around to see if Grudem had interacted with Barrett’s Simply Trinity, which I am currently reading. Found a post where he cited 18 other evangelical theologians who believe in submission/subordination in the immanent Trinity.

He put Calvin, Letham, and Berkhof on there

That is where I saw this Packer quote, so I would not be surprised if he was misreading it or taking it out of context(probably not on purpose).

Some of the quotes he pulled simply seemed to be talking about order of the order of the persons based on their eternal relations of origin, and he couldn’t discern the difference

 

[RamistThomist]

Found a post where he cited 18 other evangelical theologians who believe in submission/subordination in the immanent Trinity.

Almost everyone of those is a misreading by Grudem. Sadly, the one by Packer is not. One of the problems in the Trinity wars is that the egalitarians immediately captured the rhetorical high ground. They were able to show that they weren't the ones who tampered with the Trinity to bolster a social agenda (I leave Moltmann aside, since he isn't remotely orthodox).

I think egalitarians are wrong, to be sure, but they achieved numerous tactical victories on this point. To be fair, CBMW shied away from such language, but even then they haven't called ESS guys to repent of their false teaching.

 

[John The Baptist]

Almost everyone of those is a misreading by Grudem. Sadly, the one by Packer is not. One of the problems in the Trinity wars is that the egalitarians immediately captured the rhetorical high ground. They were able to show that they weren't the ones who tampered with the Trinity to bolster a social agenda (I leave Moltmann aside, since he isn't remotely orthodox).

I think egalitarians are wrong, to be sure, but they achieved numerous tactical victories on this point. To be fair, CBMW shied away from such language, but even then they haven't called ESS guys to repent of their false teaching.

Do you know if Grudem or Ware have interacted with Barrett?

 

[arapahoepark]

Almost everyone of those is a misreading by Grudem. Sadly, the one by Packer is not. One of the problems in the Trinity wars is that the egalitarians immediately captured the rhetorical high ground. They were able to show that they weren't the ones who tampered with the Trinity to bolster a social agenda (I leave Moltmann aside, since he isn't remotely orthodox).

I think egalitarians are wrong, to be sure, but they achieved numerous tactical victories on this point. To be fair, CBMW shied away from such language, but even then they haven't called ESS guys to repent of their false teaching.

I remember that. Reading the quotes he cited, even in their small contexts, clarified it was EFS and subordination meant something else.

 

[RamistThomist]

Do you know if Grudem or Ware have interacted with Barrett?

Some EFS guys have. I know Grudem eventually accepted the orthodox teaching of eternal generation, but I doubt that was in response to Barrett.