# Question for Fesko on Ramism and the CoW



## pduggan (Dec 8, 2005)

In your essay against Lusk's arguments agains the covenant of works you writes


> However, we may note at this point Jordan and Lusk´s erroneous historical-theological claims. The divines´ exegesis neither appears to be the result of a medieval hangover nor Ramist logic as Lusk and Jordan claim. ... One should be suspicious when Lusk and Jordan dismiss the covenant of works on the basis of alien philosophical or theological influence when they fail to cite evidence to support the claim. The primary sources simply do not support their contention. Lusk and Jordan´s claims are thinly researched and when they are, they cite discredited theories, such as Calvin vs. the Calvinists



A couple of questions

1. Is it really right to say that we can discern much of anything about the divine's exegesis by arguing from the prooftexts attached later to the confessional document? I wouldn't be sure in every case that the prooftexts reflect the actual process of theological reasoning that led to the clauses of the confession. That would need to be argued, I think.

2. You claim Lusk has 'thinly researched' the claim about ramist influence. Lusk footnotes state that he was relying on


> Wilson Benton, "œFederal Theology: Review for Revision" in Through Christ´s Word, ed. W. Robert Godfrey and Jesse L. Boyd III (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1985), 180-204, for complete details on the historical background to the rise of federalism


Is Bentons book a species of "Calvin vs. Calvinists' or is it arguing from another basis.

3. In the same vein, what is your evaluation of Robert Letham's claims about key Ramist influence in developing the CoW in "The Foedus Operum: Some Factors Accounting for its Development," The Sixteenth Century Journal14 (1983) 457-67. I don't have a copy of this myself, but McWilliams makes a generally favorable evaluation of in the WTJ. Is Letham a 'calvin vs. calvinists' style of historian?

Curious for any assistance you can give in helping to understand these matters.

[Edited on 12-8-2005 by pduggan]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 8, 2005)

Paul, 

Fesko, to my knowledge, is not on this board (I don't think - someone correct me if I am wrong).

Just a couple of notes:

"Is it really right to say that we can discern much of anything about the divine's exegesis by arguing from the prooftexts attached later to the confessional document? "

Yes. Following thier minutes will demonstrate the background behind those texts and why they are cited. For those who have, its easy to see their placment of them.

Also, Lusk et. al., arguing from the sources they do, usually pull them from non-Reformed sources to prove thier case. Smith does this heartily in his work on "the covenant" and much of what is written on the AA and NPP pulls from a poor (non-existent in many case) affluency of historical theology mixing up some of the most basic information.

It would behoove them to actually go and read the Early Fathers like Augustine and Iraneaus, the Reformers and Post-Reformation theologians instead of working off cited sources. This has been, and will continue to be, a hearty criticism of Lusk's et. al. heretical ideas surrounding Federal Visionism in general.


----------



## pduggan (Dec 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Yes. Following thier minutes will demonstrate the background behind those texts and why they are cited. For those who have, its easy to see their placment of them.



Thanks. Fesko didn't cite minutes that I could see, so if there are minutes available to line out the exegetical basis for the CoW comments, that would be helpful. I know there is some project to transcribe them.

I'm not sure why I got it into my head that Fesko was on the board. Thanks for your response.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Dec 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon_
> Paul,
> 
> Fesko, to my knowledge, is not on this board (I don't think - someone correct me if I am wrong).
> ...



Matt is correct.

Lusk's arguments are typically ill-informed -- but, ironically, among the better informed among the FV folk! -- relying on poorly researched secondary works, which themselves rely on other secondary works -- which I guess makes them tertiary actually. In this case Benton's Calvin v Calvinists essay was a re-hashing of J B Torrance's arguments which were drawn originally from work done by Moltmann in the '50's.

Lyle Bierma and I have both replied to the exaggerated claims about Ramus. See Lyle's book _ German Calvinism...._. My book is to be out this month or next from Rutherford House. The short story is that Ramus was NOT the revolutionary he has been made out to be. His bifurcating system of logic did not change the substance of what the Reformed argued. It's a long discussion but folk really need to read W. Ong's magisterial work on Ramus and then Ramus himself before they go on about him and his influence. Covenant theologians with Ramist influences taught the same covenant theology as folks without Ramist influences. It's a non-starter.

_Ad fontes_. It really isn't that difficult. 

The FV folk really need to stop reading tired secondary and tertiary work and start reading modern scholarship beginning with Muller. Then there's van Asselt's wonderful book on Cocceius and the Trueman/Clark vol and the van Asselt/Dekker volume. 

I had a discussion with a FV influenced college student the other day who hasn't read Muller but told me he didn't have to because he's read the FV boys. Oh my! 

They also need to start reading primary sources. There's a fair bit in English for those who are too busy revolutionizing biblical scholarship to learn a little Latin.

rsc


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by R. Scott Clark_
> 
> The FV folk really need to stop reading tired secondary and tertiary work and start reading modern scholarship beginning with Muller. Then there's van Asselt's wonderful book on Cocceius and the Trueman/Clark vol and the van Asselt/Dekker volume.
> 
> ...



Amen! That would also be an area of commonality with the NPP folks. Wright does almost no original research.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Dec 10, 2005)




----------

