# Quest for Illegitimate Religious Traditionalism: A Critical Review of Clark's RRC



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Nov 24, 2009)

Recently, R. Scott Clark, professor of Westminster Seminary of California has published a book that has had a significant impact among churches that share in the Reformed heritage. RBS student Nicholas Alford highlights a number of important contributions offered by this monograph. He notes, however, that _Recovering the Reformed Confession_ (RRC) promotes some dangerous tendencies as well. In particular, Alford argues that while Clark criticizes other Reformed Christians for engaging on a Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty (QIRC) and a Quest for Illegitimate Religious Experience (QIRE), he himself is actually advocating something akin to a Quest for an Illegitimate Religious Traditionalism (QIRT). While attempting not to miss Clark's helpful contributions to evangelical and Reformed churches, Alford boldly yet gently points out some of the defects of Clark's paradigm. 

*The Quest for Illegitimate Religious Traditionalism (QIRT): A Review of R. Scott Clark's Recovering the Reformed Confession by Nicholas Alford*

Your servant,


----------



## Oecolampadius (Nov 24, 2009)

In his second argument, the author accuses Clark of crossing the line into a "dangerous confessionalism" and one is given the impression that this is justified since Clark stated that the authority of the confessions "_is_ tantamount to that of Scripture, assuming that a given confession _is_ biblical and intended to be subscribed _because (quia)_ it is biblical."



> The reader begins to get uncomfortable early on, when Clark remarks that “…sola scriptura [does] not teach that the Bible means what one says it does, but that the Scriptures, being God’s Word, form the church, and the church in subjection to the Scriptures is able to interpret them well enough to decide controversies”(pp. 25-6). While Clark’s zeal for ecclesiastical authority may make some uncomfortable, this passage could be taken as nothing more than a proper condemnation of the widespread distortion of sola scriptura into solo scriptura. If Clark simply set out to critique the “Tradition 0” zeitgeist, and to build a better understanding of “Tradition I,” there would no reason for alarm. Although this healthy return to Tradition 1 is Clark’s stated goal, he seems to have overshot that mark.* A statement such as the one made brazenly and with only weak qualification on page 178, that “the authority of the confession is…tantamount to that of Scripture, assuming that a given confession is biblical,” leaves no doubt as to whether R. Scott Clark has crossed a line that ought not to be crossed.*[emphasis mine]



First of all, one must ask the question, why is it so wrong to say that the authority of the confession, _because it is biblical_, is tantamount to that of Scripture? Now, allow me to argue by analogy here. Isn't it that the authority that comes with the faithful preaching of the Word _tantamount_ to the authority of the Word itself?

I say that it _is_. To those who wish to argue that it isn't, before you do so, let me refer the reader to what the Second Helvetic Confession says about preaching:



> THE PREACHING OF THE WORD OF GOD IS THE WORD OF GOD. Wherefore when this Word of God is now preached in the church by preachers lawfully called, we believe that the very Word of God is proclaimed, and received by the faithful; and that neither any other Word of God is to be invented nor is to be expected from heaven: and that now the Word itself which is preached is to be regarded, not the minister that preaches; for even if he be evil and a sinner, nevertheless the Word of God remains still true and good.



In other words, the preaching of the Word of God is *tantamount* to the Word of God. It doesn't just simply say that the reading of the text is tantamount to the Word of God. The faithful preaching of the text is _tantamount_ to the Word of God.

When one subscribes to the confession _because it is biblical_, one is essentially saying that the doctrines set forth by the confession are the very same doctrines that Scripture teaches. If this is not what one is essentially saying when he subscribes to the confession, isn't that person a liar then? So, if by subscribing to the confession, one is assenting that its doctrines are those taught by Scripture, then clearly one is also saying that the confession's authority is tantamount to that of Scripture.


----------



## Zenas (Nov 24, 2009)

Reading briefly as I attempt to satiate my insomnia, I take exception to Mr. Alford's second point, namely, that Dr. Clark has crossed the line into "dangerous" confessionalism. In the interest of playing "devil's advocate", I tend to think that Mr. Alford fails to read Dr. Clark in the most favorable light, and opts to ascribe to him a slightly more devious position that Clark seems to maintain. 

Mr. Alford admits that Dr. Clark views the confessions as tantamount to Scripture on a qualified basis. According to the article, Dr. Clark states that “the authority of the confession is…tantamount to that of Scripture, assuming that a given confession is biblical.” Mr. Alford goes on to illustrate that the confession's authority cannot be tantamount to Scriptural authority because each draws its authority from different sources, with Scripture's authority obviously drawn from a superior source. On this premise, Mr. Alford concludes the obvious and logical, that any given confession's authority cannot be tantamount to Scripture, no matter how biblically based. Stated thusly, I would tend to agree; however, the illustration he employed to exemplify his point did just the opposite for me. 

Mr. Alford states that "[t]he cleanest mirror in all the world is still just a reflection; it is never on equal footing with reality." In what sense though? No, I cannot smell or touch a reflection so in those senses it is not tantamount to reality. However, so far as perceiving the image, a reflection could be passed off as the genuine article if only seen and not examined further. Why? Because the reflection accurately reflects the authenticity of the genuine article by extension. 

This is why I think Dr. Clark's qualified statement is important. A confession can be tantamount, so long as it's Biblical. Why? Because the equality of authority is based on the authority of Scripture. The confession isn't independently authoritative because it is true or says true things, it is dependently authoritative on Scripture which is authoritative as God's Word, and that Scripture is what comprises it.

It is not as if Dr. Clark is engaging in the heresies of the Roman church, wherein they place Tradition on par with Scripture where Tradition is directly at odds with and in no way based on God's Word. The confessions are in no wise similar to this. Rather, they are based on clear biblical truths and, insofar as they are based on Scripture, they borrow Scripture's authoritative quality.

***Disclaimer: I realize I could be entirely misstating Dr. Clark's position. I simply attempted to try and understand Dr. Clark in the most reasonable and charitable way I could surmise and respond accordingly. I don't necessarily agree and, in addition, I could have entirely misstated the position.***

-----Added 11/24/2009 at 02:44:05 EST-----

I also take exception to the following excerpt from Mr. Alford's critique:



> Clark has painted himself into a corner by way of his own strident confessionalism. It is not consistent to state that “…the Scriptures, being God’s Word, form the church, and the church in subjection to the Scriptures is able to interpret them well enough to decide controversies” (p. 26), yet on page 270 suggest that the disagreements between the a capella Psalter crowd and the more mainstream Reformed worshipers be settled by a compromise. Again, this may be a fine and equatable way for a church to settle a dispute, but why does Clark get to break his own rules at this point?



He accuses Dr. Clark of breaking his own rules, but I think such a conclusion requires a misunderstanding of what Clark says. Clark clearly states in the quote provided by Mr. Alford that the church is able to interpret the Scriptures well enough to decide controversies. Mr. Alford seems to inject a very strict meaning into "decide controversies" in order to conclude that Clark is breaking his own rule by proposing a compromise between EPers and normal people (kidding). Clark is proposing a decision to a controversy, a compromise. I don't see how Mr. Alford is able to conclude that this breaks Clark's own rule unless he reads Clark extremely strictly. Rather, it appears to me Clark is effectively fulfilling it. The decision in this case is simply not one that Mr. Alford is happy with. That doesn't mean there is some sort of intellectual dishonesty occurring though.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Nov 24, 2009)

Joel and Andrew,

You've both raised some good questions. I didn't author the book review so I can't provide a definitive response on behalf of Mr. Alford. Nevertheless, I did post it and do share some of the concerns of Mr. Alford concerning what he (and I perceive) to be an approach to ecclesiastical tradition that accords it too much weight and equality with Scripture. 

Joel cited the Second Helvetic Confession's assertion that "THE PREACHING OF THE WORD OF GOD IS THE WORD OF GOD." Does that mean we should view _entire_ sermons _as the word of God_ if we can't _immediately_ detect anything in them that was incorrect? Or does it mean that we should treat sermons as the word of God _in so far as_ (_quatenus_) they correspond to Scripture. I am inclined to this latter approach, and I believe that's the position for which Mr. Alford is arguing. 

In other words, I think Alford's primary complaint is with Clark's _quia_ approach to subscription. Such an approach requires that one affirm an _entire confessional document_ is equivalent (i.e., tantamount) to Scripture _because it perfectly corresponds to_ Scripture. Some problems arising from such a position, as I presently see it, are as follows:

(1) Once adopted, it seems to place the confessional symbol beyond the reach of emendation. 

Once it is accorded the status of "tantamount to Scripture," it becomes _the very court of appeal_ by which it itself is judged. Granted, the Reformed symbols are good courts--yea, excellent courts! But I know of no one who would affirm that they are _eo ipso_ infallible. Accordingly, I think it much healthier and humbler for Reformed folk to adopt the _quatenus_ approach and affirm that a symbol or sermon is (in a derivative sense, as Andrew wisely notes) God's word _in so far as_ it corresponds to God's word. 

Of course, some might argue that it's impossible to follow a _quatenus_ approach to subscription while also affirming _full_ subscription. But I'm not sure this necessarily follows. It's possible for me to say that as far as I can _presently_ ascertain a given symbol as a whole is true to the Bible, and I'm not _immediately_ aware of any errors in it, yet _at the same time_ concede that, given its nature as a merely human document that is subordinate to Scripture, it _may contain error_ (i.e., it's not infallible or beyond the reach of emendation) that's currently not perceived by me or the church. Such an approach keeps the symbol in its proper place, that is, in subordination to the Scripture. It also leaves open the door for correction, as when, for example, the Presbyterian churches in America revised the WCF's doctrine of the civil magistrate. 

(2) The _quia_ approach to confessions or sermons doesn't seem to allow for honest reservations (and liberty) of conscience. 

It may be that R. Scott Clark and others like him can presently affirm that any given Reformed symbols, his his case presumably the 3FU, are completely, thoroughly, proportionally, and perfectly biblical and, as a result, accord the symbols _in their entirety_ authority equivalent to Scripture. But have they not bound their conscience absolutely to a man-made ecclesiastical document by this "all-or-nothing" approach, leaving themselves no room to question any aspect of the symbol's teaching without immediately placing themselves in the position of questioning God himself on account of the status they've already accorded the confession? 

Moreover, if I'm not mistaken, Clark argues that the laity should be required to give _quia_ subscription to the symbols. Let's use the "sermon" analogy employed by Joel. Imagine a minister preaches a sermon on why a church should have an "evening and morning" service based on the OT pattern of "evening and morning" sacrifices. Let's say half the congregation believes that the sermon was true to the Word, and they submit to the church's practice _because they believe it's biblical_. But the other half of the congregation are not persuaded by the minister's argument. Must that second half resign their membership because they will not give _implicit faith_ to certain applications in a non-inspired sermon--because they're taking a _quatenus_ approach to the sermon? That's not what I expect from my sheep. I often pray that God give them the discernment to separate the wheat from the chaff in my messages. On the other hand, I have no problem asking them to respect and submit to church authority in attending the stated meetings of the church since one may submit to a God-ordained authority even if one doesn't completely agree with that authority provided, of course, that the authority isn't asking one to violate God's word. Since I don't treat an evening service as an "element" of worship but as a "circumstance" of worship, I can ask my congregation to attend the evening service on the basis of human authority without necessarily demanding that they attend because its biblical in the sense that they have to give _quia_ subscription to my interpretation/application of Scripture as a whole. 

Granted, a confession is somewhat different than a sermon. It's usually the product of more careful reflection and often more minds. So Confessions of Faith are less likely to go astray than sermons. Still, we only ask our people to subscribe to the confession _in so far as_ it is biblical because we want to maintain its subordinate status. Furthermore, we can't realistically expect a new convert or even a lay-person who's been a Christian for some time to give implicit faith to such a comprehensive document the teachings of which he or she has not had time to study thoroughly in its historical context. Indeed, the order of the Great Commission seems to be church membership first then thorough indoctrination (Matt. 28:19-20). But the _quia_ approach, if followed conscientiously, would seem to require thorough indoctrination and 100% agreement from every potential candidate _before_ admittance into membership could be allowed. 

I recognize I may not have responded to or answered all the questions you men have raised. I appreciate your attempt to read Dr. Clark in the best light. I think we should all strive to give a brother's view the best reading possible. I don't think Mr. Alford would equate Clark's view of tradition as tantamount to Roman Catholicism, and he did not a number of commendable points in Clark's book. But I think he's concerned that the approach to tradition advocated in RRC has the potential of creating a "crack in the dike" that might, years from now, lead to a dangerous view of human tradition that would conflict with some of the very concerns expressed by the Reformers and Puritans themselves (see WCF 1.10). 

Thanks for your constructive criticism. I'll notify Mr. Alford and make him aware of your concerns. I'm not sure if he's a member of the PB, so I don't know if he'll be able to interact on this forum. You are free, however, to leave comments on RBS Tabletalk blog where he can interact with you. 

Yours in Christ,
Bob Gonzales


----------



## greenbaggins (Nov 24, 2009)

Why would one accept as one's doctrinal position a confession that one did not believe to be biblical? When we say as a church "credo," and then recite the Apostle's Creed or Nicene Creed, are we not saying "This is what we believe Scripture to be saying?" The same is true of any other church confession. It is "credo." If at some point, one comes to the conclusion that this is not what one believes, then there are plenty of other denominations out there that would be more amenable to what the person believes. 

It does not follow logically in the slightest to say that because Dr. Clark believes that the confession accurately summarizes Scripture, that he is putting the confession on the level of Scripture. For one thing, the very confession he holds to believes that Scripture is the only infallible rule. The problem that a confession addresses is that "every heretic has his text." Shouldn't the church, therefore, agree on what it thinks the Scripture teaches? 

It also doesn't follow that if one holds to the same position as Clark, that therefore one is making the confessions into bronze, and unchangeable. It doesn't follow in any way, shape, or form. If the church comes to the conviction that something in the confession is wrong, or needs changing, there is a process in place in every single confessional denomination of which I'm aware to change that. The American Presbyterian Church, for instance, found three places in the Westminster Standards that it desired to change over the course of the 19th century. They required strict _quia_ subscription to the Standards, and yet they changed the Standards. The standards themselves recognize that they are fallible. Therefore, for a church to say that they believe the standards are biblical is not a statement saying that the standards are infallible.

If this discussion is going to advance much more, I would recommend, Dr. G, that you read this book.


----------



## jogri17 (Nov 24, 2009)

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Recently, R. Scott Clark, professor of Westminster Seminary of California has published a book that has had a significant impact among churches that share in the Reformed heritage. RBS student Nicholas Alford highlights a number of important contributions offered by this monograph. He notes, however, that _Recovering the Reformed Confession_ (RRC) promotes some dangerous tendencies as well. In particular, Alford argues that while Clark criticizes other Reformed Christians for engaging on a Quest for Illegitimate Religious Certainty (QIRC) and a Quest for Illegitimate Religious Experience (QIRE), he himself is actually advocating something akin to a Quest for an Illegitimate Religious Traditionalism (QIRT). While attempting not to miss Clark's helpful contributions to evangelical and Reformed churches, Alford boldly yet gently points out some of the defects of Clark's paradigm.
> 
> *The Quest for Illegitimate Religious Traditionalism (QIRT): A Review of R. Scott Clark's Recovering the Reformed Confession by Nicholas Alford*
> 
> Your servant,



Love the irony of you having an Edward's quote in your signature while posting this.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Nov 24, 2009)

greenbaggins said:


> Why would one accept as one's doctrinal position a confession that one did not believe to be biblical? When we say as a church "credo," and then recite the Apostle's Creed or Nicene Creed, are we not saying "This is what we believe Scripture to be saying?" The same is true of any other church confession. It is "credo." If at some point, one comes to the conclusion that this is not what one believes, then there are plenty of other denominations out there that would be more amenable to what the person believes.
> 
> It does not follow logically in the slightest to say that because Dr. Clark believes that the confession accurately summarizes Scripture, that he is putting the confession on the level of Scripture. For one thing, the very confession he holds to believes that Scripture is the only infallible rule. The problem that a confession addresses is that "every heretic has his text." Shouldn't the church, therefore, agree on what it thinks the Scripture teaches?
> 
> ...



Dear Lane,

Thanks for your input. I respect your right to prefer the _quia_ approach over the _quatenus_ approach to confessional subscription. Still, I find it difficult to understand how one can affirm without qualification that a humanly produced doctrinal statement IS 100% biblical yet reserve the right to emend it. Doesn't the requirement to give _quia_ subscription to a confession presuppose that the one affixing his "credo" is an infallible interpreter of Scripture itself? In order to be 100% certain that a creed is absolutely in line with the Scripture in all its teachings and emphases, I must be 100% sure of my interpretation of Scripture. So it would seem to me. 

I prefer the approach that allows ministers to give credence and allegiance to ecclesiastical authority IN SO FAR AS as that authority accurately reflects the teaching of Scripture (and in so far as the subscriber is rightly understanding the Scripture itself). Of course, I also think those who take this approach should make any exceptions they may have to teachings in a given confession known to their fellow ministers and the church in the interests of honesty and integrity. 

Thanks for the recommendation of the book. I haven't read it, but I did read the section in Clark's book on the different kinds of confessional subscription practiced in Reformed churches and also Morton Smith's book on confessional subscription. 

Thanks for your input.

Your servant,
Bob Gonzales


----------



## greenbaggins (Nov 24, 2009)

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > Why would one accept as one's doctrinal position a confession that one did not believe to be biblical? When we say as a church "credo," and then recite the Apostle's Creed or Nicene Creed, are we not saying "This is what we believe Scripture to be saying?" The same is true of any other church confession. It is "credo." If at some point, one comes to the conclusion that this is not what one believes, then there are plenty of other denominations out there that would be more amenable to what the person believes.
> ...



Your statement seems to imply that no human ever changes his mind. I can be 100 percent convinced (and I am currently) that the Westminster Standards conform completely to biblical teaching (notice there which document is being compared to which!). But what if, five or ten years down the road, I change my mind about some doctrinal issue? What should I do? Well, I have several options. First and foremost, in order to honor my ordination vow, I have to tell my Presbytery the change of mind that I have made. Secondly, if they judge that such a change does not strike at the system of doctrine, that may be the end of it. Or, I may decide to start a campaign to change that particular doctrine of the Westminster Standards. 

If I am not 100 percent sure of my interpretation currently, then I shouldn't be a pastor. This is the difference that an academic setting makes on people's minds. I can tell that because you are in an academic setting, certainty about one's beliefs makes one ossified and unteachable. However, to a congregation, certainty is a bedrock of assurance to the people. Now, I can still say that I may be wrong, and I probably am on some things. But until I am convinced by careful biblical exegesis and logical systematic theology that I am in error, I will remain 100 percent convinced of my position. The uncertainty of the academy has no place in the church.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Nov 24, 2009)

Lane,

I'm sorry if my comments above were poorly stated and caused confusion. Actually, I intended to say that humans indeed do change their mind. That's why I find tension in the _quia_ approach to subscription. Of course, as you point out, men have held and do hold the _quia_ approach while allowing that (1) the symbol is not infallible and (2) is, therefore, open to correction. However, I still find it hard to understand how I can simultaneously affirm a document is equivalent to God's Word because it is biblical and also propose that the same document is in some place contradictory to God's Word. In other words, it seems to me that one has to drop his vow to _quia _subscription the moment he questions and suggests any changes to the very document he's supposed to believe is tantamount to God's word. 

By the way, I'm not just an academician. I'm also the pastor of a congregation and have been for over 12 years. So I'm not speaking from an ivory tower. Moreover, I understand the importance of providing the saints with assurance of the veracity of God's word and the great truths of the gospel. Nevertheless, our own confession asserts, 
All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of ordinary means, may attain to a sufficient understanding of them (LBCF 1.7).​ If "all things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all," wouldn't we have to say the same thing about the teachings of a human confession of faith? Isn't it possible that I might be more convinced and sure about certain teachings in the confession in relationship to some more peripheral doctrines in the confession? I understand your concern to protect yourself and sheep from false teachers who like to sow seeds of doubt about everything in the Bible, including and especially the central facets of the gospel. I share that concern. 

But I'm not convinced that to be a faithful pastor I must have the same epistemic certainty of everyone of my interpretations of Scripture, nor of very interpretation offered in human confessions. Of course, being less certain about interpretation "B" than interpretation "A" is not tantamount to a denial or rejection of interpretation "B." It's just the simple recognition that (1) my cognitive faculties (and those of other men of God are still tainted by sin) and (2) special revelation this side of the Second Coming is partial and fragmentary in nature (1 Cor. 13:8ff.). This is not a denial of the clarity of Scripture but simply a qualification--one I think the confession itself makes as I've tried to show above. 

Once again, thanks for your challenges. 

Sincerely yours,
Bob Gonzales


----------



## KMK (Nov 24, 2009)

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> I don't think Mr. Alford would equate Clark's view of tradition as tantamount to Roman Catholicism, and he did not a number of commendable points in Clark's book. But I think he's concerned that *the approach to tradition* advocated in RRC has the potential of creating a "crack in the dike" that might, years from now, lead to a dangerous view of human *tradition* that would conflict with some of the very concerns expressed by the Reformers and Puritans themselves (see WCF 1.10).



Are you equating Clark's view of Reformed subscriptionism to 'tradition' of some kind? I could be reading you incorrectly, but it sounds like you see 'Reformed subscriptionism' and 'Roman tradition' as different in degree rather than in kind.


----------



## greenbaggins (Nov 24, 2009)

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Lane,
> 
> I'm sorry if my comments above were poorly stated and caused confusion. Actually, I intended to say that humans indeed do change their mind. That's why I find tension in the _quia_ approach to subscription. Of course, as you point out, men have held and do hold the _quia_ approach while allowing that (1) the symbol is not infallible and (2) is, therefore, open to correction. However, I still find it hard to understand how I can simultaneously affirm a document is equivalent to God's Word because it is biblical and also propose that the same document is in some place contradictory to God's Word. In other words, it seems to me that one has to drop his vow to _quia _subscription the moment he questions and suggests any changes to the very document he's supposed to believe is tantamount to God's word.
> 
> ...



Unfortunately, this does not clarify things. The nature of "quia" subscription is not the same as "no exceptions" or "strict" subscription. For instance, in the PCA, we have "good faith subscription." What this means is that a candidate states whatever differences he has with the confession; the Presbytery rules on each difference, as to whether it is merely a semantic difference, or a genuine exception, but one that does not strike at the fundamentals of the system of doctrine, or whether it cannot be allowed (in other words, a deal-breaker for the candidate). After these differences are ruled on by the Presbytery, the candidate is assumed "in good faith" to hold to all the rest of the particulars of the confession. I believe that this "good faith subscription" is a form of _quia_ subscription. One of the key points here is that it is the Presbytery that rules on a person's "differences" (note that they are not called exceptions before the Presbytery rules on each one). This way the Presbytery is responsible for the exact state of the relationship of a candidate to the standards. And then the Presbytery rules on whether such a candidate's differences puts him in or out. But the end state of someone who takes exceptions but is still ordained is that he believes the standards contain THE system of doctrine taught in Holy Scripture, with the differences recorded that he has noted. It is still a _quia_ subscription, but it allows for differences. You are interpreting the _quia_ subscription position as more ossified than it actually is.

The problem with what you're advocating is that it is more of a system subscription, in which the candidate gets to decide which aspects of the confession he will hold and which ones he will not. But that is not up to him in a confessional church. The Presbytery or Classis decides whether his views are in conformity to the confession or not. A candidate cannot simply pick and choose what he wants to believe. That will create a system within the system, and allows much more deception to happen.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Nov 24, 2009)

Dear Ken,

I should be careful how I answer since the book review I posted was authored by someone else. So I can't ultimately speak for him and want to be careful not to misrepresent him. 

As far as my own understanding of Confessions, I do view them as forms of ecclesiastical tradition. I don't see anything unbiblical about affirming and identifying with such tradition as long as it accurately corresponds to the teaching of God's word and doesn't in any way invalidate the teaching of God's word. 

After reading Clark's view of _quia_ subscription, I'm hesitant simply to equate it in kind with a Roman Catholic view of tradition. As Lane pointed out above, apparently men who have held to a _quia_ form of subscription have in fact been willing not only to affirm that their ecclesiastical tradition may contain errors but have been willing to identify such errors and correct them (i.e., as in the case of the Presbyterians in America modifying the WCF on the civil magistrate). So at least at a _practical _level, there appears to be a difference in kind between the Reformed _quia_ view of tradition and that of the Roman church. 

But I still feel uncomfortable with the _quia_ view at a _semantic_ and _conceptual_ level. Of course, my difficulty or lack of comfort may say more about me than about the position itself. I'm just being honest. 

Thanks for asking me to clarify.

Sincerely,
Bob Gonzales

-----Added 11/24/2009 at 11:59:38 EST-----



greenbaggins said:


> > Unfortunately, this does not clarify things. The nature of "quia" subscription is not the same as "no exceptions" or "strict" subscription. For instance, in the PCA, we have "good faith subscription." What this means is that a candidate states whatever differences he has with the confession; the Presbytery rules on each difference, as to whether it is merely a semantic difference, or a genuine exception, but one that does not strike at the fundamentals of the system of doctrine, or whether it cannot be allowed (in other words, a deal-breaker for the candidate). After these differences are ruled on by the Presbytery, the candidate is assumed "in good faith" to hold to all the rest of the particulars of the confession. I believe that this "good faith subscription" is a form of _quia_ subscription. One of the key points here is that it is the Presbytery that rules on a person's "differences" (note that they are not called exceptions before the Presbytery rules on each one). This way the Presbytery is responsible for the exact state of the relationship of a candidate to the standards. And then the Presbytery rules on whether such a candidate's differences puts him in or out. But the end state of someone who takes exceptions but is still ordained is that he believes the standards contain THE system of doctrine taught in Holy Scripture, with the differences recorded that he has noted. It is still a _quia_ subscription, but it allows for differences. You are interpreting the _quia_ subscription position as more ossified than it actually is.
> >
> > The problem with what you're advocating is that it is more of a system subscription, in which the candidate gets to decide which aspects of the confession he will hold and which ones he will not. But that is not up to him in a confessional church. The Presbytery or Classis decides whether his views are in conformity to the confession or not. A candidate cannot simply pick and choose what he wants to believe. That will create a system within the system, and allows much more deception to happen.
> 
> ...


----------



## greenbaggins (Nov 24, 2009)

A couple of thoughts here. The difference between a good faith subscription and a quatenus subscription is that the latter still has a hidden reserve of qualification even in the vow itself (even supposing the differences to be stated), whereas good faith subscription has the differences out in the open, and the rest of the confession is said _to be_ biblical. A good analogy exists in the forum of apologies. If I say, "If I've offended you, I'm sorry," this is not a real apology, since one reserves the possibility that one has not actually offended the other person. Whereas, if one says, "I've offended you, and I'm sorry," that is a real apology, because it acknowledges that the offense really happened. So it is with confessional subscription. If one says, "I subscribe to the confession insofar as it is biblical," then one is always reserving the private right to disagree without telling anyone about it. But if I say, "I subscribe to the confession because it is biblical," then people know exactly where I stand, and the truth is out there in the open. Exceptions, to my mind, are not at the heart of the issue. 

So, when a candidate comes to be examined, he should already have done all the painstaking work to discover for himself whether he believes the confession to be biblical or not _at every single point_. This is not work that should be done afterwards, but before. If he has done this work and is convinced that the confession is biblical, then a quatenus subscription is unnecessary. He should believe the confession because it is biblical. By the way, this board is _quia_ subscription, not _quatenus_. 

As to the quotations you have adduced, he is arguing that _quia_ equals "strict." As I have already argued, I do not believe this to be the case. Strict subscription means that no exceptions are allowed. But as I have stated above, exceptions are not at the heart of the discussion about whether one subscribes _quia_ or _quatenus_.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Nov 24, 2009)

Lane,

Thanks again for your patience and helpful response. I think I'm understanding your position better. Perhaps it is to some degree just a difference over semantics. For apparently, there seems to be differences among Reformed folk in the way they define the _quia_ vs. _quatenus_ approach, as your differences with Mr. Gobelman, whom I cited, illustrate. 

Of course, I don't believe a candidate for the ministry should withhold any reservations about the church's confession. He should identify them all so that when he's finished he can say that _he presently affirms what remains of the confession_. Nevertheless, I've met few ministers in my life whose doctrinal understanding of God's word remains perfectly static. So in many cases, such a man may need later to inform his Presbytery/eldership/church of further exceptions. For this reason, I have no problem with a man saying "I believe a confession to be biblical _insofar as_ it conforms to the word of God." I don't see anything unbiblical or unconfessional about that approach. And as long as he remains above board with his Presbytery/eldership/congregation, I see nothing underhanded or duplicitous. 

I did note your remark, "By the way, this board is _quia_ subscription, not _quatenus_." Is that really true? When you identify the _quia_ position as this board's position, do you mean that every member of the Puritan Board holds or must hold that position? If so, how is it that over 46% of the members have affirmed the proposition "I subscribe to the Confession insofar as it's Biblical" in a recent poll? Interestingly, I noted that at least one of the moderators affirmed the _quaternus_ approach. 

Not trying to challenge your statement; just making an observation. Perhaps some of it has to do with how we define these approaches. Things also work differently in Baptist churches than in Presbyterian circles, as I'm sure you're aware.

Thanks again, Lane, for the interaction. 

Your servant,
Bob Gonzales


----------



## Herald (Nov 24, 2009)

> Of course, I don't believe a candidate for the ministry should withhold any reservations about the church's confession. He should identify them all so that when he's finished he can say that he presently affirms what remains of the confession. Nevertheless, I've met few ministers in my life whose doctrinal understanding of God's word remains perfectly static. So in many cases, such a man may need later to inform his Presbytery/eldership/church of further exceptions. For this reason, I have no problem with a man saying "I believe a confession to be biblical insofar as it conforms to the word of God." I don't see anything unbiblical or unconfessional about that approach. And as long as he remains above board with his Presbytery/eldership/congregation, I see nothing underhanded or duplicitous.



Bob, I do see Lane's point. If a pastoral candidate provides the answer that you cited ("I believe a confession to be biblical insofar as it conforms to the word of God.") it could be seen as hedging one's bet. I would rather have the candidate make clear his objections upfront, and then affirm that the rest of the confession is biblical. There is nothing to stop the individual from having a change of heart at a later date, provided there was not a duplicitous agenda to begin with.


----------



## greenbaggins (Nov 24, 2009)

This board's official position is that of a _quia_ approach. While we understand that many may not take that approach (and it is more than possible that many people are confused on this), we are a confessional board that affirms that the confessions _are_ biblical. We believe that a _quatenus_ approach does not hold that the confessions are biblical. It is a confession that is not a confession. It is like the apology which is not an apology. So also, we hold that the confessions _are_ biblical. We have Baptist and paedo-Baptist confessions that do allow for variations on that position. But we will not tolerate advocacy of a position that implies or states that the confessions are not biblical.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 24, 2009)

I don't want to try to conduct this discussion in three places so I expect to reply to the review on the HB.

Bob, I think you should read the book.


----------



## KMK (Nov 24, 2009)

Herald said:


> > Of course, I don't believe a candidate for the ministry should withhold any reservations about the church's confession. He should identify them all so that when he's finished he can say that he presently affirms what remains of the confession. Nevertheless, I've met few ministers in my life whose doctrinal understanding of God's word remains perfectly static. So in many cases, such a man may need later to inform his Presbytery/eldership/church of further exceptions. For this reason, I have no problem with a man saying "I believe a confession to be biblical insofar as it conforms to the word of God." I don't see anything unbiblical or unconfessional about that approach. And as long as he remains above board with his Presbytery/eldership/congregation, I see nothing underhanded or duplicitous.
> 
> 
> 
> Bob, I do see Lane's point. If a pastoral candidate provides the answer that you cited ("I believe a confession to be biblical insofar as it conforms to the word of God.") *it could be seen as hedging one's bet.* I would rather have the candidate make clear his objections upfront, and then affirm that the rest of the confession is biblical. There is nothing to stop the individual from having a change of heart at a later date, provided there was not a duplicitous agenda to begin with.



I agree with Bill. 'Quatenus' subscription sounds dangerous in that it allows for a secret 'confession within a confession'.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Nov 24, 2009)

Bill, Lane, and Ken,

I sympathize with your concerns about men abusing the _quatenus_ approach. I don't doubt that there have been men who have mental reservations about a church's Confession either at or after their ordination and do not communicate those reservations to their Presbytery, eldership, or congregation. Then they attempt to undermine the confession's teaching in ways that are subtle and subversive to the unity and well-being of the flock. With you I stand against such dishonesty. I'm especially concerned how confessional "looseness" has allowed men like Peter Enns to teach at seminary that supposedly affirms the WCF while he was advancing a view of inspiration at odds not merely with the Westminster Standards but also with other tried and proven evangelical symbols. 

Still, I'm not certain that the best solution is the _quia_ approach. First, the best solution in my mind is a regenerate heart, commitment to Scripture as God's inspired and inerrant word, and the maintenance of a good conscience before God and man together with a carefully regulated _quatenus_ approach.

Second, the _quia_ approach, as Lane seems to represent it above, appears to require the subscriber to affirm _every single doctrine and nuance of doctrine in the Confession with absolute and equal certainty_. While I'm willing to submit to an ecclesiastical authority as a God-ordained authority and, thus, not promote or teach anything contrary to that authority without the authority's consent (i.e., in the case of exceptions), I'm hesitant in my conscience to give absolute submission on the basis of an unqualified supposition that the authority is completely biblical. To make such an affirmation would seem to require a level of certainty I don't possess and would open the door to that authority eventually claiming equality with Scripture so that the Scripture then becomes, for all intents and purposes, subordinate to the ecclesiastical authority. 

Third, I still don't understand how someone or an ecclesiastically body can affirm THE CONFESSION _because IT IS biblical_ yet reserve any right to question the Confession in the future (i.e., allow for exceptions). The very allowance of a provision to question the Confession and emend it through proper ecclesiastical protocol seems, to me, a tacit admission that the Confession is only biblical _insofar as it's deemed biblical_ (by the individual and/or his ecclesiastical authority). Using the revision of the WCF on the subject of the civil magistrate as an example--the moment any _quia_ subscriber begins to question the teaching of the original WCF, which he's affirmed IS biblical, he, at that moment, has ceased to affirm THE Confession _because IT IS biblical_ but is now beginning to affirm THE Confession _insofar as it is biblical_. 

Fourth, I affirm and subscribe to the Belgic Confession, Westminster Standards, and Savoy Declaration _insofar as they are biblical_. That is, I do affirm that they _are all biblical_ to varying degrees and my willingness to affirm them (to whatever degree) is based on my conviction that _they are biblical_ (not merely on the supposition that they correspond to my autonomous reasoning). Why should my stance toward my own Confession be different _in kind_. Of course, it's certainly different _in degree_. For the record, I can fully subscribe to the LBCF with the exception that (1) I think its language is antiquated and, therefore, lacking in the quality of intelligibility which the Scripture and Confession itself requires, (2) I think the LBCF fails to sufficiently emphasize the church's and the Christian's responsibility to engage in evangelistic and missionary outreach, and (3) I don't presently know if I share the certainty of the original framers of the Confession that the Pope of Rome is THE Anti-Christ. But I made my eldership and congregation aware of my reservations and they did not judge them as, to use Lane's terms, "strik[ing] at the fundamentals of the system of doctrine." 

Finally, I wasn't aware that the PB had an official position on the issue of _quia_ vs. _quatenus_ subscription. The fact that Clark includes examples of many great Reformed leaders who held the _quatenus_ position, the fact that a poll on this board showed nearly half the members affirming the _quatenus_, and the fact that one of the leaders of the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America (ARBCA), which requires full subscription, told me that the association takes a _quatenus_ approach led me to believe that it's an issue over which genuinely confessional brothers disagree. But if the PB's official position is the _quia_ approach and if the board members desire no other approach to be promoted on this discussion board, then I'll happily refrain from discussing the matter further. Please forgive my indiscretion and feel free to close this thread if you think it wise. 

Thanks for your patience and graciousness in dealing with me. 

Your servant,
Bob Gonzales


----------



## Rich Koster (Nov 24, 2009)

I'm not a schooled theologian. I do appreciate the point-counterpoint discussions and articles to help me sort these things out for myself rather than just take one person's opinion on a subject. Many of the big PB debates are about things many of us never thought about.


----------



## KMK (Nov 24, 2009)

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> I'm hesitant in my conscience to give absolute submission on the basis of an unqualified supposition that the authority is completely biblical.



What do you mean by 'an unqualified supposition'? It is my understanding the quia position assumes a 'qualified' supposition. Maybe I am misunderstanding you.


----------



## Zenas (Nov 24, 2009)

I think what Dr. Gonzales means is that he's hesitant to give authority co-equal (or close to) with Scripture to something we can only speculate is as accurate as Scripture. While we believe that the confessions are Scriptural, we do so based on our own frail reasoning therefrom. Assuming that the reasoning is right, we so assume that the confession is Scriptural, and on that assumption we ascribe to it the same authority. 

The same is obviously not so with Scripture, as its authority doesn't rely on our own ability to reason from it, rather it simply is as He gave it to us and based on His authority. 

If I'm wrong, I stand to be corrected. However, imagining the issue that way helped me understand Mr. Alford a little better when he was speaking of the authorities from which the confession and Scripture draw, and how that can make a difference. If I have stated it correctly, I am a little inclined to agree with Dr. Gonzales.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Nov 24, 2009)

greenbaggins said:


> This board's *official* position is that of a _quia_ approach. While we understand that many may not take that approach (and it is more than possible that many people are confused on this), we are a confessional board that affirms that the confessions _are_ biblical. We believe that a _quatenus_ approach does not hold that the confessions are biblical.



Lane, with all sincerity, I was unaware of such an "official" position. I just reread the forum rules and I was unable to locate this official stance. Can you please point members, or would-be members, to where this interpretive stance is stated to be the official position? 

Granting that the "quia" position is decreed by the owners and administrators here to define what constitutes confessionalism for purposes of discussion on the PB, as a Teaching Elder in a Reformed denomination I would like to remind people that while as a private enterprise this Board is legally allowed to adopt whatever position it wants, this Board is NOT a court of the church, and just because a view is declared here as normative does not mean that it is the only legitimately held view within Reformed churches. 

Given the sheer number of excellent Reformed men who throughout history have held the "quatenus" position, I think it is a presumptuous assessment to say across the board and without qualification that such a position says the confessions are unbiblical.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 24, 2009)

I am closing this thread for a short break. I think Pastor Lane has made a good argument for what the Puritanboard does and is. We do ask that someone reveal the confession that they hold to. If they have reservations to certain parts we ask that they reveal their departure from the confessional standard they adhere to. There is a reason for this. We are a confessional board. 



greenbaggins said:


> Unfortunately, this does not clarify things. The nature of "quia" subscription is not the same as "no exceptions" or "strict" subscription. For instance, in the PCA, we have "good faith subscription." What this means is that a candidate states whatever differences he has with the confession; the Presbytery rules on each difference, as to whether it is merely a semantic difference, or a genuine exception, but one that does not strike at the fundamentals of the system of doctrine, or whether it cannot be allowed (in other words, a deal-breaker for the candidate). After these differences are ruled on by the Presbytery, the candidate is assumed "in good faith" to hold to all the rest of the particulars of the confession. I believe that this "good faith subscription" is a form of _quia_ subscription. One of the key points here is that it is the Presbytery that rules on a person's "differences" (note that they are not called exceptions before the Presbytery rules on each one). This way the Presbytery is responsible for the exact state of the relationship of a candidate to the standards. And then the Presbytery rules on whether such a candidate's differences puts him in or out. But the end state of someone who takes exceptions but is still ordained is that he believes the standards contain THE system of doctrine taught in Holy Scripture, with the differences recorded that he has noted. It is still a _quia_ subscription, but it allows for differences. You are interpreting the _quia_ subscription position as more ossified than it actually is.
> 
> The problem with what you're advocating is that it is more of a system subscription, in which the candidate gets to decide which aspects of the confession he will hold and which ones he will not. But that is not up to him in a confessional church. The Presbytery or Classis decides whether his views are in conformity to the confession or not. A candidate cannot simply pick and choose what he wants to believe. That will create a system within the system, and allows much more deception to happen.



From the rules....


> d. Confessional Requirements: One must hold to either the Westminster Standards, the Three Forms of Unity, the Second Helvetic Confession, or the LBCF to be approved for membership without a waiver. This does not mean that the these confessions are viewed as the "Word of God." *Rather, these confessions and creeds are taken to accurately summarize the key doctrines of the Bible* and allow mutual, like-minded fellowship (Amos 3:3, "Can two walk together unless they be agreed?"). The adherence to any orthodox historical documents assure that the board will be kept "like-minded" in most of the basic points of salvation history and that the fellowship "exhortive and encouraging." Those who seek to modify, depart from, change or disprove the doctrines found in the Confessions will bear the burden of proof to support their claim.
> 
> e. Under some circumstances, the Admins may approve an applicant who does not fully confess one of these historic Reformed confessions but whose soteriological and ecclesiological journey is taking them down that path. This has included some Lutherans, Episcopalians, and some independents in the process of Reforming.
> 
> ...



And Remember the admonition to understand this is a Reformed Board. That has meaning behind it. 



Semper Fidelis said:


> I decided, in light of recent threads where the defense of the Regulative Principle of Worship is greeted as some odd growth out of a person's forehead to remind everyone of a rule:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 25, 2009)

SolaScriptura said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> > This board's *official* position is that of a _quia_ approach. While we understand that many may not take that approach (and it is more than possible that many people are confused on this), we are a confessional board that affirms that the confessions _are_ biblical. We believe that a _quatenus_ approach does not hold that the confessions are biblical.
> ...



As my time to get involved in online controversies is very limited let me explain.

This board has no inherent Ecclesiastical authority to rule, for the Church of Christ was is/isn't Confessional, who is/isn't a heretic, who will be/not be barred from the table of the Lord.

A great deal of latitude is typically allowed on this board. By saying that, I'm certain there are those that are rolling their eyes because the only amount of latitude that would be sufficient would be for no fences whatsoever. I get the "I thought this board was a place for free expression..." pretty regularly and I wonder if people who tell me that have a reading comprehension problem when they Agreed to our board rules.

Simply stated, the Confessions serve as fence lines here. They regulate the boundaries for discussion. Occasionally we allow some pushing of those boundaries and we also recognize that the variety of the Confessions makes for some odd fence shapes but, at the end of the day, the Confessions will be the arbiter to decide whether a person's posting privileges are granted/removed if there is disruption or controversy. We allow many members to participate here who we fully realize do not hold fully to any of the Confessions and they exist peaceably. We're not asking people to have a quia subscription to participate here nor is our use of the Confessions as the boundary have any authority to bind or lose another's conscience.

As I've said over and over to people, it's a judgment call for a discussion board run by people with ordinary and busy lives. Some demand court decisions and narcissistically expect that we drop everything because they've convinced themselves that their posting privileges amount to binding and loosing. I've gotten too busy with my family, Seminary, and the Church to really care about people that are so self-consumed. 

I'm happy to provide a forum where we can discuss theology within clearly defined boundaries. I've never tried to make the claim that this forum is anything more than just that: a forum.

To the subject, my own studies of the Word convince me that Pastors and Teachers are given to the Church for the unity of the faith. I don't believe they are infallible in their individual or collective capacity but I do believe that the Spirit is with the Church and I'd have to be a complete skeptic to assume that never, in the history of the Church, has she been incapable of writing sentences and paragraphs that accurately summarize certain doctrinal truths of the Scriptures and, in Her authoritative capacity is able to state that some things are or are not Scriptural. That is not to grant a regula fide authority that is equal to the Scripture but it is a recognition that the Scriptures don't simply exist as an authoritative abstraction apart from somebody actually interpreting their contents in a teaching capacity and expounding them to another.

When Philip explained the meaning of Isaiah to the Ethiopian, the response was one of gratitude that something authoritative had been explained and made clear as to its meaning. I think some want the Scriptures to remain unexplainable in one sense to allow them to discover it for themselves and gather around themselves "disciples" that agree with them.

I frankly don't understand a mind that believes it has the capacity to apprehend Scriptures in such a way that it can simply not give full consideration to where a Church has labored to make certain things as clear as possible. On the one hand, I agree with those who caution about distinguishing what the ultimate font of authority is (the Word) but, on the other hand, I see some who don't even take the time to fully consider how the sentences and paragraphs were formed and really end up operating on a "me and the Bible" paradigm.

I'm frankly shocked, recently, listening to a well known Reformed professor on iTunes who consistently misrepresents the Confessions on certain points and uses those as a "...well as I read the Scriptures, I see this...." At the end of the day, does that Professor expect his students to write everything down and believe that is what the Scriptures teach? Should they then go out and teach the same in their future capacity as Pastors. Should people be disciplined if they are disruptive and want to teach "error" leading others in a different direction as they cause disunity within the local Church? Or does he simply expect each student to do what he has done and ignore/misrepresent what he has taught in the same way he has done for the Confessions and come up with their own eclectic theology that has no more authority for life than the 3 foot circle around the individual.

I'm just interacting with this because to be "Confessional" to me has more to do with agreeing with the Word that the goal of the Church is the unity of the faith. It's not a document, per se, but a reflection that men labor as undershepherds toward their Commissioned ends. 

I guess I'm not really interested in what latin word to call it but I think people need to meditate and reflect deeply on how the visible Church can achieve the unity described and directed in Ephesians 4 if its ministers don't think that the collective labor of their fellow laborers on the Scripture's meaning has any bearing upon them. It seems that this lacks humility and the same will be expressed by the members of such a man's flock as he attempts to discipline them through the Word. 

It would hypocritical of such men to expect those under their authority to submit to their teaching authority when they submit to nobody else's. How can I turn to my children and tell them that "God calls this sin" when I don't have to listen to anybody else tell me the same? I don't have to be infallible or possess the authority of Scripture or tell my son that all my musings are equal to Scripture but, in order for me to have my son repent of a sin he doesn't see, he has to submit at some level that Dad's interpretation of the Word is correct. I fear too many ministers think that interpretive freedom with the Word and "everybody doing what is right in their own eyes" is the height of spiritual virtue.

Consequently, then, the goal for a minister who disagrees with his Church is not to think this is a good thing and that the end of investigation has been achieved in his settling his own mind on the matter. Rather, he ought to labor with other ministers in the Church to see where he might have erred or they might have erred and even be willing to chalk up his own doubts at times to his fallen capacity. It's not about putting a Confession on par with Scripture but realizing that we are fallen, that unity of the faith is a commanded goal, and that the Church exists to wrestle with such things.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Nov 25, 2009)

For what it's worth,

I decided to reply briefly on the blog where the review was posted. 

The Quest for Illegitimate Religious Traditionalism (QIRT): A Review of R. Scott Clark’s Recovering the Reformed Confession by Nicolas Alford | RBS Tabletalk


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Nov 25, 2009)

Brothers,

I want to thank Rich for his post. As I indicated in my last post above, I wasn't aware that the _quia_ approach to confessional subscription is more or less the official approach. In any case, I certainly understand and sympathize with the concerns Rich and Lane and others have articulated concerning men who give the impression they really affirm a certain doctrinal statement when in fact they secretly do not. I support, rather, an approach where ministers are honest before God and the church and the world. 

But I'm not convinced this requires a _quia_ approach to subscription. I think a _quatenus_ approach that urges honesty and provides proper channels for exceptions to be reviewed and considered is best. A _quatenus_ approach is the way we normally approach Bible translations (which are probably closer to Scripture than Confessions). We believe the KJV, NAS, ESV, etc., are the Word of God _insofar as_ they accurately correspond semantically to the original languages. Similarly, a _quatenus_ approach is the way we normally respond to all God-appointed authorities, whether parental, church, or state. That is, we don't just believe and submit to them _because they are biblical_. We believe them _insofar as_ they are biblical. We may still submit to their authority even if they don't fully gain our conscience with respect to the arguments they use for a given doctrine or practice _so long as they're not asking us to clearly violate the word of God_. 

Of course, since pastors actually represent the church's authority, it's vitally important that they represent that authority _accurately and with integrity_. Here, I very much sympathize with Rich, Lane, and others. By defending the _quatenus_ position, I in no way want to give any readers on this list the impression that I support a kind of crass individualism ("me and the Bible"), disregard for church authority, or subterfuge when taking ministerial vows. 

In closing, I want again to thank Lane for his patience and Rich for his very sincere and pastoral explanations and exhortation. I also want to express my respect for Dr. Clark even though the thread focused primarily on a critique of his own position. I'm very thankful for Dr. Clark's defense of the doctrine of justification and other theological contributions he's made. I also agree with the author of the book review I posted that Dr. Clark's RRC makes some important points in favor of confessionalism. I do fear, however, that Clark's particular kind of confessionalism is imbalanced and while its intent is to protect orthodoxy, its unintended effect could in the long run undermine orthodoxy by subtly forcing the voice of Scripture to remain silent before ecclesiastical authority, which itself should always remain under the constant scrutiny of Scripture. 

Humbly yours,
Bob Gonzales


----------



## jogri17 (Nov 25, 2009)

Praying for you all and love you all as my dear brothers in Christ


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 25, 2009)

just as a side note. Here was an interview with Dr. Clark on Covenant Radio. It was very good. 


Blubrry player


----------



## lynnie (Nov 25, 2009)

_A quatenus approach is the way we normally approach Bible translations (which are probably closer to Scripture than Confessions)._

That is a very helpful analogy.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 25, 2009)

For sake of argument.... and clarification.... Would this quote by John L. Girardeau concerning the scriptures be considered a quia approach or an quatenus approach to seeing the scriptures? 



> Something must now be said concerning the question, Are translations inspired? The position is here taken that _so far as_ a translation faithfully represents the original Scriptures, it is characterized by the same inspiration with them. If it exactly coincides with the original as to the matter, it is substantially the same with it. So far as it deviates from the original, it ceases to be inspired. To say, then, without qualification, that no translation is inspired is erroneous and injurious. The truth is that a good translation is partly inspired and partly uninspired—inspired to the extent of its reproduction of the original, uninspired to the extent of its variation from it. Such I believe to be the case with the English Bible. And, further, I believe it to be for by far the greatest part, indeed for almost the whole of it, inspired. In the main, it faithfully represents the original Scriptures. But the translation was effected by fallible men, and therefore contains some errors. Only to that extent is it uninspired. This view I found confirmed by Trench in his work on the Authorized Version.
> 
> “We must,” says the Archbishop, “never leave out of sight that for a great multitude of readers the English Version is not the translation of an inspired book, but it is itself the inspired book. And so far, of course, as it is a perfectly adequate counterpart of the original, this is true; since the inspiration is not limited to those Hebrew or Greek words in which the divine message was first committed to men, but lives on in whatever words are a faithful and full representation of these, to the extent of their adequacy. There, and there only, where any divergence exists between the original and the copy, the copy is less inspired than the original—in fact, is not inspired at all.”
> 
> ...


----------



## itsreed (Nov 25, 2009)

It sounds as if Dr. Gonzalez's sticking point with the quia position is focused on the issue of "certainty". He seems to hold that the position has an inherent fatal flaw in that the certainy demanded by the position is impossible.

Lane's and others' explanations to the contrary, from this perspective, give merely the appearance of inconsistency. They are not, as intended by Lane (et.al.) being read as necessary qualifications to the notion of certainty in view.

If I might be cute without being offensive, is it possible Dr. Gonzalez that you are understanding an "illegitimate" quest for certainty to be inherent in the quia position?

If so, it might he helpful to consider the nuances that Lane has offered concerning the certainty in view. My understanding of the good-faith (quia) position is that I am asked to give my sincerity to my subscription. I.e., in so far as I currently understand I am convinced that the confession to which I subscribe is tantamount to the Bible in all that to which it speaks.

I am reserving no hidden right for future disagreement. Nor am I affirming a degree of certainty which is impossible. All I am saying is that given the ordinary course of human life, with all its strengths/weaknesses, I'm sincerely certain as of now. I leave the future in the Spirit's hands.


----------

