# Review "Recovering the Reformed Confession"



## Covenant Joel (Feb 6, 2010)

Dr. Frame has written a review of Dr. Clark's "Recovering the Reformed Confession." See this link.

Not looking to debate the issues, but I found it an interesting review to be sure (though it is quite long).


----------



## JM (Feb 6, 2010)

Thanks for posting it.

"What Clark really does in this book is to advocate a kind of Reformed theology and church life that appeals to him more than the more recent versions. But he has no authority, I think, and no good reason, to impose that vision on those of us who find it less attractive."


----------



## Marrow Man (Feb 6, 2010)

How interesting. What authority does Frame (or anyone else for that matter) have to ignore or to reinterpret the Confession?


----------



## JM (Feb 6, 2010)

Does John Frame have less authority then Dr. Clark?


----------



## py3ak (Feb 6, 2010)

To the extent that Dr. Clark is advocating a _recovery_ of what the standards adopted by various Presbyterian bodies teaches, yes, he would have more authority than Professor Frame.


----------



## Marrow Man (Feb 6, 2010)

JM said:


> Does John Frame have less authority then Dr. Clark?


 
That was not my question. I asked if Frame (or anyone else -- specifically someone who claims to hold to the WCF) has the authority to ignore or reinterpret the WCF.


----------



## JM (Feb 6, 2010)

Marrow Man said:


> I asked if Frame (or anyone else -- specifically someone who claims to hold to the WCF) has the authority to ignore or reinterpret the WCF.



Yes. Then I asked a different question.


----------



## lynnie (Feb 6, 2010)

You might want to look at this thread on the same subject to get a feel for both sides of the debate:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/que...ditionalism-critical-review-clarks-rrc-55803/

If you read the link to Nick's review, to be fair, be sure to go down to the blog replies where Dr Clark takes issue with the charge that he sets personal piety against the public means of grace. 

This is from the review: 

a foot note:_3.Iain Murray and Martyn Lloyd-Jones are singled out as examples (pp. 278-82). The reviewer was surprised to see only only these men but also Abraham Kuyper, Cornelius Van Til, and John Frame dealt with in a negative light. Clark’s tone when discussing these men ranges from gently dismissive (Kuyper, Van Til) to openly hostile (Frame). _

What you need to understand is that Frame was at WSC for years as a prof and has been openly very critical of WSC, and describes how great it was to get out. ( none of which, in a book introduction, brings any glory to God or is necessary for the public to know in my opinion) And Clark in turn appears to be hostile to Frame ( I didn't read the book, I am quoting Nick's review). There are two issues here- the facts, the doctrine, and the confessions- and then there is an ongoing relational conflict between Frame and Clark.

I love Frame's work, don't get me wrong, and I am far, far, closer to his perspective in general than I am to Clark. (You will see in Nicks review that Clark is mildly critical of Jonathan Edwards, Iain Murray, and Martyn Lloyd- Jones, all three of whom I am so grateful for and respect immensely.) But to read anything Frame wrote about RSC, and vice versa, is a big mistake. They are too hostile and critical of each other to be objective in my opinion. If you want to read reviews, don't pick people who are already at war, you will not get an objective review. To be fair to Dr Clark, read somebody other than Frame.


----------



## Marrow Man (Feb 6, 2010)

JM said:


> Marrow Man said:
> 
> 
> > I asked if Frame (or anyone else -- specifically someone who claims to hold to the WCF) has the authority to ignore or reinterpret the WCF.
> ...


 
A different question which smells remarkably like a red herring, and which Ruben answered in post # 5.


----------



## Covenant Joel (Feb 6, 2010)

I am aware of the history of the situation, and I would imagine that you are right to some extent as to how it affects publications between the two.

I merely posted the review as I am quite interested in the issues brought up between the two. I'm not interested in a debate on the issues between them...I don't have the time nor the inclination. But I'm a little tired of the 1-sentence-I-just-dismissed-Frame's-whole-approach that I see often. So I posted the review to highlight some of the actual substantive issues as food for thought (whether one ultimately agrees more with Clark or Frame or is somewhere else on the issues).


----------



## lynnie (Feb 6, 2010)

Joel, I didn't mean to be critical of you or that you posted. I'll try to read the review when I get time. I already made up my mind a while back that since there are "camps" and I know I am in the Edwards-Murray- DML-J camp, I am not going to bother with those whose view of being confessional is this ( quote from review I linked):

_To Clark, revival in any form is incompatible with reformation. Revival seeks the immediate and extraordinary movement of God in the hearts of men, often divorced from the church and her ordinances, and as such is hopelessly infected with pietism. Reformation, conversely, makes due use of ordinary means as prescribed in Scripture and administered weekly in the church, and in these things finds satisfaction and rest.

To Clark, a high view of revival (and the direct, relational communion with God it entails) necessitates a low view of the church (especially of her confession, and of God’s appointed means of grace). _

True revival brings great conviction to the lost, they get saved, and those in the church also are brought to greater zeal and sanctification and study of the word. The church grows, attention to the preaching grows, rebellion and deadness is subdued. I can't even process how somebody can be so negative about Iain Murray and Edwards. If Clark wants to get back to the confessions, it will take a great move of the Holy Spirit in revival to even get evangelicals interested in sound doctine. And given that the Fedreal Vision claims to be confessional, there are problems even with telling a new believer to find a confessional church. It is a mess out there. Please interceed for a true revival!


----------



## Covenant Joel (Feb 6, 2010)

No worries, I didn't take offense.

I just found the review interesting because Frame directly interacts with Clark (given that Clark directly critiques Frame in the book).


----------



## Jon Peters (Feb 6, 2010)

lynnie said:


> True revival brings great conviction to the lost, they get saved, and those in the church also are brought to greater zeal and sanctification and study of the word. The church grows, attention to the preaching grows, rebellion and deadness is subdued. I can't even process how somebody can be so negative about Iain Murray and Edwards. If Clark wants to get back to the confessions, it will take a great move of the Holy Spirit in revival to even get evangelicals interested in sound doctine. And given that the Fedreal Vision claims to be confessional, there are problems even with telling a new believer to find a confessional church. It is a mess out there. Please interceed for a true revival!



Revival begins inside the church, through the means appointed by God: the preaching of the word and the administration of the sacraments.


----------



## JM (Feb 7, 2010)

> A different question which smells remarkably like a red herring,



This is an open forum where I asked a question. 



> and which Ruben answered in post # 5.



Maybe. 

"The opponents of the use of a confession of faith usually accuse its proponents of confessionalism, which is the tendency to give a confession of faith equal or higher authority than the Scriptures. This is generally a false charge, but in the case of R. Scott Clark, it seems sadly appropriate." source


----------



## DMcFadden (Feb 7, 2010)

While we have this treasure in such cracked and earthen vessels, we will continue to be distracted by the dogged predictability of personal issues intruding upon our best efforts at analysis. Given the things in print by Frame about Clark and Clark about Frame, it would probably be exceedingly difficult for either of them (or any other mortal) to transcend the personal affronts and fairly analyze the ideas with which they obviously disagree. Frame would be the last person I would consult for a review of a Clark book (and, actually, vice versa too). 

I'm sure that there are no shortages of peer reviews of Dr. Clark's work besides the ongoing spat with Dr. Frame.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 7, 2010)

DMcFadden said:


> Frame would be the last person I would consult for a review of a Clark book (and, actually, vice versa too).



I am a Reformed Baptist and would never look to Frame as one who I would consider as someone I could look to Biblically nor coffessionally. Especially after the Presybterians Together document. http://www.puritanboard.com/f77/presbyterians-together-13697/

There are probably better things to link to concerning this issue but I lost a lot of respect for Frame a long time ago. He is out in la la land as far as I am concerned.


----------



## Marrow Man (Feb 7, 2010)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I am a Reformed Baptist and would never look to Frame as one who I would consider as someone I could look to Biblically nor coffessionally. Especially after the Presybterians Together document. http://www.puritanboard.com/f77/presbyterians-together-13697/


 


Good grief. I had no idea. Thanks for linking that. And this is one reason that confessionalism is so important. Not because confessions are on part with (or superior to) Scripture, but because confessions are considered to be faithful interpretations of Scripture (and are, or should be, unifying in nature). The old adage (not being applied to Frame!) that every heretic has his Scripture is true enough, and confessions help us ferret out the heretics.


----------



## CharlieJ (Feb 7, 2010)

I actually read the review, and thought that it was very well done. It was personal, in the sense that Clark repeatedly mentioned Frame in RRC unfavorably, so there was no way that Frame could have avoided it being personal. This review seemed much more level-headed than his review of Horton. Frame definitely took time to address arguments and pointed out, I believe, a great number of shortcomings in RRC. The section on worship was not as good as the rest.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Feb 7, 2010)

Charlie and Lynnie et al,

Have you read the book? How would you compare and contrast Clark's definition of "Reformed" with Frame's? What role does Frame think the confessions should have? What role does Clark think they should have? 

What is Frame's definition of the RPW? What is Clark's? Which do the Reformed confessions actually teach?

What is Frame's approach to what Clark calls the "categorical distinction"? What is Clark's? Which is closer to the historic position of the Reformed tradition? Which is closer to Van Til's position?


----------



## Covenant Joel (Feb 7, 2010)

DMcFadden said:


> While we have this treasure in such cracked and earthen vessels, we will continue to be distracted by the dogged predictability of personal issues intruding upon our best efforts at analysis. Given the things in print by Frame about Clark and Clark about Frame, it would probably be exceedingly difficult for either of them (or any other mortal) to transcend the personal affronts and fairly analyze the ideas with which they obviously disagree. Frame would be the last person I would consult for a review of a Clark book (and, actually, vice versa too).
> 
> I'm sure that there are no shortages of peer reviews of Dr. Clark's work besides the ongoing spat with Dr. Frame.


 
Just a couple of things:

1) Clark directly addresses Frame's views in his book. Thus it's not a random review of a Clark book by Frame, as much of what he does is address the criticisms of his view. It seems that by your point above, one should skip over the sections in Clark's book that deal with Frame (or not read it at all). But if one has read Clark's book, then it seems that giving Frame at least the chance to defend his positions is fair (whether or not one agrees with him).

2) I think if you read the actual review you will find, as Charlie said, that Frame is pretty balanced (in terms of the personal issues). It takes a different tone, in my opinion, than did his review of Horton's book a while back. (This is not to say that Frame is right or wrong about the actual issues.)

And just another comment in general about the thread: 

Simply dismissing Frame, as many on the board seem wont to do, without clearly understanding his views or fully responding to him, is unlikely to be helpful to the Reformed community. If many here disagree with Frame's views on a number of things, fine. But surely he has some good things to say too (e.g., I find his work on apologetics quite helpful). 

As I said when I started the thread, I'm not interested in debating the issues between Frame and Clark. I am too much in process on some of them to be able to really discuss them. I found the review interesting. If many of you are ticked off with Frame or don't have any interest in reading him, then don't read the review. But don't criticize the review without reading it, just as one shouldn't criticize Clark's book without reading it.

---------- Post added at 02:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:56 PM ----------




R. Scott Clark said:


> Charlie and Lynnie et al,
> 
> Have you read the book? How would you compare and contrast Clark's definition of "Reformed" with Frame's? What role does Frame think the confessions should have? What role does Clark think they should have?
> 
> ...


 
Dr. Clark,

Speaking for myself, I didn't post the review nor offer my comments in order to say that Dr. Frame was right in his review. I am in process on the issues, trying to wrestle through them carefully.

I respect the work you've done in these areas. I also respect much of what Dr. Frame has wrote and what I have learned taking classes from him. Thus I want to very carefully think through what both of you are saying.

Blessings.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Feb 7, 2010)

Marrow Man said:


> How interesting. What authority does Frame (or anyone else for that matter) have to ignore or to reinterpret the Confession?


 
I think the problem is that they both ignore or reinterpret the Confession when it fits them.

CT


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Feb 7, 2010)

Hermonta,

Can you show me where I've re-interpreted the confession? I certainly don't mean to do and as I teach a course on the confessions each year it's pretty important to get it right (not to mention my ministerial vows and my vows a WSC prof not to re-interpret the confessions). Have you read RRC? If so, it would help me if you could point me to a specific place in the book that needs correction to bring it into conformity with the WCF.

Joel,

I understand. That's why I asked those questions. I think that it's easy enough to determine Frame's views and Clark's views and then to sit down with the confessions and to see who is actually closer (especially if H will help me!) to what the Reformed churches confess.

E.g. John thinks its permissible to substitute dramatic performance for the preaching of the Word. What does the WCF think about this? 

John thinks that we can say that God is one person. Does the WCF agree?

John thinks that Norm Shepherd is within his rights to teach as he does on justification. Does the WCF agree?

Thanks


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 7, 2010)

> "I have read the article, and my judgment is that it is a wonderful piece. It is by far the best thing I've ever read on the Federal Vision and/or New Perspective. I hope this essay gets the widest possible distribution. People concerned with these issues, whatever their persuasion, need to meditate deeply about it. And it provides a model of careful, thorough, thoughtful theological criticism. Mr. Minich . . . has a great future as a Reformed theologian."
> 
> - Dr. John Frame, Reformed Theological Seminary
> 
> This was Dr. Frame's endorsement of this article 'Within the Bounds of Orthodoxy'.


 This endorsement a few years ago persuaded me Dr. Frame was outside scriptural understanding and willing to tolerate things that are not biblical. 

Here are a few other Posts by Dennis that are somewhat revealing..



DMcFadden said:


> In "Machen's Warrior Children" (Machen&rsquo;s Warrior Children), Frame deals with the Shepherd controversy at Westminster (a precursor issue) in item #9. Frame also writes a positive blurb on the back of Shepherd's newest book (along with folks such as Jordan, Lusk, Leithart, Schlissel, and Wilkens).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


DMcFadden said:


> Here is some more grist for the mill . . .
> 
> 
> 
> ...



He is outside of understanding in my opinion. 

At the same time I know of someone who learned a great deal from him and Dr. Frame helped him out in Seminary. Especially when things were getting very academic and frustrating, Dr. Frame helped him remember what a Pastors heart was.


----------



## ColdSilverMoon (Feb 7, 2010)

I thought it was a very well-written review by Frame. In my opinion, Clark and Frame represent two almost polar opposite approaches in defining "Reformed" and in the way we view and interact with the Confessions. While reading the review and thinking back on RRC, a balance between the views is probably best: I found myself agreeing with Frame on some issues and Clark on others. The purpose of the thread seems to be a discussion of the quality of the review, which I find to be quite high. Very interesting read...


----------



## py3ak (Feb 7, 2010)

This previous thread contains substantial discussion of the volume, as well as links to other reviews off-site.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 7, 2010)

> And, although Clark does not like to speak of application, the standards must be applied by human beings to present situations if those documents are to function as authorities. As to what judgments and applications are right, there is often disagreement.[3]



Do you guys think this is a founded statement and accusation from Dr. Frame concerning Dr. Clark?

Or is this a correct Statement also?



> Further, even apart from these problems, it is not obvious that “Reformed” should be defined by the confessions, a group of favored theologians, and informal traditions. Clark’s procedure in defining the nature of “Reformed” thinking is not itself found in any of the confessions or favored theological writings. Nor is there any way, so far as I can see, to support it from Scripture. But Clark thinks we should never claim that anything is Reformed unless it can be supported from the confessions. Clark’s methodology, therefore, is self-referentially incoherent. He is trying to establish the meaning of “Reformed” by what he regularly describes as a non-Reformed methodology.



Dr. Frames statement here....


> But what is the alternative? Is there any other way to describe the nature of the Reformed community? I think there is.
> 
> I would propose understanding the Reformed community as a historical community that began as Clark describes, but which no longer follows the original pattern in detail.


... is just a vacillation of identity. It is allowing redefinition for the sake of identity crisis in my opinion. Maybe that is why he has been so accepting of the Federal Vision advocates and Norman Shepherd. The boundaries of doctrine have been crossed and found outside of the biblically defined confessions. But since the community no longer follows the original (according to Frame) it should be permissible to still be included in the tent of the confessionally reformed Churches. Why not just throw the confessions out and just become another PCUSA. 

To me this statement sums up Dr. Frame...



> On the view I advocate, it is not possible to state in precise detail what constitutes Reformed theology and church life. But one can describe historical backgrounds and linkages, as I have done above in the example of the United States. And there are some general common characteristics, a kind of “family resemblance,” among the various bodies of the last five centuries that have called themselves Reformed. The idea that “Reformed” should be defined as a changing community is not congenial to Clark’s view. But it seems to me to be more accurate and more helpful.



I think Reformed is easily historically described and defined. 

Dr. Frame is very accusatory of Dr. Clark and I find this statement by Dr. Frame to be very true of himself. His emotional attachment for those outside of the boundaries have caused him to redefine maybe, allow, and tolerate doctrinal changes that are outside of what Reformed is. 


> Clark’s methodology, therefore, is self-referentially incoherent.



Anyways... That is just a small start.


----------



## lynnie (Feb 7, 2010)

Well I printed it out and to my shock it is 41 pages. Maybe this week if we get snowed in again.

By the way, Frame is NOT FV. This might help clarify that a bit:

http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/2004SandlinForward.htm

FV is literally heretical so let's be careful what we say. And keep in mind the FVs will look you straight in the face and say they are confessional. So the waters are getting murky out there. Saying you are confessional doesn't mean what it used to.


----------



## MW (Feb 7, 2010)

The problem here is that JMF is anti-historicist while RSC is anti-biblicist. I agree with biblicism, but not anti-historicist biblicism. Likewise, I agree with historicism, but not anti-biblicist historicism. The reformed tradition is historically biblicist and biblically historicist.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Feb 7, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> The problem here is that JMF is anti-historicist while RSC is anti-biblicist. I agree with biblicism, but not anti-historicist biblicism. Likewise, I agree with historicism, but not anti-biblicist historicism. The reformed tradition is historically biblicist and biblically historicist.


 
LOL! That's quite a tongue twister! Could you explain?


----------



## Peairtach (Feb 7, 2010)

Frame has written a lot of good stuff. It's a pity if he's too generous in seeking church unity and rejects the RPW.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 7, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> The problem here is that JMF is anti-historicist while RSC is anti-biblicist. I agree with biblicism, but not anti-historicist biblicism. Likewise, I agree with historicism, but not anti-biblicist historicism. The reformed tradition is historically biblicist and biblically historicist.


 
I don't really want to get off topic here but I have a question.

Rev. Winzer, 

Is Dr. Clark, in your opinion, antibiblicist because he doesn't adhere to 24/7? I believe he veers off the path concerning this and the Confession. JMO.


----------



## MW (Feb 7, 2010)

SolaScriptura said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > The problem here is that JMF is anti-historicist while RSC is anti-biblicist. I agree with biblicism, but not anti-historicist biblicism. Likewise, I agree with historicism, but not anti-biblicist historicism. The reformed tradition is historically biblicist and biblically historicist.
> ...



Let's look at JMF's use of history. Take the recent review, in which he simply repeats the idea that the WCF differs from the HC on Sabbath and assurance. Now, that might be true and it might not be true; but whether it is true or not JMF simply uses the history to support his view of diversity. He shows no concern for the historicity of his statement or for maintaining the integrity of the reformed tradition.

Let's look at RSC's use of the Bible. Take some of the things which he outlaws with a four word response -- QIRC. Now, some of these things may or may not be illegitimate, but the fact is they are considered legitimate because of a fundamental belief in the supreme authority of the Bible. RSC, however, undercuts the appeal to the authority of the Bible by referring to what he considers the tradition to have already settled, even though some of these QIRCs have in fact been a source of discussion within the tradition itself. In other words,, there is no care to address the biblical basis of the tradition.


----------



## MW (Feb 7, 2010)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Is Dr. Clark, in your opinion, antibiblicist because he doesn't adhere to 24/7? I believe he veers off the path concerning this and the Confession. JMO.


 
No, it's not the individual issues themselves, but how they are handled. With you, I believe the Bible teaches 24/7. But I believe that because of my biblicism, that is, belief in the authority and infallibility of the Bible on whatever matter the Bible addresses. RSC undercuts this appeal by reducing the scope of biblical authority. This minimising of the Bible's authority is the basic problem.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 7, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Is Dr. Clark, in your opinion, antibiblicist because he doesn't adhere to 24/7? I believe he veers off the path concerning this and the Confession. JMO.
> ...



I was just using the creation doctrine as an example. Thanks Rev. Winzer.


----------



## ChristianTrader (Feb 7, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > Is Dr. Clark, in your opinion, antibiblicist because he doesn't adhere to 24/7? I believe he veers off the path concerning this and the Confession. JMO.
> ...



I think Dr. Clark would admit to such and say if one doesnt reduce the scope, one will end up with Geocentrism.

Hermonta


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 7, 2010)

> *armourbearer*
> I agree with biblicism, but not anti-historicist biblicism. Likewise, I agree with historicism, but not anti-biblicist historicism. The reformed tradition is historically biblicist and biblically historicist.



Would you be so kind as to explain what we mean by these terms?


----------



## MW (Feb 7, 2010)

Scott1 said:


> > *armourbearer*
> > I agree with biblicism, but not anti-historicist biblicism. Likewise, I agree with historicism, but not anti-biblicist historicism. The reformed tradition is historically biblicist and biblically historicist.
> 
> 
> ...


 
Biblicism = the Scriptures are the only infallible rule of faith and life so that all true knowledge is biblical.

Historicism = the interpretation of Scripture is historically conditioned and cannot neglect theological tradition.

From my POV, the polarisation of these two concepts will lead to a distortion in method if one were to gain the ascendancy over the other.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Feb 7, 2010)

For what it's worth, I provide a discussion of biblicism in RRC so I don't want to repeat that here. I don't disagree with Matthew that we need to read Scripture and confession with historical consciousness but I'm not sure that's properly called "historicism" or at least it's not a complete definition. The Oxford American says offers these two senses:



> 1 the theory that social and cultural phenomena are determined by history.
> • the belief that historical events are governed by laws.
> 2 the tendency to regard historical development as the most basic aspect of human existence.



Both of these are often taken to imply a closed, naturalistic universe. The OED adds this aspect in its 3rd definition:



> 3. The belief that historical change occurs in accordance with laws, so that the course of history may be predicted but cannot be altered by human will; the resulting attitude to the social sciences, of regarding them as concerned mainly with historical prediction.



The OED adds a 4th which is essentially equivalent to "traditionalist."

As to JMF and the FV, no, he has not aligned himself with every aspect of the FV movement. Rather he has taken the same approach that Charles Eerdman took at Princeton in the 1920s, i.e., a latitudinarian view, i.e., he thinks it ought to be tolerated. He's been staunchly defensive of the right of the FV to hold and teach their views. He has publicly defended Norm Shepherd as one of the best Reformed theologians of the 20th century. He defended Norm's views during the first phase of the justification controversy ('74-81). He has called "stupid" those of us who think that Norm's formulations, whether "faith and works" (circa '74) or justification through "faithfulness" constitute "another gospel."

---------- Post added at 07:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:45 PM ----------

My argument in RRC is not with the substance of the 6/24 view (I don't think anyone actually believes day 7 was 24 hours, do they) but rather with its use as boundary marker for defining the adjective "Reformed." As a minister in the URCs I'm committed to the doctrine that God created in 6 days defined as mornings and evenings. The American Presbyterian churches have not received the WCF to require 6/24 creation as the only understanding of "in the space of 6 days."

As to traditionalism, I thought I answered that in RRC when I argued for the necessity of a new confession. I don't see how a traditionalist can argue for a new confession.

---------- Post added at 07:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:48 PM ----------

As to reducing the scope of the bible's authority, unless we are Anabaptists, i.e., if we're Reformed we want to say that Scripture is the un-normed norm (sola scriptura) but the Reformed understanding of Scripture is confessed by the Reformed churches. Someone has to read Scripture somewhere, at some time. If one disagrees with the Reformed confession they're welcome to make a case to the churches that the confession is wrong. We confess what we do because of our understanding of Scripture. Thus, there's a middle way between biblicism (my private reading of Scripture norms all norms) and Rome (the church norms the Scripture): Scripture confessed by the churches and norming the churches.


----------



## MW (Feb 7, 2010)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Both of these are often taken to imply a closed, naturalistic universe.



Within a discussion on what is reformed I would hope the supernaturalistic view of history as divine providence would not be called into question. In that providence we would distinguish general and special, i.e., God governing all things, and then the government of all things for the good of the church.



R. Scott Clark said:


> I don't think anyone actually believes day 7 was 24 hours, do they


 
Yes, the reformed doctrine of the Sabbath is built upon it. WCF 21:7, "so, in His Word, by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment binding all men in all ages, He has particularly appointed *one day in seven*, *for a Sabbath*, to be kept holy unto him: *which*, *from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ*, *was the last day of the week*: and, from the resurrection of Christ, was changed into the first day of the week, which, in Scripture, is called the Lord's Day, and is to be continued to the end of the world, as the Christian Sabbath."


----------



## N. Eshelman (Feb 7, 2010)

JM said:


> Does John Frame have less authority then Dr. Clark?



Yes.


----------



## uberkermit (Feb 8, 2010)

R. Scott Clark said:


> The American Presbyterian churches have not received the WCF to require 6/24 creation as the only understanding of "in the space of 6 days."


 Not unlike how they haven't received the unaccompanied singing of Psalms. Tongue in cheek aside, I am not clear on your meaning here - are you saying that _because_ the American Presbyterian churches have done so, regarding the 6/24 issue, that it somehow validates that particular position?


----------



## Scott1 (Feb 8, 2010)

> *armourbearer*
> Historicism = the interpretation of Scripture is historically conditioned and cannot neglect theological tradition.



Is this related to the historical-grammatical method of interpreting Scripture? If so, in what way?



> *R. Scott Clark*
> we need to read Scripture and confession with historical consciousness but I'm not sure that's properly called "historicism" or at least it's not a complete definition.



How ought we to read Scripture? Is there a better term than "historicism?"


----------



## MW (Feb 8, 2010)

Scott1 said:


> > *armourbearer*
> > Historicism = the interpretation of Scripture is historically conditioned and cannot neglect theological tradition.
> 
> 
> ...


 
No. The historical method of exegesis is concerned to discover the historical context of the biblical writers and readers. Historical theology looks at exegesis and dogmatic formulation as it has developed throughout the history of the church.


----------



## R. Scott Clark (Feb 8, 2010)

Bob,

As I explain in the book, confessions are written and received. The intent of the divines was to say that what they perceived as Augustine's interpretation (or one of them) was unacceptable because it made the days a mere artifice. It seems that most but not all believed in 6-24 creation but it's uncertain that they intended to bind the churches to that view. They had an opportunity to do so and declined. That confession, "in the space of six days," also has to be received by the churches. Most American Presbyterian churches have not received that phrase to require confession of 6-24 creation. See the much longer and detailed discussion in the book. 

One of the more important points in the book is that we need to set priorities. I argue that recovering the original understanding and practice of worship is much more essential to being Reformed than 6-24 creation. So far I don't see how any of the major views of creation affects the system of doctrine. I can see, however, how revising our view of the 2nd commandment affects the system of doctrine. The turn away from the RPW or the revision of the RPW has been disastrous for American presbyterianism. I was in a service yesterday that was indistinguishable from any one of 1000s of generic evangelical services. The RPW was not even a passing thought. That service was the direct result of the revision of the RPW proposed by a certain theologian teaching in a Reformed seminary. Take a look at the book but consider this, we've spent much of the last 30 years trying to get back to 6-24 creation while simultaneously jettisoning the RPW. What is the state of our churches? What would be the state of our churches had we spent the last 30 years trying to recover Reformed worship?


----------



## lynnie (Feb 8, 2010)

_So far I don't see how any of the major views of creation affects the system of doctrine._

Maybe that was true in BB Warfield's day. In my admittedly very limited exposure though, the tolerance for theistic evolution and billions of years old earth positions seems to accompany a liberal slant. Not necessarily regarding say justification, but certainly with male leadership and the sabbath, and with how you spend your money (perhaps not central to the confessions, but certainly central in the NT).


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Feb 8, 2010)

Some have been fighting on both fronts. Having worked on both the question of the intent of WCF 4.1 on creation in six literal days (for David Hall's work for the PCA a decade or so ago) and 21.5 on psalmody (more recently for _The Confessional Presbyterian_ journal) I think it is clear the Westminster Assembly of divines intended to state what the doctrinal belief/practice of the three kingdoms should be regarding those two things (literal creation week and singing of the 150 Psalms). As for the future, they obviously answered that by acknowledging councils may err (31.4). Folks can disagree on the relative weight of each of these matters in the scheme of confessionalism; but as far as the intent of the Assembly for the church's belief and practice at that time, I believe there is really little reason to question what that was. My big  for what it is worth.



R. Scott Clark said:


> What would be the state of our churches had we spent the last 30 years trying to recover Reformed worship?


----------



## Covenant Joel (Feb 8, 2010)

R. Scott Clark said:


> Joel,
> 
> I understand. That's why I asked those questions. I think that it's easy enough to determine Frame's views and Clark's views and then to sit down with the confessions and to see who is actually closer (especially if H will help me!) to what the Reformed churches confess.
> 
> ...


 
Dr. Clark,

I understand that those are some of the issues. The nature of confessional adherence and the role of the confessions seems, in some ways, to be prior to those questions (at least how you've formulated them). Obviously that is a major point of contention between yourself and Dr. Frame. 

Just as a personal point, I am unsure about that issue. I don't take any exceptions to the Confession. But I am very unsatisfied with simply saying, "Does this agree with the WCF?" I want to ask, "Does this agree with Scripture?" Because if someone asks me to back up my beliefs, I can't just point to the WCF. I have to defend it from Scripture. The question of WCF-agreement is not therefore unimportant to me, but insufficient.

---------- Post added at 09:25 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:17 AM ----------




PuritanCovenanter said:


> Do you guys think this is a founded statement and accusation from Dr. Frame concerning Dr. Clark?
> 
> Or is this a correct Statement also?
> 
> ...



The point of posting this review was never to assert that Frame is completely right about everything in the review. I do find him to be right about some things for sure, but not on others.

I didn't find the review at all to be unkind or "accusatory." If you disagree with his conclusions and arguments, fine. There is real disagreement on these issues. But again, I'm saying that just condemning Frame outright without truly interacting with his arguments is insufficient. Dr. Frame, whatever his errors may be, has been genuinely helpful in many areas, both to the Christian community in general, and to me in particular. He may be terribly mistaken about the things that Dr. Clark has highlighted. But to dismiss him out of hand by a few quotes is just not sufficient for me (not saying that therefore you personally should take the time to refute everything he said, just that I don't see in general much in-depth interaction with his work).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Feb 8, 2010)

Covenant Joel said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> > Joel,
> ...



Wow, You didn't even deal with what I wrote or stated. There was accusation. I posted the accusations. You either chose not to see the few I put up or you didn't read my full post and just read the points you chose pasted here. Wow.


----------

